Who do you believe?

Thanks Sluffy.

The document can now be seen. Its signed by N Luckock and looks very contrived to me but another £471K has NOT been put in. I'll come back to you but probably not today.

The EFL rule btw seems to be a red herring.

It beats Agatha Christie and Conan Doyle hands down. Where's Professor Plum?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Thanks Sluffy.

The document can now be seen. Its signed by N Luckock and looks very contrived to me but another £471K has NOT been put in. I'll come back to you but probably not today.

The EFL rule btw seems to be a red herring.

It beats Agatha Christie and Conan Doyle hands down. Where's Professor Plum?

Thanks Bob.

I see that 412,505 shares at £1 have not been bought - but I guess that doesn't stop them being allocated to someone?  Can you actually own a share if you (or anyone else) have not paid anything for it?

I also note someone has bought 58,529 shares at the face value price of a £1 which makes a mockery of the £8 (£6) value put on them just a couple of months ago!

I also note that the shares were allotted over 3 days (21st to 24th of this month).  I don't know if that's significant but I guess it most be or CH wouldn't seek the answer to that question on their forms?

I also note that 241,920 B shares were issued at a thousandths of a penny per share.  I know in general B shares don't carry voting rights but due pay dividends -  but I guess FV won't but paying dividends anytime soon - so I guess there must be another purpose for them in this instance?

I tried to look up what might have been said about B shares in FV's Articles but if it is in there I couldn't see it (or to be more truthful - comprehend it).

The reason I mention this is because looking through I found this bit on page 10...

13 Pre-emption rights on future shares

13.4 The directors can allot shares...

15.5 But can only be limited to £5m Future Fund Shares


Now to my mind it sorts of backs up my thinking that FV has received £9.5m of government loans but can only issue shares for £5m worth - and so why those shares count 'double' to normal shares at a point of sale.

I also wonder if that goes someway as to explaining why FV have had to issue roughly another half million A shares yet only received payment for £60k for them - to account for the second loan of £5m?

Something like 460,000 shares at £8.48476 per share = £3.9m

Although at this point my hypothesis starts to break down!

Grrrr!


I do enjoy a good puzzle don't you!

Keeps me as sharp as I can be these days.

I'm  sensing the hand of Mr Luckock in these unusual contrivances, Sluffy. I'm not much impressed but the Whites have been impressive so far this afternoon, haven't they just?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:I'm  sensing the hand of Mr Luckock in these unusual contrivances, Sluffy. I'm not much impressed but the Whites have been impressive so far this afternoon, haven't they just?

Yes its been amazing football so far - note the longball for the fist goal - good to see we don't have to play tippy tappy keep ball from the back all the time.

Also impressed with having a forward in Charles that has a bit of speed in him - makes a big difference - the second goal being a break at speed with just three players.

As for Luckock, I've no idea who he or what he's doing here apart from this -

https://hgcapital.com/team-member/nick-luckock/

One further thing that crossed my mind - and I don't doubt you are in front of me on this one Bob - is that when the Statement of Share ownership as at the 10th January, 2022 finally rocks up it won't show these shares shown in the document published today because they were done on the 21st January!

Looks like it will we have to wait until this time next year before we find out who owns these shares!

Well done Bob, you called that something like this was probably behind the delay in filing on time!

Its a tangled web for sure, Sluffy, and we can't decipher it all without facts that are still under wraps, despite the legal obligation to disclose.

The COVID loan schemes were plainly a well-intentioned policy that turned into an omnishambles but you can't blame FV for taking advantage especially in the situation they were in. But lets not get carried away into believing that there was anything smart, clever or astute about it.

We know about the £5m loan because it was referred to, somewhat vaguely, in the last accounts but we don't know if there were any more loans that may still be on the books. And other than FGR, we don't know of any other club owners that have taken advantage of the situation who might presently have undisclosed and unconverted loans on their books.

Other clubs and supporters might well feel angry though if only Bolton and FGR have profited and it may be that the £1m grant to Bury was a pre-emptive attempt to diffuse or divert some of the anger in the knowledge that Lord Agnew was about to let off steam.

The share allocation granted in return for the £5m loan seems pathetic but would it have been a good idea for the club or the government if it were more significant or commensurate with the government's outlay? Isn't running football clubs challenging enough without some government appointed lackey putting an oar into every policy and every decision?

P.S. Has anyone completed the Supporters Trust Survey btw?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Its a tangled web for sure, Sluffy, and we can't decipher it all without facts that are still under wraps, despite the legal obligation to disclose.

The COVID loan schemes were plainly a well-intentioned policy that turned into an omnishambles but you can't blame FV for taking advantage especially in the situation they were in. But lets not get carried away into believing that there was anything smart, clever or astute about it.

We know about the £5m loan because it was referred to, somewhat vaguely, in the last accounts but we don't know if there were any more loans that may still be on the books. And other than FGR, we don't know of any other club owners that have taken advantage of the situation who might have presently undisclosed and unconverted loans on their books.

Other clubs and supporters might well feel angry though if only Bolton and FGR have profited and it may be that the £1m grant to Bury was a pre-emptive attempt to diffuse or divert some of the anger in the knowledge that Lord Agnew was about to let off steam.

The share allocation granted in return for the £5m loan seems pathetic but would it have been a good idea for the club or the government if it were more significant or commensurate with the government's outlay?

I very much doubt it would. Isn't running football clubs challenging enough without some government appointed lackey putting an oar into every policy and every decision?

Thanks Bob.

I don't know if FV have taken on two Covid loans but I do ask myself why they have increased their equity in October from £2m to £9.5m if they haven't the need to?

The Covid loan we know about didn't need matched funding when it was obtained but it appeared it did need match funding when it was rolled into a loan, so that explains £3m increase in equity from FV (assuming the existing £2m equity counts as matched funding as well), so why put in apparently another £4.5m more if they had no obvious reason to do?

We do know that the second (and third round) of Covid loans do/did require match funding.

I've simply put two and two together but I may well be wrong.

I often am but I think it is a reasonable shout for now.

I'm not sure other clubs fans will be angry at us (and FGR) for taking the Covid loan/s because 99.9% of our own fans don't understand what has been going on so I very much doubt anyone else will.

I also don't believe anyone from the government will be involved in running the club in any way, instead I see the loaned money being (in a way) to act in the same fashion as to why Eddie left debt in the club when he sold it on, namely to stop it being asset stripped.

I don't hold the EFL's view that the government have only a 8% stake in the club.

The government hold (as we know it at least) 1 share for every 2 that FV hold and that the governments shares have a premium of twice the share value - which in effect matches FV's share holding.

I don't think I've ever claimed it to be smart or clever for FV to have obtained the loan/s and as a taxpayer I don't believe my money should be propping up a football club or the multitude of other business that have benefited from them but I've no say in the matter and what is done, is done.

Nothing illegal or immoral has actually happened to my knowledge (although valuing the shares at £8 knowing them not to be might possibly be illegal and immoral though?  I don't know enough to know the rights and wrongs about this matter?) and in theory the government at some future point in time can redeem its loan/s.

Maybe one day it will all turn out right after all.

As for the governments handling of all this, well Lord Agnew speaks for us all.

Other supporters do notice, Sluffy. I have had occasion to visit the Cheltenham forum, Robins Nest, in the past. This is what one of its regular posters said:

RegencyCheltenhamSpa Posts: 25368Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Absolute misuse of the funds by the BBB. Imagine managing a fund meant to provide finance to high growth potential innovative firms in order to stimulate business growth and return on investment. And then washing it down the drain of a L1 football club.

Bolton have taken advantage of it as you would expect from a football club with no morals but you cannot blame them.

There needs to be a mechanism for clawing this money back as those shares are worthless.

I'm sure the vast majority of other teams supporters won't know or bother about it and I don't doubt for one second that they wouldn't be fickle enough to back their clubs for doing so if it turns out they got a Covid loan too!

I'm sure there's plenty of other reasons why other fans may hate/dislike/despise/whatever BWFC but I doubt gaining a Covid loan will be the first that comes to their mind.

Certainly wasn't an issue to the Sunderland fans yesterday for instance.

Sluffy wrote:I'm sure the vast majority of other teams supporters won't know or bother about it and I don't doubt for one second that they wouldn't be fickle enough to back their clubs for doing so if it turns out they got a Covid loan too!

I'm sure there's plenty of other reasons why other fans may hate/dislike/despise/whatever BWFC but I doubt gaining a Covid loan will be the first that comes to their mind.

Certainly wasn't an issue to the Sunderland fans yesterday for instance.

I don't know what Sunderland fans have been saying about all this, Sluffy. They seemed to have other things to fret about on Saturday, if you ask me.

Meanwhile Lord Agnew reckons there's 'Zippo' detail on how the Treasury's going to tackle COVID cashgate.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/29/lord-agnew-not-a-zippo-about-how-uk-will-deal-with-covid

Down at the Unibol there's loads of detail to conjure with. We've now got £1 shares that folk have paid £1 per share for, £1 shares that folk have paid £6.78780 per share for, £1 shares that folk have paid  £8.48476 per share for and £1 shares that folk have paid nowt for. And now we've also got £0.0001 shares that folk have paid all of £0.0001 per share for.

The only problem is we don't know who has paid what, who has not paid what and who owns what.

Oh what a tangled web we weave.........................................

Momentum's building alright. Another win in Shrimpland on Saturday and who knows?

Meanwhile FV aren't half keeping the commercial lawyers busy. They don't come cheap.

Another 39 pages of documents arrived at Companies House yesterday but not the missing one. You know the one we all want to see, don't we lads?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Momentum's building alright. Another win in Shrimpland on Saturday and who knows?

Meanwhile FV aren't half keeping the commercial lawyers busy. They don't come cheap.

Another 39 pages of documents arrived at Companies House yesterday but not the missing one. You know the one we all want to see, don't we lads?

Thanks for the update Bob.

I'm sure you noted that the recent new shares were issued with UK FF being shown as an existing share holder and that the new Articles of Association are two pages longer than the previous one - so somethings been added.

I also note that a 'new' section 12 'Share Rights' has been added and 24 'Voting' has been removed from the previous one.

Thanks Sluffy. I only had a quick skim through and noticed some, but not all, the things you noticed.
This is the fourth mem. and arts. in 17 months and I'm gaining the impression of someone being too clever by half. I'm not losing sleep over it but it does make me wary.

Still no sign of the statement of shareholdings. Its beginning to look like that's not going to happen without warning letters going to the directors. There's not much else CH can do short of commencing prosecutions and they'll be very reluctant to go down that route.

I still don't really understand why the delayed shareholders statement is so important?

Yes I know it is important to know who owns the shares and controls the company and all that - I don't mean in that respect - but if it is a snapshot on a fixed date then nothing will change if the form is submitted on the correct day or say three months late?

I can't imagine anybody but the government is involved in loaning money to FV and they will know who the shareholders are before doing business with the company, so why would FV not publish on time?

I can't imagine anyone would acquire shares in FV after the government took shares in it that wouldn't know about the governments stake (nor the government know or even allow shares to change hands?).  I also couldn't imagine anyone investing in FV without taking security either and similarly would know about the governments share ownership so what is it FV are presumably trying to hide and from whom, knowing all will be revealed sooner or later anyway - and why do so?

As for the changes I spotted Bob, there was also some reference in the new Share Rights section that I thought read that B shares didn't have voting or dividend rights?  I wasn't sure I'd understood it properly because I couldn't figure out what the point would be in having B shares then?

I imagined I'd got it wrong but thought I'd bear it in mind for the next time I did some digging about in respect of the great FV share mystery saga!

Folk delay publicising for one of three reasons, Sluffy:

1. Inadvertent through lack of care or attention
2. Deliberate to obtain an advantage.
3. Deliberate to avoid a disadvantage

Deliberate can include delay in publicising anything that might be awkward or embarrassing. Governments do this all the time. The idea is that when it eventually comes out its history and everyone's lost interest.

Our old friend Dale Vince seems to be delaying publishing the Ecotricity Group accounts for as long as possible this year. I can only think of a few million reasons why but he's blaming it on COVID from the look of it.

Thanks Bob.

I still can't see what their advantage / putting off a disadvantage, actually is, but I can understand delaying until things don't really matter anymore.

Obviously there is something they want to keep people in the dark for as long as they can but I just can't understand why a factual list of shareholders and their share holdings on a specific date needs apparently to be kept quiet for as long possible?

Sluffy wrote:Thanks Bob.

I still can't see what their advantage / putting off a disadvantage, actually is, but I can understand delaying until things don't really matter anymore.

Obviously there is something they want to keep people in the dark for as long as they can but I just can't understand why a factual list of shareholders and their  share holdings on a specific date needs apparently to be kept quiet for as long possible?

The fact is that they are keeping stum, Sluffy, and it is actually a criminal offence to fail to file the missing document.

 BBB have plainly done a bum deal with at least £5m of taxpayers money (there may be more) and whilst a policy of 'least said, soonest mended' might have no legal justification why not try it if there is zilch chance of being held to account.

Sharon's interview has now had nearly 8,600 viewings. She said some interesting things that were plainly true and some others that didn't quite cut the mustard for me. Wigan, for example, are presently showing that you can turn a lower league club round quite quickly with money and a decent manager.

I'd be interested to know why Sharon thinks that 'one superfan is enough' and who precisely  are the five investors she spoke of, how much each has put in and what share they have got for it.

'Every single thing you do is analysed', said Sharon. No it isn't, luv.

Meanwhile I notice that, because of COVID, Saint Marcus' MUCS Enterprises has also got a three month extension for filing its accounts. COVID must have made it more difficult to add all the money up.

I'm keeping an eye out for the Wythenshawe food bank's accounts. I'm not expecting that they will have been experiencing the same difficulty.

Thanks Bob.

Funnily enough I was mulling over the five investors conundrum again just yesterday wondering if that was part of the reason for the delayed filing and concluded it wasn't.

I was thinking along the lines that maybe the 'fifth' investor wanted to remain incognito or something?

Then I reasoned that if you were an investor what collateral would you have for your money, there is no 'new' charges on assets and the recent TWO allocation of shares show the holders to be the ones who signed the documents - in the first instance - Sharon, Luckock and James, and on the second those three plus the government.

I did think maybe just the directors need to sign and not the shareholders for an allocation perhaps - but why then is the government specified for signature on the second allocation when 'they' are not shown to have become a Director as well BUT they had by that time become a shareholder!?

I ended up thinking maybe when she said what she did at the interview-  and EDT had been settled(?) - that the five were the three directors plus PBP and Warburton - the first three owning shares, the second two having charges on assets?

I know the Administrator holds a charge too but maybe that isn't seen as an 'investment'?

I wasn't convinced I'd found the right answer about who the five investors Sharon talked about were (in fact I couldn't remember in what context she said it - did she mean the investors at the beginning to buy the club, or the investors now owning the club because the two groups may not necessarily contain the same people) but whoever they were I couldn't see all their names being on the missing Shareholders Statement or we would have seen them as signatories on the second allotment form along with the governments - and thus that wasn't the reason for the delay.

Those guys and galls at the Charities Commission aren't hanging about. The Wythenshawe Food Bank's accounts are two days overdue and the red alert warning's gone up already.

I'm curious to see if the most celebrated users of Wythenshawe food banks have made any contribution yet.

Don't know if you've read this Bob?

It is taken from one of Iles 'premium' articles.

As Iles isn't my go to football financial advisor I've not bothered paying for his 'premium' musings, so had missed this until someone kindly posted it up on ww.


Hart spoke to the Supporters’ Trust at their recent AGM, addressing recent reports about the £5million pandemic loan from the Future Fund, which has since been converted into equity in the club by owners, Football Ventures.

“During the pandemic the club was struggling and it applied to the Futures Fund for a loan,” he reiterated to The Bolton News.

“The Futures Fund was for innovative businesses and Football Ventures qualified, went through the process, and I think we were the only football club to get through it, which says a lot about the board and the approach here, it was a savvy move in my opinion.

“We secured the loan, which was a great help to the club during a period where we had a huge amount of income lost, millions of pounds.

“Fairly recently that loan has been converted into equity, an eight per cent stake in the club.

“I said to the Supporters’ Trust and I will say the same again, it is nothing for people to worry about, it is there, they are not involved strategically or operationally in the running of the club.

“I can’t say what that share will look like in the future because I don’t have a crystal ball but at the moment it should not be something that causes people to worry, it is no issue whatsoever.”