Club statement surrounding The Football League's Financial Fair Play regulations

Bolton Wanderers can announce that due to the on-going situation off-the-field that the club were not able to submit a Financial Fair Play return to The Football League for the 2014/15 season.

As a result, the club will not be permitted to sign any players until it has complied with its obligations under the Championship’s Financial Fair Play regulations.

Bolton Wanderers Finance Director Anthony Massey said: “The club were unable to submit an FFP return to The Football League. The board have been unable to sign off the annual report and accounts for the financial year ending 30 June 2015 during the current financial difficulties the club are experiencing.

“This is especially disappointing as, based on our draft financial results for the year ended 30 June 2015, we believe we would have achieved FFP.

“Until both the short and longer term funding issues the club are currently facing are resolved, the directors will not be in a position to sign the accounts.”

http://www.bwfc.co.uk/news/article/statement-club-unable-to-submit-ffp-return-2867213.aspx

we have no cash anyway to buy new players but that won't stop us selling a few i bet 

In what fantasy land did the club really expect anything else? I mean seriously this can't really have been a surprise to them can it? And let's face it, we can't even pay the players we have by ourselves so how can we seriously expect anyone to WANT to sign for us even if by some miracle they were allowed to do so?

Does anyone know what the deadline for submitting the signed-off documents was?

We're talking about a financial statement for a period which ended six months ago.

It's being suggested that the reason they weren't signed off and submitted was something to do with the due diligence surrounding the current (alleged) take-over talks.

But that's only recently been happening, so why weren't they signed off and submitted in a timely manner?

we need Rammy to explain all this as i've haven't a clue. Perhaps the deadline was until after the new season had started and as usual the club were burying their heads in the sand and hoping it would all go away or Saint Eddie would bail them out as usual

One suggestion I've read is that when the accounts are signed off the business has to make a statement of the future of the business - maybe this couldn't be done because the future was so uncertain?

Don't know how valid that is or not?

Breadman wrote:Does anyone know what the deadline for submitting the signed-off documents was?

We're talking about a financial statement for a period which ended six months ago.

It's being suggested that the reason they weren't signed off and submitted was something to do with the due diligence surrounding the current (alleged) take-over talks.

But that's only recently been happening, so why weren't they signed off and submitted in a timely manner?

If the books were not balanced in June (as is likely given the circs) then the auditor would not be able to sign off on them and the directors would be in breach of the law if they tried to submit them. Basically it's down to the auditor, usually a firm of Chartered Accountants or Specialist Auditors to say "yes these books are true and correct" in which case they sign them regardless of what they say or "no, we need more information or something here is false" in which case they cannot sign the audit and the directors cannot sign off the books for submission to HMRC and the League. The takeover is irrelevant in this case as the books would be available to the auditors only until they completed their work.

Sluffy wrote:One suggestion I've read is that when the accounts are signed off the business has to make a statement of the future of the business - maybe this couldn't be done because the future was so uncertain?

Don't know how valid that is or not?

Not quite sluffy, we have to show we are in a 'solvent' position in order to continue trading but that's a formality most of the time. Basically what matters is that the auditors have to be satisfied the books are accurate and complete. If they are not so satisfied then they cannot sign the audit; in turn the directors may not sign off on the books or submit them to HMRC. Without that we are technically insolvent even if we had a billion in the bank. Someone has screwed up somewhere by failing to give the auditors all the info they needed in order to complete the books on time.

I very much doubt that that is the case.

The way I read it the club is saying it would have met FFP if it had submitted the accounts - but for some reason they could not. I don't doubt the books have always been done properly - they have to be independently audited - and they would have been done properly this time too.

So then what was the stumbling block?

IF it is a requirement for the accounts to give a view of the business as a going concern then it would seem reasonable to see why they would have difficulty answering this.

I don't know though if it is a requirement though and even if it was if this was the bit that prevented the accounts from being signed off - but it certainly would not have been for illegal practices imo.

Sluffy wrote:I very much doubt that that is the case.

The way I read it the club is saying it would have met FFP if it had submitted the accounts - but for some reason they could not.  I don't doubt the books have always been done properly - they have to be independently audited - and they would have been done properly this time too.

So then what was the stumbling block?

IF it is a requirement for the accounts to give a view of the business as a going concern then it would seem reasonable to see why they would have difficulty answering this.

I don't know though if it is a requirement though and even if it was if this was the bit that prevented the accounts from being signed off - but it certainly would not have been for illegal practices imo.

I don't mean they did anything illegal mate, sorry if I gave that impression. It's just the books have to be audited and submitted by a certain date. If the auditors don't have all the info they need by then they can't sign the books and pass them back to the directors for submission to HMRC. It could simply be that there was information either missing or that took too long to get to the people who needed to see it. I didn't intend to imply some sinister motive for that, it could (and wouldn't surprise me if it was) simply have been a cock up by someone at the club. With ED looking to sell the place it wouldn't be in his interests to deliberately interfere or allow anyone else to interfere in getting the books done on time. As to FFP, well, my opinion is the club is being economical with the truth there. I doubt we could have passed in any event given what's going on and what our position is financially. But this way they get to blame it on an external factor beyond their control and deflect some heat off themselves.

I've got myself mixed up on threads, my tuppence worth on other thread in Banter

The  due date for submission of the annual Accounts is 9 months after the year end- so the club (as a business ) has until the end of March 2016 to file. So there's nothing particularly worrying in that.
The Accounts have to be audited and approved by the auditors and they will be a firm of accountants (almost always) chartered accountants who have a practising certificate and are approved to audit the Accounts of limited liability companies. There's nothing sinister so far.
I imagine the auditors have no problem at all in approving the financial statements drawn up by the business- that's not going to be an issue. In fact that's quite straightforward as a technical exercise. The problem is the 'going concern' requirement. Auditors must take a view that the business is a 'going concern' and that means that going forward it can continue to trade for the foreseeable future, that the club has the resources to finance itself.
In coming to the conclusion that the business is a going concern the auditors rightly have a problem ,because at the minute it would appear not to be. That would mean that the auditors could sign the Accounts off as being 'true and fair' but with what's called a qualified audit report saying that they are not prepared to say that the business is a going concern.  If they gave a clean report and the business folds then that would leave them liable to court action by shareholders and anyone else with  a legal right to depend on their report should  the business cease to trade. A qualified auditors report is often the kiss of death for lenders, creditors, investors as it's saying the business  essentially will probably fold. Directors will argue/plead/discuss with the auditors any thing that they can do to avoid this. That may be the stumbling block- that the auditors will not give a 'clean' audit report and therefore filing is being held up.
Additionally under company law the Directors in the formal directors report ( which is a statutory legal statement) must also state an opinion as to whether the business is a going concern or not. if they say 'No', that it's not a going concern, then that's usually the end for everything. If they say 'Yes,' it is a going concern - and it folds then they can be sued by anyone who has lost money as a consequence of believing them. The directors at BWFC are clearly in a difficult place because saying 'no', we're not a going concern means we're finished, whilst saying yes, we are a going concern, is potentially illegal. Additionally if the directors allow the business to continue to trade whilst they know that it's technically insolvent ( a really difficult definition, so I won't bore you with it) then that's a criminal offence and they are liable to prosecution. Precedent in law says that if you are not paying your on-going bills and incurring more liabilities whist you do not have the resources ,or access to new resources, to pay these bills, then that is prima facie good evidence that you are technically insolvent and therefore any future trading mans that the directors could potentially be jailed or fined heavily.
It's no wonder the Accounts to June 2015 haven't been filed!!
Apologies for the long message when you're probably recovering from yesterday!!
And Happy New Year to everyone too!

Thanks for that, Rammy. It explains my fears that someone is hiding. Let's hope for a resolution sooner rather than later.

I should add that agreement with one of the consortia with a promise of an injection of funds means that the going concern issue is resolved. Subject to a bit more investigation that its  actually going to happen the auditors and directors can all sign things off and get the accounts off to Companies House quickly

rammywhite wrote:The  due date for submission of the annual Accounts is 9 months after the year end- so the club (as a business ) has until the end of March 2016 to file. So there's nothing particularly worrying in that.
The Accounts have to be audited and approved by the auditors and they will be a firm of accountants (almost always) chartered accountants who have a practising certificate and are approved to audit the Accounts of limited liability companies. There's nothing sinister so far.
I imagine the auditors have no problem at all in approving the financial statements drawn up by the business- that's not going to be an issue. In fact that's quite straightforward as a technical exercise. The problem is the 'going concern' requirement. Auditors must take a view that the business is a 'going concern' and that means that going forward it can continue to trade for the foreseeable future, that the club has the resources to finance itself.
In coming to the conclusion that the business is a going concern the auditors rightly have a problem ,because at the minute it would appear not to be. That would mean that the auditors could sign the Accounts off as being 'true and fair' but with what's called a qualified audit report saying that they are not prepared to say that the business is a going concern.  If they gave a clean report and the business folds then that would leave them liable to court action by shareholders and anyone else with  a legal right to depend on their report should  the business cease to trade. A qualified auditors report is often the kiss of death for lenders, creditors, investors as it's saying the business  essentially will probably fold. Directors will argue/plead/discuss with the auditors any thing that they can do to avoid this. That may be the stumbling block- that the auditors will not give a 'clean' audit report and therefore filing is being held up.
Additionally under company law the Directors in the formal directors report ( which is a statutory legal statement) must also state an opinion as to whether the business is a going concern or not. if they say 'No', that it's not a going concern, then that's usually the end for everything. If they say 'Yes,' it is a going concern - and it folds then they can be sued by anyone who has lost money as a consequence of believing them. The directors at BWFC are clearly in a difficult place because saying 'no', we're not a going concern means we're finished, whilst saying yes, we are a going concern, is potentially illegal. Additionally if the directors allow the business to continue to trade whilst they know that it's technically insolvent ( a really difficult definition, so I won't bore you with it) then that's a criminal offence and they are liable to prosecution. Precedent in law says that if you are not paying your on-going bills and incurring more liabilities whist you do not have the resources ,or access to new resources, to pay these bills, then that is prima facie good evidence that you are technically insolvent and therefore any future trading mans that the directors could potentially be jailed or fined heavily.
It's no wonder the Accounts to June 2015 haven't been filed!!
Apologies for the long message when you're probably recovering from yesterday!!
And Happy New Year to everyone too!

 you should be joining the supporters trust Rammy, they need someone like you 

Rammy would certainly give much needed respectability to the ST which it certainly lacks due to some of whom I believe are currently hiding under the cover of anonymity because of their own personal agendas - and I don't mean Mr Manning!

Norpig wrote:

rammywhite wrote:The  due date for submission of the annual Accounts is 9 months after the year end- so the club (as a business ) has until the end of March 2016 to file. So there's nothing particularly worrying in that.
The Accounts have to be audited and approved by the auditors and they will be a firm of accountants (almost always) chartered accountants who have a practising certificate and are approved to audit the Accounts of limited liability companies. There's nothing sinister so far.
I imagine the auditors have no problem at all in approving the financial statements drawn up by the business- that's not going to be an issue. In fact that's quite straightforward as a technical exercise. The problem is the 'going concern' requirement. Auditors must take a view that the business is a 'going concern' and that means that going forward it can continue to trade for the foreseeable future, that the club has the resources to finance itself.
In coming to the conclusion that the business is a going concern the auditors rightly have a problem ,because at the minute it would appear not to be. That would mean that the auditors could sign the Accounts off as being 'true and fair' but with what's called a qualified audit report saying that they are not prepared to say that the business is a going concern.  If they gave a clean report and the business folds then that would leave them liable to court action by shareholders and anyone else with  a legal right to depend on their report should  the business cease to trade. A qualified auditors report is often the kiss of death for lenders, creditors, investors as it's saying the business  essentially will probably fold. Directors will argue/plead/discuss with the auditors any thing that they can do to avoid this. That may be the stumbling block- that the auditors will not give a 'clean' audit report and therefore filing is being held up.
Additionally under company law the Directors in the formal directors report ( which is a statutory legal statement) must also state an opinion as to whether the business is a going concern or not. if they say 'No', that it's not a going concern, then that's usually the end for everything. If they say 'Yes,' it is a going concern - and it folds then they can be sued by anyone who has lost money as a consequence of believing them. The directors at BWFC are clearly in a difficult place because saying 'no', we're not a going concern means we're finished, whilst saying yes, we are a going concern, is potentially illegal. Additionally if the directors allow the business to continue to trade whilst they know that it's technically insolvent ( a really difficult definition, so I won't bore you with it) then that's a criminal offence and they are liable to prosecution. Precedent in law says that if you are not paying your on-going bills and incurring more liabilities whist you do not have the resources ,or access to new resources, to pay these bills, then that is prima facie good evidence that you are technically insolvent and therefore any future trading mans that the directors could potentially be jailed or fined heavily.
It's no wonder the Accounts to June 2015 haven't been filed!!
Apologies for the long message when you're probably recovering from yesterday!!
And Happy New Year to everyone too!

 you should be joining the supporters trust Rammy, they need someone like you 

absolutely right

The situation is as grim as it could be according to The Sun this morning.

£189 million debt.

£2.2 million owed to HMRC which must be paid by Jan 18.

£15 million needed for wages until the end of the season.

Current losses running at £1 milllion a month.


To avoid administration we must pay the taxman not just £600,000 but £2.2 million two weeks today. We also need a further £15 million just to get through the summer.

Bolton's most valuable asset is the car park adjacent to Middlebrook retail park and Trevor Birch wants to sell the land for £25 million but it transpires that part of the land was sold by the directors last year to find £6 million.

The PFA had to help pay salaries last month , with Bolton flogging an office suite in the stadium to make up the difference.

According to reports Eddie Davies is only asking for a quid to walk away and is writing off debts of £189 million to do so!

 Source: Article by Ken Lawrence interview with Kevin Davies in The Sun.

if he only wants a quid what's the hold up then? Is it the tax bill and running costs putting people off?

The car park that is owned by Bolton is the actual customer car park for the shops as well as the one for the match day parking?