Comment: Why the lack of boardroom numbers are raising fan concerns

With so much going right on the pitch for Wanderers, no-one wanted to bring attention to the elephant in the boardroom.

Overdue accounts have have hung like a dark cloud over the Macron Stadium for several months since Dean Holdsworth and Ken Anderson’s joint takeover was ratified by the Football League.

Some grace was given by fans to the new owners, given the complexity of the financial situation they inherited and the fact Phil Parkinson’s side had started life in League One so encouragingly.

But that goodwill does not apply to the cold, hard world of accountancy and as Companies House began enforcement action against Anderson and Holdsworth – effectively the final step before legal proceedings are taken – concern has been raised once more among supporters that the dark days are not yet done.

Wanderers maintain they are “aware of the situation” and indications from within the club are that paperwork will be above board before the chairman’s planned Q&A session with supporters on Wednesday, November 23.

The overdue 2015 accounts relate entirely to the previous regime. Why then, supporters may ask, has there been such a significant delay with the papers due initially at Companies House by March 31?

Answers offered from Anderson to The Bolton News have centred on change in accountancy personnel, including the departure of long-time director Anthony Massey, a lack of ready financial information available, and the club’s ongoing discussions with the league.

Anderson freely admits the accounts covering one of the most unstable periods in the club’s history will not make pleasant reading. No surprise there.

What will be of interest when the information hits the public domain, however, is the auditor’s forecast for the following 12 months – the state of the business as a going concern.

Should the auditor highlight significant problems with the business model looking towards the future it may impact significantly on the chances of Wanderers coming out of their transfer embargo, which has been in place for the whole of this year.

Anderson said in September he had been working with the Football League and taken on board their advice when compiling the accounts in order to minimise any problems, but that the papers were “ready to go” and the situation would soon be cleared. Nearly two months later, an article printed by The Offshore Game website forced the issue into the public eye once more.

One issue Companies House cannot affect is the disintegration of the relationship between the two majority shareholders, an issue which has remained largely hidden behind closed doors but was summed up on Saturday as Holdsworth was noticeably absent from the directors’ box.

In July, the former striker stepped away from his role as director of football and has since had little day-to-day contact with the running of the club.

He has declined the opportunity to comment about his situation on the record but confirmed when approached by The Bolton News that he has had no involvement with financial decisions made by Wanderers since the summer.

It is a sad turn of events for Holdsworth, who had fought so hard to buy the club from October 2015 onwards.

His partnership with Anderson was forged at the last moment after an arrangement with businessman Bruce Gordon fell away and left him unable to make the necessary financial guarantees to the Football League alone.

Few would have predicted that post-takeover it would have been former agent Anderson, and not the confident ex-footballer, who would become the public face of the board.

Wanderers remain far from the crisis club which entered 2016 facing the High Court, and significant progress appears to have been made in the last 10 months.

Parkinson has made a dozen signings in what looks a strong squad, with the promise of more to come in January.

Category Two status was maintained for the academy despite a significant extra cost and morale among a restructured club staff is good.

Club businesses such as the hotel are blooming, while season ticket sales have remained extremely steady.

The lack of concrete financial information and the overdue accounts, coupled with the unsteady rapport in the boardroom, mean it is impossible to rest entirely at ease.

Wanderers’ fans deserve to bask in the success of their team, rather than watch over their shoulder.

Source

All old news really.

Everything is already in the public domain and this is only a story because our beloved Supporters Trust having been shunned by both the club and (more telling) the Football League decided to throw their toys out of the pram and contacted 'The Offshore Game' to stir the shit up about the club.

It is inconceivable to me that the Football League won't know all about the clubs on going financial position and its ability to complete the season, nor would Anderson be holding a public meeting in several days time knowing full well that the question of the accounts would obviously be raised - so no doubt they will be filed at Companies House before he steps up on stage to do his Q and A with the public.

The only people in a strop about this (and the only ones who benefit if it all goes pear shaped for Anderson and the club) is the usual suspects at the ST who get fist dibs on the club ownership if it goes into Administration.

We have won seven on the bounce, second in the league, the wages are being paid, we strengthened the squad in the transfer window, attendance is good, yet the ST still puts the poison in to try and derail everything, even though the Football League have clearly told them to stop bothering them about this matter.

You've really got to ask the question why and what benefit is it doing for the fans of the club they purport to represent?

Old Eddie seems to be off the radar media-wise. Does he still attend matches and will he be at the Q and A session later this month?

So what's the hold up then..... surely the best move is to get this behind us as soon as possible and then start the rebuild without interference from the football league.

terenceanne wrote:So what's the hold up then..... surely the best move is to get this behind us as soon as possible and then start the rebuild without interference from the football league.

Isn't that exactly what the article is asking TA? I.e. why is there a delay if everything is hunky dory? Something niffs.

Sluffy wrote:All old news really.

Everything is already in the public domain and this is only a story because our beloved Supporters Trust having been shunned by both the club and (more telling) the Football League decided to throw their toys out of the pram and contacted 'The Offshore Game' to stir the shit up about the club.

It is inconceivable to me that the Football League won't know all about the clubs on going financial position and its ability to complete the season, nor would Anderson be holding a public meeting in several days time knowing full well that the question of the accounts would obviously be raised - so no doubt they will be filed at Companies House before he steps up on stage to do his Q and A with the public.

The only people in a strop about this (and the only ones who benefit if it all goes pear shaped for Anderson and the club) is the usual suspects at the ST who get fist dibs on the club ownership if it goes into Administration.

We have won seven on the bounce, second in the league, the wages are being paid, we strengthened the squad in the transfer window, attendance is good, yet the ST still puts the poison in to try and derail everything, even though the Football League have clearly told them to stop bothering them about this matter.

You've really got to ask the question why and what benefit is it doing for the fans of the club they purport to represent?

I think you'll find most fans would like to know why the accounts haven't been submitted. A few years about nobody would have cared but after all of the financial shit we've been through irregularities like this are more worrying than they once would have been.

Also how do you know the ST requested Offshore Game look in to it? I can't remember reading that anywhere but could easily have missed it.

bwfc1874 wrote:

Sluffy wrote:All old news really.

Everything is already in the public domain and this is only a story because our beloved Supporters Trust having been shunned by both the club and (more telling) the Football League decided to throw their toys out of the pram and contacted 'The Offshore Game' to stir the shit up about the club.

It is inconceivable to me that the Football League won't know all about the clubs on going financial position and its ability to complete the season, nor would Anderson be holding a public meeting in several days time knowing full well that the question of the accounts would obviously be raised - so no doubt they will be filed at Companies House before he steps up on stage to do his Q and A with the public.

The only people in a strop about this (and the only ones who benefit if it all goes pear shaped for Anderson and the club) is the usual suspects at the ST who get fist dibs on the club ownership if it goes into Administration.

We have won seven on the bounce, second in the league, the wages are being paid, we strengthened the squad in the transfer window, attendance is good, yet the ST still puts the poison in to try and derail everything, even though the Football League have clearly told them to stop bothering them about this matter.

You've really got to ask the question why and what benefit is it doing for the fans of the club they purport to represent?

I think you'll find most fans would like to know why the accounts haven't been submitted. A few years about nobody would have cared but after all of the financial shit we've been through irregularities like this are more worrying than they once would have been.

Also how do you know the ST requested Offshore Game look in to it? I can't remember reading that anywhere but could easily have missed it.

It is assumption from Sluffy but there is enough in there to support the fact that there was some collaboration, there is Trust comment on both the accounts side of things and also regarding the contacting of the league.
The comment about why isn't the FL doing anything about it, my understanding is that is what the main embargo is about, and while that was significantly relaxed in the window you would have to think the reason for that is the FL are completely up to speed on what is going on.
Anyone who thinks this is ideal is obviously deluded but also those that are scaremongering about it are equally deluded.
KA has gone about his business in a quiet effective way so far and things are significantly better now than most of the most positive could have hoped for, so lets see what happens at the Q&A on the 23rd, my hunch is there will be good news comes out of that.

I read a link on Twitter which was the official BWFCST statement after the AGM, and the bottom paragraph read something along the lines of Both directors were unable to attend despite previously agreeing to do so.
While that may be factually correct it is unnecessary, unhelpful and a great example of the toys out of the pram attitude which in my opinion gives KA every right to not take them seriously and trivialise them.

Not sure anybody is scaremongering, but it's an interesting question around the club as to why they wouldn't be submitted as the previous financial year relates to the old regime. The original embargo was enforced well before this deadline passed, so I don't agree with you that's why it came in. I'd imagine it could be the reason holding up it's full removal - but that just again begs the question why not submit? Anderson's history emphasises that question.

I couldn't be happier with the job he's done so far regarding the team and manager, but it's absolutely a valid question to be asking at this point.

The main part of our embargo was down to the fact that we hadn't submitted our accounts so there must be a tiered deadline with an escalation process, I'm sure that news of not only the submission but also the reasons for it will come to light but the mess we were in when they took over and the changes in the people heading the financial departments offers some mitigation to a seemingly unprecedented situation.
Obviously the state of the historical accounts are a matter of fact so shouldn't cause a massive amount of concern, my guess is the delays are about the forecasts moving forward and again as a guess these will have been fluid based on some of the nasty little surprises which cropped up after the takeover.
As I said earlier it isn't ideal but I'm sure the FL are in a much stronger position to know what's going on than we are and the fact that they are working with the club puts my mind at ease more than knowing some rambling power mad nobody's are on the case.

Sluffy wrote:All old news really.

Everything is already in the public domain and this is only a story because our beloved Supporters Trust having been shunned by both the club and (more telling) the Football League decided to throw their toys out of the pram and contacted 'The Offshore Game' to stir the shit up about the club.

It is inconceivable to me that the Football League won't know all about the clubs on going financial position and its ability to complete the season, nor would Anderson be holding a public meeting in several days time knowing full well that the question of the accounts would obviously be raised - so no doubt they will be filed at Companies House before he steps up on stage to do his Q and A with the public.

The only people in a strop about this (and the only ones who benefit if it all goes pear shaped for Anderson and the club) is the usual suspects at the ST who get fist dibs on the club ownership if it goes into Administration.

We have won seven on the bounce, second in the league, the wages are being paid, we strengthened the squad in the transfer window, attendance is good, yet the ST still puts the poison in to try and derail everything, even though the Football League have clearly told them to stop bothering them about this matter.

You've really got to ask the question why and what benefit is it doing for the fans of the club they purport to represent?

More blind assumptions and guesswork that sound more like hysterical megalomaniac tendencies.

I've nothing more to say about the ST, but would really like to know what 'fist dibs' are ? Sounds intriguing.

King Bill wrote:I've nothing more to say about the ST, but would really like to know what 'fist dibs' are ? Sounds intriguing.

The bumchums have just rushed out to secure their membership.

Bumchums never rush. We sashay.

I'm not getting involved in this thread.

I wouldn't want anyone thinking I had an agenda...

bwfc1874 wrote:Not sure anybody is scaremongering, but it's an interesting question around the club as to why they wouldn't be submitted as the previous financial year relates to the old regime. The original embargo was enforced well before this deadline passed, so I don't agree with you that's why it came in. I'd imagine it could be the reason holding up it's full removal - but that just again begs the question why not submit? Anderson's history emphasises that question.

I couldn't be happier with the job he's done so far regarding the team and manager, but it's absolutely a valid question to be asking at this point.

I think the subtlety of why the old accounts have not yet been signed off yet lies with the auditors comments about the trading position for the next twelve months.

My understanding is that even though the accounts are outstanding for over a year previous, the auditor comment relates to the twelve months from the time of signing off the accounts - ie now.

Again my understanding why this has not been done until now (I believe the accounts will be submitted before Anderson's public Q and A) is because it has not effected the club in its operation in any way - yes there is an embargo but players have been brought in - so it hasn't stopped ongoing football matters - so there was no need to rush to submit the accounts solely for that reason.

This therefore has allowed Anderson more time to do what he had to do to get all his ducks in a row with the Football League.

It is also a possibility that both the outstanding accounts AND last year accounts will BOTH be signed off at the same time, which (assuming the last year of trading under Davies was horrendous) will portray the club in a much better light to attract future potential investors, than simply just publishing the outstanding accounts which will make the club look as though it is again on its last legs.

As for the ST would it have really hurt them simply to wait a week or so to hear what Anderson has to say in his public Q and A or are they so incredibly pissed that he doesn't view them as having any reason to be given prior knowledge of the clubs running (as the ST deems it should) and have spat their dummy out and stirred the shit because of it?

Seems that way to me.

Sluffy wrote:As for the ST would it have really hurt them simply to wait a week or so to hear what Anderson has to say in his public Q and A or are they so incredibly pissed that he doesn't view them as having any reason to be given prior knowledge of the clubs running (as the ST deems it should) and have spat their dummy out and stirred the shit because of it?

Seems that way to me.

I think that is a chicken and egg question, are the ST being marginalised by the club because they've spat the dummy out, or are they spitting the dummy out because they are being marginalised by the club.
I think it's the first and they've made their bed, and keep throwing stuff around to justify their existence.

The ST asked their members if they wanted an answer, seems to me by chasing answers they were acting in their memberships interests.

bwfc1874 wrote:The ST asked their members if they wanted an answer, seems to me by chasing answers they were acting in their memberships interests.

Whether or not their motives or reasons are legitimate is subjective in my opinion, some will say they are others will claim an agenda so there isn't a right or wrong.
However I think most people have been in agreement that much of it has been poorly handled for whatever reason, and as a result of this there seems to be a complete breakdown in trust from the point of view of the club.

I suspect that the reason that the Accounts have not been signed off   by either or both the auditors and the directors is that both must make a statement that the business is a going concern. In the Directors report there is a legal requirement to say that the directors have come to the opinion that the business is a going concern. Also to get a clean audit report the auditors must also agree that the business is a going concern. Whilst the legal definition  around this (i.e. how do you reach that conclusion) is rather tedious essentially it means that the business will continue to trade into the future. If the auditors decide that they could not agree with this then they would produce an auditors report with a qualified statement  that the business wasn't a going concern, or that the business could only survive with continuing support from the clubs bankers ,then that would constitute an 'unclean' report. The significance of that could well be that it crystallised the right of any lenders ( such as the banks) to demand immediate repayment of any loans. I suspect. without proof, that either the directors or the auditors or both were not willing to state in the Accounts ( which are a legal document) that the business is a going concern.
That may be resolved quite quickly- or it could be significant enough to drag on for some time.
The fact that the auditors have recently been changed also adds an additional complication. No new auditor will sign off a previous set of Accounts which they hadn't audited.