2016/7 Annual Accounts released

Latest on from 2016-2017: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Other years: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Bolton Wanderers announce 2017 financial accounts

WANDERERS’ have published their latest financial figures, revealing the cost of relegation to League One – and some of the green shoots of optimism which are starting to emerge.
Parent company Burnden Leisure Ltd, Bolton Wanderers Football and Athletic Company and the Bolton Whites Hotel have all issued accounts relating to the financial year ending June 2017.
Costs have been reduced across the board and the bottom-line debt – which once weighed in at more than £200million – is now much lower after Eddie Davies took the amount he has scrubbed off the books to an incredible £198million.

Details of the remaining hard debts, with around £22m disclosed, have also come to light, presenting a short-term challenge to Ken Anderson.
“I believe that readers of both my statement and the accounts in general will see that from a very difficult situation when I arrived, the club continues to improve its position both on and off the field,” the chairman wrote this afternoon on the official website.
“There is much still to do but I do hope you will agree we are now certainly heading in the right direction, something that could not have been said in the past few years.
“Indeed, I would like to let you know that the improvements we have continued to make in the last nine months have resulted in some positive news going into the last quarter of this financial year. The management accounts of both the football club and Whites Hotel are looking very encouraging and with a strong finish in the last quarter we should be able to report a profit for the first time since 2005.”
Operating losses for Wanderers’ parent company Burnden Leisure are £12.9m, from £8m, and there has been a steep drop in revenue from broadcasting, which fell to £1.7m from £12.9m.

As a result, turnover was hit hard, dropping to £8.3m from £24.3m and gate receipts were down marginally from £3.3m to £3.1m.
But despite those grim figures, there are signs the club’s finances have started to fall back into line.

The football wage bill of £12.6m – reduced by nearly £6m on the same stage 12 months earlier – shows the extent of belt-tightening which has occurred at the Macron Stadium.
Another £4m has been saved in sales and administrative expenses.
A total of £5.5m was made in player trading, which was primarily made up by the sale of Zach Clough to Nottingham Forest and Jamie Proctor to Rotherham United, plus associated bonuses accrued through Rob Holding’s move to Arsenal.
This was the first set of accounts to take into consideration the full amount of money wiped off the books by former owner Eddie Davies, which now stands at £197.9million.
Davies waived a £5.2m payment last season, leaving his company with £10m in the club, explained in the accounts, as following: “The residual facility of £10m remains due to Fildraw Limited. This sum is only payable should certain payments not be made as agreed following the change in ownership in March, 2016.”
It is understood repayments are linked with potential promotion to the Premier League and any future change in ownership.
Ken Anderson, via his company Inner Circle Investments, was paid £525,000 during the year and a payment of £125,000 was also made to the Athos Group, owned by a family member of Mr Anderson, both in respect to “consultancy fees”.
Compensation deals for former co-owner Dean Holdsworth and ex-director Richard Gee were also included in the account notes.

Holdsworth’s Sports Shield Ltd company received £250,000 last September in respect to “fees incurred during the change of ownership” and a £50,000 payment was also made to the former striker to cover legal fees.
Gee received £104,000 in compensation after losing his position.
It has been confirmed that loan company BluMarble are due a £4m payment, plus £300,000 interest, by September 2018 plus £700,000 if the club are promoted to the Premier League before the 2020/21 season.
Former vice-chairman Brett Warburton is owed £2.5m, secured against land near the club’s Lostock training ground. A payment of £500,000 was due on March 1 but discussions are currently taking place with developers, after which the loan is expected to be repaid in full.

A loan of £5.5m from Prescot Business Park Limited was due to be repaid in January 2017 and secured against the Bolton Whites Hotel.
The accounts note that: “This loan has not yet been repaid but the amount has not been demanded and dialogue is ongoing regarding extension of the facility.”
The independent auditor’s report provided a stern reminder as to the need for investment at Wanderers in the future.
“The audit evidence available to us to confirm the appropriateness of preparing the financial statements on a going concern basis was limited because the Burnden Leisure Limited group of companies has not been able to substantiate any evidence that the group are able to continue to trade as a going concern.

“The group has provided no detailed financial projections demonstrating its ability to continue as a going concern.
“Without the availability of detailed financial projections we assume that the ability to continue as a going concern is dependent upon significant levels of investment and/or refinancing.
“Such funding has not currently been secured although we understand that the Chairman will continue to provide financial support to the group.”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Initial tweets from Iles -

Wanderers announce accounts for year ending June 2017.
Turnover down to £8.3m (£24.3m in 2016)
Operating losses £12.9m (£8m)
Wage bill £12.6m (£18.5)
Player trading - £5.5m
Eddie Davies has wiped off £197.7m

I make it £22m of 'hard debt' left - although much of that is in a permanent flux of discussion.
Some interesting bits on the BluMarble, PBP Ltd and Brett Warburton loans.

Numbers crunched: A breakdown of Wanderers' 2017 accounts

IT’S that time of year again when Wanderers fans start crunching numbers and assessing the club’s financial accounts.
This year’s comprehensive breakdown took some digesting – but we have analysed some of the key components here, and put them into some historical context.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

According to the accounts, Wanderers’ wage bill stands at £12.6m, although it is not divulged whether this is purely for football staff or across the group.
In this chart, all other values are for the Burnden Leisure Group as a whole – and the current figure is less than a quarter of its 2011 high of £56million.

Wanderers released 20 players in total after being relegated from the Championship, although they later re-signed David Wheater.
After bouncing straight back, it is thought they now have one of the lowest budgets in the second tier.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Wanderers dipped into the third tier for the first time in 23 years during the 2016/17 season, and the impact on turnover was considerable. With significantly reduced broadcasting revenues and a drop in sponsorship, the figure of £8m was the lowest since the turn of the millennium.
With no parachute payments, the club was more reliant on gate receipts, which held up well. There was an increase in season ticket holders, up to 10,257, and only a minimal fall in money made on the turnstiles – which totalled £3.1m compared with £3.3m the previous season.
Merchandising also dropped to £700,000 from £1.1m.
Ken Anderson has recently said relegation to League One would now cast an instant £7m in lost gate receipts, broadcasting and sponsorship.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

While there may still be some concern over ‘hard debts’ the accounts do show the club is cutting its cloth accordingly, bringing its wage bill into line with turnover during the season in League One.
Wanderers’ wages-to-turnover ratio, assuming the wage bill to be £12.6m, is at 63.4 per cent. Figures supplied by the Swiss Ramble blog estimates that to be lower than 15 Championship teams in the 2016/17 campaign including Nottingham Forest (137 per cent) and Birmingham City (128 per cent).

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Debt has been a hot topic for Wanderers for many years – and with no net debt figure on the current accounts we can only list the loans which have been disclosed, which total £22.3m, including the £10m left in by Eddie Davies. Here’s how the net debt levels have fallen and dropped over the years.
The 2016 accounts included reference to Davies waiving £170m, although the figure is now close to £200m, which include £5.2m in payments due last season.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Meh. Some good, some bad, some scary.

Kane57 wrote:Meh. Some good, some bad, some scary.

It's going in the right direction.

I don't think it is too scary really, I think most of the £22m debt is ok - £10m to Davies which he won't call in, £5.5m to Prescot Business Park - who are big Wanderers fans and haven't called in the already overdue amount, £2.5m to Warburton that seems to have been sorted and waiting on some planning permission (I guess we are selling some land off?), leaving just the £4m (plus £300k interest to BluMarble) which I'm guessing we will pay from the money we make on the summer concerts(?).

Davies seemed to say he had £6m to cover this season's estimated losses - so with the Madine sale I assume he still has it for next season.

I think we are as good as could possibly have been expected myself.

From a pal of mine who works at the club, they might make 10% of that £4m at best, but it's a step in the right direction.

Kane57 wrote:From a pal of mine who works at the club, they might make 10% of that £4m at best, but it's a step in the right direction.

He/she is probably right.

I still reckon things are financially ok even so because I'm sure Anderson would still need to convince the EFL that he financially can cover next season - and he's managed to get us this far with them looking over his shoulder so to speak.

First things first though, we need to stay up and we look on course to achieve that also.

Things could be a lot worse.

That's because his best mate runs the EFL. Happy for any slack we get/got.

Bolton Wanderers owner discusses 'hard debt' at Macron Stadium

KEN Anderson insists Wanderers’ ‘hard debt’ is under control.
Accounts released yesterday showed nearly £200million was wiped off the books by former owner Eddie Davies.
Concerns have been raised, however, over Wanderers’ ability to meet financial obligations due in the short-term – primarily loans to finance company BluMarble, Prescot Business Park Ltd and former vice-chairman Brett Warburton.
Speaking to The Bolton News Anderson reassured supporters the situation was in hand.

“No matter what aspect of my work life, I never going into it spending more than I have,” he said. “BluMarble is getting organised. We have had discussions with Michael James (co-owner of PBP Ltd) about how we can come to a solution.
“We have also talked with Brett and I am very confident we will be able to sort his loan too.
“If we had to pay them all right now, this moment, we could. Ideally, however, I’d like to restructure them into a commercial deal.”
Accounts revealed an agreement is in place with BluMarble which sees £4m plus £300,000 in interest repayable by September this year. Another £700,000 is payable if the club is promoted to the Premier League before 2021.

The £5.5m loan to PBP Ltd was also due in January this year and secured against the club’s hotel but, at time of writing, payment had not been demanded.
Warburton has also got debt secured against land owned by Wanderers and was owed a £500,000 payment on his £2.5m loan at the start of this month.
Anderson remains confident he has the backing of the men that matter – and is currently assessing his options on the best way forward.
“If we had to refinance the Michael James loan, we could, because there is an asset there in the hotel,” he said.

“We’re talking with two developers regarding Brett’s situation. They both want to buy the land which he has a charge on. But again, I’m looking whether it’s better to do a deal with the developers.”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Realistically, we're still a long way from being a sustainable business despite ED "giving" the club a fortune, but that was to be expected last year when we dropped to L1 and still had a largish wage bill. 2018 accounts will also have a boost from the sale of Madine, but the underlying business still needs to improve dramatically. 
Still worried Anderson continues to talk about the disposal of assets and/or offering them as security against further loans but I guess those are his only cards seeing as the independent auditors were unable to verify that the accounts were those of a going concern:


The audit evidence available to us to confirm the appropriateness of preparing the financial statements on a going concern basis was limited because the Burnden Leisure Limited group of companies has not been able to substantiate any evidence that the group are able to continue to trade as a going concern. The group has provided no detailed financial projections demonstrating its ability to continue as a going concern. Without the availability of detailed financial projections we assume that the ability to continue as a going concern is dependent upon significant levels of investment and/or refinancing. Such funding has not currently been secured although we understand that the Chairman will continue to provide financial support to the group. 


Looks like we won't know the full story about Anderson's tenure for a while yet, and it's likely there won't be much of a pot for building the team.

I've no idea why you bothered to highlight the auditors not having the evidence of us being a 'going concern', as that was always going to be the same, seeing that the last accounts had the same concern - and nothing has changed since.

It didn't prevent Anderson getting the club promoted and hold its own in the Championship though as it?

As for the continual talk of disposal of assets - what talk is this?

The only bit I can see is the awaiting sale of unwanted land in Lostock  pending Planning Permission approval - which was already in progress to pay back the Warburton loan?

The underlying business does not need to improve dramatically at all - it already has done!  The vast majority of the players on 'Premier' wages came to an end of last season, so the next accounts up to April 2018 will show a significant reduction in our major cost of wages.  Also settlement of the Warburton loan - which will happen - will also reduce our debt position and associated interest charges they attract.

Of course things won't change over night but another frugal season in 18/19, may actually get us to the point of the club being breakeven/self sufficient for the following season.

If Anderson finds and investor and/or buyer - then even sooner.


Do you never tire of constantly being negative about everything?

Sluffy wrote:
Do you never tire of constantly being negative about everything?

Just Anderson and then only because I don't trust him - and that's a subject we've already agreed to disagree on, so please let me express my opinion - as I do yours - without regurgitating the same old condescending diatribe.

Sluffy- the part about the auditors not being able to present an unqualified report is a constant ,as you say, but it does matter. It increases risk perception and increases borrowing rates for existing and any new loans. If it were a listed company it would result in a dramatic drop in share price, probably some executive redundancies and almost certainly the refusal to give creditor insurance to suppliers. Luckily we're not a listed company so the effects will be less severe, but it does matter nevertheless.

rammywhite wrote:Sluffy- the part about the auditors not being able to present an unqualified report is a constant ,as you say, but it does matter. It increases risk perception and increases borrowing rates for existing and any new loans. If it were a listed company it would result in a dramatic drop in share price, probably some executive redundancies and almost certainly the refusal to give creditor insurance to suppliers. Luckily we're not a listed company so the effects will be less severe, but it does matter nevertheless.

Thanks Rammy but I was aware of much of that, as it was discussed here and Wanderers Ways the other occasions that the auditors presented an unqualified report (this is the third consecutive one now (iirc?).

Seeing that Anderson has steered us through much stormier waters than where we find ourselves now the issue - whilst certainly being undesirable - as not prevented the significant progress made nevertheless.

Anderson has already stated that he IS in a position to pay off ALL the debts NOW (see post 10 in this very thread), and has clearly put his money into the club, even if he has taken it straight back out again when the cash flow allowed it.

No one needed to be Einstein to have predicted that as the club Is trading at a loss and that (presumably) Anderson has not shown these (or other auditors) the extent of his personal wealth and made whatever legal and financial commitments are required to put the auditors mind at ease - then it was always going to be blindingly obvious that they would have to state their professional view over us not being able to prove that we are a going concern.

That's not however that the same thing as Anderson ensuring we are my means of financing from his own pocket when required.

Yes I appreciate that flies in the face of well established financial management of all other types of businesses but for some reason I've yet to fathom 'football' in this country as been allowed to do things differently (that make no practical financial sense many times) yet grow into the richest football league in the world.

I don't see the auditors required statement about their worries that we are not a going concern, to prevent Anderson making sure that we actually are one.

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:
Do you never tire of constantly being negative about everything?

Just Anderson and then only because I don't trust him - and that's a subject we've already agreed to disagree on, so please let me express my opinion - as I do yours - without regurgitating the same old condescending diatribe.

If you don't recognise that you are negative about nearly every subject you post on here then you are deluding yourself.

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:
Do you never tire of constantly being negative about everything?

Just Anderson and then only because I don't trust him - and that's a subject we've already agreed to disagree on, so please let me express my opinion - as I do yours - without regurgitating the same old condescending diatribe.

If you don't recognise that you are negative about nearly every subject you post on here then you are deluding yourself.

I'm positive you're a tit though.

Here's the LoV perspective of the accounts. 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:
Do you never tire of constantly being negative about everything?

Just Anderson and then only because I don't trust him - and that's a subject we've already agreed to disagree on, so please let me express my opinion - as I do yours - without regurgitating the same old condescending diatribe.

If you don't recognise that you are negative about nearly every subject you post on here then you are deluding yourself.

I'm positive you're a tit though.

There’s only one tit on here and that’s Nat.

wanderlust wrote:Here's the LoV perspective of the accounts. 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

To be pedantic it is one person's opinion on a blog site.

That person has a user name of White Smurf and tweets under the name Super White Smurf.

Of course he is entitled to his opinion and entirely free to express it but he is a long time ardent anti-Anderson-ist.

As far as I'm aware 'Smurf' has no particular accountancy background and has basically seemed to have used the tweets of George Bower (former ST Board Member), to form his views.  Mr Bower certainly having such professional skills.

Non the less the ST (which I assume had based a number of previous statements about the clubs ability to trade - and even its survive to the end of this season! - upon Mr Bower's previous analysis of the clubs accounts) had been proven wrong at every turn up to now - and I don't doubt Mr Anderson will continue to prove the likes of 'Smurf' wrong in this instance, once again.

I have no doubts at all that Mr Bower's analysis of the clubs accounts are indeed fair and reasonable comment - the problem in my opinion is when others (such as the ST, Smurf, etc) puts their own spin on them to promote their own agendas for their own ends.

If it came down to who I think as the most insight and personal interest in the survival and growth of our club between the owner Mr Anderson and someone with a long history of being anti-Anderson, with only an outsiders opinion of how things actually are - then I know who I would think has the best grasp of the picture - wouldn't you too?