Latest BWFC Accounts - Year ended 30th June, 2020

I just want to chip in briefly on 'intellectual property' since I was able to do a little digging on what it might be. Let me be clear, I am NOT saying this is definitely what it entails at BWFC but it certainly does work this way at some football clubs and other commercial enterprises.

Intellectual property tends to be a catch all phrase for things that are not tangible but are owned by the individual or company involved. For example the BWFC badge is intellectual property as are the contents of things like the match programmes and compilation videos (eg Bolton Wanderers highlights and season round up DVD's etc). There is also an argument that our kit design is intellectual property and that the club's name is in and of itself intellectual property.

I still don't fully understand where the 10 million pound figure quoted comes from as I don't see how such things could be worth so much for a League One side but perhaps they form a part of it at least. Also has the i-follow revenue been included in this number or was it mentioned separately within the accounts?

Thanks for that Peter, you've made some good points.

Just my observation on your comment about i-follow revenue though - I would have thought that if all (most of the clubs anyway) where receiving income from i-follow, then they would record it in their accounts in a similar manner to each other - wouldn't you agree?

However Bob has looked at many clubs accounts for the same financial period and none of them are showing (or have ever shown) assets of intellectual property on their accounts.

It would seem somewhat out of step for us to do so, that being the case.

If you follow this logic on, then all the rest of the items you mention above, club logo, programme contents, match video's etc, would also be shown by all the other clubs for 'their' intellectual property in the way we have on our accounts - and they haven't.

One could argue that we are a 'phoenix' club - in the same way as MK Dons are not the same company as the old Wimbledon was - and it might be a 'new' concept we have employed that all the other clubs have never thought to do - but somehow I doubt it.

I-follow income I would imagine would be seen to be 'revenue' income and such would be shown (or included) in the trading account and not part of the capital assets of the club.

I'm not an accountant though and I might well be wrong but that is how I would view things based on my professional instincts - which admittedly are a number of years out of date now.

It will be interesting to hear Bob's views on your post as I can't seem to find any poster (several of whom claim to be professional accountants themselves) on any other forums show much if any interest on the recently published clubs accounts.

I would have thought they would have myself, either to ask of others what this sum of £10m (a third of the cost of buying the club, hotel and everything else) was, or indeed tell us what it is and why it is there and how it got there - and apparently cost the club £8m to acquire it from person or persons currently unknown???

How can you be both an accountant and an ardent BWFC supporter of many years standing and not show any interest of what the accounts say on how the club is doing financially???

I suspect many HAVE looked at the accounts and don't know the answers to this and rather keep quiet than show their ignorance?

For me I rather be seen to be not knowing and asking the questions to find out from others more knowledgeable than myself than remain silent (and non the wiser) on the matter.

I welcomed Peter's interest too, Sluffy, and he is generally on the right track except that the i-follow income is a trading receipt and included in the profit and loss account, not the balance sheet.
I think the reason that there is no Intellectual Property in any other clubs probably derives from the fact that FV have acquired the old business since tax rules changed in 2019.

The effect of the amended rules is that you can only claim a tax deduction for Goodwill if you've also bought something that qualifies as Intellectual Property. If you claim that some of the Goodwill is Intellectual Property you've made a start. Justifying the figure to HMRC might be another matter but the tax allowance is only beneficial when you start to make profit anyway.

There's another issue, in that it would be pushing it to claim that Goodwill lasted more than ten years. So if you say that Intellectual Property lasts fifty years you can reduce the amortisation hit to your P&L account. I'm not criticising FV for adopting this approach btw, I'm just explaining what I think lies behind it all.

Down the road at Forest Green, Dale Vince sold the Ecotricity name to Ecotricity and pocketed £3million. I'll have to check how it was dealt with in the accounts but I doubt it was called Intellectual Property.

For the last few years Ecotricity has been paying FGR c.£2.6million p.a. to have the Ecotricity name on its shirts and to advertise at The Innocent (til proved guilty) Stadium. Its all borrowed money, of course, including some of ours as taxpayers.

I'm just playing with numbers here, trying to make things add up in my mind.

My start point is that the accounts state there is £6m goodwill at the start of FV's ownership - and my understanding is that is basically the amount more than the total assets purchased are valued at - yes?

Ok the books say fixed (tangible) assets came to £12.5m - let's leave that there for now.

The amount FV appeared to have paid in total is £29.5m (if the blurry line in the hotel Administrators report is a confirmation as such - I don't know?).

If it is (?) then £29.5m - £6m = £23.5m

This being the case then the £12.5m of tangible assets shown plus the £10m of intellectual property (which no one seems to know what exactly that is, adds up to £22.5m.

£1m short of the supposed purchase price less £6m for 'goodwill'.

Now let us pretend this 'goodwill' is in fact the cost of the clubs losses during the period of Administration.

The club accounts show that to be £7.3m (p11 of 37).

The £22.5m plus the £7.3m = £29.8m - which is more or less what the blurry line total was.

Let us for argument sake say FV are 'claiming; they've 'paid' £8m (£7.3m plus the deficit for the hotel whilst in Administration (£350k ? - p5 of 29 Bolton Whites Hotel Ltd) to 'save' the club and thus all the intellectual property that comes with it.

That would I guess explain why they've 'paid' £8m 'for' the intellectual property but there being no note of what they've actually purchased (and from whom?) for that amount - and would also explain why the Administrators don't have a further £8m pounds available to them to pay the unsecured creditors (if it had been paid to them for that reason?

If you put all that together and they actually paid something like £29.5m for everything (? the blurry line amount?).

Then what the accounts state £6m goodwill, £10m intellectual property and £12.5m tangible assets kind of makes some sense when perhaps without this (shall we call it) 'sleight of hand' with the figures one might have expected to see the accounts to have shown something like perhaps £27m of tangible assets purchased and say a further £2.5m more in excess of the 'goods' due to the trading deficit during the Administration period.

The rearranging of the numbers under the various headings to make the tax position more favourable to the business - is simply what the accountants have done - the overall total being the same whichever way you slice it.


To kind of verify this (in my own mind at least), the assets in Administration had charges on them of £5.5m (PBP), £2.5m (Warburton), £3.5m unsecured creditors and a claimed £17.5m (EDT) which amounts to - £28.5m - which the Administrators had to deal with.

Again very similar to the amount paid(?) and the total for all the assets (£16m intangible, £12.5 tangible).

(The £5m for KA and £12.5m of EDT's claim were struck out by the Administrator - but certainly EDT believed it to be real!).

I know I've not put up an irrefutable case but it does in my mind kind of like gives some explanation of things, such as the 'missing' £8.1m purchase of intellectual property and broadly how the headline numbers kind of match, whichever way you report them.

Best I've got so far and more than happy to be put straight by others about all of this.



Just to clarify a bit as I seem to be saying the £8m trading loss is both counted as intellectual property AND goodwill - which of course is double counting it.

What I'm meaning is that on one hand FV have paid more for the combined assets because they had the trading debt to settle when the club was in Administration too.

They've done that by writing down their valuation of what they bought to be £12.5m for tangible assets (the stadium/hotel is only worth - on paper at least - what someone will pay for it - and FV says they value them at £12.5m)  they believe (or at least in my model above) that the trading loss of £8m under Administration equated to the purchase of intellectual property and that the remainder of what they paid amounted to an additional £2m worth of intellectual property with the rest being set against the goodwill category (£3.5m of which would be for settling the unsecured creditors).

Furthermore I guess - in a few years time they can seek a revaluation of the ground, hotel, etc and add back a 'windfall' of several millions more to the tangible assets - if they wished to do so?

I hope people can follow my logic on all of this!

And I'm not guaranteeing it isn't all without flaws either - just me thinking aloud really.

I will come back to you on this, Sluffy, when I have gone through the Administrators statements carefully. Be careful to avoid confusing the normal administrative costs of running the club and hotel with the costs related to the appointment of the two sets of Administrators. The former are reported to be £7.3m. The latter?
A key issue is the size of the debt. £30million and growing.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:I will come back to you on this, Sluffy, when I have gone through the Administrators statements carefully. Be careful to avoid confusing the normal administrative costs of running the club and hotel with the costs related to the appointment of the two sets of Administrators. The former are reported to be £7.3m. The latter?
A key issue is the size of the debt. £30million and growing.

Thanks Bob.

I said earlier in the thread about not understanding clearly what the Admin costs were meant to represent.

I know they get paid a fee to do their work, I also know the club and hotel traded at a loss during Administration and that both those costs and the fees would need to be settled by the ultimate purchaser.

I can't imagine the £7.3m total is for the Admins 'fees' for the club, so it must be trading losses whilst under Administration - the question is whether that also includes their 'fees' as well?

As for the hotel I understand the Admin 'fees' to be just over a million being an initial charge of £500k and a further one of £510k (or something similar iirc).

There is a charge for trading losses during Administration as far as I can tell in the sum of something like £300k  - but I thought that at least the first £500k of fees and the whole £300k of trading losses were discharged at the time of sale and settlement?

I could well be wrong though!

And yes the debt must be growing - I'm not got the skills to work out what it probably is now and grateful for your steer on that (and most everything else too!).

I still have no idea what FV, master plan is - I just hope they do have one!

Surely they must have mustn't they???

FV may be playing a 'long' game in which they are planning to try and restructure the club's debts down the line, say in about two years. By then we should be completely out of all lockdown restrictions and have at least one full season where all our revenue streams including fans at matches are both fully available and known. Once that's the case FV may (just MAY) be able to put a deal in front of whatever creditors remain in order to make the club at least nominally profitable on a day to day basis.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:FV may be playing a 'long' game in which they are planning to try and restructure the club's debts down the line, say in about two years. By then we should be completely out of all lockdown restrictions and have at least one full season where all our revenue streams including fans at matches are both fully available and known. Once that's the case FV may (just MAY) be able to put a deal in front of whatever creditors remain in order to make the club at least nominally profitable on a day to day basis.

I don't think the 'old' creditors are really an issue Peter in that EDT have already done a deal, Warburton is just waiting for some land to be sold off, the unsecured creditors are due for payment next month (and we get a 15 point penalty if they aren't paid) which only leaves PBP/Mike James and I don't think they are in a rush to get their money.

The bigger issue is who is is putting their hands in their pockets to cover the clubs continuing trading deficit, until it somehow becomes financially sustainable and how they expect to get their money back on an investment that now has a debt larger than the business's entire assets?

There probably is a long term plan - its just that I can't fathom out what it is and why Sharon and others want to put any future money of theirs at risk until we get to whatever the outcome of the plan actually is?

Maybe money is no object to her?

Who knows because I certainly don't!

Sluffy wrote:

I don't think the 'old' creditors are really an issue Peter in that EDT have already done a deal, Warburton is just waiting for some land to be sold off, the unsecured creditors are due for payment next month (and we get a 15 point penalty if they aren't paid) which only leaves PBP/Mike James and I don't think they are in a rush to get their money.

The bigger issue is who is is putting their hands in their pockets to cover the clubs continuing trading deficit, until it somehow becomes financially sustainable and how they expect to get their money back on an investment that now has a debt larger than the business's entire assets?

There probably is a long term plan - its just that I can't fathom out what it is and why Sharon and others want to put any future money of theirs at risk until we get to whatever the outcome of the plan actually is?

Maybe money is no object to her?

Who knows because I certainly don't!

I think Brett Warburton has wanted his money back for a long time, Sluffy, but he's been trapped. Same with PBP to some extent. MJ's also a Wanderers fan but there's a lot of PBP cash tied up doing sod all. 

80% of it isn't MJ's and it really makes no business sense to PBP except to hang on in there in the hope of getting your money, or some of it, out at some time. FV has already indicated that PBP would forego all the interest to get the money repaid.

Sue Davies has managed to get out at a further monumental loss but at least she is out and able to plan her future with some certainty. She'd have been amongst the super rich if Eddie hadn't been a Wanderers fan.

I'll do a debt analysis in due course but its a time-consuming exercise to go through all the Administrators Reports and see how they fit in to the recently released Annual Reports of the three FV companies. 

My instinct tells me that COVID money reduced the pressure on FV earlier this year but I'm still a long way from seeing any viable business plan. FV got lucky with the extraordinary turn round in form since January which has helped season ticket sales no end. Will they get lucky again? Who knows but I'm not seeing how BWFC can survive and repay its debts on League 1 income and the Championship's an even bigger money pit despite the extra income.

I thought the possible financial implications of this might interest you Bob?

Wanderers watching with fingers crossed as the Rugby League World Cup stands on the verge of collapse. Could be the loss of a big earner for the club.[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Marc Iles (@MarcIles) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Sluffy wrote:I thought the possible financial implications of this might interest you Bob?

Wanderers watching with fingers crossed as the Rugby League World Cup stands on the verge of collapse. Could be the loss of a big earner for the club.[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Marc Iles (@MarcIles) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

FV are going to need all the money they can get, Sluffy, and then some.

Still the great mass of Wanderers fans on t'internet are convinced its going to be reet even though most of 'em haven't a clue of the financial challenges lying in wait.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:FV are going to need all the money they can get, Sluffy, and then some.

Still the great mass of Wanderers fans on t'internet are convinced its going to be reet even though most of 'em haven't a clue of the financial challenges lying in wait.

Yes, I've been following you on TW.

I have history with that site and was sacked as a mod for basically saying I wanted to mod the site fairly and equally to everyone (and not letting some of their inner circle on there do as they please - which they were!) and sometime after banned from there after I'd asked their Admin repeatedly if I could advertise Nuts which was a new forum we had started at the time and after a week of waiting for an answer did so and was banned in minutes of doing so!

I can't say I've ever liked TW much, it seems to me to be a collection of university immature types with that sort of humour and entitlement that seems to me to go with it, but who now are grown men with good jobs, as opposed to the 'earthy' blue collar types, from which I come from, which is prevalent over on WW, of which I have more in common, except I don't care much for the abuse or hatred that some/many have on there.

WW has been a far better site for my money of the two, over the years.

Even saying that I've never really fit well on that site either, I much prefer a site that is basically honest and fair - but you would never know that with the accusations and abuse I've faced over the years, firstly at Burnden Aces and since then here on Nuts, from more than a few, about how I run the site is not to their satisfaction as it stops THEIR fun (irrespective of what damage it causes to the rest of the site and the enjoyment of all the other posters).

Hey ho, such is life and as I state often, we are only on an internet forum - it isn't REAL - although I suspect to a few it really is...!

Anyway I was surprised at the question you asked Dave (even I had a good idea what the answer was) so I suspect you were just testing his knowledge to see how good he might be.

Seems I did have the correct view of Worthy - see what I mean about the university humour type/childish replies you've had from him - and I don't doubt he really is a successful accountant in real life!

Why do people behave like that just because it's social media - I just don't get it?

Anyhow I'm surprised that neither Dave or Worthy have twigged that there are only two places a £8.1m purchase of intellectual property can be bought from and that is (in respect of the club - it's name, history, branding, etc) from the Administrator, or if it is in respect of something not of the club - something new like say a purchase of a copywrite for say a Moneyball programme or Eddie's Kettle patent - then that would be to a third party.

If the money had gone to the Administrators then that would have had to go into the pot to pay off unsecured creditors - and that didn't happen - so it didn't go there.

If then it was a £8.1m new purchase then the accounts would be required to show details of such in the notes - they don't, so it didn't go there either.

So the money didn't leave the club as such as in a new 'entity' being acquired.

So it MUST have been for something else that had already been paid for as part of the purchase of the club and the most obvious thing would be a redefining of Administration costs as intellectual property - as I've explained above in one of my previous posts on this thread.

So FV haven't paid out Administration costs AND bought £8.1m of intellectual property as well, they've paid out once and reclassified that in their opinion the Administration costs are what they view as being intellectual property!

I've no idea if I am correct about this but then again I'm no accountant like they are either.

I'm happy to wait until you have the time to reveal all to find out if I was on the right lines or not.

Sluffy wrote:

Yes, I've been following you on TW.

I have history with that site and was sacked as a mod for basically saying I wanted to mod the site fairly and equally to everyone (and not letting some of their inner circle on there do as they please - which they were!) and sometime after banned from there after I'd asked their Admin repeatedly if I could advertise Nuts which was a new forum we had started at the time and after a week of waiting for an answer did so and was banned in minutes of doing so!

I can't say I've ever liked TW much, it seems to me to be a collection of university immature types with that sort of humour and entitlement that seems to me to go with it, but who now are grown men with good jobs, as opposed to the 'earthy' blue collar types, from which I come from, which is prevalent over on WW, of which I have more in common, except I don't care much for the abuse or hatred that some/many have on there.

WW has been a far better site for my money of the two, over the years.

Even saying that I've never really fit well on that site either, I much prefer a site that is basically honest and fair - but you would never know that with the accusations and abuse I've faced over the years, firstly at Burnden Aces and since then here on Nuts, from more than a few, about how I run the site is not to their satisfaction as it stops THEIR fun (irrespective of what damage it causes to the rest of the site and the enjoyment of all the other posters).

Hey ho, such is life and as I state often, we are only on an internet forum - it isn't REAL - although I suspect to a few it really is...!

Anyway I was surprised at the question you asked Dave (even I had a good idea what the answer was) so I suspect you were just testing his knowledge to see how good he might be.

Seems I did have the correct view of Worthy - see what I mean about the university humour type/childish replies you've had from him - and I don't doubt he really is a successful accountant in real life!

Why do people behave like that just because it's social media - I just don't get it?

Anyhow I'm surprised that neither Dave or Worthy have twigged that there are only two places a £8.1m purchase of intellectual property can be bought from and that is (in respect of the club - it's name, history, branding, etc) from the Administrator, or if it is in respect of something not of the club - something new like say a purchase of a copywrite for say a Moneyball programme or Eddie's Kettle patent - then that would be to a third party.

If the money had gone to the Administrators then that would have had to go into the pot to pay off unsecured creditors - and that didn't happen - so it didn't go there.

If then it was a £8.1m new purchase then the accounts would be required to show details of such in the notes - they don't, so it didn't go there either.

So the money didn't leave the club as such as in a new 'entity' being acquired.

So it MUST have been for something else that had already been paid for as part of the purchase of the club and the most obvious thing would be a redefining of Administration costs as intellectual property - as I've explained above in one of my previous posts on this thread.

So FV haven't paid out Administration costs AND bought £8.1m of intellectual property as well, they've paid out once and reclassified that in their opinion the Administration costs are what they view as being intellectual property!

I've no idea if I am correct about this but then again I'm no accountant like they are either.

I'm happy to wait until you have the time to reveal all to find out if I was on the right lines or not.

Its difficult to piece together, Sluffy, and the The Wanderer's mob don't really want any of it it pieced together. They don't want any of the opinions they've previously forcibly voiced re-examined.

£7.3m on  running costs is a lot of money for a League 1 or 2 club  but we can now see how the cost has been carved up between the different company accounts. A few thousand for the holding company, which doesn't do very much, might seem OK, but £500k? I don't think so.

But we also don't know where this money has gone to.

The £8.1million is on top and that seems to relate to the costs of the Administration process. Its a very large sum but who got what and to what extent does it include trading losses during the period of administration? That's were the Administrators Statements come in but following them is a laborious and time-consuming process.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Its difficult to piece together, Sluffy, and the The Wanderer's mob don't really want any of it it pieced together. They don't want any of the opinions they've previously forcibly voiced re-examined.

£7.3m on  running costs is a lot of money for a League 1 or 2 club  but we can now see how the cost has been carved up between the different company accounts. A few thousand for the holding company, which doesn't do very much, might seem OK, but £500k? I don't think so.

But we also don't know where this money has gone to.

The £8.1million is on top and that seems to relate to the costs of the Administration process. Its a very large sum but who got what and to what extent does it include trading losses during the period of administration? That's were the Administrators Statements come in but following them is a laborious and time-consuming process.

Yes, there seems to be plenty on social media who don't like to be seen to be wrong.

I know there's plenty on here believe that to be true of me but in all honesty that simply isn't the case, I'm more than happy to be shown to be wrong - if for no other reason than I've learned something I didn't know previously.

I tend, if people actually paid attention to what I actually do post, to link to things to back up what I've said, or state something like 'I understand' or 'I believe' or even 'I guess' when I'm expressing an opinion.

I am the type of person who will often do a little bit of 'homework' before I post, just to make as sure as I can that what I go on to say is as correct as I can find it to be.

Tbh I don't think the likes of Worthy (I don't really know much about Dave - didn't even realise until your recent posts on TW that he was an accountant - although as I say I'm not really a regular visitor on that forum for some years now) is the type to worry too much about what he's posted in the past as his mates on TW would believe him any day rather than the likes of you or I.

Again it is the craziness of social media that people believe some random strangers more so than other random strangers simply because of their internet 'persona', which if anybody has learnt anything by now about social media, is that quite often many people tend to act in a different way on there than how they are in real life!

I don't know what it is - Stockholm syndrome or something like that (although Stockholm syndrome is actually now being considered more media made up than an actual sort of psychosis) and that a member of their 'social media tribe' is somehow more believable than anyone else no matter what?

Again I simply don't get it?

Back in the day most peoples equivalent to social media were the regulars in the pub, or the people you worked with and you quickly sussed out the ones who talked crap and the ones you avoided the best you could. These days on social media people can't seem to differentiate anymore?  It's as though they can't seem to read people and instead trust what they say is true and reject anyone else, simply because they've made their minds up over someones internet persona and not the content of what others might say - even if they are right?

Anyway it is what it is.

As for the accounts - yes £7.3m does seem a heck of a lot of money for a period of Administration  particularly when you look at the Admins Trading Account statement for the club for the period under the Administration 13th May 2019 to 16th January 2020, which shows only a loss of £1.1m (see appendix 3a of 27th Jan, 2020 Admins report - the very last page of the document)

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

The Admin fees for the club is shown on page 15 (or if you prefer p22 of 31 - Appendix 1) under Remuneration and totals (just) £1.2m.

I guess you can add on fees for Legal fees (p6) which shows an amount to SHL for £700k and Agents fees - shows a company called CLL charged a further £700k.

I also found something that rang a vague bell with me in that FVWL were making payments on account of the purchase of £155k per month (p4 - Receipts) - now iirc weren't they doing that over (was it?) a 10 month period but if memory serves didn't they agree to defer it for a number of months due to the effect of Covid?  

I wonder however if six payments (Jan - June 2020?) from FVWL of £155k pm is somehow included in the £7.3m figure?

If so that's another £1m towards that total?

Also I suppose even though FVWL bought the club in January they would still be liable (at least FV would) for ongoing Liquidation costs, although I can't imagine them to be massively high?

And finally on p2 assets purchased it lists 'goodwill' and 'intellectual property' - although there is no valued set against them (and the hotels goodwill and intellectual property was listed at just £1 each!).

If I have any other thoughts I'll add them on if and when they pop into my head!

Thanks for the interest, Sluffy.

Can I just correct one thing. The £7.3m is the annual administrative cost of running the club and hotel. Direct costs and interest took the total annual club and hotel costs to £14.3million in 2019/20.

Do you recall a member of the audience at the Trial of the Unibol 4 (May 2019 iirc) ask Terrence Rigby how the club spent its £14million income. Rigby replied, at best unhelpfully, 'You'll have to draw your own conclusions'.

Well we now know that in 2019/20 under FV the total income shrank to £10.4million and total costs were £14.3million. Hence the big loss that has wiped out all the share capital and left the club and hotel with debts of £30million.

We don't have any detail on what's comprised in the £7.3m  running costs (its actually £7.4m rounded) but do know that they have been split:
                          £'millions
Football                4.8
Hotel                    2.1
Holding company   0.5

You might expect the holding company to maybe account for a few thousand, but a few hundred thousand is surprising.

Then on top of all this there is the £8.1million spent on 'intellectual property'. This is clearly connected to the acquisition of the assets from the Administrators and is a major factor in the size of the FV debt.

The only clues we've got on the composition of the £8.1million paid out are in the Administrators and Liquidators Statements. Going through these is like treading through treacle, but it is a lot of money.

Isn't it interesting though that The Wanderer's gang should be so vehemently hostile to any perusal of the numbers. What do they say about leopards and spots?

I've now had a billet-doux from Tangodancer the All Powerful. Apparently some gentle ribbing about Alma Cogan not being able to tell a waltz from a tango has sent him into sabre-rattling mode.

Its like being savaged by Craig Revel Horwood, darling.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:I've now had a billet-doux from Tangodancer the All Powerful. Apparently some gentle ribbing about Alma Cogan not being able to tell a waltz from a tango has sent him into sabre-rattling mode.

Its like being savaged by Craig Revel Horwood, darling.

I never liked her. Anti Eskimo. I don't like that sort of thing.

boltonbonce wrote:
I never liked her. Anti Eskimo. I don't like that sort of thing.

Don’t mention that to Tangodancer, Boncey. He’s still recovering from his sense of humour by-pass. The op was a 100% success but it’s left him in a right old mood.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:I've now had a billet-doux from Tangodancer the All Powerful. Apparently some gentle ribbing about Alma Cogan not being able to tell a waltz from a tango has sent him into sabre-rattling mode.

Its like being savaged by Craig Revel Horwood, darling.

He's a weird one, he really is.

I guess he is now in his late seventies/early eighties, iirc correctly he was a blue collar worker during his life (nothing wrong with that, my father was a builder and my mam worked in the mills) but he somehow must have thought he missed his calling in life which was to be a writer (nothing wrong in that either).

He even wrote a book once and paid for it to be published but it was excruciating to read - he used to put up chapters on the site!

If you notice his posts they are mostly written in a very peculiar style indeed.

I think being a mod on there helps to keep him going but he's never had the brains or touch to be any good at it and as far as I know he's the last one left on there.

He will ban you there is no doubt about that if the others demand your head.

And they will sooner or later too - that's how they are on sites like TW and WW.

As for the accounts, thanks for your reply.

I was really playing about to try and pin down some one off costs that led to the £7.4m total, but as you say it does seem to be a very meaty total.

I agree with what you said on TW about is it not normal for someone with an interest in BWFC and finance not want to look at the accounts and understand them - indeed I've said the same myself previously, so I too can't understand why they don't and my thinking is more to do with not being inquisitive enough, rather than 'protecting' what the might have said earlier.

Dave for instance more or less said, I can understand the pieces of the jigsaw but unless someone (from inside the club) shows me the picture on the box, then he can't go any further in solving the puzzle.

I guess you and I have the inquisitive nature to try at least to solve the puzzle by thinking more around the problem than waiting to see the box picture.

I once had a deputy and was asked what his capability was, and replied that he was very good in travelling in a straight line, and if he was walking along a road he would go for miles but if a pothole appeared in front of him he would simply stop, he didn't have the capacity or the imagination to think of a way of getting around or over it.

Dave (in what he said) brought me in mind of my one time deputy - he's accepted that he can't go no further - and maybe you can't - but he and my deputy never seemed to consider giving it a try anyway?

I've no reason to doubt that Dave and Worthy aren't both good at their jobs but neither seem to have shown a 'nose' to sniff things out further - Worthy certainly put a huge amount of blame on Anderson - but then again most did including the posters claiming to be real life accountants on WW too.

I can't understand why non of them seemed to delve further into things - which sort of suggests we are the 'exceptions' and the are the 'rule'.

I guess these things come natural to us and doesn't to most other people?

It is what it is though, and as my dad used to tell me if you want something doing then you've got to do it yourself!

I don't really think anyone else on the various forums have both the knowledge and interest to look beyond what it is put in front of them in terms of the accounts.

They don't even seem to have their professional interest or general curiosity perked when someone like yourself raises interesting points, such as what is this apparent payment of £8.1m for intellectual property?

I wonder why, simple question in respect of what roughly is a quarter of the clubs entire debt yet none of them seem remotely bothered about???

You'd think they would?

None so deaf and all that I guess?