Bolton's Finances / Accounts for year ending 30th June 2021 and everything else since.

Sluffy wrote:Well I've never been a Non Exec Director of a company but I know the remuneration can vary from doing so voluntary for free to eye wateringly high amounts for simply a few hours work but you don't get offered them unless you are well connected in some way or other.

As for the LinkedIn site, that is basically someones CV online - it is there for looking for being employed by someone else basically - but what if you aren't looking to be employed by someone else?

I suspect Luckcok has made his millions already and is already as well connected in his field as anyone can be.  

I don't doubt that he doesn't need to work again for the rest of his life if he didn't want to and isn't deliberately seeking to wangle himself additional additional lucrative Non Exec positions but if they are offered to him, then why not?

Although he might be financially secure for life I doubt he sees seeing out the rest of his life on the beach somewhere and I would imagine he's got a number of personal projects like BWFC on the go.

I very much doubt that he's randomly turned up at BWFC to piss his millions away - so why is he here?

He's clearly knows Sharon (might even be Sharon's other half for all we know) and someone somewhere has 'pitched' an idea to him about BWFC that clearly got him involved.

We don't know what the pitch was though.

Was it Sharon with a dream of owning a football club or maybe it was one of the original property developers Eddie had employed who sold him (Sharon even?) on the potential of developing Middlebrook that Eddie was going to do before he pissed his money away keeping Bolton going?

I've no idea but someone did and that's why he's here and putting his money in and has not cut and run when he's realised the sums involved at BWFC.

I rather think Luckock decided to leave Hg to pursue his desires and not Hg giving him the push, so I doubt the loss of his salary and benefits from Hg were a factor in him going or his ability to continue financing his projects such as BWFC and others that we simply don't know about.

Whether he's on to a good thing at BWFC or not, time will tell but seeing that I don't think anyone has spotted him at a BWFC game, home or away, since he rocked up here, then I very much doubt he's here to play football club owner and more for other reasons - the most obvious being the redevelopment.

Another alternative - but not one I'm pushing - is that he could be Sharon's squeeze and simply supporting her.

The bottom line is that he is here, we don't know why, and his background is money and not football.  BWFC isn't going to make him money, a massive property development at Middlebrook on the other hand...

Sorry Sluffy but I think this is a Swiss cheese of an argument. I'll explain why in due course. First I must attend to the list of jobs set out for me by Lady Bobsworth.

I'm not sure where to begin, Sluffy, but if your thesis were correct, FV would be little more than opportunistic carpetbaggers taking advantage of Bolton Wanderers distressed financial state just waiting for the club to go into administration with ordinary creditors whistling for most of their money and the Eddie Davies Trust forced to accept a pittance for all the money it had laid out that FV sought to profit from.

 I don't think it was like that at all. There was and is some development potential as a back stop that might limit FV's costs or losses but this back stop was problematic, uncertain and way down the line. I don't know all the details but I suspect that you might have an unduly inflated view of what they might amount to for the club.

One thing at a time; we can come back to consideration of Nick Luckock's role, aspirations and expectations.

Fair enough Bob.

The puzzle as I see it consists of...

- why did FV fight so long and hard to buy this particular business, when there were much easier and far better 'value' businesses to buy with their funds?

- in particular why did they buy the business at such an extortionate premium to what it was worth???

- Why, were Sharon and Luckock interested enough to want to do this, as there is no financial logic to do so - and neither have any previous 'emotional' connection to the BWFC or Bolton in general, nor football in general (I don't buy the guff about Sharon wanting to do this because her dad was once the club doctor at Blackburn or something like that?)

- Why have they knowingly done all this, invested personally a number of millions themselves, yet knowingly structured the club to run at a loss - despite all the hoo-ha of seeking financial 'sustainability?  For instance wages are shown in excess of income - and it was in the hands of FV not to allow this to happen as they recruited everyone from their takeover and only inherited the kids basically.  In short, they knew the business would need to run at an ongoing deficit for a number of years before having any chance to break even - and would unlikely to be anywhere near the Championship (their stated aim) in order to sell the club on (and make a highly unlikely profit from their investment) within their three year target they set themselves?

- In summary what is their reason. their motive for doing all this?

The only reason in the three years that I can see it to possibly be is the property development, they've recently announced.

That's the sole reason why I put forward the thesis as up to now nobody has put forward anything other than the fantasy that we will get in the PL (before FV runs out of funds!) and everything then will be rosy.

That's never going to happen if the business hasn't got the money and players to do so - and we/FV haven't, nor look likely to do so for a number of years if ever under the current custodianship.

I also don't see the likes of Luckock in particular ever being part of the consortium simply for the love of football and or Bolton in particular.

I ask myself the question when I'm trying to investigate something what are the motives, means and opportunities involved. Up to now I've fallen at the first hurdle, the motives.

If I can crack that, then the reason why FV have bought the business despite clearly not having sufficient funds to do so (means) and why they fought so hard to buy the business and pay way,way, wat too much for it (opportunity) will fall into place.

I'm not a developer nor a venture capitalist, so I don't know the likelihood of such a scheme at Middlebrook being successful and what a return to those involved will make - so maybe I am indeed barking up the wrong tree - but it is still the only tree I've seen so far in the three years to bark up!

It does however give a narrative at this stage (to me at least) for the motive (the development), the means (put just enough money in to keep the club going before the big money arrives for the development) and the opportunity - why they paid far too much to acquire the club - it was the land to build the development on that they were really after and were prepared to pay through the nose for.

I look forward to reading your views on why Sharon and Luckock are here and what their motives are?

Rich people don't always horde all their money, Sluffy, and they don't always spend it wisely. Some gamble stupidly, marry gold diggers, buy fleets of expensive cars, yachts or expensive jewellery. A few buy football clubs.

Some convince themselves that what they are doing is sensible, even praiseworthy. Whilst they are spending there's no end of praise; its when they stop spending that the tide of approbation turns and it can be pretty unpleasant when it does.

All true indeed Bob, I can't argue against that.

However money does indeed seem to still being pumped into FV - the last possible minute £2.4m equity for instance on the 28th June - just in time for the extended deadline submission of the accounts.

I clearly don't know Luckock (or Sharon or James come to that) but in his case he's not risen to become a partner at Hg without knowing when to invest and when not to.

He's invested in FV, he was seen as recently at the end of season club awards, so he's clearly not taking his customary backstage role in all this - and which he could somewhat silently have step away from FV - if he saw things as going toxic.  He's still on record as being one of the directors of FV for instance, there's nothing stopping him from resigning if he didn't like the way things were going is there?

Maybe you are right and FV's financial walls are beginning to crumble but why then is the proposed property development seemingly looking to be funded and progressing along as it is so far?

I tend to think the vast majority of people who have made their millions tend to hang on to most of it and it is only the small minority that end up pissing it away.

I still tend to favour my view of the reason they are here is for other than owning a football club on the simple basis that FV could have bought any number of other clubs for similar money which were in a far better financial position than BWFC were at the time (and still continues to be).

Any number of other clubs available with facilities like BWFC for less cost with payment spread over three years? I can't think of too many, Sluffy. Can you?

The problem isn't just buying it though, is it? Its the cost to run it. Just like my old mate discovered. He bought a moated castle and now lives in a shack on a Spanish hillside .

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Any number of other clubs available with facilities like BWFC for less cost with payment spread over three years? I can't think of too many, Sluffy. Can you?

The problem isn't just buying it though, is it? Its the cost to run it. Just like my old mate discovered. He bought a moated castle and now lives in a shack on a Spanish hillside .

Sounds like Breadman.

There's plenty of clubs with decent facilities that have been bought and sold (even sold on again!) in the last three to four years such as Charlton, Wigan, Hull and Reading - all who have played in the Premier League and all who have decent stadiums and facilities.

There are numerous smaller clubs that have been sold for significantly less and could have been bought debt free and still have substantial funding for future seasons running costs out of FV's budget than the circa £28m that FV paid to purchase debt riddled BWFC.

Many of these clubs not even having to be bought out of Administration and all that entails.

I'm not convinced at all that BWFC was in any way the best buy FV could have made within the constraints of what funds it had to put on the table and what time constraints it may have been working to at the time.

The purchase of BWFC was either a vanity purchase - as I believe is the proposition you are suggesting, in respect of Sharon and Luckock, or an economical one as I'm proposing (and only now because of the recent announcement of pushing ahead with a major redevelopment on the land they now own by buying the club - which also brought with it within the purchase, that land for the said development).

I may well be wrong - time will tell of course - but I simply can't see two obviously financially savvy and successful business people such as Sharon and Luckock not knowing the ramifications of a leverage purchase of BWFC and the running cost (and subsequent required underwriting of the succeeding seasonal operating losses) not to have been factored into their decision to buy the club - and paying something like £12m more than what it's actual asset were worth at the time.

I reason they only did that for a purpose and although we don't yet know what that purpose was, I will be utterly shocked if all they wanted to do was to play football club owners whilst blowing a big hole in their own personal bank accounts.

That's the type of things that people like Rebekah Vardy does and I don't see either Sharon or Luckock to be either so vain, delusional or utterly stupid as she clearly was.

However have said all that, your view still stands and will do so until time will prove which one of us was closest to the truth of the matter.

I will have a good laugh though if it really was as simple as Sharon and Luckock being dumb enough to get caught with their financial knickers down by believing they somehow could play football club owner and not have it turn around and bite them in their financial bums!

Aren't all the clubs you've mentioned Sluffy, money pits that have become available because previous owners have become weary of the drain on their finances or simply unable to keep shelling out the cash?

Nick Luckock seems to be connected to Sharon through a number of companies as are several other people who have either been involved or rumoured to have been involved in the acquisition of BWFC.

For example, Sharon Brittan, Nick Luckock, Nick Mason, Jeff Thomas and Keith Harris are all shareholders in the loss making Disciple Media Ltd, Luckock replacing Thomas as a director in July 2021.

If there is anyone with the inside track on the Middlebrook Masterplan it would be Michael James. Yet Michael, who originally took a 25% stake in FV has twice, whilst coughing up more money, allowed his percentage stake to be reduced. Meanwhile PBP were so keen to get their money out that they were willing to write off all the interest due to them.  The debt repayment should have happened by close of play yesterday, but did it?

Nick Luckock started out with a modest 12.5% stake but he too, it seems, has allowed it to drop below the critical 10% level. Or has he? BMLL now has 10.26% and who owns that and who controls it?

BMLL has, it seems, paid £4m for 10.26% at £8.48 per share. If Luckock could get £8.48 per share for his shares he'd have more than doubled his money. They all would.

Its Sue Davies I feel sorry for. Do you think she's ever visited the room with her late husband's name on the door in 'recognition' of the £200m he spent on BWFC? 

P.S. There's a few other interesting names with shares in Disciple Media:

e.g. Rick Parry (Chairman of the EFL)
      Michael James
      Mark Noble

See if you can spot any more.

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

I've no idea what is in peoples minds when they do what they do Bob but nearly everyone acts in the way they do for something that matters to them, whether it be money, power, influence, or just for the love/enjoyment of it, etc, etc.

Understanding what their motive is gives the explanation to their actions.

They say if something looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.  I see the likes of successful financial business people which Sharon and Luckock are, acting like successful business people here at BWFC and not leaving their business brains at the door the moment they walk through that door into the Reebok.

Yes, all this could be a vanity project for them both, a bit of a flutter if you like but even then I fully suspect they have done it in a cold and calculated way with forecasts and spread sheets, breakeven points and cash flow projects and not an emotional 'well I'll bung in another half million or so again, just to keep us going until next month' type of planning.

As for shareholding percentage reductions - yes James and Luckock's have fallen a percentage or two (Sharon's as well) but they've also seen the value of their shares jump something like sixfold too - on paper at least they've got substantially richer!

Yes, we don't know who hold the shares - for all we know Sharon, James and Luckock could have already sold all their shareholdings to Ken Anderson for instance - and we won't know unless someone triggers the significant shareholding threshold reporting or until next January's Shareholders Statement.

There's nothing we can do about that.

As for Sue Davies, I don't know how she feels.  I would have hoped that Eddie would have shared with her and their children what money he was spending on BWFC and all that he was, was being done so with their blessing.

Maybe the money means nothing to her if she has enough already to see out her days and her children are financially secured?

Who knows - certainly not us.

Maybe you are correct about everything, Sharon and Luckock are idiots and heading for a massive financial fall and that Sue Davies has seen her children's inheritance frittered away on a football club that ultimately fell into Administration and the stress of it heading towards that Administration foreshortened the life of her husband.

Maybe there is a different narrative, Sharon and Luckock have spotted a lucrative financial deal that others have missed and that Sue Davies is more than happy to see the back of BWFC and doesn't regret her husbands enjoyment or expenditure on the passion he loved.

I'm not close enough to anyone to know which is nearer to the mark - and frankly I wouldn't wish to be even if I had the opportunity.  All this is just a sort of game to me, a puzzle as to what has gone on/is going on/will be going on in the future - at the footy club of the town I was born in many moons ago.

If people want to be daft/astute (cross out whichever does not apply) with their fortunes then that's up to them.

I'll still support BWFC long after they are gone and which ever division we end up in.

I just see it all as a fun way to try and work out what direction we are heading in and if and when it might just all go wrong for us again (as I certainly don't expect us to be rubbing shoulders with the big boys of the Premier League again anytime soon!).

Football is just a game when all said and done isn't it?

We don't know the answers do we, Sluffy, but its always seemed a bit on the manipulative side to me.

e.g. the administrators misrepresenting the debt owed to Ken Anderson that he owed to EDT, Anderson being blamed for being obstructive and for the delays when the delays weren't very long at all and he was holding out for the security that he was absolutely entitled to.

And then there's Sharon turning on the charm like you'd turn on a light bulb whilst Bolton supporters in their thousands believe that she is the selfless embodiment of Snow White and Anderson the devil incarnate.

As I understand it Eddie's children and grandchildren didn't see much of Eddie's £millions whilst he was alive and it was his Trust that took the biggest hit in the FV takeover and another big hit when they were paid off at a further substantial discount.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
P.S. There's a few other interesting names with shares in Disciple Media:

e.g. Rick Parry (Chairman of the EFL)
      Michael James
      Mark Noble

See if you can spot any more.

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

Indeed there is Bob.

I've had a quick look to see what Disciple Media is all about (at first glance at least the clue seems to be in its name!).

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

All the tools you need to
grow, engage and monetize
your community

Unlock valuable insights into which
content is performing best
Keep an eye on your most and least
engaged members

Turn your members into subscribers

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

Followers comment, like and share.
Disciples connect, believe and grow.

Disciples Believe (!!!)

Revenue is always yours
to keep


As a musician, I had my own community of
fans and followers. What I didn’t have was my
own space to grow and manage that
community in the way that worked for me. So,
I set out to create that space…

Along the way, I found a lot of other community managers
with the same problem. Health and wellness coaches, film
stars, YouTubers, politicians and celebrity chefs were all
looking for a platform that, unlike Facebook or a website,
empowers community hosts. They needed a way to build,
manage and control their own private, social apps. So we
created Disciple, a platform that gives communities their
wn mobile meeting spacesm where the can gather and
interact in the ways that work for them.”

Benjamin Vaughan – CEO, Disciple

(Ben Vaughn - wiki - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] )


Seems to be a touch controlling and Big Brotherish for my liking.

I'm not a Pink Floyd fan but I did note a couple of their names as shareholders, so I'm guessing they use this 'Disciple' network thingy for their fan club followers to give them news and flog them stuff.

I note that Jeff Thomas is listed as the 33rd shareholder followed Sharon then by Nick Mason, Neil Donovan (who he?) then Luckock, so I'm guessing they all bought shares at or around the same time?  Not sure it means anything it itself except to show a shared financial investment link between Sharon, Luckock, Thomas and Mason has been going on for sometime (although we don't know when they bought their shares but certainly predates everyone else following them of the 80 shareholders in total - Michael James is listed at 64 for instance).

Wonder if part of FV's original plan was to get all of fans and ST holders signed up to 'Disciple' then 'milk' us all (although I'm sure they wouldn't phrase it like that!)?

I'm not a disciple of Orwellian newspeak, Sluffy, and Lady Bobsworth might well have me sectioned if I told her that I need tools:

 'to grow, engage and monetize my community'


You don't suppose that the Shazza Squad and the Brittan Bunch might all be immigrants from Orwell's Oceania, do you?

I liked the line about 'keeping your eye on the least engaged members'...!!!

I guess I would certainly be one of those as I don't buy into such stuff like many seem to do - certainly in recent years - people to easily believe in gospel what they are fed on social media.

One of the cases studies on the site is for The Rolling Stones.  

I can see the logic of them wanting to control their worldwide promotions and marketing directly rather than paying a third party to do it but I think it would be a tad too Big Brotherish to do the same for BWFC, if indeed that was once one of their plans (maybe it still is - after all they've brought in the scheme for everyone to be registered in order to buy a matchday ticket online?).

Maybe the plan was to buy shares in the company first then acquire a well known 'brand' (BWFC for instance) make it a success and then watch other clubs and companies go down the same path and watch their shares in the company rocket!

Maybe I'm getting carried away a bit but I don't like coincidences and Sharon, Luckock, Mason and Thomas all buying into the company at the same time and all three (four if Mason is who Sharon is proxy for) rocking up at the Reebok together is more planned by design than just a happy accident, in my book.


I wonder why Thomas bailed out of FV so earlier, there must have been a reason?

I wandered lonely as a Cloud
   That floats on high o'er Vales and Hills,
When all at once I saw
Ten million quids worth of intellectual property.



Well that's what the Shazza Squad saw when they wandered down to the Reebok.
It says so in the audited accounts that Sharon has signed off (twice).


Its not what I'm seeing, mind you.


Do you think PBP got their money on Monday, Sluffy? Do you think someone should ask?

P.S. This document refers to a debenture in favour of Keith Harris as well as the others. Harris is reported to be a lifelong Rags fan amongst other things. Sorry but I don't know what the status of that debenture is.

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

Sluffy wrote:Disciples connect, believe and grow.

You're a bad disciple Bob, you MUST believe otherwise they will come for you...!


To be serious it all seems rather odd to me and although the model may work fine for an international super group like The Rolling Stones I can't see it working on a small town type footy club like BWFC.

We've no idea even if this was the intellectual property worth paying £10m more for the club than the assets were actually worth - God help them if that actually WAS the initial plan!

As for the PBP loan, no I doubt it was paid up and no one will be asking about it - the esteemed one is tweeting away from Mexico at the moment...

Said I would do a double Tequila if the Lionesses won it in extra time. Vamanos! [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ???????????????????????? [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.]

...so he is once again completely oblivious of key financial deadlines at the club.

It always surprises me that as the Chief Football Writer (that's what he states in his twitter handle anyway) of the paper that he always seems to go missing at the most important times - he was wallpapering his kids bedroom when we were minutes away from being liquidated at court for instance (and had to rely on that Bolton fan 'Smurf' who went to court and tweeted to us all we were saved!).

He's missed the start of the season this time - when every single Wanderers fan have been so looking forward to it, he's on duty when clubs are having the international break weekends then takes weeks off during our key promotion or relegation run ins (he went to Mexico previously for a stag do on one such occasion!)

I know he's entitled to his holidays and he has a family who no doubt have their own commitments to work around but I do question his professionalism to his job when he misses really key events as often as he does.

Finally it really isn't anybody else's business other than FV's and PBP's if the loan is settled but we will find out soon enough if CH reports the charge to be settled.

I won't be holding my breath until such a form is filed though, I doubt you will either!

I don't agree that its none of our business, Sluffy. We've invested a lifetime's support into BWFC and are entitled to enquire as to what the 'here today, gone tomorrow' custodians are up to.

And to be perfectly frank they've been persistently delaying and hiding the facts whilst spinning like Lock and Laker. Yes I know you might be too young but I remember them.

The reality seems to be that FV have been scratching around for the cash to buy and run the club from day one and are still scratching around. I expect Tom Morris thinks he's waited long enough to get his money back and offered to write off the interest to get it. We shall see but I'm as doubtful as you are that he has.

I can't see the name of Tom Morris as 'an investor' in Disciple Media. He strikes me as the kind of man who likes to sell real things to real people.

As for Iles, I don't think he'd be asking the question even if he weren't engaged in filling his face with fajitas.

I also checked to see if Tom Morris name as an investor in 'Disciple' as well!

I'm not so sure that even being a lifelong consumer of a company's product that that gives anyone the immediate right to know the private and confidential business transactions of a creditor to that company.

I wouldn't expect to know if my local chippy has paid his potato supplier on time, or my favourite coffee shop settled his bill for those delicious Biscoff biscuits they serve with it. nor whether the local cinema has settled their popcorn suppliers credit account - so why should I think differently because it is my local football club I support?

Also my nosiness would also involve another company and its financial affairs that I have no direct interest in at all.  Why should their financial confidentiality be breeched simply to satisfy my desire to know about FV's affairs?

Yes I would be interested to know if the loan has been settled but I certainly don't believe I have the unquestionable right to be told - nor would I expect an answer if I demanded one from FV.

Iles in his position as local journalist does have some validity to ask in terms of public interest but we all know he's no more use than a chocolate teapot when it comes to any form of even basic financial investigative journalism - you would have thought he might have been better at it by now after all we've been through during his years of reporting the clubs financial woes whilst he's been in post here.

As for Lock and Laker, I didn't see them play but I always felt sorry for Tony Lock only taking the one wicket in the Test Match when Jim Laker took the other 19!

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

I do remember Jim Laker fondly as a match commentator though.

Sluffy wrote:

  Why should their financial confidentiality be breeched simply to satisfy my desire to know about FV's affairs?

Because they've been wangling taxpayers handouts and taking money from Lifeline and telling all the supporters how wonderful they all are and how its one town, one club and one community (so long as its no questions asked maybe).

And Iles has been telling anybody daft enough to believe him that there was no such thing as limited liability so far as Ken Anderson was concerned and that all unpaid bills of the club were his bills and that Michael James had concocted some 'so called' commercial deal implying he was out to feather his own nest.

I just like to get to the unvarnished facts and, when all is said and done, BWFC might not have survived if FV hadn't stepped in.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

  Why should their financial confidentiality be breeched simply to satisfy my desire to know about FV's affairs?

Because they've been wangling taxpayers handouts and taking money from Lifeline and telling all the supporters how wonderful they all are and how its one town, one club and one community (so long as its no questions asked maybe).

And Iles has been telling anybody daft enough to believe him that there was no such thing as limited liability so far as Ken Anderson was concerned and that all unpaid bills of the club were his bills and that Michael James had concocted some 'so called' commercial deal implying he was out to feather his own nest.

I just like to get to the unvarnished facts and, when all is said and done, BWFC might not have survived if FV hadn't stepped in.

I think you may have misunderstood the point I was trying to make here Bob, I'm not talking about FV per se, I'm talking about PBP.

Just because you or I want to know about FV's debt to PBP - we also need to accept in order to do that we need to know the opposite side of the equation, PBP's loan to FV.

My point is that no matter what we would wish know from FV because of all the things you say above - it doesn't give us any rights moral or legal, to know about PBP's confidential business dealings.

As for Iles he's a complete plant pot and should keep his mouth shut if he doesn't know what he's saying about financial matters and he simply stirs shit up to the gormless that believe everything he says about it.

As for Sharon, the phrase I've always had in the back of my mind since she turned up is 'too good to be true'.

Perhaps I'm simply not good Disciple material!

She and others saved the club for a reason - I've yet to figure out what that really was - the rest of it for me is slick marketing from her to get the fans on her side and putting money into BWFC's coffers once again.

I've no reason to not believe she both means and has acted well but for me there's something behind all of this something yet hidden from our sight.

Maybe one day we will find out why they fought so hard to keep us from liquidation, spent £12m or so over what they actually acquired in assets and put their own personal wealth on the line for?

BWFC might mean a lot to us but why does it mean so much to them to do all this?