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

No 'Levelling Up' funds for the 'Middlebrook Masterplan'.

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

Confirmation statement has landed at CH.
A few A shares issued to somebody called Ian Riley and B shares to Ian Evatt and Neil Hart.
Shares funded by Mason and the insurance guy are still in Sharon’s name.
I’ll take a more detailed look in due course

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Confirmation statement has landed at CH.
A few A shares issued to somebody called Ian Riley and B shares to Ian Evatt and Neil Hart.
Shares funded by Mason and the insurance guy are still in Sharon’s name.
I’ll take a more detailed look in due course

Thanks for the heads up Bob.

Following the last allotment of shares on 9th November, 2022 there is reported to be £5,270,651.192 shares in existence -

5,270,627 A shares at a nominal share value of £1.00 = £5,270,627

and,

241,992 B shares at a nominal value of £0.001 = £24.192


The breakdown of the A shares -

2,666,406 - Sharon
952,500 - James
455,226 - Luckock
393,881 - FF Nominees (the government)
649,399 - BMLL (Luckock's company)
153,215 - Ian Riley ???

Total - 5,270,627 - so it balances for A shares above.

The breakdown of the B shares -

135,475 - Evatt
106,445 - Hart

Total - 24,192 - so that balances as well.


To be honest I don't really know that much about B shares, maybe Bob can enlighten us a little bit - but I think it is something like the bring higher dividends to the holders of them but have lower voting rights - or something like that?


Anyway, assuming the B shares don't carry much sway in who controls the company then the following is how things stand

Sharon - 50.59%
James - 18.07%
Luckock - 8.64%
FF Nominees - 7.47%
BMLL (Luckock's company) - 12.32%
Ian Riley - 2.91%

Which totals (without any cheating!) to exactly 100%


(Note Sharon acts as a proxy for at least one other unnamed person).

Now who is Mr Ian Riley, who if he paid for his 153,215 shares at the November 2022 issue price of £6.52673 spent £1m (well £999,992.937 to be exact).

Might be this Ian Riley perhaps.

Chairman of Bolton School who seems to be a venture capitalist who was on the founding team (not exactly sure what that means - ie is he still with them, is he the boss, as he since left, etc?) that set up Vitruvian Partners - which is a private equity company focusing on "leveraged buyout and growth capital investments in middle-market companies".

I'm no expert in these things but according to wiki (yes I know) Vitruvian deals in £billions!

Maybe he's Sharon's exit plan perhaps?

Anyway - (this) Mr Riley's self profile taken from Bolton School - (note the article was published in 2014 so his age is around sixty years old by now)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

and wiki write up about Vitruvian Partners -
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Vitruvian Partners - Companies House Mr Riley shown as an existing director -
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

(It might be another Ian Riley remember - so don't get carried away just in case!).

Although I will throw in that the new sixth form college at Bolton School is named after him as the main benefactor - and it cost £7m!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks Sluffy. This does appear to be the man in question and he's evidently made a bob or two.

Isn't it interesting that the name only emerges months after his investment from a document filed at CH? You don't suppose that the BN's 'finger on the pulse', the esteemed Marc Iles, knew but was sworn to secrecy, do you? No I don't either.

I wouldn't attach too much significance to the B shares but there does still seem to be a few closely guarded secrets for some reason or other.

Thanks Bob.

Just out of curiosity I thought I would see what change in share ownership has happened from last years confirmation statement to the current one.

This year - last year - change in shares

2,666,406 - 2,393,750 - +272,656 - Sharon
952,500 - 882,189 - +70,311 - James
455,226 - 455,226 - no change - Luckock
393,881 - 393,881 - no change - FF Nominees (the government)
649,399 - nil - +649,399 - BMLL (Luckock's company)
153,215 - nil - + 153,216 - Ian Riley

Not sure it shows much really but if we assume the three share issues between the two statements were at the £6.52673 per share rate (the price for the issue in January 2022 was never really made clear - it seem to state the price paid to be at a £ per share, whilst share issues immediately before and since have been at a much higher price) then,

Sharon's shares have cost a further £1,780,000
James - £460,000
BMLL - £4,240,000, and.
Ian Riley - £1m

Which totals to a sum of £7,480,000 for the year.



I still can't see why people are pouring so much money into a business running at a loss, with debts (PBP £6m) that can't be paid off and light years away from being a Premier League club again, just to say they are a football club owner!

There's got to be something else (Reebok development?) surely?

Thanks Sluffy

I'll take a look at the B shares at the weekend but I do think that they are insignificant and can be disregarded for the time being.

My calculations show that since the last confirmation statement there has been two new 'A' share issues:
28.06.22 £2,400,000 for 367,717 'A' shares
09.11.22 £2,000,000 for 306,430 'A' shares
Total £4,400,000 for 674,147 'A' shares
It looks like the second share issue may have been raised to settle the debt owed to Brett Warburton. £1million seems to have come from Ian Riley the rest being split between Team Brittan, Mike James and Team BMLL. The 'A' shareholdings now seem to be as follows:

Team Brittan 50.59% (includes Nick Mason & the insurance bloke)
Mike James 18.07%
Nick Luckock 8.64%
Ian Riley 2.91%
Team BMLL 12.32% (whoever they are)
UK FF Nominees 7.47% (aka Team Jeremy Hunt)

Total 100.00%

I make the total amount contributed for the 'A shares to be £26,052,443 including capitalised interest.

Thanks Bob, same percentages as I calculated above -

Sluffy wrote: Anyway, assuming the B shares don't carry much sway in who controls the company then the following is how things stand

Sharon - 50.59%
James - 18.07%
Luckock - 8.64%
FF Nominees - 7.47%
BMLL (Luckock's company) - 12.32%
Ian Riley - 2.91%

Which totals (without any cheating!) to exactly 100%


(Note Sharon acts as a proxy for at least one other unnamed person)

I do however believe there were three A share issues since the Confirmation Statement of last year, the initial one being on the 28th January, 2022.

Whether by accident or design the Conformation Statement last year for share ownership at the 10th January, 2022 was only filed AFTER the 28th January, 2022 issue and therefore would not have included it.

I also noted that this issue seemed not to contained the true price of the actual share cost because share issues before and after this date were significantly higher.

Sluffy wrote:Not sure it shows much really but if we assume the three share issues between the two statements were at the £6.52673 per share rate (the price for the issue in January 2022 was never really made clear - it seem to state the price paid to be at a £ per share, whilst share issues immediately before and since have been at a much higher price) then...

I've not worked out the total amount contributed for the current A shares - as I never really understood why the shares suddenly jumped from £1 to over £8 when the government got involved, then reduced to over £6 when the government had bought their shares, then dropped back to face value of a £ per share for the January 2022 issue (which we all presume was an error on filing(?)) then returning to over £6 a share since?

I mention this because if you've arrived at your total by working through each individual share issue, then your total may be understated if you had inadvertently overlooked the 28th January 2022 share issue due to the Confirmation Statement for 10th January, 2022 being filed out of date sequence.

Hope the above may be of some help to you, Bob.

Thanks Sluffy.

Sorry but, in my haste (should know better at my age), I hadn't noticed that you had already put up the percentage holdings.

I'd also forgotten that £4m worth of shares had been issued to BMLL between the date due for filing of the previous confirmation and the date it was actually filed.

The prices per share are the product of the amount subscribed and the number of shares issued and, I agree, they do seem bizarre.

I still get to the £26m figure overall plus, I think its all of 24 quid for the 'B' shares. I expect this is some sort of incentive scheme for Ian Evatt and Neil Hart should everything come up roses.

Thanks Bob.

I probably sent you to sleep with having to read through one of my lengthy tomes above - it happens!


I've a question for you though Bob!

It seems to me that before FV went after the government handout, that it behaved in much the same way the club had been financed before, namely by loans being secured against assets.

To qualify for the government handout FV had to match the government's investment and for that to be done by putting in equity - hence FV issuing and buying more shares in itself.

Now that the government is just a sleeping partner so to speak, why didn't FV simply revert back to securing loans against assets if it simply wanted to raise money to pay off Warburton?

Why carry on buying shares when (in theory) if the club ran into Administration again all their money put into shares would be lost but secured creditors (such as Ian Riley could easily have been) would be the first in line to get their money back?


In a sense it is very positive that such new share issues and purchases are being made as it shows confidence that the company is financially sound and is nowhere near living hand to mouth.

However contrast that with the company having no money to pay off PBP, (or Warburton until the last share issue) and the club and hotel continually trading at a loss.

The two views really don't go together do they?

There is to my mind something else underpinning all this - would the Reebok development really be so lucrative to them all, or is it simply rich people (or people with rich personal backers?) simply wanting to fulfil their wish of being a football club owner, or maybe something else entirely?


The question just to remind you is why do you think Riley, BMLL et al have bought shares in FV when they could simply have secured their investment against assets?

It seems to me that the 'new' money is seen as an investment in the future (rather than a loan for the present) with returns being made as dividends to the shareholders rather than compound interest being paid).

Would that be your take too, or do you have other views?

That’s a long question, Sluffy, and I prefer to address things in ‘bite-sized’ pieces. Otherwise folk are soon lost if they even embark on a journey of understanding at all. 

I’m still seeing no business case for investing in FV and so I think that folk are investing money they may be able to afford to lose for other reasons. Clearly there are financially aware folk who wanted their money out, content to write off large amounts to get it out. PBP are still in the queue.

Sharon has said she wanted to buy BWFC because she was interested in football and wanted ‘to do good’. Do I believe her? Yes to a point but she does seem to relish being in control and I don’t doubt there were other opportunities to have a stake in a football club and ‘to do good’ closer to where she lives in High Wycombe.

Does that help?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:That’s a long question, Sluffy, and I prefer to address things in ‘bite-sized’ pieces. Otherwise folk are soon lost if they even embark on a journey of understanding at all. 

I’m still seeing no business case for investing in FV and so I think that folk are investing money they may be able to afford to lose for other reasons. Clearly there are financially aware folk who wanted their money out, content to write off large amounts to get it out. PBP are still in the queue.

Sharon has said she wanted to buy BWFC because she was interested in football and wanted ‘to do good’. Do I believe her? Yes to a point but she does seem to relish being in control and I don’t doubt there were other opportunities to have a stake in a football club and ‘to do good’ closer to where she lives in High Wycombe.

Does that help?

Thanks for your reply Bob.

I was really playing around with the idea as to why people have done one thing and not another - they must have reasons for doing so.

Let us start off with the premise that 'real' business people know what they are getting into in buying a football club and that it isn't for instant profit.

I've opined several times before that Sharon (and her backer/s?) could have got herself a sounder financial footy club for a better deal and much nearer home if she simply wanted to - so why go through the wringer just to buy BWFC to which she has no historical or emotional attachment to previously?

She did though, she's clearly an astute businesswoman, so what was her reasoning to go through all that she did?  Just to do good, because she's interested in football - well maybe she did.

I'm cynical of it truly being so though.

Ok, she buys BWFC with James (a lifelong BWFC fan) and Luckock (a venture capitalist whom you have doubts about his personal wealth since he left the venture capital firm he was a partner of).

They save Bolton by having the creditors from the Administration to carry over their loans to FV but clearly still have money issues resulting in Eddie Davies Trust basically writing off nearly all of what was owed to it.

Still though they can't settle their debts to Warburton and PBP (who I suspect tolerates the non payment more to do with James relationship with his mate Tom Morris, more than anything else).

Then Covid comes along and with it the government loan wrangle - which ends up with them changing from having their money in FV as secured assets, to swapping the loans to equity.

Ok understandable if they needed the money which presumably at the time they did.

We also hear that the Reebok development seems to be moving forward again - was this the real reason Sharon and/or Luckock are here?

Who knows, but it does provide a different narrative to them being here IF there is profit for them in such a development.

Next we get this mysterious Swiss Consortium chucking in a few million to buy FV shares via a company run by Luckock.

Are FV shares really worth £6 a pop right now?

I very much doubt it if the only value in the company is a penniless football team and a hotel in sunny Horwich.

It would make more sense to me that if these millions are really a loan (think BluMarble) then put a charge and secure it against assets (which are now free of charges because the previous ones have had to be settle to allow the money to be used as the required equity to secure the governments Covid loan).

So why has there been at least £4.4m in the last year by your reckoning used to buy shares in FV rather than what normally would be done, by securing the money against assets?

Why has Ian Riley bought £1m worth of shares himself?

It seems to me something more than investing in a cash strapped third tier, provincial, northern town, football club (and situated in the shadow of the two Manchester clubs), it seems to me to be an investment into FV - whatever FV now is - which I reckon is more than the club, stadium and hotel.

I can't put my finger on it, is a Reebok development so lucrative to suck in outside investors - I don't know - but Sharon, Luckock and BLMM (whoever is behind it) aren't here to play football club owner at BWFC - they can do that at Wycombe Wanderers on their doorstep I dare say if they simply wanted to do that.

Obviously I can understand James and Riley chucking into the pot being local lads but why buy shares when they can easily secure their money on club assets?

James has bought a further £460,000 worth of FV shares in the last year - he clear doesn't see FV to be struggling financially (or that he will be losing his money!) - I'm beginning to see them thinking of FV being an 'investment' in which their share values will increase.

I can't see the shares going north of £6 each based just on BWFC and the hotel alone - can you?

Obviously Bob I don't know what is the plan but whatever it is people are investing in FV via share equity and not by fixed term secured loans - and there must be a reason why that is so.

Actions speak louder than words if you see what I mean.

Don't worry Bob, Marc Iles will explain all!!!

Going off the recent documents at Companies House, this is the shareholder make-up of Football Ventures (Whites) Ltd, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]'s parent club.
I am planning to explain it all a little further, so bear with me. Evatt/Hart's are B shares, which don't normally come with voting rights. [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.]

As I've said above, I don't really understand where B shares fits into all of this but I notice that Iles has shown on his pie chart above that he includes them in his percentages to how the shares are allocated - and as such shows Sharon's holding at 48.4%.

Now up to the B shares being created and issued on the 21stb January, 2022, Sharon was shown on the Confirmation Statement of the 10th January, 2022 to own more than 50% and less than 75% of the shares issued and as such was 'a person with significant control'.

If Iles is right in his diagram showing Sharon owning less than 50% of the shares then FV are legally required to have informed Companies House of this change - and haven't done so.

Either Iles is right and FV have not complied with Companies House requirements or Iles is wrong in what he's posted.

Tbh I don't know which of the two it is, as both Iles and FV have cocked things up in the past - Iles with most of what he states about accounts and FV with their series of bizarre filings to CH in the period October 2021 to January 2022.

Of course, I’ve said this before, and I’m fully aware this is pure conjecture, but isn’t there a chance that rich people with money to spare might just be doing this for fun?

You might say that, for example, a Man City supporter could never be interested in owning part of Bolton, but he’d never get a piece of Man City, so if he wanted to own part of a football club, why not Bolton? In fact, I’d say, what better choice?

BarrygoestoBolton wrote:Of course, I’ve said this before, and I’m fully aware this is pure conjecture, but isn’t there a chance that rich people with money to spare might just be doing this for fun?

You might say that, for example, a Man City supporter could never be interested in owning part of Bolton, but he’d never get a piece of Man City, so if he wanted to own part of a football club, why not Bolton? In fact, I’d say, what better choice?

Hello Barry, good to hear from you, as always.

You might be bang on, as nobody knows any different.

They say you judge others by your own standards and that being the case it simply doesn't work for me that people who have worked hard in life would piss their money away in such a fashion.

Yes you've got the two Hollywood stars doing exactly this at Wrexham and you had Abramovitch at Chelsea but would you put Sharon in the same mindset - she started out as a shorthand typist and did well for herself from there using her brains and personality.

Would she burn through her millions on a whim of being a club owner?

If you are going to do that then why not buy a little non league club and guide it up the divisions - I imagine that's more fun that fighting Anderson in Administration and having a 200 mile round journeys from home every time you want to visit your club you've bought.

I just can't see people with a work ethic being frivolous with what they've spent years trying to earn.

Who knows, maybe she's having a midlife crisis, or it's something on her bucket list, or some such.

I just can't see it myself but that's probably because I've had to work hard for what I've got and pissing away millions on a football club would just seem madness to me - even if it was on Bolton where I was born and raised and who I have supported all my life - let alone a club I have absolutely zero previous affinity too.

Good luck to her and all that, she seems a decent sort but I'd be amazed if the only reason she was here was simply fulfilling an ambition to own a club - any club - and it just happened to be Bolton - miles away from home and bought in the most difficult circumstances, with no money to clear the debts she took on and simply happy to sink what, the best part of £10m by now of her life savings into it so far?

(Then again it may not actually be all her money that's funding her desire...)

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

Just a thought as she is a proxy for at least one other unnamed shareholder.

Sluffy wrote:Don't worry Bob, Marc Iles will explain all!!!

Going off the recent documents at Companies House, this is the shareholder make-up of Football Ventures (Whites) Ltd, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]'s parent club.
I am planning to explain it all a little further, so bear with me. Evatt/Hart's are B shares, which don't normally come with voting rights. [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.]

“ I am planning to explain it all further”, says the man who explained how Gordon Hargreaves funded the Reebok Stadium. You couldn’t make it up.

I don’t believe Iles has prepared any of this. It’s probably Kieran Maguire

I’ll get back on the other stuff. Busy day yesterday and I also have to keep up with VinceUlike and followers on Robinsnest. There’s some right wallies on there but ctfc-fan seems OK.

Just a quick one, Sluffy. Team Brittan seems to have contributed less than £10m in total and its split between three of them. Not necessarily equally but Nick Mason and Keith Morris each own at least 10% of the shares and so does Nick Luckock according to this:

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

If they could sell their shares for the £6.53 per share paid by Ian Riley or the  £9.70 per share paid by BMLL they'd have made a tidy profit, wouldn't they? Its a big IF of course.

Loans or shares? A few quick points:

1. Companies that can't afford to pay the interest should not really be borrowing money at all unless survival depends on it and there's a way out.
2. Lenders should be very wary about lending money to companies that can't afford to pay the interest.
3. P& L accounts look healthier when not hit by interest charges
4. Balance sheets look healthier with bigger share capital and smaller debt
5. Tax considerations. Lets not get too complicated but there are significant differences

Thanks Bob.

I recall us seeing the Team Brittan link above from the BWFC website some months back and at the time we believed it to be outdated.

It may well have been updated since then but if so it has again been superseded in that BMLL Ltd now owns above 10% of the current share holding in FV.

One interesting point that popped into my head whilst typing this just now, is that if BMLL Ltd do own (or at one pointed owned) 10% or more of a share of the club, then by EFL rules they should have been subjected to a 'fit and proper' ownership scrutiny!

As for your notes on loans v shares, thank you.

My point was really a bit more nuanced than the 'black and white' between the two.

What I was attempting to show was a change in mindset from those investing in FV since the government loan to share ownership deal, from those (including Sharon and Luckock) putting their money into the club in a way as such so as to not lose it if the 'plan' (whatever that may have been) failed, by securing their 'creditor' status by loaning money against assets, to the current direct investment into share equity, with no apparent concern for the 'venture' to now fail and instead even attracting new investment from others (BMLL Ltd and Ian Riley) who presumably see the share price they paid to be value for money - and even hoping (if BMLL is a vehicle for venture capitalists money) to grow and return them a profit.

If you see what I'm getting at?

The investment perception seems to have changed from initial risk avoidance (directors loans secured against assets) to none risk avoidance (increasingly putting equity directly into the company - and widening share ownership to others too).

And, if you will, in Sharon and James case, even paying £6.53 for additional shares (even though as you state in your post above, that it's hard to imagine anyone currently wanting to buy them off them at that price).

Something's changed in the mindset don't you think?

Well I do at least and if so there's got to have been a reason for that.