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

BarrygoestoBolton wrote:I'm not going to speculate on the motivations of Sharon & Nick, but here are a few initial observations on the statutory accounts – some of this may repeat comments by others.  Please excuse me if that's the case!


I see they were signed on 28^th June, so probably lodged with Companies House on time – as I understand it CH always take a few days to put lodged documents on the site.

Unless I have misunderstood the wording, the audit has not been ‘qualified’ – a good thing!

The loss has come down a lot from the previous year - £1.467m down from £3.850m.

A lot of this is old news as it appeared in the post-balance sheet notes for the 2019/20 accounts.


For example, we already knew that an agreement had been reached with the Eddie Davies Trust to write off £2.75m of debt upon payment of £2.75m and a further £250k on promotion.
As Sluffy has commented, my assertion about the way the Future Fund works was correct – the £5m loan was provided 50% by the FF and 50% by shareholders (note 18).  This loan, which was always convertible, was actually converted into shares in October 2021, as was a further £7.5m of loans.

Again, as I suggested, but could not be certain until now, the shares issued in January 2022 were not issued at £1 each, which was their nominal value – I assume the CH document contained an error. I just couldn’t see why the price would have dropped between those October and the following January. It turns out they were issued at a price of £8.485 – the same price as the non-discounted shares issued in October 2021 (the FF and other convertible shares were, as is required under the FF scheme, issued at a 20% discount). 


I haven’t had a good look at the creditor situation yet, but I’d note a couple of points.  The accounts refer to Loan One (note 18) for £2.5m.  There is no mention of interest as the loan sits at the same value as last year. The latest administrator’s report for BWFC2019, note 5, reported a loan of £3,064,213 inclusive of interest, owed to Mr Warburton, secured on freehold land at Lostock adjacent to the training ground.  It might be fair to assume that these are one and the same, albeit with the interest missing for whatever reason.  The accounts also note that ‘…surplus land at Academy Way, Lostock, Bolton.’ has been sold.  Interesting?

Otherwise, although I haven’t done all the sums yet, I’m fairly sure the increase in creditors is simply the shareholder loans and convertible loan note for the FF deal, all of which have now been converted to equity.  Obviously, after that, the two big outstanding loans are the Warburton loan and the PBP loan, the latter having Michael James involvement.

A quick look at the creditors falling due after 12 months shows Other Creditors at £9.840m, of which the two loans mentioned above come to £9.688m, so very much the lion’s share.  Of the £8.179m Other Borrowings, £7,368,205 was the FF loan and a shareholder loan, both of which were converted into equity, as were the Loan Notes shown at £4,777,362.

I can’t see that there is enough detail to comment on the state of the administration other than in respect of the two large secured loans, but I’ll have a better look through when I’m less busy. One problem is that the administrator’s report for BWFC2019 was issued for year-ended 26^th January 2022, so it might be difficult reconciling this with the FVW accounts that run to different dates.

BarrygoestoBolton wrote:Good morning Bob.  That’s a good question. It actually appears as a post-balance sheet event in last year’s statutory accounts (note 23). No idea why it they haven’t put it in this one.

wanderlust wrote:

BarrygoestoBolton wrote:Good morning Bob.  That’s a good question. It actually appears as a post-balance sheet event in last year’s statutory accounts (note 23). No idea why it they haven’t put it in this one.

Saved me the trouble Barry - cheers. What do you make of the Radisson Hotels deal? And UKFF? There's obviously been some wheeling and dealing going on and despite EDT write off +1Y creditors are up by a mill. Seems like there are some serious moves afoot.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
I'm unsure whether Brother Maguire has addressed it but can I ask, on behalf of Norpig, where Barry and Sluffy think the £2.75m EDT write off is in the profit and loss account.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:The first thing I noticed was that the £5.3m described as 'Other operating income ' isn't explained.

BarrygoestoBolton wrote:Good morning Bob.  That’s a good question. It actually appears as a post-balance sheet event in last year’s statutory accounts (note 23). No idea why it they haven’t put it in this one.

wanderlust wrote:
Saved me the trouble Barry - cheers. What do you make of the Radisson Hotels deal? And UKFF? There's obviously been some wheeling and dealing going on and despite EDT write off +1Y creditors are up by a mill. Seems like there are some serious moves afoot.

Sluffy wrote:You are very welcome Bob, you've helped me out numerous times.

I don't pretend to understand where all this is going and how the big boys will slice up the cake and get their shares in the end and all that but for me it explains what this is all about - namely FV is about a major development and not a football club - that was just a means to an end.

I'm not suggesting FV will be some sort of absentee landlords now that the development seemingly is moving ahead but rather (in my mind at least) a football club is not a fit for their prime objective and I would reason that the more the development takes off, the more likely that FVWL Football and FVWL Hotel will be floated off and sold.

In a way you could even look at it as what Eddie wanted Anderson to do namely, turn the club around financially and sell it on and make a profit for himself in doing so.

FV have turned the club around (although at a loss to themselves) and now could sell it on, particularly if they could get it to Championship level in the next year or two, and the profit they make for themselves on the development would offset the losses they made on running the club in that time.

As for PBP are they really looking for repayment in August - maybe they are - but the offer to waive the interest by a set date last year wasn't taken up on and maybe the same will happen again where the loan is extended for yet another period (with interest waived again?).  As you say PBP will be involved in the development in some form or other - not least because of their charge over the hotel - they could in theory take over the hotel in lieu of non payment - so if they are in no rush for their £5m back then why not continue to hold the strong card they already hold in their hand - it might come in very useful for them later on down the line?

(The non sponsoring of the shirts suggest to me that PBP sees the development to be its focus and not BWFC - let the Directors underwrite that now that the development seems to be going ahead).

BarrygoestoBolton wrote:
I realise many people have commented on the UKFF deal previously, but let me throw in my own opinion. The UKFF was set up to see companies through a difficult period. Obviously, with the huge reduction in gate revenue (despite a large number of faithful fans not asking for their season ticket money back), BWFC was seriously affected. It’s a moot point as to whether, if the UKFF had not existed, the existing investors would have stepped up to the plate anyway, but I would make the point that in the three years FVW have owned the club they always have. From the investors point of view they’ve ended up giving away around 8% of the equity and have a completely silent, passive shareholder. In my view it’s a deal that worked for the investors and operated in a way the UKFF was meant to - by ensuring a company that may have been at risk (although quite possibly wasn’t) could carry on trading in a stressed situation. The only loss the investors will suffer is at the point of sale as I really can’t see FVW ever being likely to pay dividends. 
On the Radisson Hotel deal, this is outside my experience, but that won’t stop me conjecturing! Although I was in business I never got involved in hospitality. However, I imagine a deal like this works by the hotel receiving bookings through the Radisson network and paying away some revenue to Radisson. I guess FV have done their sums and figure the net income they’ll make as a result of increased bookings outweighs the amount they’ll pay to Radisson. Apologies if that is blindingly obvious.

wanderlust wrote:

BarrygoestoBolton wrote:
I realise many people have commented on the UKFF deal previously, but let me throw in my own opinion. The UKFF was set up to see companies through a difficult period. Obviously, with the huge reduction in gate revenue (despite a large number of faithful fans not asking for their season ticket money back), BWFC was seriously affected. It’s a moot point as to whether, if the UKFF had not existed, the existing investors would have stepped up to the plate anyway, but I would make the point that in the three years FVW have owned the club they always have. From the investors point of view they’ve ended up giving away around 8% of the equity and have a completely silent, passive shareholder. In my view it’s a deal that worked for the investors and operated in a way the UKFF was meant to - by ensuring a company that may have been at risk (although quite possibly wasn’t) could carry on trading in a stressed situation. The only loss the investors will suffer is at the point of sale as I really can’t see FVW ever being likely to pay dividends. 
On the Radisson Hotel deal, this is outside my experience, but that won’t stop me conjecturing! Although I was in business I never got involved in hospitality. However, I imagine a deal like this works by the hotel receiving bookings through the Radisson network and paying away some revenue to Radisson. I guess FV have done their sums and figure the net income they’ll make as a result of increased bookings outweighs the amount they’ll pay to Radisson. Apologies if that is blindingly obvious.

Yup - I knew you were referring to the previous year's notes hence my interest in UKFF and Radisson. I suspect you're right about UKFF given the nature of the investment group. Like you, I don't know what the Radisson deal is but I do know that the Radisson group is Chinese-owned so I'm curious - and perhaps slightly concerned if the deal is about using their booking system

I disagree with Bob though about tapping into the grants - I think it's smart management and if they meet the criteria they should go for every penny they can get.
Put another way, it's hardly their fault if the government are incapable of setting criteria to reflect their objective properly - or even defining the criteria properly - and as FV clearly meet whatever criteria they did set, there is absolutely nothing wrong in accessing the funding. And after all, we need every penny that we can legally get.

BarrygoestoBolton wrote:Just a quick response to you, Bob, on UKFF. I’ve re-read the qualification requirements:

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

There’s nothing about innovative companies I can see. I have no idea why other football clubs didn’t apply. Maybe they didn’t see it as either cheap money or wish to have the UKFF as a shareholder. Clearly, FVW saw it as fine.