Bolton's Account ending June 2022

Wanderers continue to tread a solid and sensible financial path post-Covid after the release of their accounts for the financial year ending June 2022.

As expected, costs increased after promotion from League Two, with Ian Evatt bolstering a squad that finished ninth on their return to the third tier.

But signs that the whole business – including the Whites Hotel – has bounced back from the pandemic are clear to see, with encouraging numbers posted in the latest accounts.

Football turnover increased by more than 62 per cent on the previous Covid-affected season, rising to just over £8.5m.

But turnover for the whole group – which includes the Whites Hotel – more than doubled, rising to just over £13.8m. That figure is also nearly 50 per cent higher than it was in 2020.

Operating losses for the football club were £5.77m but offset slightly across the whole group at nearly £3.7m.

Wanderers have more than £1.5m cash in the bank and the accounts note that more than £12.5m of shareholder and other loans have now been converted into equity, which has released considerable pressure finances going forward.

The conversion of loans has also had a positive impact on the amount of interest paid by the club – more than £600,000 written off the book – and the lack of bank debt has also painted a prettier picture than in years gone by.

Total wages across the group increased by just over 46 per cent after promotion from League Two to £9.146m, with the football department, comprising of 52 players, 120 management and administrative staff and 134 matchday staff, accounting for just over £8m, a jump of just over 44 per cent. That includes the outlay on more than a dozen new players and staff for the B Team, launched last summer.

As expected, there were big jumps in the money made from commercial, retail and hospitality as fans and businesses returned to the University of Bolton Stadium through 2021/22.

Car parking charges at the stadium last season raised £202,885 – a figure which does not reflect the alterations made at the start of the current campaign when the club moved to an automated number plate recognition system.

Streaming also made £393,000 despite fans returning to stadia, with the previous year in lockdown having raised £863,000.

As part of the agreement signed when they bought the club, Football Ventures paid out £2.75m to the Eddie Davies Trust Fund, and another £250,000 after promotion to League One. The accounts note that the Trust also wrote off the remaining £2.75m.

A long-standing secured loan of £2,500,000 was also settled in October with former vice-chairman Brett Warburton, which involved an exchange of land at Academy Way in Lostock.

Wanderers paid a total of £1.128m in player and agent fees, up from £175,000 in 2021. That included the cash transfer fees of Dion Charles, Kyle Dempsey, Jon Dadi Bodvarsson, Aaron Morley and Kieran Sadlier plus a loan sum for James Trafford and Xavier Amaechi.

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

The Club's official take on the Accounts:

Revenues increase and Football Ventures further stabilise Wanderers with significant refinancing in the financial year ending June 2022

Bolton Wanderers reported increased revenues and increased shareholder investment in the financial year ending June 2022 as the club consolidated its status in League One.

The Whites (through parent company Football Ventures (Whites) Limited) saw revenue increase from £6.2m to £13.8m as fans were able to return to matches following the lifting of Covid-19 restrictions, with the club also able to increase its commercial activity.

Although operating losses were up from £0.5m in the previous 12 months to £5.7m, this was due to increased focus on investment in the first team squad and stadium improvements.

The financial year ending June 2022 also saw the conversion of shareholder and other loans of £12.5m into equity, thus reducing debt and significantly strengthening the balance sheet.

Sharon Brittan, Chairman of Bolton Wanderers said: “The team consolidated our position in League One during the 2021/22 season and, with continued activity in the transfer market and a stabilised financial position, we have satisfied our objective to compete at the top end of League One.

“We look forward with confidence to the remaining games this season, following a memorable victory in the Papa Johns Trophy Final at Wembley.”

Sharon again thanked fans and the Bolton business community for their amazing and continued support, acknowledging the over 14,000 season ticket holders the club now has – and a season that has seen the highest attendance for a fixture at the University of Bolton Stadium in over 10 years, as 25,428 attended the Wanderers v Derby County game on 27th December 2022.

Sharon also confirms that progressing through the 2022/23 season, shareholder commitment is in place and support is committed into 2023/24 and beyond with a record-breaking five-year stadium naming rights deal in place with Bolton-based business, Toughsheet.

The 2021/22 accounts can be found [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING TWEETS ARE IN RESPECT OF THE FOOTBALL CLUB (FVWL FOOTBALL) LTD ONLY - AND NOT THE FULL ACCOUNTS FOR FOOTBALL VENTURES WHITES LTD

In other words they do not take into account the running of the hotel and the parent company itself.

Excellent that and hopefully will only get better still as we go forward. Over 14k ST holders is a real statement and still getting £400k from iFollow viewings on top just confirms the interest. The more that FV improve our finances the more the possibility of a more wealthy owner looking at us so well done FV for transforming the club from where it was just a few years ago. Just need the boys to do the business on promotion now to make the season perfect.

Right, one of these 'Financial experts, everywhere' here and I've just had my first read through of the accounts
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

- and I find I have something of a problem - I don't quite understand what has happened to the PBP's loan of £5.5m (plus accrued interest).

In the previous years accounts it was shown on the FV (the main holding company) accounts, under 'Creditors amounts falling due after more than just one year' (Note 18 of that years accounts).  It was also stated under Note 19 (Contingent Asset) that if it was settled before 1st August, 2022 then PBP would waive the accrued interest of £1,688,258.

Well on this years accounts, there is nothing shown as the PBP loan to be outstanding anymore...

So I went looking for it.

I found it on the hotel's accounts.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It is shown under Note 17 Loans and Overdraughts.

Apparently the loan was refinanced with the revised payment day now being 1st August, 2023 subject to a payment being made of £1,375,000 being made before that same date as well.

The loan is shown on the accounts as being £5,534,403 - which I assume is the £5.5m capital loan plus accrued interest from the date of the refinancing up to the 30th June 2022 (being the date of the recently published accounts).

The obvious question then is what has happened to the previously accrued interest?

Well it appears on the Football Ventures accounts under Note 8 Interest receivable and similar income - where it states this sum was 'released' to the profit and loss account - and seems to be showing as an income figure.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, it looks to me as though PBP has waived this amount.

If so fair play to them.


The other sort of interesting type of thing that caught my eye was that there was some sort of a fanfare made about the investment into the club (£12.5m) in terms of share issues during the financial period but it does mask somewhat that of the £23.6m put into the club this way, that already £9m of it has already been eaten away by accrued trading losses to date.  (See Group Statement of Changes in Equity - page 12).

I don't wish to rain on the parade or anything but although we have this feel good factor right now - pushing for a second promotion, just won a cup, the love in with Sharron - we still are running at a loss, for every £100 we earn, £95 of it is going on wages, and we are still a long way away from being anything like financially sustainable.

Just trying to keep our feet grounded.

Oh, and the other thing about an employee and shareholder being given a £100k loan...

I think we all kind of know what this is about - but one thing that has me confused somewhat is that the loan was made pre-June 2022 BUT the trial was ongoing POST June 2022...

Just found it somewhat curious - almost as though the outcome was known (and presumably agreed by all that needed to agree to it?) before the trial had finished...

Never mind the losses, you gotta:

Sharon's theme tune?

One thing I don't really understand are Intercompany balances.

Yes I get the idea that one part of the company holdings lends money to another part but I don't understand where it is shown in the accounts when it does happen?

The thing that piqued my interest is that on the FVWL Football accounts (Note 9) it states that the club did not have to pay back to the holding company (FV) a sum of £8.145m.  At the same time FV accounts (Note 27 Cash absorbed by operations) showed a similar £8.145m as a loss for the year after tax.

In other words a write off.

But if there wasn't this write off then surely that would have meant FVWL would still have a debt of £8.145m to FV and the actual trading loss in the year would have been £8m more than was shown, would it not?

I can't seem to find anything about a loan (or loans) amounting to millions being given/being received, from FV to FVWL Football in the previous years accounts from either of the companies?

Maybe I'm simply not seeing them, or they are classed as something different perhaps?

The only other thing I could think of was maybe it had something to do with the release/settlement of charges by Sharon and Luckock on FVWL Football - and they waived that some of money on completion?

It just seems to me that without the £8m being waived that the clubs losses for last season were nearer £13m than £5m.

Would I be right in thinking this?

Sluffy wrote:One thing I don't really understand are Intercompany balances.

Yes I get the idea that one part of the company holdings lends money to another part but I don't understand where it is shown in the accounts when it does happen?

The thing that piqued my interest is that on the FVWL Football accounts (Note 9) it states that the club did not have to pay back to the holding company (FV) a sum of £8.145m.  At the same time FV accounts (Note 27 Cash absorbed by operations) showed a similar £8.145m as a loss for the year after tax.

In other words a write off.

But if there wasn't this write off then surely that would have meant FVWL would still have a debt of £8.145m to FV and the actual trading loss in the year would have been £8m more than was shown, would it not?

I can't seem to find anything about a loan (or loans) amounting to millions being given/being received, from FV to FVWL Football in the previous years accounts from either of the companies?

Maybe I'm simply not seeing them, or they are classed as something different perhaps?

The only other thing I could think of was maybe it had something to do with the release/settlement of charges by Sharon and Luckock on FVWL Football - and they waived that some of money on completion?

It just seems to me that without the £8m being waived that the clubs losses for last season were nearer £13m than £5m.

Would I be right in thinking this?

In a word, Sluffy, no.

Forgive me, but I haven't time to explain it all.

You are correct though that the the aggregate losses to date are shown as £9million on the Group balance sheet. Actually FV's operating losses to date are about half as much again because amounts written off debts owed to EDT and PBP have been counted as profit. In reality, these are reductions in the price FV agreed to pay.

Thanks Bob.

I accept your word that the intercompany loan doesn't effect the bottom line of the company but I can't understand why it doesn't, unless it has been taken into account on the accounts, someplace before already?

I note that in the previous accounts an initial of intercompany loans £11.255m was also written off - which when added to the current £8.145m amounts to nearly £19.5m being written off by FV to FVWL Football.

The aggregated losses up to the current published accounts show a loss of £9m - so IF the £19.5m is actually the 'true' cost of the losses to date(?) then where has the other approximately £10.5m come from - EDT waiving most of their money, Warburtons settlement, etc perhaps?

As an after thought, presumably some of this money still exists within FVWL Football as current working capital/cashflow?


I'm not an accountant as you know but to me and simplifying things that somebody somewhere must have put £19.5m into the business if the business is in effect writing it off - yes?

If the money has come from FV to give to FVWL Football, then surely there should be something in the FV accounts to show where it had come from - and (in simple terms) it could only have come from shareholders putting in equity or loans from the likes of EDT, PBP and Warburton.

Or have I gone down another blind alley with my reasoning?

It wouldn't be the first time (nor the last no doubt).

It doesn't matter what the size or nature of inter-company transactions are, Sluffy, when it comes to consolidated accounts they are eliminated. There's an explanation here if you would like to follow it:

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

I've explained before that FV's reported aggregate losses to date of £9m disguise the rather larger amounts that they've actually been losing from operating the two businesses.

In all probability the operating losses are higher than they were in the last two years of the Anderson era, the difference being that with FV there has been a group of loosely related individuals willing, for whatever reason, to make up the difference.

I can't help wondering whether any of this has dawned on Professor Claptrap yet. Has he been on Twitter?

Thanks Bob.

I do understand that it is irrelevant where the money is within the business once it has been put into the companies - in this case it entered from FV and transferred to FVWL Football but the point I was trying to get to - and obviously failing is what was the true cost of running the football club (FVWL Football Ltd) - and where did the money come from originally to FV, presumably from the income from share issues over the last two years?

My line of thinking was that if the trading accounts for the club (FVWL Football) over the last three years were iirc (£3.5m, £5.2m and £5.7m) a total of £14.4m - and if £19.5m has been given by FV to FVWL Football (and not wanted back) from the FV account, then shouldn't there be a sum of £5m showing in the accounts for FVWL Football, still?

Indeed we can add to that a further £2.75m written off my EDT making the sum total roughly £7.75m

Maybe things don't work that way in accounting terms but that's the bit I can't seem to balance in my head, namely if FVWL has been given £19m and lost £14m in trading, then where is the other £5m (plus the further additional £2.75m) - if you see what I mean.

I can only think it must be what FVWL Football still has showing as retained assets at the 30th June, 2022 namely Tangible Fixed Assets of £4.25m (including the stadium and academy valued at £2.8m(!)).

I've no idea how Intangible Fixed Assets work but there is a value of £14.6m stated for them.

Perhaps I am going around in circles on this but I'll throw out a rhetorical question to myself nevertheless, namely will FVWL Football need yet another £10m so hand me down from FV in the current years accounts and if so where will it come from - yet another FV share issue or two perhaps?

Thanks for your time anyway Bob.

Where have all the bots gone? This thread's been going for months and still hasn't reached 400 views.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Where have all the bots gone? This thread's been going for months and still hasn't reached 400 views.

They are all looking at the most recent posts in the ongoing accounts thread (and which this these posts should really have been posted into).

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