(That long since we've had any, couldn't find the thread)

Alan Nixon: "Top Liverpool starlet Cameron Branagan will Ben allowed out on loan in Jan.

Bolton lead the race for the 20 year old midfielder"

Edited December 11, 20169 yr by Ratwhite

19 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Why couldn't we afford him?

He has only done well in league one so far.

We all feel he could do well further up now, but he didn't originally. 

Not a proven player at any level above league one.

If he's sold, he'll go for around £5M~£10m I'd have thought, so that might be why we can't afford him.

6 hours ago, Matt Lofthouse said:

Read that as Toal at first 😆

Wishful thinking, mate

2 hours ago, gonzo said:

We will have more money to spend if we go up.

We won't have as much if we stay down.

ITK YHIHF

Thanks, Rachel Reeves.

7 hours ago, Stig said:

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/25985742.bolton-wanderers-announce-13-91m-loss-2024-25-season/

 

£13.9m one year loss actually. Promotion is essential 

Think we’d lose more in the championship. Not my problem though.

18 minutes ago, tomski said:

Think we’d lose more in the championship. Not my problem though.

The difference is potential in the Championship, even relegation fighters like West Brom sold £23 million worth of players, most of which come from 2 players.

We're near the top of league 1 and you wouldn't get £23 million for the entire squad. It might go unrealised but there is the potential that just isn't there in league 1. 

Personally i think if we go up, we'll be snapped up by someone looking for a bargin right away. I've heard through the grapevine there's a yank sniffing around right now.  

6 hours ago, Sweep said:

If he's sold, he'll go for around £5M~£10m I'd have thought, so that might be why we can't afford him.

Says who?

Ten million, my arse.

That's a similar order to what Birmingham paid for Stansfield, who had at least made a few appearances in the Prem, and was viewed as a top signing.

As much as we like ACD, is he really worth ten times what we were led to believe Celtic wanted for Kenny?

 

52 minutes ago, tomski said:

Think we’d lose more in the championship. Not my problem though.

Not so sure.

Some of those losses were stupid fees paid for players who were biz. 

The next lot of figures may show some improvement- they will also be during our league one time.

I would imagine that admission prices will rise should we go up, and I doubt we'll be spunking loads.

We will have to become more thrifty either way, as those investors won't chuck more and more money at it.

16 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Says who?

Ten million, my arse.

That's a similar order to what Birmingham paid for Stansfield, who had at least made a few appearances in the Prem, and was viewed as a top signing.

As much as we like ACD, is he really worth ten times what we were led to believe Celtic wanted for Kenny?

 

£5m-10m is well short of what Birmingham paid for him and he signed for Fulham when they were in the championship and barely kicked a ball in the prem, if at all, seeing as he only played six times for them 

30 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Says who?

Ten million, my arse.

That's a similar order to what Birmingham paid for Stansfield, who had at least made a few appearances in the Prem, and was viewed as a top signing.

As much as we like ACD, is he really worth ten times what we were led to believe Celtic wanted for Kenny?

 

I did say £5M-£10M....

So if not in that sort bracket, where do you value him? 

£300K? 

£1M maybe?

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Not so sure.

Some of those losses were stupid fees paid for players who were biz. 

The next lot of figures may show some improvement- they will also be during our league one time.

I would imagine that admission prices will rise should we go up, and I doubt we'll be spunking loads.

We will have to become more thrifty either way, as those investors won't chuck more and more money at it.

We’ve sold our biggest income already in STs outside of tv revenue.

Like I say I’m not that fussed and it’s for the owners to sort. I just wanna go up.

1 hour ago, Sweep said:

I did say £5M-£10M....

So if not in that sort bracket, where do you value him? 

£300K? 

£1M maybe?

Transfermarkt has him at £5m

The most he will be "worth" is at max £5 million until he plays a season in the Championship and gives a decent account for himself there. His last season there for the 3 fingered lot over the hill, was a failure, for many reasons, but if he can prove that was a fluke, that's when the big money will come.

If he can't take that step up, which happens to many talented players picturing David Nugent here, he'll probably end up being abit of a journeyman or a yoyo player a Ben Wiles type bouncing between leagues. 

Edited May 13May 13 by Zog1

10 hours ago, Stig said:

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/25985742.bolton-wanderers-announce-13-91m-loss-2024-25-season/

 

£13.9m one year loss actually. Promotion is essential 

Exactly so there’s little point in folk playing armchair football manager because if true, those are losses that the current owners can’t sustain and I reckon they’ve already pushed the boat out for this years shot at promotion. 
Could be a real shock to the system if we don’t go up, especially as the “sustainable” mantra has been hyped since Sharon arrived and the players we’ve actually already signed may end up being the backbone of a team happy with mid table league 1 security.

In truth, we don’t know where we are at other than knowing that promotion would be an enormous help on many levels, including increasing the prospect of attracting new richer investors or owners.

But even if we do go up, I can’t see us spending big for a while - just enough to keep us in the second tier and reap the financial benefits as part of our progress.

4 minutes ago, Wanderlust said:

Exactly so there’s little point in folk playing armchair football manager because if true, those are losses that the current owners can’t sustain and I reckon they’ve already pushed the boat out for this years shot at promotion. 
Could be a real shock to the system if we don’t go up, especially as the “sustainable” mantra has been hyped since Sharon arrived and the players we’ve actually already signed may end up being the backbone of a team happy with mid table league 1 security.

In truth, we don’t know where we are at other than knowing that promotion would be an enormous help on many levels, including increasing the prospect of attracting new richer investors or owners.

But even if we do go up, I can’t see us spending big for a while - just enough to keep us in the second tier and reap the financial benefits as part of our progress.

Season of Loans. 

or stay in League One, keep the wage bill lower and try to stabilise. 

 

44 minutes ago, Zog1 said:

The most he will be "worth" is at max £5 million until he plays a season in the Championship and gives a decent account for himself there. His last season there for the 3 fingered lot over the hill, was a failure, for many reasons, but if he can prove that was a fluke, that's when the big money will come.

If he can't take that step up, which happens to many talented players picturing David Nugent here, he'll probably end up being abit of a journeyman or a yoyo player a Ben Wiles type bouncing between leagues. 

The best comparison would be Louie Barry, after half a good season at Stockport he went to Boro on loan with a view too a £3.5m move (he got injured so fell through)

So can't see him going for much more than that 

Guess one difference would be Brighton want to keep him which could push him closer to £5m

8 hours ago, only1swanny said:

Season of Loans. 

or stay in League One, keep the wage bill lower and try to stabilise. 

 

You spelt stagnate incorrectly. 

9 hours ago, tomski said:

We’ve sold our biggest income already in STs outside of tv revenue.

Like I say I’m not that fussed and it’s for the owners to sort. I just wanna go up.

Same, I gave up a long time ago worrying about the finances of the club, there is little/nothing we can really do about it. Nigh on every club in the country spends beyond there means, and there seems to be no end of mugs willing to keep chucking cash at football clubs.

I just want to get out of this division

 

 

8 hours ago, only1swanny said:

Season of Loans. 

or stay in League One, keep the wage bill lower and try to stabilise. 

 

I'm not sure we can stabilise in this division, not with the ground we currently have. I have no idea, but the running costs on the stadium, must be huge compared to some (you would hope that is offset by the attendances, but a few more years in this division, and you would expect them to start to slowly drop off)

2 hours ago, Sweep said:

Same, I gave up a long time ago worrying about the finances of the club, there is little/nothing we can really do about it. Nigh on every club in the country spends beyond there means, and there seems to be no end of mugs willing to keep chucking cash at football clubs.

I just want to get out of this division

 

 

As do we all, but our owners do worry about the finances of the club and tbh so do I after we almost went out of existence. In that context, these recent seasons have all been a bonus and I’d rather see us in league one than on the scrapheap.

On 13/05/2026 at 13:01, Rival Son said:

Wow! However, I still need an accountant to explain things like this.

”Group turnover dropped 3.75 per cent from £21.3m to £20.5m”

And the following paragraph.

“Wages for 447 staff across the group increased to £17.112m, which now represents 98.8 per cent of turnover.”

17.112 is not 98.8% of 20.5. It’s 83.5%.

Hi RS, not being any kind of expert on financials I’d be one of the many as puzzled as yourself on the fine financial details but over on the BoltonNuts site we do have one or two posters who are experts on finances. One such is Sluffy who is indeed both knowledgable and experienced in this area and he wanted to add a response as you requested. Unfortunately Sluffy is currently banned from WW so can’t reply himself so has asked if I may do so on his behalf. Naturally I don’t know the situation surrounding sluffy’s ban and I don’t want to tread on any toes but this response doesn’t seem to cross any lines and may be useful and informative to us all in understanding the subject better. Maybe his access could be reviewed so that he can respond himself in more detail but that is I accept entirely down to the site moderators to decide?

Sluffy

I am banned from Wanderers Way but would like to answer a question from 'Rival Sun' about BWFC's account's that he asks at the top of page 1839 of their Transfer Thread.




The problem is that whoever wrote Iles article (whether it is Iles himself or more likely someone he asked to help him with understanding the accounts, have misrepresented (or misunderstood) the numbers shown.

To put it simply three sets of accounts are published, one for the hotel, one for the football club and one combined one for the group.

The bit about Group Turnover is correct - 3.75 per cent from £21.3m to £20.5m (the 'group' being the combined hotel, club and holding company).

Where it goes wrong is what is written about next.

What should have been written is in respect of the football club part of the business only - FVWL (Football) Ltd - to give it its proper company title, is as follows.

The accounts for FVWL (Football) Ltd shows that there are actually 401 employees (67 of whom are termed as football players) and that the 'wages' (aggregated remuneration) totals £17,110,989

The turnover for FVWL (Football) Ltd is shown as being £17,319,038 which does indeed represents 98.7987% of turnover.


Regards Sluffy.


PS, if my longstanding ban from here could kindly be lifted I would happily answer the other questions you have asked about the accounts in particular the accumulated losses for Football Ventures since they became the owners which are shown to be £39,986,096 as at the last accounts.

A further £20,150,000 has since been put in by the owners to keep the club solvent through this season and into next (Note the £40m is a permanent loss to Football Ventures, the £20m since put in does not reduce that loss instead it is the money needed to carry on trading).

11 minutes ago, Whitesince63 said:

Hi RS, not being any kind of expert on financials I’d be one of the many as puzzled as yourself on the fine financial details but over on the BoltonNuts site we do have one or two posters who are experts on finances. One such is Sluffy who is indeed both knowledgable and experienced in this area and he wanted to add a response as you requested. Unfortunately Sluffy is currently banned from WW so can’t reply himself so has asked if I may do so on his behalf. Naturally I don’t know the situation surrounding sluffy’s ban and I don’t want to tread on any toes but this response doesn’t seem to cross any lines and may be useful and informative to us all in understanding the subject better. Maybe his access could be reviewed so that he can respond himself in more detail but that is I accept entirely down to the site moderators to decide?

Sluffy

I am banned from Wanderers Way but would like to answer a question from 'Rival Sun' about BWFC's account's that he asks at the top of page 1839 of their Transfer Thread.




The problem is that whoever wrote Iles article (whether it is Iles himself or more likely someone he asked to help him with understanding the accounts, have misrepresented (or misunderstood) the numbers shown.

To put it simply three sets of accounts are published, one for the hotel, one for the football club and one combined one for the group.

The bit about Group Turnover is correct - 3.75 per cent from £21.3m to £20.5m (the 'group' being the combined hotel, club and holding company).

Where it goes wrong is what is written about next.

What should have been written is in respect of the football club part of the business only - FVWL (Football) Ltd - to give it its proper company title, is as follows.

The accounts for FVWL (Football) Ltd shows that there are actually 401 employees (67 of whom are termed as football players) and that the 'wages' (aggregated remuneration) totals £17,110,989

The turnover for FVWL (Football) Ltd is shown as being £17,319,038 which does indeed represents 98.7987% of turnover.


Regards Sluffy.


PS, if my longstanding ban from here could kindly be lifted I would happily answer the other questions you have asked about the accounts in particular the accumulated losses for Football Ventures since they became the owners which are shown to be £39,986,096 as at the last accounts.

A further £20,150,000 has since been put in by the owners to keep the club solvent through this season and into next (Note the £40m is a permanent loss to Football Ventures, the £20m since put in does not reduce that loss instead it is the money needed to carry on trading).

Can you clarify if the 40m includes A the purchase of the club. B Fans investment. C The Government covid loan

Not sure Football Ventures have put much into the club other than initial investment and the money to run the club has then been funded by the Swiss?

Who owns the club now Football Ventures or the Swiss?

2 hours ago, Whitesince63 said:

Hi RS, not being any kind of expert on financials I’d be one of the many as puzzled as yourself on the fine financial details but over on the BoltonNuts site we do have one or two posters who are experts on finances. One such is Sluffy who is indeed both knowledgable and experienced in this area and he wanted to add a response as you requested. Unfortunately Sluffy is currently banned from WW so can’t reply himself so has asked if I may do so on his behalf. Naturally I don’t know the situation surrounding sluffy’s ban and I don’t want to tread on any toes but this response doesn’t seem to cross any lines and may be useful and informative to us all in understanding the subject better. Maybe his access could be reviewed so that he can respond himself in more detail but that is I accept entirely down to the site moderators to decide?

Sluffy

I am banned from Wanderers Way but would like to answer a question from 'Rival Sun' about BWFC's account's that he asks at the top of page 1839 of their Transfer Thread.




The problem is that whoever wrote Iles article (whether it is Iles himself or more likely someone he asked to help him with understanding the accounts, have misrepresented (or misunderstood) the numbers shown.

To put it simply three sets of accounts are published, one for the hotel, one for the football club and one combined one for the group.

The bit about Group Turnover is correct - 3.75 per cent from £21.3m to £20.5m (the 'group' being the combined hotel, club and holding company).

Where it goes wrong is what is written about next.

What should have been written is in respect of the football club part of the business only - FVWL (Football) Ltd - to give it its proper company title, is as follows.

The accounts for FVWL (Football) Ltd shows that there are actually 401 employees (67 of whom are termed as football players) and that the 'wages' (aggregated remuneration) totals £17,110,989

The turnover for FVWL (Football) Ltd is shown as being £17,319,038 which does indeed represents 98.7987% of turnover.


Regards Sluffy.


PS, if my longstanding ban from here could kindly be lifted I would happily answer the other questions you have asked about the accounts in particular the accumulated losses for Football Ventures since they became the owners which are shown to be £39,986,096 as at the last accounts.

A further £20,150,000 has since been put in by the owners to keep the club solvent through this season and into next (Note the £40m is a permanent loss to Football Ventures, the £20m since put in does not reduce that loss instead it is the money needed to carry on trading).

If that's what he's going to being to the table, keep him banned.
 

Tell him to stick to handing leaflets out. Financial expert my arse 

11 hours ago, Whitesince63 said:

Hi RS, not being any kind of expert on financials I’d be one of the many as puzzled as yourself on the fine financial details but over on the BoltonNuts site we do have one or two posters who are experts on finances. One such is Sluffy who is indeed both knowledgable and experienced in this area and he wanted to add a response as you requested. Unfortunately Sluffy is currently banned from WW so can’t reply himself so has asked if I may do so on his behalf. Naturally I don’t know the situation surrounding sluffy’s ban and I don’t want to tread on any toes but this response doesn’t seem to cross any lines and may be useful and informative to us all in understanding the subject better. Maybe his access could be reviewed so that he can respond himself in more detail but that is I accept entirely down to the site moderators to decide?

Sluffy

I am banned from Wanderers Way but would like to answer a question from 'Rival Sun' about BWFC's account's that he asks at the top of page 1839 of their Transfer Thread.




The problem is that whoever wrote Iles article (whether it is Iles himself or more likely someone he asked to help him with understanding the accounts, have misrepresented (or misunderstood) the numbers shown.

To put it simply three sets of accounts are published, one for the hotel, one for the football club and one combined one for the group.

The bit about Group Turnover is correct - 3.75 per cent from £21.3m to £20.5m (the 'group' being the combined hotel, club and holding company).

Where it goes wrong is what is written about next.

What should have been written is in respect of the football club part of the business only - FVWL (Football) Ltd - to give it its proper company title, is as follows.

The accounts for FVWL (Football) Ltd shows that there are actually 401 employees (67 of whom are termed as football players) and that the 'wages' (aggregated remuneration) totals £17,110,989

The turnover for FVWL (Football) Ltd is shown as being £17,319,038 which does indeed represents 98.7987% of turnover.


Regards Sluffy.


PS, if my longstanding ban from here could kindly be lifted I would happily answer the other questions you have asked about the accounts in particular the accumulated losses for Football Ventures since they became the owners which are shown to be £39,986,096 as at the last accounts.

A further £20,150,000 has since been put in by the owners to keep the club solvent through this season and into next (Note the £40m is a permanent loss to Football Ventures, the £20m since put in does not reduce that loss instead it is the money needed to carry on trading).

That’s very helpful. Please pass on my thanks to Sluffy for his clear explanation of a poor article by the BN.

1 minute ago, Rival Son said:

That’s very helpful. Please pass on my thanks to Sluffy for his clear explanation of a poor article by the BN.

Cheers R/S, will do. 👍

Sluffy and Custard, keep them banned. Fucking hell that was a dark time and those 2 were absolutely revelling in it. They were also, if I recall correctly, very wrong in their interpretations of most things financial.