10 minutes ago, TrickyTrotter said:

I agree about BMLL, it's a nominee it's a nominee vehicle and its individual shareholders are not to my knowledge a matter of public record, but reasonable to presume that it is the Trafigura 25 as Nick Luckock is its front man. On the C shares:

Isn't that what I said in my post you quoted me on earlier?

12 hours ago, Sluffy said:

The last share issue (before todays kerfuffle) involved someone (most likely the Swiss I would suggest) obtaining C Shares, which were in themselves very interesting.

22 minutes ago, Marc505 said:

Should be a new kit to complain about by the end of today!

This one?

Just now, gonzo said:

This one?

Gone on site as third kit? Assuming away is gonna be maroon still.

I do like us in a yeller kit

16 minutes ago, wakey said:

feels like the blind leading the blind this.

The (just shy) of £18m is the nominal value of the shares, nowt to do with what they're worth or what was paid for them.

e.g. there were roughly 11.3m new A and C shares issued summer '25 for a total of just over £29m.

And the point about the share ownership is broadly correct, though more accurate to say the holders of the A shares and the C shares are the same people (haven't checked if the proportions are the same cos I really can't be arsed).

This stuff is tedious as fuck in the first place, but at least be accurate instead of speculating what may or may not be left in the pot.

I'll trust they know what they're doing unless something indicates otherwise ... and nowt has so far.

Have I said anything significantly differently?

As for the 'speculating' check out the Group Statement of Changes in Equity in the last published accounts (30 June 2025) which relates to the 23-24 season, they were in a deficit of £7m.

The trading loss that year was £14m.

FV have since, as you say, put in another £29m equity,

We've since played this season, so it seems reasonable to expect a similar trading loss - yes?

So that would leave the £18m as shown - agreed.

I would have thought it would have been much lower myself £7m to cover the 'blackhole' £14m trading loss (leaving just £8m left in the pot (I've been saying circa £5m)

What I've been saying (or attempting too anyway) is that next season we fall under the Squad Cost Rules (SCR) rules, which as I understand them to say is that for the next 3 years the owners can only put in a maximum of £33m equity.

If FV don't add to the £18m before the end of this month then presumably future trading losses will have to be funded from this £33m (or we somehow have to sell players / slash costs accordingly?).

The £18m is enough to cover our trading losses in the first year in the Championship - with a permitted maximum of £15m of the £33m to build a squad to survive in the first year but that would leave us with circa £5m in the pot and the remaining £18m of the £33m

If trading losses across the current year and the next 3 years in the Championship run at say an average of £12m per season that would mean we would be ok in our first season (the £18m will cover trading losses and the £15m build our squad) but for the remaining two seasons the circa £5m left in the pot together with the remaining £18m equity permitted will ALL after be spent on trading losses and nothing left to strengthen the squad.

So yes I am speculating, I assume FV knows what they are doing, and I would have thought that if they did have the money they would be putting in equity before the 30th of this month if they could.

Do you know mate you've always had a downer on me and I don't know why?

If it dates back to Burden Aces days, it was Manny that banned your mate Josh, not me (I didn't have Admin powers to do so nor asked Manny for him to be banned - he decided to do that himself)

Whatever your issue with me it's time to let it drop.

It's been going on long enough.

20 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

Have I said anything significantly differently?

As for the 'speculating' check out the Group Statement of Changes in Equity in the last published accounts (30 June 2025) which relates to the 23-24 season, they were in a deficit of £7m.

The trading loss that year was £14m.

FV have since, as you say, put in another £29m equity,

We've since played this season, so it seems reasonable to expect a similar trading loss - yes?

So that would leave the £18m as shown - agreed.

I would have thought it would have been much lower myself £7m to cover the 'blackhole' £14m trading loss (leaving just £8m left in the pot (I've been saying circa £5m)

What I've been saying (or attempting too anyway) is that next season we fall under the Squad Cost Rules (SCR) rules, which as I understand them to say is that for the next 3 years the owners can only put in a maximum of £33m equity.

If FV don't add to the £18m before the end of this month then presumably future trading losses will have to be funded from this £33m (or we somehow have to sell players / slash costs accordingly?).

The £18m is enough to cover our trading losses in the first year in the Championship - with a permitted maximum of £15m of the £33m to build a squad to survive in the first year but that would leave us with circa £5m in the pot and the remaining £18m of the £33m

If trading losses across the current year and the next 3 years in the Championship run at say an average of £12m per season that would mean we would be ok in our first season (the £18m will cover trading losses and the £15m build our squad) but for the remaining two seasons the circa £5m left in the pot together with the remaining £18m equity permitted will ALL after be spent on trading losses and nothing left to strengthen the squad.

So yes I am speculating, I assume FV knows what they are doing, and I would have thought that if they did have the money they would be putting in equity before the 30th of this month if they could.

Do you know mate you've always had a downer on me and I don't know why?

If it dates back to Burden Aces days, it was Manny that banned your mate Josh, not me (I didn't have Admin powers to do so nor asked Manny for him to be banned - he decided to do that himself)

Whatever your issue with me it's time to let it drop.

It's been going on long enough.

agreed pal

15 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

Have I said anything significantly differently?

As for the 'speculating' check out the Group Statement of Changes in Equity in the last published accounts (30 June 2025) which relates to the 23-24 season, they were in a deficit of £7m.

The trading loss that year was £14m.

FV have since, as you say, put in another £29m equity,

We've since played this season, so it seems reasonable to expect a similar trading loss - yes?

So that would leave the £18m as shown - agreed.

I would have thought it would have been much lower myself £7m to cover the 'blackhole' £14m trading loss (leaving just £8m left in the pot (I've been saying circa £5m)

What I've been saying (or attempting too anyway) is that next season we fall under the Squad Cost Rules (SCR) rules, which as I understand them to say is that for the next 3 years the owners can only put in a maximum of £33m equity.

If FV don't add to the £18m before the end of this month then presumably future trading losses will have to be funded from this £33m (or we somehow have to sell players / slash costs accordingly?).

The £18m is enough to cover our trading losses in the first year in the Championship - with a permitted maximum of £15m of the £33m to build a squad to survive in the first year but that would leave us with circa £5m in the pot and the remaining £18m of the £33m

If trading losses across the current year and the next 3 years in the Championship run at say an average of £12m per season that would mean we would be ok in our first season (the £18m will cover trading losses and the £15m build our squad) but for the remaining two seasons the circa £5m left in the pot together with the remaining £18m equity permitted will ALL after be spent on trading losses and nothing left to strengthen the squad.

So yes I am speculating, I assume FV knows what they are doing, and I would have thought that if they did have the money they would be putting in equity before the 30th of this month if they could.

Do you know mate you've always had a downer on me and I don't know why?

If it dates back to Burden Aces days, it was Manny that banned your mate Josh, not me (I didn't have Admin powers to do so nor asked Manny for him to be banned - he decided to do that himself)

Whatever your issue with me it's time to let it drop.

It's been going on long enough.

you seem to think everyone has some form of historical issue with you.

Couldn't possibly be that you're pretending to be knowledgeable in areas you're clearly not and boring the fuck out of us all in the process.

Doesn't help that you seem keen to pick a row with anyone you can and play the victim.

1 minute ago, wakey said:

you seem to think everyone has some form of historical issue with you.

Couldn't possibly be that you're pretending to be knowledgeable in areas you're clearly not and boring the fuck out of us all in the process.

Doesn't help that you seem keen to pick a row with anyone you can and play the victim.

Well you have been on my case on Burnden Aces, then on Nuts and now on here, amounting to a decade or more, so what am I suppose to think?

I've stated what career I've had and how I've applied what knowledge I have to understanding the accounts - I've never claimed to be an expert or tried to bluff my way along.

No doubt I do bore folk but there are some that have thanked me on this very thread as well.

I can't please everyone and I don't try to.

You prepared to shake hands and move on, or not?

Why would we have lost the same amount in season 25/26 as we did in season 24/25?

12 minutes ago, masi 51 said:

Why would we have lost the same amount in season 25/26 as we did in season 24/25?

Mainly because the players wages were more or less the same as all the clubs total revenue in 24/25 and despite statements to the contrary for last season, there was no significant reduction in playing staff, so wages to revenue should still remain very high I expect.

We would get a bit more income from last season simply because of the play off semi and Wembley.

I therefore it is reasonable to assume the losses for last season to be somewhat similar to that of 24/25 (maybe a bit less due to play off income received?)

The following is in respect of the clubs revenue and wages for 24/25 season.

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.

27 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

Well you have been on my case on Burnden Aces, then on Nuts and now on here, amounting to a decade or more, so what am I suppose to think?

I've stated what career I've had and how I've applied what knowledge I have to understanding the accounts - I've never claimed to be an expert or tried to bluff my way along.

No doubt I do bore folk but there are some that have thanked me on this very thread as well.

I can't please everyone and I don't try to.

You prepared to shake hands and move on, or not?

pretty sure I've never been on Nuts, and 100% sure I've not been "on your case for a decade or more", but if it rocks your boat to say so, crack on.

No intention of wasting time being today's person you try to have a row with, so I'll leave you to it.

So yeah, unnecessary virtual handshake accepted.

7 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

Mainly because the players wages were more or less the same as all the clubs total revenue in 24/25 and despite statements to the contrary for last season, there was no significant reduction in playing staff, so wages to revenue should still remain very high I expect.

We would get a bit more income from last season simply because of the play off semi and Wembley.

I therefore it is reasonable to assume the losses for last season to be somewhat similar to that of 24/25 (maybe a bit less due to play off income received?)

The following is in respect of the clubs revenue and wages for 24/25 season.

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.

Still not seeing it when we splashed out 5m on transfer fees and re-couped 700k. Then replaced a full management team both on and off the field

5 minutes ago, wakey said:

pretty sure I've never been on Nuts, and 100% sure I've not been "on your case for a decade or more", but if it rocks your boat to say so, crack on.

No intention of wasting time being today's person you try to have a row with, so I'll leave you to it.

So yeah, unnecessary virtual handshake accepted.

Good.

Hopefully we can now move on without all those little digs.

Enjoy the Sunshine.

My daughter is currently down the road from you in Bergerac

Edited June 24Jun 24 by Sluffy
typo

8 minutes ago, masi 51 said:

Still not seeing it when we splashed out 5m on transfer fees and re-couped 700k. Then replaced a full management team both on and off the field

You might be right, I'm just working to an assumption that the losses would be in the same ballpark as 24/25, I've not set out to calculate what they will be, as without more detailed information from the club that would be impossible to do accurately.

Fwiw transfer fees may be paid in instalments over a number of years and that management changes 'off the field' (I assume you mean FV's office staff), their costs would be shown under FV's accounts and not the clubs (FVWL Football Ltd.) accounts.

2 hours ago, Marc505 said:

Gone on site as third kit? Assuming away is gonna be maroon still.

I do like us in a yeller kit

Black and gold away I've heard

2 minutes ago, tshape said:

Black and gold away I've heard

I don't fancy us playing in relegation black again any time soon, surely not!

1 hour ago, tshape said:

Black and gold away I've heard

yes, you can already buy it here.

2026-27 Wolves Home Shirt - Adult

<p>2026-27 Wolves Home Shirt - Adult</p> <p>Mark the anniversary in style with the 2026/27 Home Shirt. Featuring the iconic Official Old Gold, this shirt incorporates the bespoke City Coat of Arms gra

2 hours ago, masi 51 said:

Still not seeing it when we splashed out 5m on transfer fees and re-couped 700k. Then replaced a full management team both on and off the field

Plus we got dough for GT and Collins etc.

And nobody had any idea on loan fees.

People are getting obsessed with this £18 million figure. It’s not a real amount of cash. It’s the nominal value of share capital.

In a publicly traded company, a share with a nominal value of £1 might trade for £200 on a stock exchange.

As a privately owned company, shares aren’t traded on an exchange, but the principal of nominal v actual value remains.

Do people really believe the whole set-up of stadium, hotel, offices, retail unit, vast amounts of car park land on prime real estate, the training ground complex, etc., is only worth £18 million?

Edited June 24Jun 24 by Rival Son

My take , for what its worth ... As long as we are not crippled with unmanageable debt and have some to spend over the coming months then Im happy .

Id love for us to have the cash to buy ACD , Maghoma , Trafford , Bradley but thats not happening .

Mind you I still want Alan Thompson , Jason Macateer and Andy Walker back but thats not happening either.

28 minutes ago, Rival Son said:

People are getting obsessed with this £18 million figure. It’s not a real amount of cash. It’s the nominal value of share capital.

In a publicly traded company, a share with a nominal value of £1 might trade for £200 on a stock exchange.

As a privately owned company, shares aren’t traded on an exchange, but the principal of nominal v actual value remains.

Do people really believe the whole set-up of stadium, hotel, offices, retail unit, vast amounts of car park land on prime real estate, the training ground complex, etc., is only worth £18 million?

If I may say so you start off well, then go a tiny bit awry towards the end.

Shares with a face value of £1(A Shares) have been sold in FV for varying amounts, some for £1, some for up to £8.00 (iirc).

The number of shares sold is just under 18m - and that's where the total of £18 million pounds figure comes from.

However the total received for the shares amounts to £60m.

The £60m though does not necessarily equate to the value of the company (what it costs to buy it) - it merely means that the owners up to this point have put in £60m to 'run' the company.

None of the documents filed in the last few days actually state how much of the £60m remains to be spent.

Indeed the Directors issue a Solvency Statement is basically saying that the company will pay its debts when they fall due.

My view is that relative little of it left, my new BFF Wakey believes it to be £18m (I reckon about half that amount)

5 hours ago, Sluffy said:

The Group Statement of Changes in Equity in the last published accounts (30 June 2025) which relates to the 23-24 season, they were in a deficit of £7m.

The trading loss that year was £14m.

FV have since, as you say, put in another £29m equity,

We've since played this season, so it seems reasonable to expect a similar trading loss - yes?

So that would leave the £18m as shown - agreed.

I would have thought it would have been much lower myself £7m to cover the 'blackhole' £14m trading loss (leaving just £8m left in the pot (I've been saying circa £5m)

The owners have already paid something like £20 odd million to buy the club, stadium, car park, etc (plus taken on debt (the outstanding PBP loan).

It is highly probable though that most if not all of this has been paid out of the £60m and/or taken on as debt.

So if the club was put up for sale tomorrow, the owners would need to sell it for £60m (less what is currently left unspent from the £60m) just to break even.

Note, I've not complicated things by talking about the C Shares and the £20 odd million (plus debt) purchase price is probably too high but it's just meant to explain that the owners have paid in far more than what they purchased the club, etc, for - and maybe more than what they could sell on the club, etc, for.

Edited June 24Jun 24 by Sluffy

2 hours ago, gonzo said:

Plus we got dough for GT and Collins etc.

And nobody had any idea on loan fees.

It's usually just covering the wages at this level

2 hours ago, Sluffy said:

My view is that relative little of it left, my new BFF Wakey believes it to be £18m (I reckon about half that amount)

Fuck's sake.

No I don't.

Convinced you're just on a wind up now so I'll leave you to it.

15 minutes ago, wakey said:

Fuck's sake.

No I don't.

Convinced you're just on a wind up now so I'll leave you to it.

You keep saying that, then coming back for more. 😄

We can only be days away from whoever was Chris Custodiet/Bolton Bunce/Gudni coming on here. Smug, conspiracy theorist and tosser he may have been but he did know what he was talking about when it came to accounts.

Until he does, I'll stick to using kit kats as a way of understanding our finances.

Glad this is not on paper. There wouldn’t be tree left.