44 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

I wish it would mate.

All I did to start all this was to post two innocuous sentences from BBC news article on how Spurs are facing SCR.

Never in my wildest dreams expected all this shit to follow.

10 minutes ago, wakey said:

we must be 30 pages deep in utter gash.

And completely, utterly, totally fucking pointless.

Still far less than the Politics and Transfer Rumour threads wouldn't you say?

18 minutes ago, wakey said:

we must be 30 pages deep in utter gash.

Thought you were talking about @gonzo 's whatsapp for a minute

Applied to the wrong thread wasn’t it? 😂

.

Edited July 3Jul 3 by Lt. Aldo Raine

2 hours ago, Sluffy said:

Well even if I did say that I clarified it on the very same day didn't I?

The 98.8% figure I explained as far back as May even before my ban was lifted...

It is abundantly clear that I've been talking about the wages for FVWL Football Ltd amounting to 98.8% of that years turnover and that out of the 401 staff wages only 67 related to player wages (it's there in black and white) and I've since been musing on how much of those total wages (composed of playing staff and none playing staff) were applicable to the SCR ratio.

If I said something other on the 28th June then I corrected myself on the very same day as I clearly could not have meant that all the amount were player wages as I'd already shown the breakdown previously between players (67) and other staff back in May and was talking subsequently about how the the breakdown between players and none playing staff of those 401 people was on the very same day I apparently claimed that ALL the money was made up solely of players wages.

Maybe I wasn't absolutely clear in what I supposedly said but whatever it might have been, clearly is not what I've been writing about before and after it - is it?

You might've done but you reacted hysterically when it was correctly pointed out to you that you did post it initially, which is odd for someone who claims to take pride in his ability to admit when he's wrong

Anyway, beyond that I don't really care so I'll let you crack on getting lost in the minutiae of the financial accounts of a mid-ranking football club in the north of England

8 hours ago, W.cramp said:

Your next on the list

🤣😇

Mon on the left favvers the late Trevor Hemmings (PNE owner)

As above, just scroll past the posts.

Easily done.

3 hours ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

You might've done but you reacted hysterically when it was correctly pointed out to you that you did post it initially, which is odd for someone who claims to take pride in his ability to admit when he's wrong

Anyway, beyond that I don't really care so I'll let you crack on getting lost in the minutiae of the financial accounts of a mid-ranking football club in the north of England

Hysterical you say?

More like exasperated because my post above (page 148) in which I quoted a long reply dated 28th June at 17:21 in regards to how the wages possibly could be split into playing staff, none playing staff was in reply to jmjhb - the very person who posted up about me apparently saying stating that all the wages (the 98.8% of revenue) were those of the players.

I had to explain once again something I had already talked with him about that he presumably forgot about just a week later?

You on the other hand have enough intelligence to have known that I've clearly knew from the first minute of my return that all the wages at FVWL Football Ltd were NOT 100% playing staff, Christ even jmjhb understood my point at the time by replying to my post with this...

On 28/06/2026 at 17:32, jmjhb said:

Even if you include all the staff mentioned there's maybe a good 250-300 who wouldn't count towards it

You my friend have taken a statement from jmjhb, which I had subsequently explained fully within a few hours on the same day wasn't correct, which he clearly understood at the time and used it to beat me around the head with - despite knowing that everything I've wrote on the point both prior and subsequent to that showed clearly that I knew it to be untrue.

If I had said what is claimed I must have done so to explain simply to someone what CSR is about, I probably over simplified, dumbed down, used a colloquialism, put it in words they could easily understand, Janet and John-ed it.

You've made a complete mountain out of fuck all just to do whatever it was you had in mind to - call me a liar, prove I got something wrong, make yourself look big, get me banned, or whatever it was, to drag all this nonsense on for the last couple of days.

jmjhb posted something he should have known wasn't the case (he certainly knew it wasn't a week earlier from his post above), you've jumped on it and from your reply it looks that even you now understand it wasn't anything to have made such an big issue of.

Enjoy the rest of your evening.

Why?

3 hours ago, Sluffy said:

Nope I'm still struggling.

But I'm beginning to understand why.

I've been talking about the COMPANY Statement of changes in equity, you are talking about the GROUP Statement of changes in equity.

I've not previously realised the nuance between the two, as shares are bought in FV (the company) not the club or hotel (ie the group).

I knew however that the company subsidies the losses of the group.

The COMPANY is showing a negative share equity of £25m in the June 2025 accounts, my understanding was that the £20m be set against that to pay down that negative equity accruing from the money had loaned to the club (and subsequently waived) to settle previous trading losses and not new money into the football club.

I guess it still could be if FV choose not to pass on the £20m to the GROUP although that seems very unlikely,

Presumably if I understand you to be correct then the £20m that should have gone in on the last accounts but were delayed by the EFL would have resulted in the Company deficit now being £5m and as you say the group now showing a £13m surplus. (with the following £9m showing the in surplus of £4m and the group having £22m in the pot (less the trading loss for the 26-26 season) which is vastly more sensible position to be in than that which I had thought we were).

If so I thank you for your time, effort, trouble and patience in enlightening me.

I've learned something I had not known and will be better informed in the future - isn't it what we are all doing, simply trying to understand what is happening in the club we all support.

If I got things wrong and I seemingly have based on what you've explained to me, it wasn't for any malicious or self seeking reasons, just purely to understand what was going on for my own benefit and to share what I understood (or thought I understood) by showing my workings out and linked to the sources, and seeking if anyone knew any better.

Cue the tirade of abuse that will no doubt follow from my usual fan club.

Enjoy your day folks!

8 hours ago, Sluffy said:

Never in my wildest dreams expected all this shit to follow.

saw it coming a mile off myself

3 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

As above, just scroll past the posts.

Easily done.

There's just so fckn many of them. My finger's getting numb

Edited July 3Jul 3 by Burnden Pies

1 hour ago, Sluffy said:

I had to explain once again something I had already talked with him about that he presumably forgot about just a week later?

You on the other hand have enough intelligence

Still not quitting with the personal digs are you?

1 minute ago, jmjhb said:

Still not quitting with the personal digs are you?

Just stating the timeline

28th June we are BOTH posting to each other about people being NONE PLAYER COSTS - you even talking as many as 250-300 of the them

3rd July you claim that I said ALL wages were player costs.

Well I never said that after the 28th June have I?

So even if I might have said it sometime earlier we both knew it wasn't true from that point on.

So why mention it a week later unless you had forgotten about the 250-300 people you told me that you thought would be none player costs?

What other reason could there be?

3 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

What other reason could there be?

Insomnia.

8 minutes ago, jmjhb said:

Insomnia.

You do realise insomnia is the inability to fall asleep, don't you?

Edited July 4Jul 4 by Sluffy

21 hours ago, Zico said:

saw it coming a mile off myself

I expect all the shit when I realised that I had been extrapolating from the "Company Statement of Changes in Equity" instead of the "Group Statement of Changes in Equity", fair enough I got things wrong (and to be fair I was surprised how little I actually got) but all the shit over the previous two or three days for simply just copying and pasting up two sentences taken from a BBC article about how Spurs would would be dealing with SCR was just utterly ridiculous.

None of it was warranted although in the end I received an apology from one person who had missed the point I had made (chapeau to him), backed down two others who were making a huge fuss over stuff they should have known was bollocks in the first place and got the thumbs up from the two gentlemen the quotes from the article were intended for.

Of course I had a few from my usual fan club waving that invisible red card for me to be sent off and thankfully a few who told them not to be so soft.

Fair play to you if you saw all that happening, I certainly didn't.

15 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

the very person who posted up about me apparently saying stating that all the wages (the 98.8% of revenue) were those of the players.

There's no apparently about it

5 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

There's no apparently about it

I'll take your word I did.

The point isn't if I said them or not (I was almost certainly oversimplifying for someone's benefit if I did) the point was I'd clearly returned to there being player costs and none player costs within the same day!

Not only that I'd explained and was understood by jmjhb, the very person who talked about there being 250-300 potential none player cost employees (within the 401 staff total wage bill), but it was he that inexplicably seemed to have forgotten all about a week later by posting up that I believed ALL the wage bill was football related???

You ran with that, ignored all I said before and after whatever I apparently said on the 28th September - including the conversation between myself and jmjhb specifically trying to work out who might be none player cost employees also on the 28th September too - I'll bet you a pound to a penny that I was talking about none player employees the last thing that day on this matter.

I don't know what your reasons were to attempt to tie me down crucify me on this point but it is abundantly clear both jmjhb and myself knew full well that the 401 employees were to be split into two groups with most of the staff being none player cost employees (250-300 of them in his opinion) on the same day I'd wrote whatever colloquialism I did write to try to explain as simply as I could CSR to someone.

Why jmjhb posted what he did a week later - fully knowing that we both knew the majority of staff would be none player cost employees, you will have to ask him.

Seeing that I was talking about the split between players and none player costs from May to now (including on the same day I posted what I apparently I did) do you honestly believe I wrote "all the wages are player costs" or whatever I did and literally meant it?

Why would I then go on to muse as to which staff may or may not be player costs with within a few hours of being so certain they all were players costs?

I've been constant on all of this from May onwards.

If I said what I'm supposed to have said it would only be because I was making things simple for someone to understand and not that I was believing it to be totally gospel myself.

Even if you thought that was true, I'd clearly returned to the position I've held since May by the close of that very same day.

You've made a mountain out of nothing here mate.

And continuing to do so.

5 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

I'll take your word I did.

The point isn't if I said them or not (I was almost certainly oversimplifying for someone's benefit if I did) the point was I'd clearly returned to there being player costs and none player costs within the same day!

Not only that I'd explained and was understood by jmjhb, the very person who talked about there being 250-300 potential none player cost employees (within the 401 staff total wage bill), but it was he that inexplicably seemed to have forgotten all about a week later by posting up that I believed ALL the wage bill was football related???

You ran with that, ignored all I said before and after whatever I apparently said on the 28th September - including the conversation between myself and jmjhb specifically trying to work out who might be none player cost employees also on the 28th September too - I'll bet you a pound to a penny that I was talking about none player employees the last thing that day on this matter.

I don't know what your reasons were to attempt to tie me down crucify me on this point but it is abundantly clear both jmjhb and myself knew full well that the 401 employees were to be split into two groups with most of the staff being none player cost employees (250-300 of them in his opinion) on the same day I'd wrote whatever colloquialism I did write to try to explain as simply as I could CSR to someone.

Why jmjhb posted what he did a week later - fully knowing that we both knew the majority of staff would be none player cost employees, you will have to ask him.

Seeing that I was talking about the split between players and none player costs from May to now (including on the same day I posted what I apparently I did) do you honestly believe I wrote "all the wages are player costs" or whatever I did and literally meant it?

Why would I then go on to muse as to which staff may or may not be player costs with within a few hours of being so certain they all were players costs?

I've been constant on all of this from May onwards.

If I said what I'm supposed to have said it would only be because I was making things simple for someone to understand and not that I was believing it to be totally gospel myself.

Even if you thought that was true, I'd clearly returned to the position I've held since May by the close of that very same day.

You've made a mountain out of nothing here mate.

And continuing to do so.

This was what you posted:

"you do seem confident that FV will slash a last reported trading loss of £14.3m down to a loss that it was making as a play off level club in League 1 whilst putting together a squad to survive in the Championship, with existing contracted players whose wages amounted to 98.8% of revenue remain on the payroll"

That is clearly you claiming the figure relates to player wages and not all employees of the football club

@jmjhb wasn't suggesting a week later that you still believed it was player wages only but that you first posted it was, and he was right because you did (despite later realising your error, or perhaps more likely forgetting you made it)

Since being pulled up on it, you've wrongly stated it was a statement made by Sharon in the accounts, described it as a misleasing claim, dismissed it as you oversimplifying for someone else's benefit, and maintained that it was only something you apparently posted

I'm simply correcting the record

Why you're being so difficult about this, I don't know (perhaps embarrassment), but you certainly wouldn't have been so generous to others if they'd have made the same mistake

6 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

This was what you posted:

"you do seem confident that FV will slash a last reported trading loss of £14.3m down to a loss that it was making as a play off level club in League 1 whilst putting together a squad to survive in the Championship, with existing contracted players whose wages amounted to 98.8% of revenue remain on the payroll"

That is clearly you claiming the figure relates to player wages and not all employees of the football club

@jmjhb wasn't suggesting a week later that you still believed it was player wages only but that you first posted it was, and he was right because you did (despite later realising your error, or perhaps more likely forgetting you made it)

Since being pulled up on it, you've wrongly stated it was a statement made by Sharon in the accounts, described it as a misleasing claim, dismissed it as you oversimplifying for someone else's benefit, and maintained that it was only something you apparently posted

I'm simply correcting the record

Why you're being so difficult about this, I don't know (perhaps embarrassment), but you certainly wouldn't have been so generous to others if they'd have made the same mistake

That's bollocks mate, I was just simplifying,

Yes I could have said with "players and none player wages of those on the payroll at FVWL Football Ltd, as per the accounts of 30th June, 2025" but I said "with existing players wages", so fucking what, I was being descriptive not literal, I was talking in general of the financial hurdles BWFC would be facing, not analysing them.

God you've made all that fuss over nothing

And yes Sharon stated that wages was 98.8% of revenue - I've even told you were to find it, so go look.

I've never claimed it to be misleading, in fact I asked to come back to actually prove it to be true!!!

On 19/05/2026 at 09:45, 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 knowledgeable 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.

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.

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.

Note that I also spelt out that there were 67 staff termed as "football players" out of 401 employees so I KNEW as earlier as this point (even before making my first post back) that the wages total was not exclusively composed of footballers salaries!!!

I made no error, I simply used a colloquialism, that's all.

So yes I did simplify, I had forgot I said it and yes I "apparently" did say it.

You are correcting the record???

We are on a social media football forum for Christ sake, none of us are writing up a post graduate doctorate,

Rip me to pieces for extrapolating from the wrong table in the accounts by all means but "correcting the record" because I used a generalism chatting to a stranger on social media, even I'm not that anal.

And why should I be embarrassed about this faffing little thing when I've just made an idiot of myself for telling you all the wrong numbers for the best part of a month?

Mate you've decided to bring me down for whatever reason you have but this is just utterly pathetic from you, I'll make much bigger bloopers in the future for you to have a pop at me about but honestly there is absolutely nothing in this, I simply generalised whilst taking about a range of other things, and I've be consistant throughout on there being players and non player costs when speaking more specifically on SCR.

And if I wouldn't have been so generous to others when they made a mistake then why was I being kind (or attempting to be) to Jmjhb by saying this...

On 03/07/2026 at 04:17, Sluffy said:

Anyway If that's your way of offering an olive branch, then fine I'm happy to take it.

We'll be ok this coming season, all we have to do is finish in front of three other clubs and I'm sure we will manage that.

End of the day I'm just chatting shit on the internet, it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong or you are right or wrong, nothing we can do or say on here will put an extra penny into the club - here is not the real world, so don't take to heart anything I may have said (or will say in the future) they are just empty words in the ether, when all said and done.

On 03/07/2026 at 04:17, Sluffy said:

As I said above don't take anything said on the internet seriously - it isn't real life.

I can't wait for you to "correct the record again" and when you do make it about something more than me me using a casual phrase to someone who didn't know much if anything about SCR at the time.

PS I would love to know what other people "records" that you've "corrected", or am I the only one?