3 minutes ago, Whitesince63 said:

Zico, you can’t win with him so just carry on scrolling through his posts as I do because responding only encourages him. He’s just the same on Nuts, always wants to prove he knows more than anyone else and has absolutely no self awareness to see what a clown he really is and that if he just accepted his shortcomings, as most of us do, he’d be a much more valuable poster.

I feel like the manager of the team getting the dreaded vote of confidence from the Board.

I won't go on anymore about grudges, but they do clearly exist and they won't go away after people have been holding them for all these years, and I won't post anymore uber long posts comprising of several quotes.

I trust that is ok with everyone?

6 hours ago, Krimzon said:

Milk or Dark ?

Dark Bounties are now ceased. I bought 2 boxes of them at the time. Now, sadly, gone.

The exchange rate for those would be sky high.

I'm honestly not sure how most of the other clubs in the division with less revenue and much bigger wage bills (based on being in the Championship for so long) are going to cope with these rules. Player sales, I suppose.

Either way we probably have more leeway than most.

26 minutes ago, Dr. Feelgood said:

Dark Bounties are now ceased. I bought 2 boxes of them at the time. Now, sadly, gone.

The exchange rate for those would be sky high.

I used to love a dark bounty, milk ones just don't cut it.

32 minutes ago, jmjhb said:

I'm honestly not sure how most of the other clubs in the division with less revenue and much bigger wage bills (based on being in the Championship for so long) are going to cope with these rules. Player sales, I suppose.

Either way we probably have more leeway than most.

I've been thinking about this myself

There must be quite a few with a wage bill in excess of 85% of their turnover and it feels impractical to expect them to get that down immediately

I can only think it'll have pretty drastic effect on transfer fees for players they want to offload if so, a bit like the situation Hull City find themselves in now

Possibly some very cut-price deals later in the window

I don't know

31 minutes ago, jmjhb said:

I'm honestly not sure how most of the other clubs in the division with less revenue and much bigger wage bills (based on being in the Championship for so long) are going to cope with these rules. Player sales, I suppose.

Either way we probably have more leeway than most.

A great deal would depend on what capitalisation they currently have.

Under SCR we all are limited to a cap of £33m on new capital over the next 3 years.

We currently have to my reckoning £5 to £8m - meaning that most of the £33m over the next 3 years will be needed to cover trading losses.

If any any club currently has say £40m in capital in unspent equity, then they can spend the whole £33m on building their squads, whilst having that £40m in the bank to pay off their trading losses over the next 3 years.

That's why as far as I'm concerned it's crucial that FV has investors willing to put as much as they can in equity before SCR kicks in, which apparently is on the 1st July.

Even if FV was bought by the richest man in the world, he still could only invest £33m of new capital into the club once SCR has started, and most of that £33m would have to be used to to pay off trading losses.

Or at least that's my understanding of how SCR will work.

13 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

A great deal would depend on what capitalisation they currently have.

Under SCR we all are limited to a cap of £33m on new capital over the next 3 years.

We currently have to my reckoning £5 to £8m - meaning that most of the £33m over the next 3 years will be needed to cover trading losses.

If any any club currently has say £40m in capital in unspent equity, then they can spend the whole £33m on building their squads, whilst having that £40m in the bank to pay off their trading losses over the next 3 years.

That's why as far as I'm concerned it's crucial that FV has investors willing to put as much as they can in equity before SCR kicks in, which apparently is on the 1st July.

Even if FV was bought by the richest man in the world, he still could only invest £33m of new capital into the club once SCR has started, and most of that £33m would have to be used to to pay off trading losses.

Or at least that's my understanding of how SCR will work.

No club in this league have 40m in unspent equity.....Most are between 50 and 100m in debt and one or two are double that

Wont stop teams investing this summer on money they do not have. All this SCR is BOLLOX!!!!!

49 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

If any any club currently has say £40m in capital in unspent equity

Can you really see this to be the case?

2 minutes ago, masi 51 said:

No club in this league have 40m in unspent equity.....Most are between 50 and 100m in debt and one or two are double that

Wont stop teams investing this summer on money they do not have. All this SCR is BOLLOX!!!!!

Having unspent equity and being in 'debt' are two different things.

For instance if you add up all FV's declared trading losses to date, they are £40m in debt yet still had unspent equity in the company .

Even now, one year on and with another trading loss yet to be announced, I reckon FV will be showing something like having a £50m debt yet still have around £10m unspent equity.

You cannot invest money you do not have?

I assume you mean borrow money to buy players?

SCR is EFL's attempt is to rein in such excess by clubs by limiting what they can spend on players directly to their revenue - so no more players wages and transfer fees spent buying them, in excess of 85% of their clubs current revenue.

Some clubs will be better prepared for SCR than others, some by possibly having plenty of unspent equity in the business than other clubs, and some because they already have established Championship squads and can target where they need to improve them whilst others (like ourselves) virtually needing to build one from scratch.

The playing field isn't equal for all clubs that now find themselves in the Championship but life simply isn't fair I guess.

I really don't see there being much unspent equity anywhere in the Championship when two clubs that got to the Premier League posted losses of £42M and £21M accordingly...they're the lucky ones

5 minutes ago, jmjhb said:

Can you really see this to be the case?

I wouldn't know without looking through their accounts.

Take for instance all the fuss from other clubs when we announced £30m of new investment last year.

On the face of it we were in exactly that sort of position.

Obviously we weren't because there was a £7m blackhole that need filling and whatever the trading loss for this season is.

I don't follow other clubs accounts, maybe some of them have chucked in a big bundle of money (even we did last year, didn't we?)

I'm not saying there are clubs out there with £40m or whatever but IF I'm right about SCR (and I may not be) then if any of them can pour millions into their clubs before SCR starts, then now is the time to do it.

I wish FV would!

The club have little debt because the money has come from the owners and not been added to the club like previous owners.

Or am i wrong?

9 minutes ago, jmjhb said:

I really don't see there being much unspent equity anywhere in the Championship when two clubs that got to the Premier League posted losses of £42M and £21M accordingly...they're the lucky ones

Don't forget though that those accounts are in respect of the 2024-25 season and won't include any equity invested into the club after 30th June 2025

A trading loss and having unspent equity now are not one and the same thing - we announced a loss of £14m that same season. then FV put on £30m

Its like the younger generation with their four bedroom house worth 400k Two cars on the drive and Holidaying three times a year.

House has been re-mortgaged and they negative equity, the cars are on HP, and the maxed out cards pay for the holidays

Everyone thinks they are doing well

1 minute ago, masi 51 said:

The club have little debt because the money has come from the owners and not been added to the club like previous owners.

Or am i wrong?

The club is debt free because the FV have put their money in as equity.

Eddie Davies put his money in as loans, so the company (Burnden Leisure) was in debt to him as a creditor.

So the owners in both cases have put in their money.

As at 30 June 2025 FV have spent £40m of the money they had put in as share equity and can't recover that money unless they sell their shares.

Eddie secured his loans on the clubs assets and in theory could have claimed his money back by seizing those assets and selling them off.

The infamous Ken Anderson put none of his money into the club (which was his prerogative to do).

It's just different ways of doing things really I guess.

Fwiw FV didn't really invest that much in shares originally, that changed when they got the government loan during Covid, that had to be paid back or rolled into equity with FV having to match it by putting £5m in equity themselves - and its been all share investment ever since.

4 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

The club is debt free because the FV have put their money in as equity.

Eddie Davies put his money in as loans, so the company (Burnden Leisure) was in debt to him as a creditor.

So the owners in both cases have put in their money.

As at 30 June 2025 FV have spent £40m of the money they had put in as share equity and can't recover that money unless they sell their shares.

Eddie secured his loans on the clubs assets and in theory could have claimed his money back by seizing those assets and selling them off.

The infamous Ken Anderson put none of his money into the club (which was his prerogative to do).

It's just different ways of doing things really I guess.

Fwiw FV didn't really invest that much in shares originally, that changed when they got the government loan during Covid, that had to be paid back or rolled into equity with FV having to match it by putting £5m in equity themselves - and its been all share investment ever since.

If the owners do not have the money they should sell just like any other business... I thought it bonkers at the time the owner put the club into debt and charged 10% interest for the privledge.

24 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

Don't forget though that those accounts are in respect of the 2024-25 season and won't include any equity invested into the club after 30th June 2025

A trading loss and having unspent equity now are not one and the same thing - we announced a loss of £14m that same season. then FV put on £30m

Let's assume they're similar in 25/26 due to transfer business; still huge black holes to plug especially for the ones with less revenue (Blackburn, Preston, QPR) etc

4 minutes ago, masi 51 said:

If the owners do not have the money they should sell just like any other business... I thought it bonkers at the time the owner put the club into debt and charged 10% interest for the privledge.

If you are referring to Eddie Davies (or even Prescott Business Park) they both loaned a company money (Burnden Leisure then transferred to FV) , secured on assets and with at an agreed interest just like a commercial bank would.

The difference being Eddie and PBP have waived all their interest accruing (a bank would not)

Compare that with Dean Holdsworth who took out the BluMarble loan for £6m (iirc?) secured it on the clubs assets, then charged the club £1m for arranging the loan apparently.

I guess it all depends on how big a benefactor the owner of the club is.

5 minutes ago, jmjhb said:

Let's assume they're similar in 25/26 due to transfer business; still huge black holes to plug especially for the ones with less revenue (Blackburn, Preston, QPR) etc

I'm not sure they will be with PL revenue from last season but maybe they could be, I don't know.

There's no reason to assume the clubs had blackholes though and if they had that they weren't plugged since June 2025 - in the same way we did to our black hole.

All I'm saying really is that if any club could build up a cushion of equity before SCR comes into effect, that they would be advised to do so if my interpretation of SCR is correct.

3 hours ago, Dr. Feelgood said:

Dark Bounties are now ceased. I bought 2 boxes of them at the time. Now, sadly, gone.

The exchange rate for those would be sky high.

Is that right ? Bugger, they were well good .

All bounties should be banned.

As indeed should any foodstuff that incorporates coconut.

19 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

All bounties should be banned.

As indeed should any foodstuff that incorporates coconut.

Heathen . Bet you dont have pineapple on your pizza either .

1 hour ago, Krimzon said:

Heathen . Bet you dont have pineapple on your pizza either .

I certainly do.

Tremendous with ham and mushrooms.

Only use for the big nut is when making curries with the cream. And feeding to birds.

10 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

I certainly do.

Tremendous with ham and mushrooms.

Only use for the big nut is when making curries with the cream. And feeding to birds.

Are you my ex GF ? thats exactly how she had her pizzas !

Cant argue about the curries .... just all round love it . especially with chocolate and ice cream .

On 27/06/2026 at 09:50, Dr. Feelgood said:

Dark Bounties are now ceased. I bought 2 boxes of them at the time. Now, sadly, gone.

The exchange rate for those would be sky high.

As an emergency topic, & then I'll stop, I decided to chase Mars about the near 4 year absence of the dark Bounty due to 'operational difficulties' and to their credit they swiftly replied.

It's no longer being disguised as operational reasons, which never made sense, but to low demand & there are no plans to start making them again. Bastards.

I have a friend who makes them at home & says it's really very easy and takes few ingredients. If anyone's interested I'll try to wrestle the recipe from her.

For those who dislike coconut you have my sympathies. I loathe, to the point of mania, cinnamon & would happily start wars to be rid of it.

Edited June 28Jun 28 by Dr. Feelgood