2 million cash pumped into the business in return for shares. Reported at companies house.

Edited December 6, 20214 yr by Mounts Kipper

Revenue going up and costs coming down? I shouldn't think so.

Edited June 30Jun 30 by jmjhb

4 minutes ago, Eddie said:

When someone has an insatiable desire for attention and so makes more and more extreme comments to try and bait someone / people into a response so that he can get the conversation going again.

I’ve come to the conclusion that alongside the obvious requirement for attention, he’s either got a fixation with being an accountant (strange) or vendetta against accountants (stranger).

Best way to deal with it is to ignore (fucking wish I had the ability to do it properly - bloody site upgrade 🙄).

Slag me off all you want but it is there in black and white on the audited accounts and it clearly shows a deficit of £27m

Explain that one away.

2 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

no more until tomorrow, if that's ok with you?

K

14 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

Is that ITK?

Quotes. I want quotes. Long uns.

In a range of fonts, size & colour. Otherwise it doesn't count.

I'd strongly argue that of all the information in the stat accounts for the club, the key statement to judge the health and viability is the cashflow. We spent approx £0.5m more than we received.... Ain't too much to worry about if you ask me.

1 hour ago, Sluffy said:

We both know that's bollocks, you Eddie and everyone else on here missed the £27m black hole in the accounts.

It would have taken you both just seconds to shoot me down if I was wrong about it, but I knew I wasn't and that's why I challenged you both to do so, knowing you wouldn't.

There's no unpicking to do, no mountains of work involved, that's just you and Eddie's feeble excuses, its basically just two simple columns of numbers clearly shown on the page I referred you to in the independently audited accounts, one being added to each year when shares are bought and one being added to every time the club (and the hotel) makes a trading loss. You simply subtract the trading loss column from the money received column - and the accounts showed FV had spent £27m more they had put in - that's how complicated it really is.

And you both would have known that full well.

21 minutes ago, jmjhb said:

It's also 2 seasons old now and basically irrelevant. Look forward, not back.

Thankfully SCR will be less than of an issue than even I thought. Coupled with the massive increase in revenue and decrease in operating loss, we can be positive.

I am looking forward, that is the whole point of what I've been doing!

Two seasons ago there was a black hole of £27m shown on the accounts.

The auditors notes acknowledged FV had tried to put in £20m that season but under EFL rules or something it had to be delayed into after the accounts were publishe.

Indeed the £20m was put in plus a further £10m as well.

So in effect at the start of last season the black hole had been plugged and there was £3m in the pot left over.

Today is coincidently the last day of that season.

No further investment has been since been shown to have been put into FV.

If FV has again traded at a loss of more than the £3m left in the pot, then again there will be another black hole that needs to be plugged.

SCR states that only a maximum of £15m of new equity can be invested in a single year.

The trading loss for the season just ending today has to take priority over any squad development, no doubt FV have already put something into cover it (as they attempted to do with the £20m the previous season) but no record of them doing so has yet emerged.

If they haven't it would have to come out of the capped £15m they are permitted to put in from tomorrow onwards.

The season we are entering we will need to cover whatever last years trading loss was (net of the £3m remaining in the pot), build a squad to remain in the Championship and cover the on going seasons end of year trading loss, all within the £15m they are permitted to put in plus a £12m or so increase in revenue from the EFL.

Not impossible but to do that but millions are needed, savings will have to be made and the transfer budget is one of the lowest in the division for obvious reasons.

All of this is what I've been saying since my return.

The questions I've raised is where are the millions to come from - FV put in £30m last summer and now have only £3m left in the pot, how deep do are they willing to go? I've also asked the question as to how will we fund the second and third season's in the Championship if there's nothing left in the pot after the current season and have blown £15m of the £33m we are allowed to invest over the three season period?

We are starting at the back of the grid not only in the need to build a good enough squad to stay in the Championship but also in terms of funding over those next three years. It would not surprise me if pet projects such as upgrading the reserve team (or whatever they are called) suddenly get forgotten about.

2 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

trading loss for the season just ending today has to take priority over any squad development, no doubt FV have already put something into cover it (as they attempted to do with the £20m the previous season) but no record of them doing so has yet emerged

That has been and gone, it's obviously been covered.

20 minutes ago, DLH said:

I'd strongly argue that of all the information in the stat accounts for the club, the key statement to judge the health and viability is the cashflow. We spent approx £0.5m more than we received.... Ain't too much to worry about if you ask me.

Why did we make a £14.3m loss then?

1 minute ago, jmjhb said:

That has been and gone, it's obviously been covered.

Yes I've already said that...

4 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

So in effect at the start of last season the black hole had been plugged and there was £3m in the pot left over.

2 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

Why did we make a £14.3m loss then?

4 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

Why did we make a £14.3m loss then?

I told you why we lost 14.3m...........Shite Signings after the Oxford shit show and paying off Markham Evatt and whatever coaches were left that had not been thrown under the bus and replacing them with SS/Harkin and a large coaching/scouting team CEO etc......One off bad year financially.

I would lay a lot of the blame at FV door, but it is also them that have been hit hardest through their pockets

1 hour ago, jmjhb said:

It's also 2 seasons old now and basically irrelevant. Look forward, not back.

Thankfully SCR will be less than of an issue than even I thought. Coupled with the massive increase in revenue and decrease in operating loss, we can be positive.

I want to believe this mate because Sluffy is doing his best to suck the joy out of us getting promoted 🙏

1 hour ago, Sluffy said:

Slag me off all you want but it is there in black and white on the audited accounts and it clearly shows a deficit of £27m

Explain that one away.

What if that deficit has been accounted for as part of a bigger long term strategy?

On 28/06/2026 at 19:51, Eddie said:

This is in my wheelhouse and it’s still excruciating.

Same shit being guessed at using out of date numbers and incomplete understanding of methodologies.

Subsequently knocked back in an understated but obvious way by someone who clearly knows more than most, only to be taken as the cue to double down, add more words but ultimately say the same thing again. And any opportunity on any thread to roll it out is duly pounced upon for regurgitation.

I can’t even ‘ignore’ as my account doesn’t seem to have that functionality. I can’t wait to be discussing whether we could actually win the league after doing PNE 3-0 on the opening day.

I'm happy just chatting about holidays, ale and the World Cup for the time being

1 hour ago, masi 51 said:

I told you why we lost 14.3m...........Shite Signings after the Oxford shit show and paying off Markham Evatt and whatever coaches were left that had not been thrown under the bus and replacing them with SS/Harkin and a large coaching/scouting team CEO etc......One off bad year financially.

I would lay a lot of the blame at FV door, but it is also them that have been hit hardest through their pockets

Why then did we make a £11.1m loss the previous year when none of that happened?

40 minutes ago, gonzo said:

What if that deficit has been accounted for as part of a bigger long term strategy?

There still needs to be money in the business to stop it from becoming insolvent (going bust).

There hasn't been any, or at least there hasn't been any reported to Companies House that all companies are required to do when new share issues have been made.

1 hour ago, Sluffy said:

Why did we make a £14.3m loss then?

As we're reporting using the accruals concept our costs were more than our revenue.

The question is, and should be, what was the budget and how did we perform against that. I'd put my cock on the block and say we definitely didn't budget to make a profit. You put stock in the audited financial statements, they've been signed off with a true and fair view, and the auditors are happy its a going concern. No problems then.

Somebody, please make it stop

1 minute ago, Sweep said:

Somebody, please make it stop

Seriously, Admins, make it stop. Please.

It was fair enough, after some years blocked, to think "let's see if he's improved".

It's clear he hasn't.

Just now, DLH said:

As we're reporting using the accruals concept our costs were more than our revenue.

The question is, and should be, what was the budget and how did we perform against that. I'd put my cock on the block and say we definitely didn't budget to make a profit. You put stock in the audited financial statements, they've been signed off with a true and fair view, and the auditors are happy its a going concern. No problems then.

You are confusing cash flow with solvency.

You can set a budget for the following year and establish your cash flow from it - which is what you are saying.

However what happens if cost's are actually more than budgeted?

The company can either cut its costs for the remainder of the year and/or take a hit on their profits or that it no longer can pay its bills (becomes insolvent - it no longer has a cash flow because it's all been spent paying the bills it can).

If it has budgeted for a loss to start with then it most likely will be the owners themselves will be required to put more money into the company either in loans or new equity. Bills then can be continued to be paid and cash flow, flows as it should.

Budgets have simply been revised upwards during the financial year.

The revised budget at the end of the year may well show a surplus but that doesn't mean to say an original £8m budgeted loss (or whatever it originally was) was showing a £0.5m saving, it simply means the upwardly revised budget now set at making a £14.8m loss, simply came in as a £14.3m loss with the £0.5m being less than the final revised budgeted total

Auditors signing off the accounts will look to see that there is money in the business to trade through the following year, they do that by knowing that the company has sufficient funding to do so (they've just audited the accounts) or if it can't through the owners ability and commitment to fund it themselves if need be.

The Solvency Statement from FV from last week simply being an example of this.

1 hour ago, Sluffy said:

Why then did we make a £11.1m loss the previous year when none of that happened?

Had a quick look at why our losses jumped from 5m 22/23 to 11m 23/24 despite getting to Wembley twice.....Explanation given significant investment across all sectors of the business. Did we purchase the training ground??? Did we pay any of the charges back ie car park land?? Did FV pay money back when they purchased the club but only paid it back this year.......No idea

Edited June 30Jun 30 by masi 51

4 hours ago, jmjhb said:

Revenue going up and costs coming down? I shouldn't think so.

Out of interest where are the cost savings coming from?

3 hours ago, Sluffy said:

The trading loss for the season just ending today has to take priority over any squad development, no doubt FV have already put something into cover it (as they attempted to do with the £20m the previous season) but no record of them doing so has yet emerged.

Well there was c. £2 million received early in the accounting period from the sales of Thomason and Collins. I don’t recall paying out much in transfer fees. Recognising that we brought in a lot of loans, we also shipped quite a few more out.

Don’t forget, as well, that Evatt was throwing money around like confetti during the last accounting period. We also had a Wembley visit this season, against none last year.

While we might not turn in a profit, it’s more than possible we’ve turned our operating position around, year-on-year.

23 minutes ago, Rival Son said:

Well there was c. £2 million received early in the accounting period from the sales of Thomason and Collins. I don’t recall paying out much in transfer fees. Recognising that we brought in a lot of loans, we also shipped quite a few more out.

Don’t forget, as well, that Evatt was throwing money around like confetti during the last accounting period. We also had a Wembley visit this season, against none last year.

While we might not turn in a profit, it’s more than possible we’ve turned our operating position around, year-on-year.

Plus we gave Bradford the whole end. That generated £34.75 and helped chip some off the £28m black hole.

1 hour ago, boltonboris said:

Out of interest where are the cost savings coming from?

Think energy usage is the big one.

1 hour ago, Rival Son said:

Don’t forget, as well, that Evatt was throwing money around like confetti during the last accounting period. We also had a Wembley visit this season, against none last year

Home semi and Wembley would have been a big boost to turnover, not so much in profit as the EFL take a big chunk of that and the rest is shared.