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

Edited December 6, 20214 yr by Mounts Kipper

10 minutes ago, jmjhb said:

Think energy usage is the big one.

Aye heard the ground itself is such a money pit.

I remember reading years and years ago that unless we get in 15,000k people in for a game we actually lose money on the ground.

3 hours ago, Sluffy said:

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.

I don’t need a simplistic view of how budgets work, I’ve been a qualified accountant for over 20 years. Neither am I confusing cash flow and solvency.

What I am saying is while yes there maybe a £14.3m loss, is that expected or not? If the original budget was to make that level of loss then all is fine, the FV and BLMM people will have oversight of the budgets and know the funding requirements.

If not then things went wrong, by how much we’ll never know because we’ll never know the budgets they set. Is it a concerning amount, I’d say given we spent money after this, probably not, but again we will never know.

Financial Statements give a snapshot of a position in time, different industries and different sectors have key ratios that may give some idea of financial health, what those are in football I don’t know, but losses and negative p&l reserves are, I would guess, common in the sector.

Auditors do a lot more than check you have cash for going concern. You need to evidence budgets for anywhere between 1 to 5 years to evidence you think you can continue to operate. I would hazard a guess for FVW Ltd they’ll want some evidence of funding commitments too.

55 minutes ago, Zog1 said:

I remember reading years and years ago that unless we get in 15,000k people in for a game we actually lose money on the ground.

Can only image if that was years ago that number would have to be higher now given the increase in energy prices and staffing costs.

Of course ticket prices have increased but at nowhere near the same rate.

3 minutes ago, meanderson93 said:

Can only image if that was years ago that number would have to be higher now given the increase in energy prices and staffing costs.

Of course ticket prices have increased but at nowhere near the same rate.

Carabao Cup and especially EFL Trophy matches are the worst for this.

22 hours ago, W.cramp said:

When the going gets sluff, the sluff gets going ( we can only hope Billy was correct)

Careful, the Slufftwaffe will be carpet bombing you with info before you know it. "For you Cramp, ze war of words is over. Cooler!"

5 minutes ago, meanderson93 said:

Can only image if that was years ago that number would have to be higher now given the increase in energy prices and staffing costs.

Of course ticket prices have increased but at nowhere near the same rate.

This is why i was so mental about some of the performances and results last year, this talk of people needing a season to settle in was for the birds. This club is unsustainable at any level below the Championship, at this level with a few smart investments we can be competitive, we weren't a million miles away under Anderson, who put no money in.

We just have to take the risk, which is why I’m worried about the budget this year, with all the expectation management and talk of a bottom 3 budget, this is exactly the wrong time and wrong squad to be holding the purse strings on. We can't miss out on a Morgan Rogers, Said Benrahma, Ollie Watkins type, because we only wanted to spend £1M and they wanted £1.2M. The loan model risks sucking us dry, like it has Oxford.

6 minutes ago, Zog1 said:

This is why i was so mental about some of the performances and results last year, this talk of people needing a season to settle in was for the birds. This club is unsustainable at any level below the Championship, at this level with a few smart investments we can be competitive, we weren't a million miles away under Anderson, who put no money in.

Part of the problem has been the loss of events being staged at the ground, something that FV have clearly stated they want to bring back.

The stadium was designed to host them, to give additional revenue.

I'd suggest if we had kept those at a decent level, we would have been far more sustainable in league one than we were.

49 minutes ago, DLH said:

I don’t need a simplistic view of how budgets work, I’ve been a qualified accountant for over 20 years. Neither am I confusing cash flow and solvency.

What I am saying is while yes there maybe a £14.3m loss, is that expected or not? If the original budget was to make that level of loss then all is fine, the FV and BLMM people will have oversight of the budgets and know the funding requirements.

If not then things went wrong, by how much we’ll never know because we’ll never know the budgets they set. Is it a concerning amount, I’d say given we spent money after this, probably not, but again we will never know.

Financial Statements give a snapshot of a position in time, different industries and different sectors have key ratios that may give some idea of financial health, what those are in football I don’t know, but losses and negative p&l reserves are, I would guess, common in the sector.

Auditors do a lot more than check you have cash for going concern. You need to evidence budgets for anywhere between 1 to 5 years to evidence you think you can continue to operate. I would hazard a guess for FVW Ltd they’ll want some evidence of funding commitments too.

But what about the £28m black hole the Sluff had found on Chat GTP?!

2 minutes ago, gonzo said:

But what about the £28m black hole the Sluff had found on Chat GTP?!

7 minutes ago, gonzo said:

But what about the £28m black hole the Sluff had found on Chat GTP?!

Filled with dark chocolate Bounty's, panic over.

(it's why you can't buy them anymore)

59 minutes ago, DLH said:

IIf the original budget was to make that level of loss then all is fine, the FV and BLMM people will have oversight of the budgets and know the funding requirements.

Bolty's fucking fuming

25 minutes ago, Zog1 said:

We just have to take the risk, which is why I’m worried about the budget this year, with all the expectation management and talk of a bottom 3 budget, this is exactly the wrong time and wrong squad to be holding the purse strings on. We can't miss out on a Morgan Rogers, Said Benrahma, Ollie Watkins type, because we only wanted to spend £1M and they wanted £1.2M. The loan model risks sucking us dry, like it has Oxfor

I have a feeling it will be a transitional season in a similar sense to the one just gone although with more scope.

Thing about the teams like Preston and Blackburn, whilst they have relatively settled Championship squads, they're suffering diminishing returns and then it does become the aforementioned black hole just trying to stay still. Disinterest sets in and fans voting with their feet, etc...

Mind you, they (and us) only need to get it right once.

Edited June 30Jun 30 by jmjhb

19 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Part of the problem has been the loss of events being staged at the ground, something that FV have clearly stated they want to bring back.

The stadium was designed to host them, to give additional revenue.

I'd suggest if we had kept those at a decent level, we would have been far more sustainable in league one than we were.

We managed to host Rod Stewart when in administration!

2 minutes ago, jmjhb said:

I have a feeling it will be a transitional season in the similar sense as the one just gone although with more scope

Thing about the teams like Preston and Blackburn, whilst they have relatively settled Championship squads, they're suffering diminishing returns and then it does become the aforementioned black hole.

Mind you, they only need to get it right once.

Rovers always seem to pull of a decent transfer sale every few years: Szmodics, Adam Armstrong and Adam Wharton. Preston are struggling.

2 hours ago, gonzo said:

Aye heard the ground itself is such a money pit.

£1mil a year I heard.

3 hours ago, jmjhb said:

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.

I’m comparing 25/26 with 24/25. No Wembley or playoffs in 24/25.

2 minutes ago, Rival Son said:

I’m comparing 25/26 with 24/25. No Wembley or playoffs in 24/25.

So am I?

22 minutes ago, jmjhb said:

So am I?

My humble apologies. You are adding to my points.

3 hours ago, DLH said:

I don’t need a simplistic view of how budgets work, I’ve been a qualified accountant for over 20 years. Neither am I confusing cash flow and solvency.

What I am saying is while yes there maybe a £14.3m loss, is that expected or not? If the original budget was to make that level of loss then all is fine, the FV and BLMM people will have oversight of the budgets and know the funding requirements.

If not then things went wrong, by how much we’ll never know because we’ll never know the budgets they set. Is it a concerning amount, I’d say given we spent money after this, probably not, but again we will never know.

Financial Statements give a snapshot of a position in time, different industries and different sectors have key ratios that may give some idea of financial health, what those are in football I don’t know, but losses and negative p&l reserves are, I would guess, common in the sector.

Auditors do a lot more than check you have cash for going concern. You need to evidence budgets for anywhere between 1 to 5 years to evidence you think you can continue to operate. I would hazard a guess for FVW Ltd they’ll want some evidence of funding commitments too.

Thank you for your reply, I note that Eddie and Road Runner (your brother accountants) both 'liked' it.

Fwiw, in my career I have been accountable for budgets in excess of tens of millions per annum, so I do know a little about them.

I would have thought that between you and your esteemed colleagues you would have seen that the loss was totally unexpected and clearly not budgeted for.

How can I state that so confidently because the answer is in the accounts and fwiw I have even flagged it up in previous posts recently on this very thread.

IF the £14.3m was planned for, then why in the accounts show that FV had only made a stated provision of £20m?

Surely the provision would have had to have been £30m, the extra £10m being added to the £20m provision AFTER the accounts were audited.

The black hole being £27m and not £17m which FV planned for and the £20.15m equity would have covered.

Something went badly awry somewhere, I suspect fwiw that FV had not taken account the previous years trading loss of £11.1m

The balance on the Group Statement of Changes in Equity were correctly shown in the June 2024 accounts as £5.3m and in the June 2025 accounts they are shown as minus £7m (a turn around of £12.3m).

I can't prove it obviously but something big caused FV to put in an unexpected £10m - and I can only think making an error of not taking the previous years £11.1m trading loss being the only thing big enough to account for it?

The rest of what you say would then be true - FV budgeted for a loss, it may well have been £14.3m. £20.15m was put in to cover the trading loss and the cash flow came within £0.5m

FV would have shown a credit in the 'Changes of Equity' of £4m and not the loss it did of minus £7m. (being the £11.1m)

They were clearly £10m out from what they planned, as they had to put an extra £10m to the £20.15m they planned to put in, as evidence in the accounts.

I doubt very much that FV would have budgeted for a loss of £14.3m if the unexpected £10m discrepancy had been known about when the budgets were first set.

And thank you I know all about statements being just a record of a point in time and similarly I also know auditors want far more than just some photo copied bank statements that Laurence Bassini tried to palm the Administrator off with.

Edit - Fwiw this is what Niaz Shazad (CFO at FV August 24 - December 25) says about the clubs finances at the time...

‘It was a change of mindset. City had just won the Champions League, but Bolton had not enjoyed a smooth journey in recent times. As a change agent, there was a need for strength of conviction, for clarity and to rebuild trust across the organisation – it was underperforming behind the scenes.

‘Although revenue had grown, losses had grown proportionately at a faster rate. There were missed payments, no PO system, a lack of cashflow certainty – none of which was individually disastrous but materially sub-optimal overall.

Scoring career goals

Edited July 1Jul 1 by Sluffy

6 hours ago, jmjhb said:

Think energy usage is the big one.

If you are interested there's something about this in the Directors comments in the accounts.

It starts at the bottom of page 8 (page 11 of 42 on the page counter at the top of the screen).

FOOTBALL VENTURES (WHITES) LIMITED filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

Told you your abicas was broken.........wrong year old chap

6 hours ago, Sluffy said:

Thank you for your reply, I note that Eddie and Road Runner (your brother accountants) both 'liked' it.

Fwiw, in my career I have been accountable for budgets in excess of tens of millions per annum, so I do know a little about them.

I would have thought that between you and your esteemed colleagues you would have seen that the loss was totally unexpected and clearly not budgeted for.

How can I state that so confidently because the answer is in the accounts and fwiw I have even flagged it up in previous posts recently on this very thread.

IF the £14.3m was planned for, then why in the accounts show that FV had only made a stated provision of £20m?

Surely the provision would have had to have been £30m, the extra £10m being added to the £20m provision AFTER the accounts were audited.

The black hole being £27m and not £17m which FV planned for and the £20.15m equity would have covered.

Something went badly awry somewhere, I suspect fwiw that FV had not taken account the previous years trading loss of £11.1m

The balance on the Group Statement of Changes in Equity were correctly shown in the June 2024 accounts as £5.3m and in the June 2025 accounts they are shown as minus £7m (a turn around of £12.3m).

I can't prove it obviously but something big caused FV to put in an unexpected £10m - and I can only think making an error of not taking the previous years £11.1m trading loss being the only thing big enough to account for it?

The rest of what you say would then be true - FV budgeted for a loss, it may well have been £14.3m. £20.15m was put in to cover the trading loss and the cash flow came within £0.5m

FV would have shown a credit in the 'Changes of Equity' of £4m and not the loss it did of minus £7m. (being the £11.1m)

They were clearly £10m out from what they planned, as they had to put an extra £10m to the £20.15m they planned to put in, as evidence in the accounts.

I doubt very much that FV would have budgeted for a loss of £14.3m if the unexpected £10m discrepancy had been known about when the budgets were first set.

And thank you I know all about statements being just a record of a point in time and similarly I also know auditors want far more than just some photo copied bank statements that Laurence Bassini tried to palm the Administrator off with.

Edit - Fwiw this is what Niaz Shazad (CFO at FV August 24 - December 25) says about the clubs finances at the time...

‘It was a change of mindset. City had just won the Champions League, but Bolton had not enjoyed a smooth journey in recent times. As a change agent, there was a need for strength of conviction, for clarity and to rebuild trust across the organisation – it was underperforming behind the scenes.

‘Although revenue had grown, losses had grown proportionately at a faster rate. There were missed payments, no PO system, a lack of cashflow certainty – none of which was individually disastrous but materially sub-optimal overall.

Scoring career goals

So what you saying then

7 hours ago, Sluffy said:

Thank you for your reply, I note that Eddie and Road Runner (your brother accountants) both 'liked' it.

Fwiw, in my career I have been accountable for budgets in excess of tens of millions per annum, so I do know a little about them.

I would have thought that between you and your esteemed colleagues you would have seen that the loss was totally unexpected and clearly not budgeted for.

How can I state that so confidently because the answer is in the accounts and fwiw I have even flagged it up in previous posts recently on this very thread.

IF the £14.3m was planned for, then why in the accounts show that FV had only made a stated provision of £20m?

Surely the provision would have had to have been £30m, the extra £10m being added to the £20m provision AFTER the accounts were audited.

The black hole being £27m and not £17m which FV planned for and the £20.15m equity would have covered.

Something went badly awry somewhere, I suspect fwiw that FV had not taken account the previous years trading loss of £11.1m

The balance on the Group Statement of Changes in Equity were correctly shown in the June 2024 accounts as £5.3m and in the June 2025 accounts they are shown as minus £7m (a turn around of £12.3m).

I can't prove it obviously but something big caused FV to put in an unexpected £10m - and I can only think making an error of not taking the previous years £11.1m trading loss being the only thing big enough to account for it?

The rest of what you say would then be true - FV budgeted for a loss, it may well have been £14.3m. £20.15m was put in to cover the trading loss and the cash flow came within £0.5m

FV would have shown a credit in the 'Changes of Equity' of £4m and not the loss it did of minus £7m. (being the £11.1m)

They were clearly £10m out from what they planned, as they had to put an extra £10m to the £20.15m they planned to put in, as evidence in the accounts.

I doubt very much that FV would have budgeted for a loss of £14.3m if the unexpected £10m discrepancy had been known about when the budgets were first set.

And thank you I know all about statements being just a record of a point in time and similarly I also know auditors want far more than just some photo copied bank statements that Laurence Bassini tried to palm the Administrator off with.

Edit - Fwiw this is what Niaz Shazad (CFO at FV August 24 - December 25) says about the clubs finances at the time...

‘It was a change of mindset. City had just won the Champions League, but Bolton had not enjoyed a smooth journey in recent times. As a change agent, there was a need for strength of conviction, for clarity and to rebuild trust across the organisation – it was underperforming behind the scenes.

‘Although revenue had grown, losses had grown proportionately at a faster rate. There were missed payments, no PO system, a lack of cashflow certainty – none of which was individually disastrous but materially sub-optimal overall.

Scoring career goals

Why do you cut the quote short from Niaz ?

We managed to make significant progress within the finance function, thanks to my super team,’ Shazad says. ‘The club is on a far better footing now and can hopefully go on to secure promotion this season.’

FWIW, I don't think they'd have budgeted a £14.3m loss, we'd have budgeted to make at least the playoffs so additional revenue missed from that, and I'll hazard a guess we didn't plan to sack the management team. Lets say that's a loss of revenue of and cost of about £1.5m (wild guess) but you'd be looking at a loss of £12.5-£13m assuming that, its probably wrong, as I have absolutely no idea what the plans were.

In terms of the below;

8 hours ago, Sluffy said:

IF the £14.3m was planned for, then why in the accounts show that FV had only made a stated provision of £20m?

Surely the provision would have had to have been £30m, the extra £10m being added to the £20m provision AFTER the accounts were audited.

The black hole being £27m and not £17m which FV planned for and the £20.15m equity would have covered.

This "provision" are you talking about the £20m creditor for shares? That's the only figure near £20m mentioned in the accounts. Which isn't a provision... its a genuine creditor at the balance sheet date. Only provisions for cost I can see (and I've not wasted hours looking in detail) are £1.1m of accruals.

7 hours ago, Sluffy said:

The balance on the Group Statement of Changes in Equity were correctly shown in the June 2024 accounts as £5.3m and in the June 2025 accounts they are shown as minus £7m (a turn around of £12.3m).

Per the notes, the Equity position of the business is in essence understated by £20m at the year end due to the issues with the allocation of shares. If you want a truer reflection of liabilities and equity - reduce the creditors due within one year by £20,150,000 and increase the share premium account by the same amount - it'll be there or there abouts in terms of a truer Equity position of the business.

As for the additional £9m of shares acquired on the 1st August (which again I think you are including in the black hole), you'd need to see the budget.... may well have been planned, may link into the calendar of bonuses paid by Trafigura, I have no idea.

The only black hole I can see is anyone with any knowledge needed to make a true judgement on the health or not of the financial statements.