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

Edited December 6, 20214 yr by Mounts Kipper

8 hours ago, Sluffy said:

Yes they have a payroll but do they break it down to X spends 40% player related time, 60 % on none-related player time (multiplied by whatever the number have split roles)?

You report payroll by individual to HMRC, so even if they don't have the report, it'd be a piece of piss to get it. Maybe different rules in different UEFA countries, but I'd suggest 100% of UK clubs will know.

FWIW the way I've read SCR stuff it's a cashflow exercise rather than an accounting one (could be very wrong on that, just some of the terminology used and the fact they specifically state including transfer fees for the 85%).

This mon is the main reason this site lost the fun posters like Brixton,ssm,seasonedtraveller etc.

It has now possibly reached new lows.

Zico,cassie,Carlos please get shut of this muppet.

1 hour ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

He might be wrong about the figures including employees of the hotel but he's right about you initially making the mistake of thinking they applied solely to player wages

The hotel has been used for matchday hospitality, could be theoretically included. Negligible amount though, arguing over a comb here.

Edited July 3Jul 3 by jmjhb

39 minutes ago, W.cramp said:

This mon is the main reason this site lost the fun posters like Brixton,ssm,seasonedtraveller etc.

It has now possibly reached new lows.

Zico,cassie,Carlos please get shut of this muppet.

Why call for people to be banned just because you either don’t like what they write or have a different view or even just because of the lengths of their posts. Surely there are enough options to ignore or scroll through peoples posts if you don’t like them without resorting to banning. Surely that should be for inappropriate or abusive posts not just the preferences of a few. Mods would be doing a lousy job binning posters just because some don’t like them.

Re; Sluffy.

I don’t know if anyone else tries to analyse someone’s personality purely based on how they behave/post on an internet forum?

I do and find it fascinating at how I come to assumptions (quite possibly way off the mark) just through reading the written word..

I find Sluffy a fascinating and complex personality and have noticed that he rarely (if ever 🤷‍♂️) ‘likes’ somebody’s post! Yet he jumps with glee and comments when someone gives him a like, almost childlike as when you give praise to a kid. 🤔

My conclusion of his personality traits is:

Self obsessed. Attention seeking. Manipulative. Wants praise. Huge ego. Lack of empathy. Probably a Psychopath!

None of this makes him a bad person (in my eyes) but he is probably just misunderstood..

9 minutes ago, Whitesince63 said:

Why call for people to be banned just because you either don’t like what they write or have a different view or even just because of the lengths of their posts. Surely there are enough options to ignore or scroll through peoples posts if you don’t like them without resorting to banning. Surely that should be for inappropriate or abusive posts not just the preferences of a few. Mods would be doing a lousy job binning posters just because some don’t like them.

Your next on the list

36 minutes ago, Ros Coe said:

Probably a Psychopath!

None of this makes him a bad person

😜

11 hours ago, Sluffy said:

it would be a tip of my hat to you and Road Runner simply to show there was never any hard lines about anything from me - I never imagined it would turn into another war and peace.

No hard lines from me Sluffy though I'm sure fewer and shorter lines from yourself would go down a treat on here, it would with me anyhow.

Edited July 3Jul 3 by RoadRunnerFan

Christ it's still going on ffs...

3 hours ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

He might be wrong about the figures including employees of the hotel but he's right about you initially making the mistake of thinking they applied solely to player wages

I'm not.

Details contained in FVWL Football Ltd accounts, page 4, Employees

3 hours ago, DLH said:

You report payroll by individual to HMRC, so even if they don't have the report, it'd be a piece of piss to get it. Maybe different rules in different UEFA countries, but I'd suggest 100% of UK clubs will know.

The point I was trying to make was that individuals didn't necessarily had to be working 100% of their time on the playing squad (or none-playing squad) I used the example previously of coach employed by the club who splits his time working with the playing squad but also works within the community.

1 hour ago, Ros Coe said:

My conclusion of his personality traits is:

Self obsessed. Attention seeking. Manipulative. Wants praise. Huge ego. Lack of empathy. Probably a Psychopath!

Wrong about everything apart from me being a psychopath.

1 hour ago, W.cramp said:

Your next on the list

It is "you're", not "your".

I wouldn't want people to think that obsessed psychopath's like ourselves didn't know basic English...

46 minutes ago, RoadRunnerFan said:

No hard lines from me Sluffy though I'm sure fewer and shorter lines from yourself would go down a treat on here, it would with me anyhow.

Thanks mate.

I'll try but I never expect the totally uncalled for maelstrom from yesterday to have occurred from a completely innocuous post that I made - if someone else had posted it, it would have passed by with little or no comment.

Wouldn't it?

8 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

Christ it's still going on ffs...

I'm not.

Details contained in FVWL Football Ltd accounts, page 4, Employees

No, not you, him

But you were wrong about the figure relating solely to players wages

You've not read my post properly

3 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

No, not you, him

But you were wrong about the figure relating solely to players wages

You've not read my post properly

Ah, I see what you mean now.

Thing is I never claimed the 401 employees all applied to the SCR calculation, I mused which ones might or might not, that's when I talked about a coach who may be involved with the first team but his other duties related to community work, I also mentioned that a large number of the 401 would only be match day employees for example.

You've been misled by this false claim I suspect...

12 hours ago, jmjhb said:

But then again, I'm not the person who first thought the club was spending 98.8% on player wages. But go ahead and live in your dream world. If you're going to try and educate people about the club's finances then get your facts right first.

40 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

The point I was trying to make was that individuals didn't necessarily had to be working 100% of their time on the playing squad (or none-playing squad) I used the example previously of coach employed by the club who splits his time working with the playing squad but also works within the community.

Apologies, missed that one point.

I would hazard a guess that any coaches who head out into the community will be monitored to the hilt in terms of where they are. Post Barry Bennell imagine if you didn't... whether it would be deductible or not is another question. I'd hazard a guess that if it was a first team coach they'd be fully included, we're unlikely to cancel 1st team training to go have a kick about with some kids up Daisy Hill looking for the next Nicky Hunt.

24 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

Ah, I see what you mean now.

Thing is I never claimed the 401 employees all applied to the SCR calculation, I mused which ones might or might not, that's when I talked about a coach who may be involved with the first team but his other duties related to community work, I also mentioned that a large number of the 401 would only be match day employees for example.

You've been misled by this false claim I suspect...

I'm not getting mislead by a false claim because it's not a false claim

You posted as such on the 28th June

A copy of that post is on page 139 of this thread

As we've now finally ascertained it's likely to be just players and manager. So tons of leeway for 26/27 if you consider the boost in revenue. Can even afford to invest a bit on players.

Edited July 3Jul 3 by jmjhb

25 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

I'm not getting mislead by a false claim because it's not a false claim

You posted as such on the 28th June

A copy of that post is on page 139 of this thread

I can't find it anywhere on page 139 if I'm supposed to have said that and even if I had I clarified it on page 140 (still on the 28th June) by saying the following...

On 28/06/2026 at 17:21, Sluffy said:

It's difficult to know without reading EFL's fine print definitions - this is what we know from what they've put in the public domain so far.

The SCR system limits Clubs spending on Player and Manager-related costs (including transfer fees)...

The accounts for FVWL (Football) Ltd shows that there are actually 401 employees (67 of whom are termed as football players)

Assuming football players mean football players only, then we need to add on the 'Manager-related costs - so what are those?

The manager yes, would that include the assistant managers, if so how far down do you go, does that include coaches perhaps - set pieces coaches, defensive coaches, goalkeeping coaches, etc?

If we return to the 67 football players, then clearly that goes beyond the first team - are they counted under SCR or not (I assume most of them are kids on peanuts anyway) BUT these kids can and do play for BWFC, included into match day squads at times (although exempted due to their age on being named in the official squad list given to the EFL) and even make their debuts in EFL games - so if they are counted does that mean the manager of the reserves (or whatever they are called) counted under 'Manager-related cost's' as well (and his assistant managers etc)?

Is even part of Harkins wages counted as he has overall officer responsibility for the football club, the club manager and all the players?

Do the costs (wages) of the recruitment staff that recruit the players to squad be part of the Squad Cost 'Manager-related' costs?

Even saying all that the highest wages at the football side of the club will be those of the first team, Schumacher and possibly his assistant managers.

I suggest the majority of those not directly involved with the football playing side are more likely to be ancillary staff such as low paid office and gardening staff or part-time staff only employed on match days, so although many in number but low on wage costs.

The only way we will know what is covered and what is not is when the EFL publishes SCR in full.

So clearly I wasn't saying that all the 401 staff on the clubs wage bill were to be counted against the SCR 85% ratio - was I?

Edited July 3Jul 3 by Sluffy

47 minutes ago, DLH said:

Apologies, missed that one point.

It's ok, we all make mistakes you know!

Me more than most recently.

11 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

I can't find it anywhere on page 139 if I'm supposed to have said that and even if I had I clarified it on page 140 (still on the 28th June) by saying the following...

So clearly I wasn't saying that all the 401 staff on the clubs wage bill were to be counted against the SCR 85% ratio - was I?

No you weren't, but again, I wasn't suggesting you were

You claimed the 98.8% figure was made up solely of players wages, which is not the case

That post is on page 139

It was posted in another thread but moved into this one by @jmjhb

For the love of God, please make it stop

17 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

No you weren't, but again, I wasn't suggesting you were

You claimed the 98.8% figure was made up solely of players wages, which is not the case

That post is on page 139

It was posted in another thread but moved into this one by @jmjhb

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...

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.

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?

1 hour ago, Sweep said:

For the love of God, please make it stop

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.

11 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.

13 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.

Are they?

Tell me more 🙂

1 minute ago, Sweep said:

Are they?

Tell me more 🙂

I did that once and looked what happened?

God knows what might happen if I posted it up again...

1 hour ago, Sweep said:

For the love of God, please make it stop

we must be 30 pages deep in utter gash.

And completely, utterly, totally fucking pointless.

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.