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

Edited December 6, 20214 yr by Mounts Kipper

Just now, gonzo said:

Do we really need all 4 floodlights?

Reckon we could get decent wedge in scrap for one and save on electric too.

Or play midweek matches in the afternoon.

In my Welsh National League days Corwen FC (aka Clwb Pêl-Droed Corwen) play on a lovely flat pitch on a bend in the River Dee ... which floods every single year between November and early March.

So all home fixtures are set in August to October, then late March & April.

Maybe we request this.

10 minutes ago, Dr. Feelgood said:

Or play midweek matches in the afternoon.

Bolton Wednesday has a ring to it.

1 hour ago, gonzo said:

Do we really need all 4 floodlights?

Reckon we could get decent wedge in scrap for one and save on electric too.

Charge for bog use (contactless of course). Pay as you go. Hand dryer is free if you swipe yer season ticket card.

On a serious note, shouldn’t the turnstiles be unmanned? Surely in this day and age they could be swipe card entry..🤷‍♂️

Don’t wanna see people out of a job but that would cut some costs. Enough to invest in some butter for the hotdogs!

50 minutes ago, Ros Coe said:

On a serious note, shouldn’t the turnstiles be unmanned? Surely in this day and age they could be swipe card entry..🤷‍♂️

Don’t wanna see people out of a job but that would cut some costs. Enough to invest in some butter for the hotdogs!

Hull did this a few years ago

They were surprised with the amount of kids and OAPs they suddenly had turning up which clearly didn't match the match day demographic

Result was no concessions

5 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

Hull did this a few years ago

They were surprised with the amount of kids and OAPs they suddenly had turning up which clearly didn't match the match day demographic

Result was no concessions

Fucking scruffs. We would be no different to be fair either, far too many tramps in our midst.

54 minutes ago, Winchester White said:

Fucking scruffs. We would be no different to be fair either, far too many tramps in our midst midfield.

There, sorted that for you.

9 hours ago, Ros Coe said:

On a serious note, shouldn’t the turnstiles be unmanned? Surely in this day and age they could be swipe card entry..🤷‍♂️

Don’t wanna see people out of a job but that would cut some costs. Enough to invest in some butter for the hotdogs!

most stands only have 2 out off the 6 open anyway

With the removal of physical tickets it's going to take ages with all the Luddites struggling to get their tickets up to scan

1 hour ago, frank_spencer said:

With the removal of physical tickets it's going to take ages with all the Luddites struggling to get their tickets up to scan

They've not.You could ask for one on purchase of season tickets

19 hours ago, Sluffy said:

I know I'm a bit of a broken record when it comes to FV finances but didn't Harkin say something about it will cost the club £1m a year for Category 2 Status.

If so where is that money going to be funded from?

I don't really follow the academy, reserves or whatever the group/s are called, so don't really understand how one flows into the next and so on up to feed into the first team.

I assume the academy is for school kids and funding comes from the government - if so the academy showed a profit of £611k in the last published accounts (although I would have thought that money would have been ringfenced for the academy's use exclusively?).

But if I'm wrong about that would that money go towards the £1m for Cat 2?

If not where else can it come from other than the sum I did some days earlier on this thread where I worked out that the club had an average of just £7m per year to spend on 3 years SCR and for the Year 4 pot.

Anyone know differently?

A combination of player sales and (mostly) grants.

46 minutes ago, jmjhb said:

A combination of player sales and (mostly) grants.

Are you for real?

What players are we going to sell this season for anything like decent money?

And I assume you mean subsidies rather than grants? Which apparently only cover about a third to half of the clubs costs for Cat 2.

Taken from AI

Operating a Category 2 football academy in the UK costs a club between £1 million and £3 million per season. [1, 2]

Under the Elite Player Performance Plan (EPPP), Category 2 status bridges the gap between the elite budgets of Category 1 and the more community-focused Category 3 setups. While the gross running costs are substantial, clubs do not pay this entire amount out of pocket due to centralized funding and structured player compensation. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Cost vs. Net Club Contribution

• Gross Annual Operating Cost: Typically ranges from £1 million to £3 million depending on club scale. [1, 2]

• Central Funding Subsidies: The Premier League and EFL grant core funding to offset these expenses. Central funding covers roughly one-third to one-half of the academy's operating requirements. [1, 2]

• Net Cost to Club: A club generally must invest between £500,000 and £1.5 million of its own money annually to meet the strict financial minimums. [1]

Key Drivers of Category 2 Costs

The high cost is directly tied to the mandatory audit standards required to maintain a Category 2 license: [1, 2]

• Staffing Levels: Clubs must employ full-time staff across youth coaching, sport science, medical departments, operations, education, and welfare. [1, 2]

• Facility Requirements: Access to designated indoor training facilities, elite-level outdoor pitches, gymnasiums, and educational classrooms. [1, 2]

• Contact Hours: Category 2 rules dictate extensive weekly training hours with players, demanding more staff hours and facility overhead than Categories 3 or 4. [1, 2]

Financial Return on Investment (EPPP Protection)

Clubs choose to fund a Category 2 academy because it protects their investment through a fixed EPPP Compensation Tariff if another club signs one of their youth prospects: : [, 2, 3]

• Development Fees: If a Category 2 player moves to another club, the buying club must pay a fixed £25,000 per year of development for ages 12 to 16. [1]

• Contrasting Tiers: This is significantly higher than a Category 3 academy, which only commands £12,500 per year for the same age bracket. []

If you are evaluating this for a specific team, let me know:

• Is the club currently in the Championship or League One?

• Are you looking into the upfront facility upgrade costs or the annual running expenses?

See continuation on the post below because everybody moans when I make a long post...

From AI again...

You said: how much will it cost Bolton Wanderers to have category 2 football in the uk

Operating a Category Two youth academy will cost Bolton Wanderers around £1 million per season in additional operational expenses compared to what they spent at Category Three level. [1, 2]

This major investment was formally confirmed when Bolton Wanderers Football Club officially secured its Category Two status under the Premier League's Elite Player Performance Plan (EPPP). This upgrade marks the club’s return to elite-tier academy football for the first time since dropping to Category Three in 2020 due to financial strain. [1, 3]

Where the Money Goes

To satisfy the audit requirements of the Professional Game Academy Audit Company (PGAAC), the ownership group, Football Ventures, has had to fund several key upgrades: [1, 2]

• Infrastructure & Facilities: Bolton has been heavily investing in upgrading its Lostock Hall Farm training ground. A prime example is the push to reinstate "The Bubble"—their indoor training facility which was destroyed by Storm Malik—costing around £350,000 to purchase and re-inflate to meet strict Category Two indoor criteria. [1, 2, 3]

• Increased Coaching Hours: Under EPPP rules, moving to Category Two requires a sharp increase in mandatory contact and coaching hours provided to youth players. []

• Expanded Specialist Staff: The club has had to hire more full-time, UEFA-licensed coaches, sport scientists, medical professionals, and educators to satisfy the required staff-to-player ratios. [1]

• The Games Programme: Bolton’s Under-18 and Under-21 squads are transitioning away from the local Central League B-Team model to play in the much more competitive, national Professional Development League. This significantly drives up seasonal travel, logistics, and matchday operation costs. [, 2, 3]

  The Financial Return on Investment

  While the upfront and annual operational costs are high, the upgrade protects the club financially. As a Category Two club, Bolton now has a broader geographical scouting catchment area to recruit elite prospects. Most importantly, if Premier League teams attempt to sign away Bolton’s best young talents, the club is now legally guaranteed much higher fixed-rate EPPP compensation fees than they ever were at Category Three. []

  If you want to look closer at Bolton's youth system, let me know if you want to explore the specific teams they will now face in the Professional Development League or how this impacts their current Under-21 squad setup. [1, 2]

Edited Friday at 14:124 days by Sluffy

Academy player sales to other clubs...

We would bridge the gap in funding. You'd assume the EPPP grant/subsidy would now increase.

Edited Friday at 15:084 days by jmjhb

31 minutes ago, jmjhb said:

Academy player sales to other clubs...

We would bridge the gap in funding. You'd assume the EPPP grant would now increase.

Really???

Development Fees: If a Category 2 player moves to another club, the buying club must pay a fixed £25,000 per year of development for ages 12 to 16.

That would be covering something like £500k in Year 1?

I don't think so.

As for EPPP Grant..

Again from AI

Q - eppp football grant how much for 2026-27 season

Category 2 & 3: Receive partial core funding (for example, Category 3 academies receive over 50% of their academy expenditure from central funding, ranging into hundreds of thousands depending on age group caps). [1, 2]

So taken from my early post above...

Central Funding Subsidies: The Premier League and EFL grant core funding to offset these expenses. Central funding covers roughly one-third to one-half of the academy's operating requirements

We've already expected to be paying £1m for Cat 2 and receive £500k grant

Maybe it goes up to say £600k for next season - so unless we sell the whole of the academy first team players, we will still be making a loss.

My original question is where is the money coming from to cover the cost (and I don't really think we will be flogging off one of our floodlights).

Maye the loss may only be say £400k which in football terms is peanuts but until someone can come up with more informed figures than mine, then it looks as though it will be coming on of our SCR pot, certainly for this year at least.

It is an investment for our future so I'm not knocking it but the benefits are more long term and the initial cost from the relative little funds we are required to build a squad from to finish higher than third bottom this season.

Money does seem to tight to mention at the moment.

(and FV have to put in a chunk of the £33m they are allowed to for Year 1 as yet remember!).

You'd be surprised, we've had a few go to Liverpool and City lately.

Possibly from the money we're expecting to save in operating costs, as well as the insurance claim for the Dome? This of course wouldn't come from the SCR pot.

Edited Friday at 15:114 days by jmjhb

25 minutes ago, jmjhb said:

You'd be surprised, we've had a few go to Liverpool and City lately.

Possibly from the money we're expecting to save in operating costs, as well as the insurance claim for the Dome? This of course wouldn't come from the SCR pot.

When I say the SCR pot, what I mean is the money that FV has access to after making provision for the annual trading loss (that would include any profit or loss from the hotel also)

So unless the money you are talking does not fall under control of FV (such as Bolton Wanderers in the Community - or whatever the charity is called) then any additional expenditure FV would incur would mean an equal reduction that they would be able to contribute to SCR.

FWIW Cat 2 (according to AI at least) will incur increasing operating costs for that particular budget.

35 minutes ago, jmjhb said:

You'd be surprised, we've had a few go to Liverpool and City lately.

Possibly from the money we're expecting to save in operating costs, as well as the insurance claim for the Dome? This of course wouldn't come from the SCR pot.

I do not think he has quite grasped that running costs outside of what we pay in Salaries does not come out of SCR

Despite being told that many times on here and me understanding it who failed his 11+ and cse basic maths

5 hours ago, masi 51 said:

I do not think he has quite grasped that running costs outside of what we pay in Salaries does not come out of SCR

Despite being told that many times on here and me understanding it who failed his 11+ and cse basic maths

Oh I've understood it alright

And yes what you say here is ok...

On 13/07/2026 at 21:26, masi 51 said:

33m over three seasons works out at 11m per season and if we had to use the extra 4m it would mean us having only 7m the season after extra......

This is on top of our turnover for that year. So in theory if our turnover is 20m this year we can have 85% of that which is 17m plus the additional 15m extra which could take it to 32m.

That would be dependent on FV funding the extra 15m.....Like i say pocket money to the stoke city of the world

BUT where is the money to cover the annual trading loss?

Is the remaining 15% of of the £20m revenue (£3m) sufficient to pay for everything else to run the club for the whole of next season?

Clearly not!

For example in the last accounts turnover for the club (FVWL Football Ltd) was £17m yet to run the club cost £30m - hence a £13m trading deficit

FV can't put £15m to put towards SCR AND a further £13m to clear the trading loss - they can only put in a maximum of £15m under the new rules.

So yes BWFC COULD spend up to £32m under SCR BUT it doesn't mean that we actually have £32m in the pot spend.

We haven't.

Far from it.

I've explained all this on the previous page in reply to you and no one has shot it down yet, so it still stands for now.

5 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

Oh I've understood it alright

And yes what you say here is ok...

BUT where is the money to cover the annual trading loss?

Is the remaining 15% of of the £20m revenue (£3m) sufficient to pay for everything else to run the club for the whole of next season?

Clearly not!

For example in the last accounts turnover for the club (FVWL Football Ltd) was £17m yet to run the club cost £30m - hence a £13m trading deficit

FV can't put £15m to put towards SCR AND a further £13m to clear the trading loss - they can only put in a maximum of £15m under the new rules.

So yes BWFC COULD spend up to £32m under SCR BUT it doesn't mean that we actually have £32m in the pot spend.

We haven't.

Far from it.

I've explained all this on the previous page in reply to you and no one has shot it down yet, so it still stands for now.

Yes FV, BLL Will have to make any shortfall in

9 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

Oh I've understood it alright

And yes what you say here is ok...

BUT where is the money to cover the annual trading loss?

Is the remaining 15% of of the £20m revenue (£3m) sufficient to pay for everything else to run the club for the whole of next season?

Clearly not!

For example in the last accounts turnover for the club (FVWL Football Ltd) was £17m yet to run the club cost £30m - hence a £13m trading deficit

FV can't put £15m to put towards SCR AND a further £13m to clear the trading loss - they can only put in a maximum of £15m under the new rules.

So yes BWFC COULD spend up to £32m under SCR BUT it doesn't mean that we actually have £32m in the pot spend.

We haven't.

Far from it.

I've explained all this on the previous page in reply to you and no one has shot it down yet, so it still stands for now.

We do not have 33m over 3 years to put into the pot above 85% of our turnover......FV have that option it is then up to them whether to take that option up. Birmingham, Stoke and Wrexham will certainly do.

Bolton, Lincoln and Sheff Utd perhaps not

Funding the Academy and Ground improvements have nothing to do with SCR

7 minutes ago, masi 51 said:

Yes FV, BLL Will have to make any shortfall in

We do not have 33m over 3 years to put into the pot above 85% of our turnover......FV have that option it is then up to them whether to take that option up. Birmingham, Stoke and Wrexham will certainly do.

Bolton, Lincoln and Sheff Utd perhaps not

Funding the Academy and Ground improvements have nothing to do with SCR

What???

Who is BLL?

Do you mean Burnden Leisure Ltd if so it no longer exist other being a shell company.

It serves no purpose other than to continue a line to the clubs history from its founding.

There is zero money in it.

If FV do not put in the best part of £33m over the next three years we will do well not to go bust and there will be little if any transfer budget to spend.

We will have circa £30m revenue per year from this season onwards and in the 2024-25 season we spent the same amount!

We will be breaking even, surviving, existing, no more than that, without FV funding

FV has three revenue streams, the club, the hotel and future share investment.

The Academy and Ground improvements all fall under the club - so will be part of the annual trading deficit the club has always had under FV to date.

You right though they have nothing to do with SCR

SCR is simply a mechanism as to calculate how much each individual club can spend up to a maximum of in respect of SCR.

It certainly doesn't mean the club has anything like that amount in its pot to spend on SCR though.

FV can invest a maximum of £15m per year.

The first call on the money is not SCR, it is to make provision for the end of year trading losses, and anything left over can be put in to the SCR pot provided it is not need elsewhere such as the academy or ground improvements.

If you can't understand things from this last attempt of mine to help you then I give up.

I strongly believe you are playing me along and I've had enough.

I've tried be helpful to you but if all this just a joke to you then I'm out.

Enjoy the rest of your evening.

30 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

Who is BLL?

I think it's a typo - BMLL, aka "the Swiss", aka Trafigura. But again, not necessarily.

Burnden Leisure, I believe, got dissolved. Another link to the past gone.

Edited Friday at 23:004 days by jmjhb

Yes you are correct it is me getting things confused.

The club is not owned not by FV (although it is the parent company) but by FVWL Football Ltd

Similarly the club was not owned by Burnden Leisure (again that was the parent company) but by Bolton Wanderers Football and Athletic Company Ltd that dated back to 1895

So if BWF&AC Ltd had been dissolved the club history would have died with it

So a sleight of hand type deal was done by the Administrator and Sharon/FV whereby the company was slightly renamed to THE Bolton Wanderers Football and Athletic company Ltd and sold to Sharon for a notional sum iirc?.

The original company still had to be liquidated so it was renamed BWFC2019 and finally liquidated as recently as April 2026

The history carries on in the ownership of THE Bolton Wanderers Football and Athletic company Ltd

THE BOLTON WANDERERS FOOTBALL & ATHLETIC COMPANY LTD filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

And the original company (now under the name of BWFC2019) has now ceased to exist (look however at the bottom of the title page to see its original name and year incorporated) -

BWFC2019 LIMITED overview - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

As for Massi I'm sure he's pulling my plonker like he's done in the past but if he did mean BMLL he still doesn't 'get' (or pretends not too) that BMLL Ltd is a share holding owner of FV.

It could LOAN the club money but that would also show them to be a creditor so revenue would go up but also liabilities too so wouldn't really solve anything very much and if it wanted to put more money into the club by buying more shares in FV then that would simply be part of FV's £33m limited of new share equity over the 3 year period.

Whether he likes it or not BMLL are the major shareholders in FV the Swiss money may well be invested in BMLL but it ends up in shares in FV and FV are limited to put in share equity of £33m over 3 years with a maximum of £15m in any one year.

Burnden Leisure was dissolved in August 2023.