16 hours ago, Marc505 said:

If I cant chat on about fighter jets on there, then I'm not arsed

Yes you can, any time.

They're ace.

Good news over our export order for typhoons for Turkey.

Perhaps another example of Trumpian stupidity.

£237k is/was approx 275k Euros if that helps any?

1 hour ago, Traf said:

£237k is/was approx 275k Euros if that helps any?

I don't think it does, but thank you anyway.

I’ve got Sluffy on ignore because of his inane ramblings and for using 1000 words when 100 will do, but do we know if he is actually a fan or just someone who doesn’t have a girlfriend / boyfriend?

On 06/08/2026 at 12:49, DLH said:

That aside, the biggest issue with Anderson was what a vindictive cunt he was.

He would have happily let us get liquidated (which probably tells you all you need to know in terms of his capital at risk in the club). We lost decent potential investors/owners because of his actions/demands over a couple of years. I knew at the time of at least 2 decent consortium that basically pulled out of discussions with Anderson back in 2018 because he had massively unrealistic demands and in general was a complete cunt.

@DLH I don't recall if you were about at the time on here (weren't you David Lee's Hair on another forum?) during the Administration period but there was another poster on here almost as unpopular as me at the time who was generally referred to as 'Custard' (his user name being Custodiet).

He is an accountant and has been following this thread.

He's recently been in touch with me and asked if I could kindly ask you as to what were the 'unrealistic demands' that Anderson was making if you happened to be aware of any (not only pre-Administration but at any time).

Mr Custodiet would do so himself but he has long since been banned from here.

Thanks in advance.

He's not seeking his ban to be lifted so no need for anyone to lose their shit simply because 'Custard's' name had been mentioned again.

I'm asking this sincerely and out of genuine curiosity, why are the club's accounts such a point of interest?

To each his own and all that, but I'm just not sure what it is that's to be achieved, or what the intrigue is

1 minute ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

I'm asking this sincerely and out of genuine curiosity, why are the club's accounts such a point of interest?

To each his own and all that, but I'm just not sure what it is that's to be achieved, or what the intrigue is

Exactly and here's hoping DLH doesn't bother replying to this drivel.

13 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

I'm asking this sincerely and out of genuine curiosity, why are the club's accounts such a point of interest?

To each his own and all that, but I'm just not sure what it is that's to be achieved, or what the intrigue is

I can only speak for myself.

Something unusual happened with this Administration of ours, why did we need to have two sets of Administrators - clearly there must have been two different desired outcomes between two parties (presumably Team EDT and Team Anderson), and why did both Eddie and Anderson seemingly secure the BluMarble loan against BL (surely only the one that put the money in could have secured it?).

Why did Anderson do so in his own name and not ICI Ltd?

Why did the Administrator strike out £7m worth of claims from both sides - ok I've since understand DLH on this but why then did he allow a previous £5m loan but seemingly disallow £7.5m accrued interest on it - surely allow both or allow none?

Why did EDT not appeal against the ruling - after all it is £7.5m isn't it?

Why did Anderson seemingly walk away from £1.25m - yes I know Zico kindly gave me an explanation but at the end of the day I don't believe Administrators can and do make 'take it or leave it' ultimatums - if Anderson is such a cunt as he is supposed to be why didn't he say fuck you and let the club fall into liquidation?

As far as I'm concerned I got as far as I could to understand what had happened and was happy to move on (unless something new pops pot from the woodwork in years to come) and leave it like that even though I didn't think some of my queries had been answered fully and the full picture of what had gone on was still not fully known (it may never be) until I received the request from 'Custard',

I don't see the request to be an unreasonable one (do you?) so I asked it.

Obviously up to DVH if he wishes to respond to it or not.

I'm just the messenger.

(And you know what happens to them!)

Wasnt one for the hotel and one for the football club???

3 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

As far as I'm concerned I got as far as I could to understand what had happened and was happy to move on

for the sake of everyone's sanity let's just do that then

5 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

I can only speak for myself.

Something unusual happened with this Administration of ours, why did we need to have two sets of Administrators - clearly there must have been two different desired outcomes between two parties (presumably Team EDT and Team Anderson), and why did both Eddie and Anderson seemingly secure the BluMarble loan against BL (surely only the one that put the money in could have secured it?).

Why did Anderson do so in his own name and not ICI Ltd?

Why did the Administrator strike out £7m worth of claims from both sides - ok I've since understand DLH on this but why then did he allow a previous £5m loan but seemingly disallow £7.5m accrued interest on it - surely allow both or allow none?

Why did EDT not appeal against the ruling - after all it is £7.5m isn't it?

Why did Anderson seemingly walk away from £1.25m - yes I know Zico kindly gave me an explanation but at the end of the day I don't believe Administrators can and do make 'take it or leave it' ultimatums - if Anderson is such a cunt as he is supposed to be why didn't he say fuck you and let the club fall into liquidation?

As far as I'm concerned I got as far as I could to understand what had happened and was happy to move on (unless something new pops pot from the woodwork in years to come) and leave it like that even though I didn't think some of my queries had been answered fully and the full picture of what had gone on was still not fully known (it may never be) until I received the request from 'Custard',

I don't see the request to be an unreasonable one (do you?) so I asked it.

Obviously up to DVH if he wishes to respond to it or not.

I'm just the messenger.

(And you know what happens to them!)

I don't find it unreasonable, no

I just wondered what the motivation behind it all (and the accounts in general) was

Anyway, you've answered, at least on the point of the administration, so fair enough

40 minutes ago, Alf Hartigan said:

Exactly and here's hoping DLH doesn't bother replying to this drivel.

Why should he not reply?

Obviously it is up to him whether he does or not but it is a reasonable question from a fellow accountant.

If he knows of something in the public domain why not point Custard in that direction and if he doesn't why not reply saying so?

And you might think it is 'drivel' but clearly DLH, Custard and myself ((plus a few others on here, took it seriously at the time, even if you didn't.

4 minutes ago, wakey said:

for the sake of everyone's sanity let's just do that then

I passed on a request to DLH, what's your problem with that?

7 minutes ago, bwfc2003 said:

Wasnt one for the hotel and one for the football club???

Yes Team Anderson - Hotel, Team EDT - everything else.

3 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

I passed on a request to DLH, what's your problem with that?

Nowt assuming DLH has the good sense to ignore it and you're now happy to move on.

5 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

I don't find it unreasonable, no

I just wondered what the motivation behind it all (and the accounts in general) was

Anyway, you've answered, at least on the point of the administration, so fair enough

Sorry I thought you were encompassing it all in respect of the Administration, as that's what I've been talking about for the last few days.

In respect of the accounts my interest is trying to see into the future based on what has gone on from the last sets of accounts.

Ok I got it factually wrong when I extrapolated from the wrong table in the accounts (there being two almost identical one entitled Group Statement of Changes in Equity and the other Company Statement of Charges in Equity) and calculated we would only have around £5m in the 'pot' (or to give it its real title the Combined Share Capital, Share Premium and Capital Redemption Reserves) when it is likely to be circa £14m. (or at least nobody has pulled me up on that amount since put it out there a couple of months ago) for the start of this season

Seems to explain why Schumacher isn't seemingly over the moon with what has been given as a transfer budget

The recent £6.1m from EEP raises a lot of questions to me also in that if it is NOT for football as has been reported, then that only leaves a maximum of £9m that can be invested for the rest of the season FOR football use.

Which sorts of 'squeezes' what might be left in the pot for Season 2 if we stay in the Championship.

Ok I get that most folk don't give a shit about the clubs finances but like it or not they do DIRECTLY influence what team we are able to put on the pitch.

My interest is harmless, academic and largely confined to just this thread and thus is easily avoided if people don't want to see it - so I can't really understand why so many people seem to get their knickers in a twist over it?

27 minutes ago, wakey said:

Nowt assuming DLH has the good sense to ignore it and you're now happy to move on.

34 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

Why should he not reply?

Obviously it is up to him whether he does or not but it is a reasonable question from a fellow accountant.

If he knows of something in the public domain why not point Custard in that direction and if he doesn't why not reply saying so?

On 08/08/2026 at 15:33, meanderson93 said:

Genuinely gents, this forum has become a really really rubbish place to visit this summer.

Seriously, its unbearable.

30 minutes ago, meanderson93 said:

Seriously, its unbearable.

3 hours ago, Sluffy said:

Ok I get that most folk don't give a shit about the clubs finances but like it or not they do DIRECTLY influence what team we are able to put on the pitch.

My interest is harmless, academic and largely confined to just this thread and thus is easily avoided if people don't want to see it - so I can't really understand why so many people seem to get their knickers in a twist over it?

31 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

  1 hour ago, meanderson93 said:

Seriously, its unbearable.

  3 hours ago, Sluffy said:

Ok I get that most folk don't give a shit about the clubs finances but like it or not they do DIRECTLY influence what team we are able to put on the pitch.

The problem is you are harking on about stuff that happened 6 years ago and things that have been discussed previously time and time again. You've returned with all the things that folk have discussed that was relevant at the time and, fair play to yourself for holding up your hands on being wrong on certain aspects. The title of the thread is Football Ventures who are very relevant to today and moving forward in future. We've moved on from that period and all your posts seem to be repeating points that you made back then and now so again. I'd suggest that you let it go and next time Custard phones you up to go out for a pint, advise him to do the same.

Thank you, and have a lovely evening but if you've already gone to bed have a most joyous day tomorrow.

Just now, Alf Hartigan said:

The problem is you are harking on about stuff that happened 6 years ago and things that have been discussed previously time and time again. You've returned with all the things that folk have discussed that was relevant at the time and, fair play to yourself for holding up your hands on being wrong on certain aspects. The title of the thread is Football Ventures who are very relevant to today and moving forward in future. We've moved on from that period and all your posts seem to be repeating points that you made back then and now so again. I'd suggest that you let it go and next time Custard phones you up to go out for a pint, advise him to do the same.

Thank you, and have a lovely evening but if you've already gone to bed have a most joyous day tomorrow.

Thank you.

Yes things have been discussed but lots of things were never explained, even to this day, hence the question asked for me to pass on.

DLH says that all the stuff he's explained to me was in the public domain, well it might have been in the circles he frequents , talking to colleagues in London he's mentioned, but never in the circles I've been looking in, otherwise I wouldn't be here trying to make sense of what happened.

The title of the thread is as you say Football Ventures and the financial ramifications of what happen still impacts on them to this day - a payment to EDT being triggered for the promotion we've just achieved, payments are still being made on the outstanding PBP loan, the Administrator was only paid off last year and the Liquidator's account for Burnden Leisure was only settled midway through last season, so the Administration might be six years ago but it didn't end six years ago - it's taken up to as recently as the 13th April 2026 to draw a line under it - the date Burnden Leisure was finally dissolved (and as I've said there is still payments to be made to both EDT and PBP yet).

My point being it has been a continual drag on FV's finances through out the last six years and will be so until the PBP loan is finally settled.

If you are interested the cost of the Administration and Liquidation as reported by Appleton was £4,107,666.32p

Of this joint Administrators fees were £1,213,847, Joint Liquidators fees £636,741 (plus a further £25,281 from the previous accounting year), Agents/Valuers fees £510,799 Legal fees £551,558 Reimbursement (presumably to secured creditors) £857,570 Reimbursement (unsecured creditors) [I assume from the hotel and non football creditors] £197,197 and unsecured football creditors (161 x 35p) - £104,862.

There are a number of minor costs I've not shown.

As I've actually said earlier...

5 hours ago, Sluffy said:

As far as I'm concerned I got as far as I could to understand what had happened and was happy to move on (unless something new pops pot from the woodwork in years to come) and leave it like that even though I didn't think some of my queries had been answered fully and the full picture of what had gone on was still not fully known (it may never be) until I received the request from 'Custard',

I don't see the request to be an unreasonable one (do you?) so I asked it.

Obviously up to DLH if he wishes to respond to it or not.

I'm just the messenger.

(And you know what happens to them!)

I was replying to 'Aldo' and he agreed that Custards request was a reasonable one, so it isn't just myself that thought it was fair to ask the question - maybe you do?

And fwiw, the majority of people on here absolutely love to reminisce about players and games played 20, 30, 40 years ago and more, talk about me harking on about something that happened just six years ago is absolutely nothing in comparison really is it?

And folk have been going on about their favourite chocolate bars on this very thread from 50 and 60 years ago, what's that got to do with Football Ventures?

At least I'm on the right thread talking about something that happened fairly recently which is still financial effecting Football Ventures.

Am I not?

Thank you for your best wishes for my evening and I bid you a very pleasant day too.

Who was your preferred chairman in the early 80s when a Snickers was a Marathon?

If you've spent dozens of hours and literally hundreds of thousands of words looking at this stuff... and still have a loads and loads of questions, doesn't that say something in and of itself? The answers are not there and never will be.

Seven years and we haven't got past the first bit of that Dunning-Kruger effect yet.

2 minutes ago, Alf Hartigan said:

Who was your preferred chairman in the early 80s when a Snickers was a Marathon?

I was like most other people back then, I didn't know what boards, directors and chairmen really meant.

It was only as my career in the public sector progressed that I learned that they were the decision makers and the power of the organisation.

I learned how to look for and understand how they voted and started to see how boardroom politics worked, and often it was more about what they wanted (usually some money spent in their ward to make people vote them in again - and not the money going to the wards that actually needed the money simply because the councillors of those wards were from another political party).

Fwiw I still think of Marathon as the name of the chocolate bar Snickers for some reason never stuck in my memory, still hasn't, not that I eat any confectionary much.

Seems to me most on here know far more about chocolate bars than how the world around them actually works, they see the football players and matches, I see financial sustainability, trading deficits and the need for continual significant financial investment and wonder where it is all to come from and why people continue to pump money in - or not?

For instance the last time the Swiss invested into the club was the 1st August 2025 (was that around the time the Swiss boys got their bonuses?)

If so why have EEP suddenly turned up with £6.1m this time around?

What does in mean - something or nothing?

Will the Swiss be putting the allowed £9m more some time later, or have they reached their limit?

Who knows, we will find out in due course.

Games go on off the pitch too, you know.

I just find all this far more interesting than defunct chocolates from decades ago or group 'punning' trying to show how funny or clever they think they are - and people think I'm the pathetic one on here.

What amuses me the most is those who truly believe I'm attention seeking???

I'm buggered if I know how they come to that conclusion as I usually stick on the one thread and talk about financial subjects that nearly everyone else isn't interested in?

How the fuck anyone can claim I'm attention seeking. they better stay in their current job because they would make a God awful psychiatrist based on their diagnosis of me.

Even basic common sense should tell them I'm clearly not.

(either that or that I'm the worst attention seeker in the world).

27 minutes ago, Tombwfc said:

If you've spent dozens of hours and literally hundreds of thousands of words looking at this stuff... and still have a loads and loads of questions, doesn't that say something in and of itself? The answers are not there and never will be.

Seven years and we haven't got past the first bit of that Dunning-Kruger effect yet.

Well DLH and Zico in the last few days have given me answers to some of my questions, so they clearly are out there.

Having loads of questions show that I am curious, not that I'm thick.

I've found out that it is better to question things you don't know or understand, than just to brainlessly follow the crowd.

It might not make you popular with folk but it does start to make people think themselves.

And fwiw clearly Dunning Kruger doesn't apply to me in that I ask questions, I quote sources, I'm prepared to listen and learn from others better informed than me, I own my mistakes, I note when things don't make sense and ask what have I missed, or how have you arrived at that.

In fact you seem to have Dunning Krugered yourself in that you 'think' you know what it is but clearly are incapable of applying it correctly.

"People with low skill or little knowledge in an area think they are much better than they are".

Have a nice day.

Edited August 11Aug 11 by Sluffy