I am not an economist. I may have studied for a Master’s Degree in Politics and International Relations, but give me foreign policy any day of the week. Numbers are just annoying and boring.

Nonetheless, with Wycombe Wanderers releasing their financial statements and a great many people (particularly outside the club) feigning distress at these numbers, let’s take a look at what this actually means for Wycombe.

Tangible Assets:

Perhaps the biggest revelation is the £ 12.2 million spent on Wycombe’s “tangible assets” for the year. For football, tangible assets include the club’s stadium, Training Facilities and any equipment the club uses.

And while this has been reflected in the club’s actions in the past year, albeit few may have expected this level of spending so quickly.

While Adams Park hasn’t seen large-scale spending on new stands, the pitch was completely revamped, including under-soil heating; Monty’s Bar was rebuilt; and a new state-of-the-art “Grass Grow Light Technology” was installed, which has been used between games at Adams Park.

However, it is in the training facilities that Wycombe’s £12.2m spend is understood. Wycombe have revamped its short-term training facility at Marlow Road, and while the Bucks Free Press reported in February that the club had submitted a retroactive appeal for planning permission for expansion and improvements, the Quartermen have found that the club had planned these changes before the 2025/26 season.

Ardent Sports, a sports infrastructure specialist, includes Marlow Road in their project work, noting that the new facility includes two pitches of the same size as Adams Park, and two specialist pitches for goalkeeper training and player rehabilitation. These were implemented for the start of this current season.

They also reveal a wide variety of improvements from “state-of-the-art first team changing rooms with recovery pools, nutrition refuel hub, new strength and conditioning gym with diagnostic equipment, medical facilities overlooking the performance areas, pilates and breathwork room, performance analysis and team meeting rooms and kitchen, dining and relaxation lounges.”

This is combined with Wycombe’s purchase of Farnham Park Playing Fields and subsequent announcement of a long-term, state-of-the-art facility for both the men’s and academy teams (with the academy currently training at Imperial College in London), which paints an extraordinarily promising vision of the future for Wycombe fans, albeit at a cost.

KSS Design Group, who have been selected to build the new facilities in Slough, have experience in football, designing stadium extensions for both Leeds United and Liverpool, and constructing state-of-the-art training facilities for Leicester City, Liverpool and Tottenham.

If their prior projects are anything to go by, this will not be a cheap endeavour, with the AXA Training Facility costing in the region of £50m, and Tottenham’s similarly costing around £45m. Mikheil Lomtadze, however, has already shown an incredible willingness to spend here, with £9.9m spent alone in the year 2025.

Also, key to note, infrastructure and academy spending does not count towards the clubs’ Squad Cost Management Protocol with the EFL (which limits how heavy losses can be over three years), in essence, allowing Lomtadze to dump as much as he pleases into this area.

Intangible Assets:

Wycombe also have 2m in “intangible assets” on the books, which in other words means players. £2.2 million was spent on players in this period. It’s key to note that this only goes up to 30 June; some players, such as Connor Taylor (August 4), Jamie Mullins (July 15), and Ewan Henderson (July 14), don’t count towards the fiscal year reported.

Others, however, including Bradley Fink (June 27), Mikki Van Sas (June 28), and Taylor Allen (June 26), have been included, as will January signings such as Alex Lowry, Anders Hagelskjær and Magnus Westergaard.

This again is not new for Wycombe fans, but it’s interesting to have a set number for transfers. With rumoured fees of 800k for Magnus Westergaard and £500k for Anders Hagelsjær, that leaves £900,000 for the signings of players like Fink, Allen and Van Sas.

Also interesting to note is the sale of Richard Kone, and compensation money for Joe Low will not have been included in this year’s figures, giving Wycombe a bump this summer in what they’ll be able to spend on transfer fees and wages.

The Little Details:

There has been an increase in staffing at Wycombe, with an average of 145 employees at the club in 2025, compared to 128 the year before.

This is easier to explain by the heavy investment in the youth academy and its staffing, as well as by the addition of more data analysts and behind-the-scenes staff for the first team.

Costs directly related to the academy itself are nearly double those of 2024, with £330k in 2024 increasing to £631k in 2025. For context, category 1 academies (which Wycombe ideally want to maintain one day) need a minimum spend of at least £2.5m per year.

The Scary Numbers:

£20.5 million in loans. £9.8 million in losses. Both are extremely scary numbers on their own, aren’t they?

However, whilst we are unlikely to get a full rundown on these loans and who they are from, it seems unlikely these are “regular” loans.

These are not loans that we would get, for example, for a mortgage or a car. But instead, they are very probably loans provided by Mikael Lomdatze himself.

It’s incredibly common for football clubs, especially when a new, rich owner comes in looking to invest. Arsenal currently has £259m in 0% loans from owner Stan Kroenke, while Everton’s former owner, Farhad Moshiri, also funded the club with 0% loans, this time over £450m.

Interestingly, both took advantage of these to improve infrastructure off the pitch, with Arsenal greatly improving its training ground in 2015 and Everton building the Hill Dickinson Stadium, which opened this season. Of course, footballing and scouting decisions meant one went on to fight for titles while the other struggled against relegation and points deductions.

£9.8m in losses is also an incredibly scary number, right? Actually, not really. Considering the aforementioned £12.2m in infrastructure, it actually means very little in terms of EFL money controls.

The Squad Cost Management Protocol allows spending on infrastructure and youth academies outside the profit-and-loss margins, putting Wycombe in a much stronger position in that regard. It’s 2.2m spent on transfers, for example, looks far more sensible than other promotion play-off rivals such as Huddersfield Town and Luton Town.

Perhaps the greatest concern would be if Lomtadze suddenly pulled funding from the club, which some critics have levelled today, now that the extent of spending has been revealed.

This is an understandable concern, but funnily enough is felt more by rival fans than by Wycombe ones.

Perhaps one reason Wycombe fans feel comfortable in the short term, at least, is that Lomdatze has a clearly stated personal angle to the Wycombe project, with an aim of developing the standard of Kazakhstani football. He has also bought the Kazakh side FK Zhenis, and it seems likely that in the future, Kazakh youth will come to Wycombe to take advantage of the higher level of youth facilities and development available in England.

Until then? It feels unlikely he will abandon such a project at short notice, albeit Sheffield Wednesday and Reading fans may advise differently.