Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This article suggests the wages would have been c£2m for the season. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/tammy-abraham-wolves-aston-villa-15636578.amp In terms of a fee there is no evidence for this but fees for similar players like Nketiah have been quoted around £3m a season, hence why i said £4-5m was an estimate.
  2. Just a couple of points on this. I don’t get the arguement that having loan players is a way of pleading poverty, Tammy could easily have cost Villa c£4-5m for last season based on estimates for loan fees and assuming his wages are paid in full. However the bigger arguement is more conceptual, FFP exists to make the league more susbstainable, and clubs like Villa, Sheffield Wed, Derby and Reading have have used a loophole to bastardize it, to the detriment of other clubs playing within the spirt of the rules.
  3. Wouldn’t the transfer profit for 19/20 be higher though, given you amortise the transfer fees over the life of the contract wouldn’t the transfer profit be c£15m higher but with amortisation increasing by c£4m? Still likely we would need to sell in the summer
  4. There are a couple things about xG I don’t quite get and haven’t been able to google an answer. 1) how does xG recognise own goals, for example in the Hull away game earlier this season the Hunt created og and Afobe’s second came from broadly similar build up play but the own goal would have xG of zero. 2) how does xG factor in a pattern of play, for example striker has a shot, it is saved, follow up shot hits the bar then a third shot is tapped in from a yard. Do the models count xG for all three shots, the first or the last? For me the issue with xG is people using it for to prove arguements when it is mostly a subjective measure and is too flawed for that. It’s interesting but doesn’t necessarily mean that much I agree with this, as another example the goal Diedhiou scored on Saturday probably was quite low for xG as it was a diving header. However it was a chance that suited our style of play because Diedhiou is a really good header of the ball, in effect we would expect Fam to our perform his xG on that type of chance. I can understand it working as a measure better in say basketball where a shot from distance is broadly similar whoever is taking it but in football there are too many variables to assess every chance evenly and there is no such thing as an average player
  5. I do remember him refereeing this game, and he was absolutely dreadful https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39760411
  6. Now found something like it, post war we have the 19th best winning record in league games. http://rufff.net/?post_type=table-stats&p=190 http://rufff.net/?post_type=table-stats&p=242 so win a lot at a lower level
  7. The 41st position is interesting in contrast to this table, unfortunately I can’t find the same for post war http://www.rsssf.com/tablese/engprof-alltime.html basically we are 21st in terms of point won all time but have played a lot fewer seasons than the teams above. Suggests we spent a lot of seasons at the top of the third/fourth tiers but not winning promotion. Always thought this plays into the narrative of city being a ‘sleeping giant’
  8. Do you have to wear ridiculously high waisted trousers if you work for Cardiff City. What is going on with Colin’s waistline
  9. This is a very thorough analysis of the last couple of years financial results, puts a lot into context around the financial position of the club. https://mobile.twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1059376131340677120 appreciate Mr Popodopolous has greater knowledge than me on this but my view is as follows Basically City ran at a loss before the impact of transfers of £14.5m in FY17/18, although some of this is excluded from FFP as it will relate to stadium development or youth investment which are excluded. However the club still would have run at a loss of say £10m + which is within the £13m allowable losses for FFP, assuming this is funded by the owners. So in effect the Landsdown family are putting £10m plus into the club each year to fund the underlying losses made, before any money is spent on transfers. Any transfer activity will be after this so effectively any transfer fees spent needed to be funded by sales. However the cost of any transfer in is accounted for over the length of the contract signed, so for Kalas assuming he signed a four year contract he will count for £2m per year until 2023/24. Thiis means City should have made a big transfer profit in 2018/19 as the sales of Kelly, Reid, Bryan and Flint would count as c£35m profit but the around £11m spent on Wiemann, Webster, Watkins etc would only have added c£3m to the loss. If we hadn’t sold Reid and Bryan last summer I assume we would have been in FFP trouble. So City are ‘fine’ for FFP for this and probably next season, the risk will come if either a) Lansdown doesn’t want to the fund the club anymore which I guess is unlikely or b) in say 3 years time when we are still incurring the costs of signings made now and we haven’t made the prem. this is the situation Birmingham, Derby, Villa and Sheff Wed have found themselves in hence why they have been docked points or got around it by selling their grounds To answer the original question, were we to sell Webster for £25m as quoted this would be a profit of around £15m as a best guess in 2019/20, the £25m fee less the £4m of the original fee to Ipswich to be amortised and the assumed 25% sell on clause of £4m to Ipswich.
  10. I went about ten years ago, it was ace although the game was awful. Stadium is easy to get to from the U bahn, on the walk from the station there were loads of supporters clubs selling beer and sausages at dirt cheap prices. The stadium is amazing, has loads of history from the 36 olympics so is worth having a wander around before the game if you go. Would be unlikely the crowd would be more than half full but the German fans who do go are great. Berlin as a city is fantastic, culturally it a great and also the night life is brilliant too.
  11. Some valid points here, however it is nonsense to suggest Bristol City / Bristol Sport makes a profit. The club is spending more on salaries alone than generates in turnover, so given FFP the only way the club can invest in new players is to sell when appropriate and get the right fee. If Webster wants go then in the end he will, the financial gulf to the bottom of the prem is so big then money will talk. The positive is that City could demand a massive fee given his contract situation, given the Kelly fee I would suggest at least £15m plus would be a starting point Basically trying to buy our way up is way too risky, Derby, Sheffield Wed, Birmingham and Villa have all spent £100’s of millions over the last few years and only one has done it, whilst probably breaching FFP and getting away with it. The current strategy to me seems the most likely to work, no guarantees it will but is the best chance. Last summer do you think Norwich fans were happy selling Maddison for £25m? But it worked out for them, might work for us, just means we need to always be identifying the next Adam Webster or players like Pukki, Maupauy and bringing players through the academy.
  12. I can’t see how an auditor would allow this, It would breach a lot of accounting rules and would also interest hmrc as those kind of transactions could be used to avoid tax
  13. The stadium was valued in 2017 at c£41m, this was based on the original cost of construction less depreciation (an annual reduction in value based on the expected useful life of the asset, probably 50 years). In the 2017/18 financial year Derby ‘sold’ the stadium for £81m meaning they could book a profit of £40m. The reason this could be viewed as dubious is the sale was not to 3rd party, but to another company owned by Derby’s owner. There is nothing illegal in that, in business sale and leaseback transactions are quite common usually to allow a company to access cash from valuable assets. However this specific deal does raise three questions 1) is the valuation of the stadium at £81m reasonable, this is subjective as there isn’t an open market for 32,000 seat stadiums in Derby. PSG were done for this a few years ago when they massively overvalued commercial deals from Qatari owned companies so they could show PSG in profit 2) Going forward will Derby be charged market rate rent for the stadium, based on the valuation of £81m this would be around £4-5m per year which be an additional cost they would need to recognise in their accounts going forwards 3) is this in the spirit of FFP. As I understand it you can exclude stadium development costs from FFP so it would be reasonable to exclude profit from stadium trading as well. From an accounting perspective this is legal, the valuation of the stadium of £81m isn’t hugely unreasonable, however it is difficult to see the reasons for the transaction as anything other than getting round the FFP rules. in summary the deal is a bit iffy, but due to the EFL’s incompetence/reluctance to follow through with FFP rules it seems unlikely anything will happen. However it is the only thing a club can do once, so now Derby will have to reign in spending as they have missed promotion and will need to cover the multi million pound rent charge from the sale. The bigger concern is whether other clubs will see this as a get out of jail free card, believe Sheff Wed and Villa have been rumoured to be doing something similar
  14. As unpleasant as this is I don’t understand the length of the ban. A violent tackle that can endanger a players career, like the Sheffield utd player on Korey Smith is considered half as bad as spitting on some one? Makes no sense to me
  • Create New...