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

Olé

OTIB Supporter
  • Content Count

    4,553
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    60

Olé last won the day on February 26 2020

Olé had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

15,810

6 Followers

About Olé

  • Rank
    Portugeezer
  • Birthday 15/10/1977

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://southbristol.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Ex-BS3 now New Cross, Lewisham

Recent Profile Visitors

9,072 profile views
  1. I made a point much earlier in this thread (here) about SL always being careful to ensure his investments are reflected in appropriate financial terms because (my theory) that ensures he isn't unfairly diluted if we ever take external investment (i.e. his "cash", where not converted to equity, has the same value as anyone who puts new cash in later - or more simply, a new investor should see no benefit from non-equity investments, i.e. SL gets paid back properly for loans). On this note, today's Swiss Ramble thread makes an interesting observation that I hadn't appreciated was so unusual
  2. At the risk of sounding like I have an agenda by mentioning it again - I don't, I just cross checked this when I saw it too - that isn't footballing remuneration which is in the Bristol City subsidiary, for which the highest paid director (almost certainly CEO - Mark Ashton) is circa £450k. For BC Holdings the only 3 directors are Jon Lansdown, Doug Harman, and Gavin Marshall (who is CFO). As all three are also directors across the subsidiaries (although not DH for AG Ltd) you take your pick on who you think is paid at BC Holdings level. It's possible £143k is just covering an incremental paym
  3. Related subject, the FT over the past week has been scathing about the Premier League clubs access to these government funds versus how little their actual contribution has been to the EFL fund:
  4. Our one shot on target won't even make teletext.
  5. Agree, but only one person can meaningfully decide about this, and that's Steve Lansdown and he doesn't give much away - to the extent that he seems patient, perhaps forgiving of whatever story Mark Ashton tells him. We fans tend to throw round buckets of blame in all direction (SL/MA/DH/players) but for me it comes down to one thing - whether SL and SL alone believes he is getting value from the people and strategy he employs. If the answer is yes, then MA has done a good job of selling his progress against the strategic imperatives If the answer is no, how does SL get us b
  6. Well exactly. That's why I made my second point as a "reason for optimism" - maybe the penny has finally dropped that you can't be two different things at once. A club which expects to push on, year on year, to the Premiership AND a club which is based on sustainably producing and blooding young players season after season. We can't easily be both, and so far we are not fully committed to either - and to your point, if we were all in on academy sustainability we'd play them, no ifs or buts. Instead we're carving this path between the two strategies, and unsurprisingly achieving neither ai
  7. I'm not sure I agree with your other point re Holden (even as a firewall for Mark Ashton it would be too obvious and too late to repeat that stunt) however I agree with you on unsustainable - specifically because we are not acquiring or producing sufficient talent to sustain the economics the club currently operates too. As you've illustrated more than anyone on here and your "family silver" jibe above absolutely nails, is where we have balanced the books, it was through sales of assets that pre-existed the people with the responsibility to sustain this strategy - and there is diminishing
  8. The fact SL has taken over financing £50m of the £70m of borrowing is a good thing I think as it means SL and not Barclays Bank has a claim on our stadium. In the context of your point I think it is a positive, I would much rather be indebted to a person that owns the club rather than a third party that might result in losing an asset. As I've said elsewhere yesterday and in the past on here, there needs to be a reasonably fair loan repayment structure to the Lansdown family otherwise the club can't ever take external investment let alone be sold, as SL's equity isn't properly reflected (
  9. Don't forget this is just the Holding company with nominal leadership and I think just 2 directors, so it shouldn't be hard to work out who it goes to (ie JL) and at the number, probably not the full income of any individual, but a proportion relating to their Holding company board membership / duties. The bulk of directors pay is in the subsidiaries ie in the football club itself where the directors pay number is 5x or more and I think the highest paid director (Mark Ashton) is on about £450,000+ and it' is this and other key personnel (ie in AG Ltd etc) which goes into your second numbe
  10. Also said we were bringing in a loan player which heard nowhere else. If anyone has wondered where Mark Ashton is, he's been gas bagging with the Sky commentators at Carrow Road. In respect to Fam, I do get it - deliberate leak, and blatantly so. For player and agent message is current offer is final and negotiations over, for interested clubs in January message is up your bids or we'll see his contract out. It's to generate a reaction.
  11. Same thing I was wrestling with! I think the difference is the £34m loss includes amortisation (c. £14m) three lines above, which I believe is where player purchases are reflected on a linear rather than one-off basis. In other words the £25m player sales is offset by a large chunk of that amortisation cost, to get to the equivalent £14m net player trading gain in the lower line. Yes if we didn't sell those players our loss is £34m, but if we also didn't have the level of new player acquisition hitting amortisation, we also wouldn't have a large chunk of £12-13m costs too. Again, all
  12. True - I may be misreading how they allocate things. I use the loss excluding player trading as a shortcut to calculate, as the £35M operating losses line seems to include amortisation expense which is also broken out in the player trading number. As I'm assuming no transfer activity I'm using the loss excluding player trading to deal only with economics of running the club. You might have a point that even prior transfers will still be carrying cost of amortisation into 20-21, in which case yes, £35 would be a best case.
  13. Hang on Dave - that's because our net transfer position was £15m banked when we received £25m because of onward spending on other players or existing further amortisation of signings we already had. @WolfOfWestStreet is right, we're averaging about £20m loss without transfers, so that is the breakeven transfer target. City provide a handy line item in their results to show profitability excluding transfers, as follows - left 19/20, right 18/19
  14. Related to your hypothetical SL sale, a point that always bears reminding: When people want SL to put money into the club, but then get uneasy with some of the structures buried in the accounting (loans from SL owned companies, converting to equity etc), they need to realise that if SL does not reflect his benevolence in real financial terms, any sale to or investment from outside the Lansdown family, would unfairly dilute the Lansdown's or more simply not reflect the real terms equity value they have in the club's assets. SL clearly loves the club but he is also an accountant, and
  15. Agree - not sure where the 55-60m loss next year is from, though it's still pretty bleak. My quick straw man maths is £33-35m loss for 20-21 if player trading is flat: With fans in AG our break-even in recent years has required £20m annual profit in the transfer market Our ticket, match day and commercial revenues from AG are c. £17m but AG Ltd has c. £5m staff costs which I guess are substantially reduced when it's not open - so let's say lose £17m revenue but save £2-4m costs = £13-15m loss. For simplicity assume other C-19 impacts offset, i.e. minor merchandising d
×
×
  • Create New...