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


Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'll be surprised if it is staggered as I'm struggling to think of an instance this has happened in the past for any club. With the Final being the end of May, I would have expected that money to be accounted for by July. I don't doubt the EFL could have put a much stronger case forward if that chose a competent expert. With the EFL not appealing this part of the charge then I think this is the end of it. I thought the rules prevented the submission of new evidence, instead only appealing the decision based on the evidence already provided. Maybe asked a friend/colleagu
  2. A harsher punishment due to unexpected takeover delays seems harsh to me. Mel was assured the takeover would complete on the 24th of December and the wage bill will be accounted for. If he knew he would have freed up some cash, but he didn't know so he didn't free it up. However, if an owner simply chooses not to pay the wages then that obviously required harsher punishment. Seems to be in part due to the charges brought upon the two clubs by the EFL. I don't think it has a material impact on P&S submissions so does it really matter to the EFL? I'm with you on the 2021 peri
  3. We're currently under a soft embargo due to not paying the wages. Once paid, the embargo should be lifted. It appears like Covid has helped us pass P&S for 19/20 and 20/21 due to the 4 year period. I wouldn't bet against P&S losses for the 18/19 and 19/20 seasons to be far off £25m and £36m respectively. I recall the Decision Document stated £29.5m for 18/19, which wouldn't include the playoffs or the Lampard compensation. There's no way we would have stayed within the P&S limits for the 2020 period and 2021 would have been difficult, requiring a lot more academy graduates bei
  4. Going in to admin would mean the most promising youngsters leaving for next to nothing. A better worst-case option for me would be to sell the older players to cover the shortfall in cash, even if it means failing P&S. Better to keep our best players (and receive more cash in the long term) and take a points deduction than take a points deduction and sell them for very little. Suggestions of £12m in wages to cover until the end of the season (when we're left with very few high earners on the books). We're currently set to be down to 11 players staying at the club next season who didn't com
  5. If I’ve understood that post correctly, that’s £20m total amortisation still to show up in the accounts. £10m this season, £5m next (Lawrence and Evans’ contracts end), then £5m over the following two seasons (Bielik’s contract ends). As we both know, some of those players will sign extensions delaying the amortisation shown. Looking at the squad, I’d be surprised if first team wages were much higher than £20m. Total club wages will probably be £5m higher. How would changes to the amortisation and stadium rules affect solidarity payments from the PL? I thought I re
  6. Fancy a bet on which club makes it to the Premier League first?
  7. Move on and forget about the stadium valuation. The EFL already has.
  8. The training ground is owned by the club Regarding the squad based on the OS: Goalkeepers: 1st choice, 2nd choice, keeper we want to loan out, U23 keeper Defenders: 5 competing for a start, 1 ageing pro who will have limited game time, 1 U18 player Midfielders: 1 player coming back from a year long injury and will still be out for a couple of months, 1 CB/DM cover, 2 U23 players, 6 others Forwards: 2 are wingers, 2 are forwards 25 players listed in total, with 4 of them have never kicked a ball in professional football, and a further 7 have played fewer than 100 games.
  9. £81.1m originally. Marked down to £74.4m to get through the P&S submissions, with view to enter further discussions at a later date. At the later date, both sides agreed to using the £81.1m figure. Probably the only position we don't need any players.
  10. Those two being sold should mean we'll meet the 4 years to 2021 P&S limits. We were hoping to get more for Bennett and actually sell Malone and Jozefzoon, which may have meant keeping one of Lowe/Bogle. The coronavirus impact and P&S period changing to 4 years appears to have saved us from a hefty penalty, for what would have been the 3 years to 2020. Although, if it wasn't for the extended season, we would have almost certainly sold players to stay within limits anyway. We've got a paper thin squad now, with only 16 senior players, one of which we're doing whatever we can to
  11. Changes between 17/18 and 18/19... Wages removed: Russell (1/2 season), Palmer (1/2 loan), Vydra, Weimann, Shackell (minus 1/2 season loan in 17/18), Blackman, Lowe (loan), Jerome (1/2 season), Martin (minus 1/2 season loan in 17/18), Baird, Bent (minus 1/2 season loan in 17/18), Pearce (1/2 season), Thorne (1/2 season), Butterfield (1/2 season loan), Ledley (1/2 season) Wages added: Waghorn, Marriott, Jozefzoon, Holmes, Evans, Wilson, Mount, Tomori, Cole (1/2 season), King (1/2 season), Ambrose (1/2 season) I guess the profit on players is the difference between mine and the of
  12. @Mr Popodopolous My rough calculation process... Using 2018 P&S losses as a base point: £7,207,000 Subtract the stadium profit, profit on players, managers and amortisation from 2018: £7,207,000 - £39,940,387 - £3,719,424 - £1,850,000 + £6,540,038 = -£31,762,773 Add on the confirmed amortisation and stadium rent in 2019: -£31,762,773 - 4,600,000 - 1,139,726 = -£37,502,499 Add on estimated profit on players (The club received fees for Vydra, Weimann, Jerome): -£37,50
  13. It's stated in the Decision document. £6.5 in 17/18, £4.6 in 18/19, £25.1 in 19/20. Page 30, Section 59 Which doesn't take in to account work completed later on. £28m covers initial build, then filling in of the corners. On a DRC basis the final amout using those figures was £74.4m (missing £3m due to feeds and finance costs) I can only assume you don't visit away grounds. When was the last time you visited Derby? 'Similar' ground such as Stoke, Southampton, Middlesbrough and even Swansea are considerably below the standard of PPS, despite being built to a si
  14. I can't see us pursuing any legal case based on the claims already made. There may be a case of us pursuing damages due to missing out on investment, being put under a wrongful embargo, missing out on recruitment, and potentially reduced sponsorship. Given the club statement about all clubs being financially punished due to just a few clubs pushing for a penalty, I can't see us dragging things out further and causing more financial reductions to clubs.
  • Create New...