Jump to content
IGNORED

#FabulousOwnership


Red34

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, BCFC_Dan said:

Not if that's the model you've chosen to follow it isn't.

Selling players at the peak of their value, or at least for the maximum possible when it would be difficult to retain them, is very, very good management.

Assuming that Bryan leaves the club will have received over £20m for three players, who cost £300k in transfer fees and relatively little in wages. Not one of them is irreplaceable. Two have already been replaced with competent Championship players.

Besides that, the core of the team has not been lost. A centre half, a left back, and a striker we didn't even know we had 12 months ago have left. Most of the first XI is the same as it ever was, unless the manager chooses to change things.

Think about all the times in the past when we've held on to our "best" players: Nicky Maynard, Liam Fontaine, Marvin Elliot, Aaron Brown. How many of those sustained the level of performance they were showing when offers came in for them?

Pretty much nobody outside Madrid can keep hold of any player they want when another club comes in. The rest of us either sell at the right time or watch an asset depreciate in front of us.

Umm, yeah read my post re selling players, i.e. Kodjia, Tomlin, and sure Flint this summer. My point is that we employ a team of people to buy, sell, and importantly reach our ambitions on the pitch. This isn't a case of not being a selling club, where on earth did i say that? This is a case of managing your assets, and timing. 

Also, if your point that selling HM, AF, BR, JB and MD in one window isn't the core of the team (with FF likely to be gone if fit) i have to disagree. Only Smith Fam and Pack left from the core.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Accept there are costs , lighting , staff , stewards etc 

But the players are being paid whether we are playing that week or not (May Be some very small bonuses) 

We own the stadium (No additional cost for the night)

Even 10000 at £10 gives us £45 k or so on ticket sales alone

Not a massive or important point but Surely that covers staffing and any minimal police presence for the night

I think you’d be surprised..!

£45k (max! Don’t forget child & concession tickets are much cheaper) is not going to go very fat at all. 

Even a small appearance bonus of £500?? Eats up 15%+ of that. Never mind 9 goal bonuses in the 2 early fixtures..!

Then there’s gas, electric, water, match day staffing, stewarding, pitch maintenance, insurance, printing, PR.... the list of little costs goes on and on and adds up. 

@Matt Parsons BCFCSLO as a very rough, general rule of thumb, can you let us know what the average cost of staging a first team fixture at Ashton Gate is. It would be interesting to get a rough idea, please.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ciderwithtommy said:

Umm, yeah read my post re selling players, i.e. Kodjia, Tomlin, and sure Flint this summer. My point is that we employ a team of people to buy, sell, and importantly reach our ambitions on the pitch. This isn't a case of not being a selling club, where on earth did i say that? This is a case of managing your assets, and timing. 

Also, if your point that selling HM, AF, BR, JB and MD in one window isn't the core of the team (with FF likely to be gone if fit) i have to disagree. Only Smith Fam and Pack left from the core.

You do know that we’ve signed players aswell, yeah..?! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bar BS3 said:

I disagree. 

Flint had signed a new contract, presumably with a buy out clause figure written in. 

Reid & Bryan both offered new contracts which they wouldn’t sign, so the only option is to cash in on them. 

All 3 have left this summer because of their profile rise last season. You could say that “success” is down to good management (team & club) 

Unless you make it to the Prem, every club will always have their best players cherry picked by those with either premier league status or premier league money. 

OK - re Flint, I have no idea if that is true. Re BR and JB, how long had that been going on - Bryan maybe as early as last summer? Of course we, as every other club, have to sell players, but I feel this has been too  heavy detriment to our club for this to happen in one summer.  Our model is good, buy young hungry and sell on, sure, but it has to be controlled and planned accordingly, that is the bit we got wrong in my opinion.

2 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

You do know that we’ve signed players aswell, yeah..?! 

Yeah, that's why i said bed in new players yeah..?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If I'm brutally honest, the only way we can reach self-sufficiency is in League One if we had ambitions just to stay there, or the PL.

Championship? Swimming against the tide tbh, not only against the tide but trying to do it upstream, rolling a boulder.

Yes, the prize awaiting any team getting promotion from the Championship is so massive that the division must be the most cutthroat one in world football and just to survive in it takes teams massively into debt as there isn't anywhere near the same financial reward TV money wise as in the Premier.

It is thus the most dramatic and exciting league in the world with the biggest investment for the smallest rewards, unless promotion is gained. Maybe, for these reasons the Championship should become a Premier League 2 and get far more TV money. However, if Prem 2 teams get just half what Premier 1 teams receive it would be so substantial that it might reduce the competitiveness that drives it and makes it so exciting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, phantom said:

Agree @Red34 figures are concerning especially all the extra money we got from the league cup run and many games on Sky etc

What is more concerning is we invested in crap in January so where did the money go?

Dividends? Or “loan repayments”?

Another way to manage one’s tax liabilities whilst making us all so proud.

Yep. Here he goes again ?

What I’d like to know is how the money from the transfers out equates to the money from the transfers in. And how much of the transfers in have actually improved things amongst the playing staff.

My guess is that it would look like this:

Transfer funds in - (transfer funds out + improvements in playing squad) = net deficit

Questions from me would be:

1. Who benefits? Probably they who have a dividend.

2. Who’s accountable for that?

3. What's their true ambition for Bristol City Football Club?

Yep. One game in and he’s on about it already. Out of interest - and I accept that money doesn’t guarantee you promotion, success or a beautiful missus (unless you’re called Donald) - what did Forest invest over the summer compared to us?

Anyone know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Accept there are costs , lighting , staff , stewards etc 

But the players are being paid whether we are playing that week or not (May Be some very small bonuses) 

We own the stadium (No additional cost for the night)

Even 10000 at £10 gives us £45 k or so on ticket sales alone

Not a massive or important point but Surely that covers staffing and any minimal police presence for the night

Hang about Roberto. What’s all this we and us stuff?

Do “we” own the stadium? Do “we” get the match day revenue?

I suspect the only “we” any of us who have followed BCFC for as long as you and I have really care about now own amounts to the square root of **** all. ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BigAlToby&Liam said:

Dividends? Or “loan repayments”?

Another way to manage one’s tax liabilities whilst making us all so proud.

Yep. Here he goes again ?

What I’d like to know is how the money from the transfers out equates to the money from the transfers in. And how much of the transfers in have actually improved things amongst the playing staff.

My guess is that it would look like this:

Transfer funds in - (transfer funds out + improvements in playing squad) = net deficit

Questions from me would be:

1. Who benefits? Probably they who have a dividend.

2. Who’s accountable for that?

3. What's their true ambition for Bristol City Football Club?

Yep. One game in and he’s on about it already. Out of interest - and I accept that money doesn’t guarantee you promotion, success or a beautiful missus (unless you’re called Donald) - what did Forest invest over the summer compared to us?

Anyone know?

Oh, it's conspiracy day again.

Dividends? Where are they shown in the accounts at Companies House? (Hint: they aren't. It wouldn't be permissible for Bristol City Holdings Ltd to issue dividends based on its accounts).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
9 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

To put the financial benefits of reaching the premiership into perspective they were listing Orem Clubs transfer spend so far

Fulham £90 million !!!

:blink:

Wolves £40 odd million

Cardiff £25 million ish 

 

We owe over £70m

£18m to SL

£56m to the bank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

Oh, it's conspiracy day again.

Dividends? Where are they shown in the accounts at Companies House? (Hint: they aren't. It wouldn't be permissible for Bristol City Holdings Ltd to issue dividends based on its accounts).

Nope. Hot and thundery in the Ardeche ?

Is that the only element you care to focus on? Might also “leak out” in other ways ?

Loan repayments?

Overall the Beneficial Owner gets a benefit. 

Why else would he do it? Oh yes. He wants to make us proud......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ciderwithtommy said:

Umm, yeah read my post re selling players, i.e. Kodjia, Tomlin, and sure Flint this summer. My point is that we employ a team of people to buy, sell, and importantly reach our ambitions on the pitch. This isn't a case of not being a selling club, where on earth did i say that? This is a case of managing your assets, and timing. 

They're selling the assets at a time when somebody is willing to pay a substantial amount for the players and the players want to move. That's literally the time when a smart person sells.

 

1 hour ago, ciderwithtommy said:

Also, if your point that selling HM, AF, BR, JB and MD in one window isn't the core of the team (with FF likely to be gone if fit) i have to disagree. Only Smith Fam and Pack left from the core.

You have a funny definition of the "core", I have to say.

Magnússon was a stand-in left back for most of last season, Milan Djuric was fit for a grand total of about 2 months and made 7 starts in his whole time at City, Bobby Reid was an important player last season but that's the only season he's been anything like a key player and Bryan was shifted around the left side from week to week. If Fielding leaves it'll be because the club wants him to because they've replaced him.

The only player who's left who was a regular starter in the spine of the team was Flint, and he's been replaced.

As it stands, Fielding, Pisano, Wright, Baker, Smith, Pack, Paterson, Brownhill, O'Dowda and Diedhiou are all still at the club. That's 10 players who are at least as "core" as anyone who has left, and it's only a left-back away from being a perfectly good 1st XI. The club are rumoured to have a left back signing from Southampton if Bryan leaves.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Forest are the ones that irk me the most- but Villa too, absolutely.

Forest's is totally artificial, inflated as it is. If Villa sell Grealish for £25m that will make a big dent, plus Traore £3.6m or so sell on clause changes their position somewhat- plus big wage savings apparently.

Forest though?? Even with good outgoing transfers, how the hell can a club make £32.1m profit off a £20m or so turnover?! Not through typical means for sure...

Ideally both are in the top 3...and then get a hefty points deduction in the spring. :whistle2:

Good point re Forest.

I remember reading the Villa forum during the summer when they appeared to be on the brink of administration.

The thread moved towards ffp issues, and a number of fans debated that Villa could follow the lead of clubs like Man City and "sell" the naming rights to Villa Park to one of Xia's other business interests for a ridiculously inflated figure, thereby solving ffp issues. In fairness, other posters explained that they have people who judge "fair value" in terms of ffp accounting.

However, this is where the EFL must be robust and not niaive, when it appears clubs have financed themselves from the magic money tree. Clubs, and their wealthy owners, will have access to the best legal and financial brains to look for ways to wriggle around ffp. if they chose that route. The EFL must make sure they have equally clever people able to spot such deceptions. If such shenanigans do take place then I also hope this attracts additional, swingeing penalty on top of any normal ffp punishment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Good point re Forest.

I remember reading the Villa forum during the summer when they appeared to be on the brink of administration.

The thread moved towards ffp issues, and a number of fans debated that Villa could follow the lead of clubs like Man City and "sell" the naming rights to Villa Park to one of Xia's other business interests for a ridiculously inflated figure, thereby solving ffp issues. In fairness, other posters explained that they have people who judge "fair value" in terms of ffp accounting.

However, this is where the EFL must be robust and not niaive, when it appears clubs have financed themselves from the magic money tree. Clubs, and their wealthy owners, will have access to the best legal and financial brains to look for ways to wriggle around ffp. if they chose that route. The EFL must make sure they have equally clever people able to spot such deceptions. If such shenanigans do take place then I also hope this attracts additional, swingeing penalty on top of any normal ffp punishment.

 

It's pretty obvious what Forest did.

Debt write-off under a new owner? 40.4m

"Profit" 32.1m

Real/FFP adjusted loss? About 8.3m

(Of course their academy expenditure etc takes it lower).

Let's say Real/FFP adjusted loss? 6.9m.

If the EFL cannot spot that, FFP may as well pack up and go home.

Fully agree, those playing the system should get an additional punishment in addition to the FFP punishment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ciderwithtommy said:

The current situation, i.e. losing the core of your team in one summer, and therefore needing a huge round of recruitment and bedding in etc. is really really poor management. However, in my opinion this doesn't sit with SL, who has employed people to run the club day to day, chiefly MA. Pouring more cash in is hugely significant, and should be appreciated.  However if I were SL I would be asking how we let 3 (as a minimum) of our best players get to a point where they wanted/needed to leave in one summer. I really believe this summer has pushed us back 2 years.  

Selling Kodjia, and replacing, was good business and didn't truly affect us. Likewise Tomlin. Needing a whole new spine to the team is crazy, and only should happen to a team in crisis, which I believe we are not. Finishing above 11th this season would be an amazing achievement, which in itself shows how damaging a summer we have had. 

I agree, to an extent, but I disagree on the "needing a new spine" comment.

Good teams should be moving and replacing the spine of the team every couple of years, in order to show improvement. If the money we've brought in will improve the quality of that spine then, as a club, we've moved forward, so finishing above 11th should be expected as a minimum.

The pressing issue is whether the players we've signed as replacements are better than what we had. A draw against a good Forest side is NOT a bad result, but I think it'll take a few games for the fans to see whether this gamble has paid off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always amazes me how lansdown is hailed as a messiah, saviour and Great for our club. I'll admit someone now and owns a fabulous stadium but on the pitch we have hardly moved from when he took over. Don't anyone tell me his model is the best, he has made the club un saleable really. It's his personal play thing to hand over to junior when he goes and he will do what ever he wants and bollocks to us customers. Tell me how brentford, Preston and millwall do it on considerably less? Thats how to run a club. We just stumble along from one mediocre season to the next blaming ffp while others just get on with it with no signs of real meaningful progress and we never will until he employs a manager who knows what he is doing and not simply a nodding dog who will never rock the boat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sturny said:

That's mad I had no idea the prize money was so low, makes you think what's even the point? That's nearly nothing in today's football money for the giants that normally progress that far

With respect to you, what you have stated here is why I am becoming disillusioned with football at the top level.

The game used to be about the glory and pride of winning a trophy, now it seems that clubs ( and people) look at the money side as more important than actually winning things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

With respect to you, what you have stated here is why I am becoming disillusioned with football at the top level.

The game used to be about the glory and pride of winning a trophy, now it seems that clubs ( and people) look at the money side as more important than actually winning things. 

I see your point, there seems to be more of money/businessy feel in modern football. But the fact I didn't know it was so low shows how little interest I had in the amount of money there was in it.

Can only speak for myself but I definitively wasn't thinking about our incomings when we we're in the semi finals.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SX227 said:

It's all about selling the whole shebang.

Best players sold - recruits in to keep us mid-table.

Nice expandable stadium.

Multi-team franchise

Land.

Lots and Lots of Land.

Land which is certain to be re-zoned.

Self-made millionaires always have a plan.

And it's never one to lose a shitload of cash.

If that's the case I suspect SL would never have bought the club in the first place.

Remember the old adage; If you want to make a small fortune from owning a football club, you best start out with a big one!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BCFC_Dan said:

They're selling the assets at a time when somebody is willing to pay a substantial amount for the players and the players want to move. That's literally the time when a smart person sells.

 

You have a funny definition of the "core", I have to say.

Magnússon was a stand-in left back for most of last season, Milan Djuric was fit for a grand total of about 2 months and made 7 starts in his whole time at City, Bobby Reid was an important player last season but that's the only season he's been anything like a key player and Bryan was shifted around the left side from week to week. If Fielding leaves it'll be because the club wants him to because they've replaced him.

The only player who's left who was a regular starter in the spine of the team was Flint, and he's been replaced.

As it stands, Fielding, Pisano, Wright, Baker, Smith, Pack, Paterson, Brownhill, O'Dowda and Diedhiou are all still at the club. That's 10 players who are at least as "core" as anyone who has left, and it's only a left-back away from being a perfectly good 1st XI. The club are rumoured to have a left back signing from Southampton if Bryan leaves.

 

Smart people sell when its the right time for them to do so. That's kinda my point. We employ smart people to run the club so that we do not experience a summer where we lose such a large chunk of quality in one hit. That's the crux of my concern. 

Arguing that Reid wasn't core because it was his first good season, or because Bryan played multiple positions is tedious. If you think the majority of the players you have listed were as core to our success last year then again I just disagree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Red34 said:

Apologies if already posted before.

This was highlighted in yesterday's Post:

SL converted another £18.4 million to shares last season, so we don't breach FFP (most likely).

Firstly quite amusing the CFO's post (imagine he loves having SL :laugh: - "Steve we need some money") and secondly I'm shocked we lost so much in such a successful season!

Particularly with players sales you'd expect we might actually make a profit, but maybe this is just removing some existing debt?

Either way I'm still very, very glad we have SL...

I’ve been saying for a while that 17/18s accounts will be very telling when they come out next year.  

Other than the Tomlin sale (at a net spend loss - although might’ve just broke even in amortised terms), we didn’t sell anyone within the 17/18 accounting year (to 31st May 2018) from memory?  Mags sale was in June, so everything was costs.  Flint’s contract extension, the signings of Steele, Eliasson, Pisano, Baker, Walsh, Diedhiou, the loans of Kent, Woodrow and Diony....all negative items in the P&L, which is predominantly what FFP looks at.

Gavin (the City Accountant) is confirming (I think) that SL has pumped in £18.4m to cover 17/18’s losses (which is what he does every year).  In FFP terms probably £4-5m of that will be excludable under the rules of FFP, e.g. Academy costs, so probably nicely brought down to £13m (the magic number) for FFP.

Thats not self sustaining is it.

That is why imho, we aren’t pumping all of the Mags, Flint, Bryan and Reid money back into new players.  Costs (wages) will’ve gone up, potential clauses may still have to be met for existing players, agent and signing on fees will have been paid on the new arrivals.....so that £10m+ net spend, suddenly is much less when applied to the rules of FFP / P&L.

It does put us in a sound position, but explains why we aren’t chasing certain players, some posters think we should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, ciderwithtommy said:

Smart people sell when its the right time for them to do so. That's kinda my point. We employ smart people to run the club so that we do not experience a summer where we lose such a large chunk of quality in one hit. That's the crux of my concern. 

Arguing that Reid wasn't core because it was his first good season, or because Bryan played multiple positions is tedious. If you think the majority of the players you have listed were as core to our success last year then again I just disagree. 

Even if I let you have Reid and Bryan it's still less than 30% of the typical starting XI. For £20m. That's what selling at the right time looks like.

Even if money were no object you can't just keep players if they've decided they want to go. All three players wanted to test themselves at a higher level and two of them were coming to the ends of their contracts. There's every chance that there was a gentleman's agreement in place with Flint to let him go if an offer came in. Players and agents aren't stupid. We couldn't have just given Reid and Bryan new contracts last year because they'd know that would reduce their opportunity to move on and better themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BCFC_Dan said:

Even if I let you have Reid and Bryan it's still less than 30% of the typical starting XI. For £20m. That's what selling at the right time looks like.

Even if money were no object you can't just keep players if they've decided they want to go. All three players wanted to test themselves at a higher level and two of them were coming to the ends of their contracts. There's every chance that there was a gentleman's agreement in place with Flint to let him go if an offer came in. Players and agents aren't stupid. We couldn't have just given Reid and Bryan new contracts last year because they'd know that would reduce their opportunity to move on and better themselves.

Let me have!? Very kind!

I think we are talking at slightly crossed purposes. I agree with you that this summer we had to sell - we had got ourselves in a position where our best assets wanted/needed to leave, so we sold them. My point is that timing is a variable you arent factoring in, I think we have been naive to let ourselves lose such key players in one window. 

The only point which would change this situation is if we had to sell due to FFP etc. At which point getting cash in is king. If we weren't totally up against it financially then this window has pushed us backwards, and hasn't been managed well. Looks like from above posts maybe we really did need the cash?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ciderwithtommy said:

Let me have!? Very kind!

I think we are talking at slightly crossed purposes. I agree with you that this summer we had to sell - we had got ourselves in a position where our best assets wanted/needed to leave, so we sold them. My point is that timing is a variable you arent factoring in, I think we have been naive to let ourselves lose such key players in one window. 

The only point which would change this situation is if we had to sell due to FFP etc. At which point getting cash in is king. If we weren't totally up against it financially then this window has pushed us backwards, and hasn't been managed well. Looks like from above posts maybe we really did need the cash?

 

Maybe it is to do with FFP. But timing is also dictated by the players' contracts. Bryan wouldn't sign a new one, Flint did but it may have been conditional on being allowed to move. I can't remember when Reid's contract was up but I think it might have been next year too. Timing wasn't really an option with those three unless we were prepared to lose them for nothing next year and / or deal with them being unhappy about not getting a move.

I don't think it was ideal to lose them all in the same window but I don't think it was naive. I think it was the best of several undesirable options.

You may argue that we should have extended the contracts sooner. That's valid but it doesn't change the fact that the players may want to move and a player who wants to move rarely gives 100%. Additionally, extending contracts before they're due sets a precedent that the club probably wouldn't want to. It's a fine balance between retaining assets and paying more than is necessary / deserved in wages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thread. While I agree with those who say it’s good management to cash in on players whose contracts have a year left, I’d argue it’s poor management not to push the boat out and really go for promotion when we were in a position of strength sat 2nd in the Championship last Christmas. At least £200m was up for grabs at a time when we had momentum, which would’ve made all of these figures semantics. I dare say that lack of ambition from the club led to Reid, Flint and Bryan wanting to leave and effectively downing tools after our League Cup exit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Is anyone able to explain why we pay so much interest on our debt, compared to other clubs in the Championship?

 

 

 

Isn’t the interesting calculation the amount of interest in proportion to the actual debt?

My guess is that the banker determines the rate of return he wants. If the amount of interest paid is greater than the amount borrowed - or in this case, invested - then the rate is similar to the rates for pay day loans.

Compare that to a rate for a fully secured loan like a mortgage. 

The whole situation is fabricated to make sure that the investor - who I’m going to guess is fully secured - gets the rate he wants in the most tax efficient way he can.

But hey, I’m only guessing ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...