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

Red34

#FabulousOwnership

Recommended Posts

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.  

 

Edited by Sturny
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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!

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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 😉

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it is delusion that in modern football we could ever be self financing.  

And SL must fully realise that; the whole BS thing is, in my opinion, merely a vanity project. As others have repeatedly said a rich man's toy box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, downendcity said:

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!

 

The club was for fun.

It used to be ours. But SL came and took it.

The club was the attraction in the first place - the long-term deal came about exactly as you suggest - it was costing £££ and way too many of them. Then came the AV opportunity finally (eyes on that prize for a while) - and an opportunity for pleasure and profit arose.

He hasn't bought just the club - it's the franchise and the land that will attract buyers.

BCFC on it's own - I agree - no profit there.

But when you add room for 5000+ housing units, light industrial/commercial roadside outlets........

I can tell you right now that serious discussions had taken place about building a food production unit, micro brewery and vehicle mechanics facilities to exclusively supply the AV stadium's food and drink outlets, roadside restaurants and bar (inc hotel) and all company vehicles maintenance.

Everything in-house. That was the AV plan.

Pretty much still is - just now houses will go where AV stadium was going to go, and AG stays and expanded when needed.

Bristol City cost SL £millions over the years.

The deal will make him a fortune many times over what he has spent.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, tin said:

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. 

🤫 100% agree, we were in with a real chance to push on SL chose not too; we brought in rubbish instead and shoe horned them into the team to save face; this def upset a few and we are now without 3 of our best players as a result. We have also missed a golden chance to play with the big boys, a chance that will be a while before it comes around again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, phantom said:

We owe over £70m

£18m to SL

£56m to the bank

we owe nothing to the bank, its all owed to SL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, frenchred said:

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.

we were finishing 9th in league one when he took over, spending most of the time in and around the play-offs but still stayed in league one,

Since he took over we've spent the majority of the time in the championship hovering around mid-table to fighting relegation,

so yes he has seen a massive improvement

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SX227 said:

The club was for fun.

It used to be ours. But SL came and took it.

The club was the attraction in the first place - the long-term deal came about exactly as you suggest - it was costing £££ and way too many of them. Then came the AV opportunity finally (eyes on that prize for a while) - and an opportunity for pleasure and profit arose.

He hasn't bought just the club - it's the franchise and the land that will attract buyers.

BCFC on it's own - I agree - no profit there.

But when you add room for 5000+ housing units, light industrial/commercial roadside outlets........

I can tell you right now that serious discussions had taken place about building a food production unit, micro brewery and vehicle mechanics facilities to exclusively supply the AV stadium's food and drink outlets, roadside restaurants and bar (inc hotel) and all company vehicles maintenance.

Everything in-house. That was the AV plan.

Pretty much still is - just now houses will go where AV stadium was going to go, and AG stays and expanded when needed.

Bristol City cost SL £millions over the years.

The deal will make him a fortune many times over what he has spent.

 

 

 

 

If you genuinely believe that SL bought BCFC to make money then I'll have some of what you're smoking!! Fair play if he has though - the plan you suggest he had is pure bond villian stuff.

Sure it would have been much easier to invest his money with an established financial services company - maybe even one in the FTSE 100? Can't think of one just yet though!!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scrumpylegs said:

If you genuinely believe that SL bought BCFC to make money then I'll have some of what you're smoking!! Fair play if he has though - the plan you suggest he had is pure bond villian stuff.

Sure it would have been much easier to invest his money with an established financial services company - maybe even one in the FTSE 100? Can't think of one just yet though!!

only way lansdown will make money out of this club is to sell it for about 400 million

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

we were finishing 9th in league one when he took over, spending most of the time in and around the play-offs but still stayed in league one,

Since he took over we've spent the majority of the time in the championship hovering around mid-table to fighting relegation,

so yes he has seen a massive improvement

In addition, the Championship has become a much richer, stronger and more competitive league, particularly due to the balloon payments to the Prem drop outs.

To be finishing top half of the table in this league and having gone toe-to-toe with Premier League giants and win or give a good account of ourselves shows just how far we've come...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/08/2018 at 11:13, Bar BS3 said:

One of which has just lost arguably the best player in the world to Juventus this summer..! 

Football (transfer business) has changed SO much over the last 5 years in particular. It’s staggering just how many people can see it or grasp the reality of what (most) clubs have to do to operate these days and it’s them spouting moronic, ill thought out criticisms that other sheep blindly follow, that make things like social media and even here, frustratingly unbearable at times. 

If you (those people) don’t understand the game or the business aspect of running a football club in these times, then either learn & get educated, don’t comment, or give up..! 

It’s certainly not the club(s) who come across as looking stupid, when people post such ignorant, out dated drivel about how they now have to operate..! 

Just read this, which I think is linked to my post yesterday. If you believe you know more about the business of football than me that's your belief, fair enough, but it might not be true. I think you have misunderstood my concern tho, and used it as a way to state the obvious and look superior. 

What you have failed to grasp (moronically?) is the point I was trying to make. Selling is inevitable, needed and relevant to all clubs, agreed. Allowing yourself as club to get to a point where we lose 3 key players in one window is poor. As I have said, FFP is one explanation as to why we chose to sell, which I could accept although this would concern me in other ways. 

 

Edited by ciderwithtommy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ciderwithtommy said:

Just read this, which I think is linked to my post yesterday. If you believe you know more about the business of football than me that's your belief, fair enough, but it might not be true. I think you have misunderstood my concern tho, and used it as a way to state the obvious and look superior. 

What you have failed to grasp (moronically?) is the point I was trying to make. Selling is inevitable, needed and relevant to all clubs, agreed. Allowing yourself as club to get to a point where we lose 3 key players in one window is poor. As I have said, FFP is one explanation as to why we chose to sell, which I could accept although this would concern me in other ways. 

 

there are plenty of examples of teams losing 3 players and still do well.

Brentford being the prime example, Southampton being another

even with those 3 key players we've struggle, 2 seasons avoiding relegation and a season finishing 11th after fading away with those 3 all involved, its not as if we've been challenging every season with them in the side,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

there are plenty of examples of teams losing 3 players and still do well.

Brentford being the prime example, Southampton being another

even with those 3 key players we've struggle, 2 seasons avoiding relegation and a season finishing 11th after fading away with those 3 all involved, its not as if we've been challenging every season with them in the side,

Brentford are a really good example - they turned down a 12m bid this summer as it was not the right time for them to deal. Again, that's the point I am making. The model is good, but has to be controlled else you regress, which is my concern. 

If you are blaming Bobby Reid for our struggles after promotion fair play. I don't. I would also say if we didn't have Flint during those seasons our fate could have been worse. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ciderwithtommy said:

Brentford are a really good example - they turned down a 12m bid this summer as it was not the right time for them to deal. Again, that's the point I am making. The model is good, but has to be controlled else you regress, which is my concern. 

If you are blaming Bobby Reid for our struggles after promotion fair play. I don't. I would also say if we didn't have Flint during those seasons our fate could have been worse. 

I'm not blaming anyone for our troubles, but 2 players were in a leaky defense, sometimes change is better and we may not have as good players now but may well have a better team because of it,

and teamwork will get you further then talent, last season for example we would of lost to forest under te pressure we were under 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

there are plenty of examples of teams losing 3 players and still do well.

Brentford being the prime example, Southampton being another

even with those 3 key players we've struggle, 2 seasons avoiding relegation and a season finishing 11th after fading away with those 3 all involved, its not as if we've been challenging every season with them in the side,

There's also plenty of teams also not doing well. QPR, Reading and Barnsley. That's just in the champ and off the top of my head. 

You hear about Southampton and Brentford doing such good business because it's rarer that teams do well when selling many key players. 

 

You could argue without those 3 key players we would've been in a worse situation last year. Imagine the 2nd half of last season being the entire season.... 

Edited by Sturny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Monkeh said:

only way lansdown will make money out of this club is to sell it for about 400 million

I have no idea Monkeh, but do you think SL bought control of BCFC as a means of making an eventual profit from ostensibly connected deals like Ashton Vale?

I have no problem with that incidentally, although it might make more people see and admire SL as something more than a pure benefactor because it would be a win win if that was the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bri Stool City said:

🤫 100% agree, we were in with a real chance to push on SL chose not too; we brought in rubbish instead and shoe horned them into the team to save face; this def upset a few and we are now without 3 of our best players as a result. We have also missed a golden chance to play with the big boys, a chance that will be a while before it comes around again.

Would it be fair to say that to bring in the players needed to push for promotion, would’ve meant selling a player(s) we needed too, e.g. counter-productive.  It appears that we lost £18.4m in 17/18, one of our best seasons in 10 years, cup runs, big attendances ‘n all.  That £18.4m has probably got £4m offsetting bring it into FFP alignment...nor hamstring us for the next seasons too.

i think we would have been taking too big a gamble.  Would the likes of Grabban, Mitrovic even have come here, had we competed for their signings?

In hindsight Kent and Diony’s loan fees and wages may have been spent better elsewhere (Walsh was more for the future - although with ability "for the now”), but plenty of you were dead happy with Kent....about 5 people on here had heard of Diony, but let’s not forget he cost St Etienne €8m 6 months earlier.

This forum us great in hindsight.

I think the finances tell us why we did what we did last January.  Tough to take, but we are still building that stability.  Don’t get me wrong I think the project has one big flaw....other clubs in our division are playing with parachute money.

4 hours ago, ciderwithtommy said:

Just read this, which I think is linked to my post yesterday. If you believe you know more about the business of football than me that's your belief, fair enough, but it might not be true. I think you have misunderstood my concern tho, and used it as a way to state the obvious and look superior. 

What you have failed to grasp (moronically?) is the point I was trying to make. Selling is inevitable, needed and relevant to all clubs, agreed. Allowing yourself as club to get to a point where we lose 3 key players in one window is poor. As I have said, FFP is one explanation as to why we chose to sell, which I could accept although this would concern me in other ways. 

 

Selling is a must - £18.4m loss tells us that!

I’d argue that we tried to tie down Reid and Bryan (we did with Flint, albeit with a buyout clause).  Reid was out of contract this summer, but we had a year option.  We aren’t in a position to dictate contract renewals 2 years out like a Man Utd, we have to play a bit more short-term, and that leaves us open to a player coming good at short notice like Reid.  The last thing any of us, including LJ, MA and SL thought was that we’d be fending off bids north of £5m.  That’s unfortunate, perversely....crystal balls and all that.

4 hours ago, ciderwithtommy said:

Brentford are a really good example - they turned down a 12m bid this summer as it was not the right time for them to deal. Again, that's the point I am making. The model is good, but has to be controlled else you regress, which is my concern. 

If you are blaming Bobby Reid for our struggles after promotion fair play. I don't. I would also say if we didn't have Flint during those seasons our fate could have been worse. 

Mepham has a contract until 2022, that gives them better bargaining power.

I would say we need to start biting the bullet on longer contracts....evidence of a transition, more 3+1 than 2+1 this summer will protect us for our good players. These will need to move to 4 years for our stellar signings / re-signings.  But you have to have faith in your recruitment!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Would it be fair to say that to bring in the players needed to push for promotion, would’ve meant selling a player(s) we needed too, e.g. counter-productive.  It appears that we lost £18.4m in 17/18, one of our best seasons in 10 years, cup runs, big attendances ‘n all.  That £18.4m has probably got £4m offsetting bring it into FFP alignment...nor hamstring us for the next seasons too.

i think we would have been taking too big a gamble.  Would the likes of Grabban, Mitrovic even have come here, had we competed for their signings?

In hindsight Kent and Diony’s loan fees and wages may have been spent better elsewhere (Walsh was more for the future - although with ability "for the now”), but plenty of you were dead happy with Kent....about 5 people on here had heard of Diony, but let’s not forget he cost St Etienne €8m 6 months earlier.

This forum us great in hindsight.

I think the finances tell us why we did what we did last January.  Tough to take, but we are still building that stability.  Don’t get me wrong I think the project has one big flaw....other clubs in our division are playing with parachute money.

Selling is a must - £18.4m loss tells us that!

I’d argue that we tried to tie down Reid and Bryan (we did with Flint, albeit with a buyout clause).  Reid was out of contract this summer, but we had a year option.  We aren’t in a position to dictate contract renewals 2 years out like a Man Utd, we have to play a bit more short-term, and that leaves us open to a player coming good at short notice like Reid.  The last thing any of us, including LJ, MA and SL thought was that we’d be fending off bids north of £5m.  That’s unfortunate, perversely....crystal balls and all that.

Mepham has a contract until 2022, that gives them better bargaining power.

I would say we need to start biting the bullet on longer contracts....evidence of a transition, more 3+1 than 2+1 this summer will protect us for our good players. These will need to move to 4 years for our stellar signings / re-signings.  But you have to have faith in your recruitment!!!!

Mepham contracted til 2022 shows how you have to play this model, I think we got caught a little cold. It's tough to take but let's hope we have more diedhous than dionys this year... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Would it be fair to say that to bring in the players needed to push for promotion, would’ve meant selling a player(s) we needed too, e.g. counter-productive.  It appears that we lost £18.4m in 17/18, one of our best seasons in 10 years, cup runs, big attendances ‘n all.  That £18.4m has probably got £4m offsetting bring it into FFP alignment...nor hamstring us for the next seasons too.

i think we would have been taking too big a gamble.  Would the likes of Grabban, Mitrovic even have come here, had we competed for their signings?

In hindsight Kent and Diony’s loan fees and wages may have been spent better elsewhere (Walsh was more for the future - although with ability "for the now”), but plenty of you were dead happy with Kent....about 5 people on here had heard of Diony, but let’s not forget he cost St Etienne €8m 6 months earlier.

This forum us great in hindsight.

I think the finances tell us why we did what we did last January.  Tough to take, but we are still building that stability.  Don’t get me wrong I think the project has one big flaw....other clubs in our division are playing with parachute money.

Selling is a must - £18.4m loss tells us that!

I’d argue that we tried to tie down Reid and Bryan (we did with Flint, albeit with a buyout clause).  Reid was out of contract this summer, but we had a year option.  We aren’t in a position to dictate contract renewals 2 years out like a Man Utd, we have to play a bit more short-term, and that leaves us open to a player coming good at short notice like Reid.  The last thing any of us, including LJ, MA and SL thought was that we’d be fending off bids north of £5m.  That’s unfortunate, perversely....crystal balls and all that.

Mepham has a contract until 2022, that gives them better bargaining power.

I would say we need to start biting the bullet on longer contracts....evidence of a transition, more 3+1 than 2+1 this summer will protect us for our good players. These will need to move to 4 years for our stellar signings / re-signings.  But you have to have faith in your recruitment!!!!

As we apparently own our own ground and employ B.Sport to run it, what exactly do they do for us? how much money do they re-invest into our club from what they get from the others who use our ground/stadium and the business`s who use it, catering etc; and how much does it cost to have B Sport running our ground anyway?

I only ask as the money  "we lost 18.4m" seems even more incredible as this new ground of ours was supposed to benefit us greatly, (in what seemed like a good season income wise)........but how greatly :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bri Stool City said:

As we apparently own our own ground and employ B.Sport to run it, what exactly do they do for us? how much money do they re-invest into our club from what they get from the others who use our ground/stadium and the business`s who use it, catering etc; and how much does it cost to have B Sport running our ground anyway?

I only ask as the money  "we lost 18.4m" seems even more incredible as this new ground of ours was supposed to benefit us greatly, (in what seemed like a good season income wise)........but how greatly :dunno:

Tbh, almost no Championship clubs post a profit, let alone a regular one.

Those accounts seem to be from 16/17, we don't know how it was last season- unless I'm getting wires crossed. It has undoubtedly boosted us income wise- the issue is the speed at which wages and fees have risen at this level, whereas TV revenue has not! Even clubs in receipt of parachute payments tend to post a loss.

The potential benefit maybe that all stewards, catering, office staff etc- are employed by Bristol Sport under one banner, one contract as opposed to by the rugby, the football etc.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bri Stool City said:

As we apparently own our own ground and employ B.Sport to run it, what exactly do they do for us? how much money do they re-invest into our club from what they get from the others who use our ground/stadium and the business`s who use it, catering etc; and how much does it cost to have B Sport running our ground anyway?

I only ask as the money  "we lost 18.4m" seems even more incredible as this new ground of ours was supposed to benefit us greatly, (in what seemed like a good season income wise)........but how greatly :dunno:

Ashton gate holdings own the ground not Bristol sport,

bristol sport run the commercial side of things and as commercial revenue is at the highest it’s ever been in the history of this club then they are doing a good job

before Bristol sport and the new ground we we losing 10 million a season peaking at 18.9 million

 

but let’s not let facts get in the way eh?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bri Stool City said:

As we apparently own our own ground and employ B.Sport to run it, what exactly do they do for us? how much money do they re-invest into our club from what they get from the others who use our ground/stadium and the business`s who use it, catering etc; and how much does it cost to have B Sport running our ground anyway?

I only ask as the money  "we lost 18.4m" seems even more incredible as this new ground of ours was supposed to benefit us greatly, (in what seemed like a good season income wise)........but how greatly :dunno:

As I understand it, BS reduces costs from economies of scale, one ‘efficient’ dedicated ticket sales team across each sport, rather than running 4 separate inefficient sales teams unable to cope with peak demand.

The 365 day use of the ground (or at least more days than 23 home games would bring) cannot all be apportioned to the football club’s finances, they have to be treated individually, but again staff costs can be more efficient, purchasing power for the stuff needed for match days and other events etc.

I still think it is right to have done cynicism of the BS model.  I don’t believe it was ever gonna reap the benefits we naively thought it would.

Even increased average gates only has a limited effect.  I remember SL saying that 20k average gates would increase revenue by £8-10m a season.  I think overall we might have increased revenue by that amount, but only a portion of that goes into City’s accounts.

The PULA sport model is too complex for me to really understand.

The cup run netted us a couple of million at most.  I think some thought it would reap £10m+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Ashton gate holdings own the ground not Bristol sport,

bristol sport run the commercial side of things and as commercial revenue is at the highest it’s ever been in the history of this club then they are doing a good job

before Bristol sport and the new ground we we losing 10 million a season peaking at 18.9 million

 

but let’s not let facts get in the way eh?

Looks like we may have lost £18.4m in 17/18???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Davefevs said:

Looks like we may have lost £18.4m in 17/18???

We are paying a lot more in wages now 

and the official accounts state we lost 3.9 million

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

We are paying a lot more in wages now 

and the official accounts state we lost 3.9 million

That's for 16/17, those accounts.

Besides which, one thing I noticed which was interesting- is that Swissramble and Kieran Maguire- two of the top football finance bloggers- both use our Bristol City Holdings accounts rather than Bristol City Football Club, in their analysis of our 16/17 results.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

That's for 16/17, those accounts.

Besides which, one thing I noticed which was interesting- is that Swissramble and Kieran Maguire- two of the top football finance bloggers- both use our Bristol City Holdings accounts rather than Bristol City Football Club, in their analysis of our 16/17 results.

It’s still the official accounts,

you won’t see 17/18 until March 19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

It’s still the official accounts,

you won’t see 17/18 until March 19

I know, the figures we can see, have seen are for 16/17.

Which is the Official Accounts? Only reason I ask is they have 2 sets of figures. Bristol City Holdings has higher revenue (and losses) than Bristol City FC.

A quick look at the 2 revenue sets suggests the difference is in Other Commercial and retail income...

Bristol City FC Accounts has £1,556,543 vs Bristol City Holdings which has £8,521,347- a difference of £6,964,804. 🤔

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

We are paying a lot more in wages now 

and the official accounts state we lost 3.9 million

Indeed we are, that’s the point i’m Making.  I’m not talking about 16/17....

....17/18’s predicted accounts will have been produced in March / April for FFP purposes.  Kieran Maguire (Price of Football), an expert in the field has tracked City’s finances / transactions and Gavin Marshall (City’s accountant) has confirmed his assumptions re SL converting £18.4m into shares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...