Is The Lansdown Loss A Myth?

[The Original OTIB]

51 minutes ago, Marina's Rolls Royce said:

 

                                                                FINANCIAL PLANNING IN THE WORLD OF THE ORIGINAL OTIB:-

 

"Woke up and managed to get one last squeeze of toothpaste from tube thereby saving £2.50 on a new one.

Walked past car showroom and didn't buy the 2nd hand Ferrari on forecourt saving  a total of £48,000

Got to work and didn't receive a £100,000 bonus thus saving £50,000 in tax

Got home and then went to Pub but didn't buy it saving £350,000 in purchase price.

Went to bed having very happy to have saved a total of £448,002.50 during the day.

Spent night thinking about what the hell I'm gonna spend £448,025.50 on tomorrow."

Had I lived in Guernsey for the last 10 years I would rightly consider myself better off than if I'd lived here during the same period. I already gift quite a bit personally and through my company. My choice, but my personal donations would be significantly offset by a lower tax bill. Lansdown has brought good financial management (if not the best overall football management, but many factors affect that area) such that the various companies are relatively stable. The Lansdowns still prop up Ashton Gate Ltd (the ground owner, parent company Bristol City Holdings Ltd) via their guarantee of the bank loans (guaranteed via Pula Sport Ltd, Guernsey). Over time it will become very profitable, I have no doubt (on an operating basis, it already is trading profitably). Perhaps "should" was a poor choice of word, but "could" gift shares might have been better. Equally, putting a proportion of shares into the Supporters Trust would be an option. In short, one can disagree with my belief that overall he is ahead (politely preferred), or what might happen with assets within the group. The gifting point originates more from an additional gesture of benevolence. I think having a broader legacy might appeal rather than merely a name on a stand. There are no pockets in shrouds. Each to their own. Furthermore, the idea that owning a ground is inherently dangerous (re: possible Administration) only applies if you are a reckless owner. Football has had many of those and still does. The overall direction of travel is not that way re: Ground, Holdings, Footballl club. As rightly pointed out herein, an open succession strategy would be welcome if at all possible. That part of that succession resides within the Football Club is not an unreasonable proposition.

To address your sarcasm specifically, I own a business that has shown significant profitability for 14 years running.

 

 

[Pezo]

5 hours ago, The Original OTIB said:

Meaning that for 10 years in a tax haven at 20% rather than 45% here (and 50% in prior years) he's saved nothing in tax on an immense fortune/income? Perhaps you can address that point?

By the same logic you are basically saying that any Supporter with an ISA should give the money from the ISA to the club.

Someone once told me the first sign of a socialist was wanting to spend other peoples money with your double accounting it sounds like more of a communist.

[The Original OTIB]

20 minutes ago, Pezo said:

By the same logic you are basically saying that any Supporter with an ISA should give the money from the ISA to the club.

Someone once told me the first sign of a socialist was wanting to spend other peoples money with your double accounting it sounds like more of a communist.

No, but then I also would not advise an ISA to anyone but high rate tax payers (no personal savings allowance) in the current financial climate. There are some decent current account offers available, with attendant benefits - try searching the Current Account Switch Service in order to see how easy it is to move to a better banking home.

[BrightCiderLife]

8 hours ago, The Original OTIB said:

The thread topic is clear in that is talking about his overall loss and whether it is true or not. The investment has been fantastic, and we give thanks, but overall, it has not hurt him given the massive amount that he has saved in tax by living in Guernsey. The two are inextricably related.

 

3 hours ago, EnderMB said:

I think the point that's being made is that Lansdown saves x (let's say £50m a year) on dodging tax on his income, so in theory he can throw £10m at the club every year and it doesn't really affect him. 

This is pretty much the standard line I've heard from City fans in the pub - "Lansdown saves £100m a year on tax, so why doesn't he put that money into the club and we'll be in the Premier League in two years". It works, in theory, but people forget that getting to the Premier League isn't the final goal. Once we get there, Lansdown needs to dig into his pockets to ensure we stay there.

 

What has his personal tax got to do with the football club? (Hint: nothing, but read on to find out why.)

 

Let’s say he wins the Euromillions this weekend and nets c.£100m, and that so far he has spent c.£200m on City. 

 

That doesn’t mean he has only ‘lost’ £100m on City. He has still spent the same amount on us. And he was won money elsewhere regardless of us. Owning the club did not allow him to move to Guernsey. The two are not linked as you suggest.

 

In fact, it is far more likely that shelling out more money on City than every OTIBer will earn in our collective lifetimes (guesstimate) was getting too expensive and he looked to reduce his tax bill so he could carry on funding his hobby. That has meant he had to move away from Bristol and is severely limited wit the number of days he can spend in the UK (not Guernsey). 

 

You cannot offset one against the other. I opened this thread thinking it would be an interesting calculation of dividends paid to shareholders, directors’ salaries and other payments made to Landdown or his businesses/family members compared to his investments. For example, we know Wally is charging huge interest to NLBR and getting them to fund his office in London while borrowing at their expense from the bank to fund it all. They’re paying for him to not spend money so he and his family haven’t lost out on those transactions. No matter what the family paid to Higgs, they are better off now.

 

Instead, this thread was making the same tedious point that others have made which is basically ‘Lansdown still has money left, give the club some more.’

 

Owning BCFC has clearly cost him a huge sum. In order to try and improve things, he has then also bought near enough every sports club in Bristol so that we can reduce overheads and save money.

 

Also, let’s have a look at a different angle. He’s a successful BILLIONAIRE who made all his own money. If he hadn’t invested the time he has spent on City, it’s fair to say he’d have pursued more lucrative business opportunities. His other companies don’t post millions of pounds of loss each year, only us. He already does a lot for us, more than other owners do and more than he needs to do.

 

If you want to criticise him for footballing decisions and the what his investment has achieved, that is different, but don’t say he is being tight and should spend more of his own money.

 

In conclusion, he has lost a huge amount of his own money by spending on us and continues to do so and I’m yet to see that he has taken any significant sums out (the most recent documents at Companies House suggest he converted sums owed to him into equity - meaning the club no longer owes that money back to him). Maybe he has taken more out than he’s put in, but you’ve got nowhere near convincing me he’s done anything other than stump up a phenomenal amount of his own money. 

[Monkeh]

19 minutes ago, BrightCiderLife said:

 

What has his personal tax got to do with the football club? (Hint: nothing, but read on to find out why.)

 

Let’s say he wins the Euromillions this weekend and nets c.£100m, and that so far he has spent c.£200m on City. 

 

That doesn’t mean he has only ‘lost’ £100m on City. He has still spent the same amount on us. And he was won money elsewhere regardless of us. Owning the club did not allow him to move to Guernsey. The two are not linked as you suggest.

 

In fact, it is far more likely that shelling out more money on City than every OTIBer will earn in our collective lifetimes (guesstimate) was getting too expensive and he looked to reduce his tax bill so he could carry on funding his hobby. That has meant he had to move away from Bristol and is severely limited wit the number of days he can spend in the UK (not Guernsey). 

 

You cannot offset one against the other. I opened this thread thinking it would be an interesting calculation of dividends paid to shareholders, directors’ salaries and other payments made to Landdown or his businesses/family members compared to his investments. For example, we know Wally is charging huge interest to NLBR and getting them to fund his office in London while borrowing at their expense from the bank to fund it all. They’re paying for him to not spend money so he and his family haven’t lost out on those transactions. No matter what the family paid to Higgs, they are better off now.

 

Instead, this thread was making the same tedious point that others have made which is basically ‘Lansdown still has money left, give the club some more.’

 

Owning BCFC has clearly cost him a huge sum. In order to try and improve things, he has then also bought near enough every sports club in Bristol so that we can reduce overheads and save money.

 

Also, let’s have a look at a different angle. He’s a successful BILLIONAIRE who made all his own money. If he hadn’t invested the time he has spent on City, it’s fair to say he’d have pursued more lucrative business opportunities. His other companies don’t post millions of pounds of loss each year, only us. He already does a lot for us, more than other owners do and more than he needs to do.

 

If you want to criticise him for footballing decisions and the what his investment has achieved, that is different, but don’t say he is being tight and should spend more of his own money.

 

In conclusion, he has lost a huge amount of his own money by spending on us and continues to do so and I’m yet to see that he has taken any significant sums out (the most recent documents at Companies House suggest he converted sums owed to him into equity - meaning the club no longer owes that money back to him). Maybe he has taken more out than he’s put in, but you’ve got nowhere near convincing me he’s done anything other than stump up a phenomenal amount of his own money. 

What he said

[AshtonGreat]

10 hours ago, Monkeh said:

absolute horseshit he's spent 100m of his money (not the clubs) on the stadium, he's covered the loss each season since he's owned us which started and around 3 million ballooned to 18.9 million and now back down to 4 million (latest accounts) lets put a rough estimate on it  shall we (he's been the top man about 15 years) say 4 million a season until we got to the championship (3 years to be generous) so thats 12 million and then for the rest of the time lets say 12 million a season for arguments sake 9x12 thats 108 million,

So we're up to 200 million before we've even made a profit thats with out the investment in the training ground and on going improvements,

and you want more?

its lansdowns personal money he could do an olyson and not spend anything as well as bleed the club dry, he doesn't he covers the clubs loses every season

 

Where are you getting that figure from? The AG redevelopment cost £45million

[robin_unreliant]

I suspect Steve's biggest loss is down to him selling shares in HL in order to free up cash to invest in bcfc.

HL share price has gone up to about 3x the price he sold at to raise money for the AG redevelopment. 

If he hadn't sold them he would be £150m better off by doing nothing. Kind of dwarfs the argument about a few million here and there on players!

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, AshtonGreat said:

 

Where are you getting that figure from? The AG redevelopment cost £45million

Several sources say £45m maybe hes bending the facts to suit his agenda

[joe jordans teeth]

Is this thread still bloody going,it was ridiculous from the start and now it’s on a second page Jesus 

[The Original OTIB]

7 minutes ago, Bri Stool City said:

Several sources say £45m maybe hes bending the facts to suit his agenda

Not direct £ investment as bank loans funding Ashton Gate Ltd. SL via Guernsey Co. = Guarantor on the loan. £45M about right.

[NickJ]

12 hours ago, The Original OTIB said:

The debate about what investment means in footballing terms rages on, with many wanting high value players on high wages (folly in my book without the finances/base to support it). More broadly, what is the true net value of the Lansdown investment? On balance, it's been positive in many areas, and it is churlish and ungrateful to say otherwise. However, has it really hurt the Lansdown family pocket? In 2010 there was a move to Guernsey. Getting on for 10 years, how much do you think that he's saved in income tax? 20% on Guernsey, 45% top rate here. Then there's the 7% dividend tax introduced last year in the UK; another saving. Overall, I would calculate that the Lansdown's are way ahead of their net spend on Bristol City, Bristol Sport and Ground Improvements (the latter an asset serving the wider business finances and not the football club which has no financial stake). My question then: Is the Lansdown loss a myth? I think, on balance, yet it is. What does this mean? Well, to me he should make the best supporter gesture possible. Gift 51% of the ground back to the Football Club with an option to buy the rest. I applaud what's been done but the heart and soul of a club is it's ground and it's supporters. Let them be truly reunited.

I'm not going to like or dislike this post but as somebody that's taken an interest in the finances of the football club over the years, and would like to think that I not only understand the finances of the club but also the history of the finance and the ownership issues, from let's say 1982 onwards, I would say that those that have rubbished the OP do so from very little knowledge of the finances, or appreciation of the point the OP is trying to make.

Unfortunately OOTIB, your suggestion that because SL has saved a load of tax, he should pump it into Bristol City, that's ludicrous.

The real point IMO is the suggestion that Bristol City or it's stadium only exists because of SL. That is equally as ludicrous.

Likewise, the notion by some posters on this thread that SL has made a loss on his investment into Bristol City. Ludicrous. The fact is SL acquired the football club at a discount to its real underlying value - because the freehold was grossly under valued in the accounts - and so the investment since, which he has made primarily in the stadium - not players, means he is sitting on an asset worth easily his investment.

Not saying SL is out to rob Bristol City, he's not, but the notion that he's some sort of God that we should be in awe of is equally as fanciful that he's an asset stripper.

Steve's done a good jn in terms of infrastructure, no more no less, and he owns that infrastructure. In footballing terms we are no further ahead than we were when Steve made his move to take over almost 20 years ago. And before the replies come on about the stadium, the training facilities, the youth, the latest strategy (one of many during Steve's tenure) ya dada, yes, but all progressive clubs have done that, but we are still exactly where we were in relative terms, mid table Division 2, to where we were.

[Maltshoveller]

12 hours ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Genuine question 

Anyone understand / know enough to estimate a value on the club (Incl ground and land)

1 Now

2 If we were to reach the Premier League

(1) (2)Its worth what somebody is willing to pay for it 

[BobBobSuperBob]

1 hour ago, Maltshoveller said:

(1) (2)Its worth what somebody is willing to pay for it 

Thanks

Insightful

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 hours ago, NickJ said:

I'm not going to like or dislike this post but as somebody that's taken an interest in the finances of the football club over the years, and would like to think that I not only understand the finances of the club but also the history of the finance and the ownership issues, from let's say 1982 onwards, I would say that those that have rubbished the OP do so from very little knowledge of the finances, or appreciation of the point the OP is trying to make.

Unfortunately OOTIB, your suggestion that because SL has saved a load of tax, he should pump it into Bristol City, that's ludicrous.

The real point IMO is the suggestion that Bristol City or it's stadium only exists because of SL. That is equally as ludicrous.

Likewise, the notion by some posters on this thread that SL has made a loss on his investment into Bristol City. Ludicrous. The fact is SL acquired the football club at a discount to its real underlying value - because the freehold was grossly under valued in the accounts - and so the investment since, which he has made primarily in the stadium - not players, means he is sitting on an asset worth easily his investment.

Not saying SL is out to rob Bristol City, he's not, but the notion that he's some sort of God that we should be in awe of is equally as fanciful that he's an asset stripper.

Steve's done a good jn in terms of infrastructure, no more no less, and he owns that infrastructure. In footballing terms we are no further ahead than we were when Steve made his move to take over almost 20 years ago. And before the replies come on about the stadium, the training facilities, the youth, the latest strategy (one of many during Steve's tenure) ya dada, yes, but all progressive clubs have done that, but we are still exactly where we were in relative terms, mid table Division 2, to where we were.

That's a very interesting post and you clearly know a lot about this.

Two things though.

1) Firstly, I'd argue we're playing catch up to quite a lot of progressive clubs so the benefits of the infrastructure, training facilities, revenue generation facilities etc are being fast tracked almost. The big benefits are yet to come IMO. Yes, most progressive clubs do this...but then a lot had the upgraded/new ground, Conferencing facilities some time ago. Can only praise SL for this tbh.

2) 'Sitting on a grossly undervalued asset'. Is that on paper or in cash terms? Because until an asset or the value is realised, is it not just paper wealth? To put it another way...if I owned a million shares in a company- well I'd be a very rich man! However, wouldn't that be wealth on paper as opposed to easily accessible- and surely the same holds for Ashton Gate (which he of course owns).

[The Original OTIB]

11 hours ago, NickJ said:

I'm not going to like or dislike this post but as somebody that's taken an interest in the finances of the football club over the years, and would like to think that I not only understand the finances of the club but also the history of the finance and the ownership issues, from let's say 1982 onwards, I would say that those that have rubbished the OP do so from very little knowledge of the finances, or appreciation of the point the OP is trying to make.

Unfortunately OOTIB, your suggestion that because SL has saved a load of tax, he should pump it into Bristol City, that's ludicrous.

The real point IMO is the suggestion that Bristol City or it's stadium only exists because of SL. That is equally as ludicrous.

Likewise, the notion by some posters on this thread that SL has made a loss on his investment into Bristol City. Ludicrous. The fact is SL acquired the football club at a discount to its real underlying value - because the freehold was grossly under valued in the accounts - and so the investment since, which he has made primarily in the stadium - not players, means he is sitting on an asset worth easily his investment.

Not saying SL is out to rob Bristol City, he's not, but the notion that he's some sort of God that we should be in awe of is equally as fanciful that he's an asset stripper.

Steve's done a good jn in terms of infrastructure, no more no less, and he owns that infrastructure. In footballing terms we are no further ahead than we were when Steve made his move to take over almost 20 years ago. And before the replies come on about the stadium, the training facilities, the youth, the latest strategy (one of many during Steve's tenure) ya dada, yes, but all progressive clubs have done that, but we are still exactly where we were in relative terms, mid table Division 2, to where we were.

Thank you Nick, but I did not say that he should pump money into Bristol City (the club). I suggested that he could (amended above from "should") gift shares in the Stadium company to the Football Club (alternatively the Supporters Trust, also as amended above). The Stadium company has a bank loan of (currently) around £50 Million, secured by Pula Sport Limited's guarantee. Other investment by Pula Sport Ltd is in the form of loans which are repayable (nominal interest rate of 0% delcared but Interest Expense has accrued in any case: see May 2017 Accounts, for example). Loans to Pula Sport to be settled by 30th May 2025.

 

[Alessandro]

21 hours ago, Nibor said:

The problem isn't with SteveL's fantastic generosity.  Nor is it with the infrastructural investment which has been great (aside from the money wasted on Bristol Sport's suit wearing numpties). 

The problem is with the value for money gained from investment in the football club.  Over the years this has averaged out at poor.  It's been better in the last year or three mainly due to some fantastic sales but there is a long way to go.  Other teams still seem to do more with less, and we would benefit from leadership that is qualified by continued success in football rather than by being born.

I honestly think this is very debatable.

He's been chairman for 16 years. The average yearly loss of a championship is about £10m. So that's £160m. Rough estimates have his investment at around £200m - which includes the new ground, so you could argue it has averaged out pretty much down the middle.

I'm not saying SL is perfect or the Messiah, but let's not pretend football is an exact science. There is no blue print to "success" beyond chucking millions at it for a sustained period. You say other teams do more with less, but it's very very few. Probably 2 or 3 in SL's tenure. But even the Brighton's and Bournemouth's threw more money at it then we've ever done. Where are Blackpool now? Perhaps Swansea, but their bubble looks to be bursting. In this division more recently Brentford or Preston, but they've not done anything beyond what we have, establishing themselves as solid mid-table Championship. We are doing that a year or two behind them - in fact we are pretty much at where Brentford are now, selling to survive, but that's not enough for many fans. 

Clearly though historically SL he had no real plan, but that's changed. Clearly he has made mistakes, but he seems to be learning from then. The academy, player development, the ground. It's all working - large profit's on transfers and real quality coming through the academy - stadium revenue up from £2m to £10m.

Why I can forgive those 'mistakes' unlike some City fans, is I can see the intention. The intention was always good and for the success of the club. Add to that the fact that he always clears up after himself - after the failed premier league push with GJ leaving us in a fair old bit of debt, he cleared it. 

Ultimately, we've had no better offers in this time, in terms of ownership. If the potential was so great at BCFC, we would have had investment from outside. SL has always said he'd welcome more investment and if we were ever to get it now, it would be because he alone made BCFC more of a serious investment proposition. 

[chinapig]

13 hours ago, NickJ said:

I'm not going to like or dislike this post but as somebody that's taken an interest in the finances of the football club over the years, and would like to think that I not only understand the finances of the club but also the history of the finance and the ownership issues, from let's say 1982 onwards, I would say that those that have rubbished the OP do so from very little knowledge of the finances, or appreciation of the point the OP is trying to make.

Unfortunately OOTIB, your suggestion that because SL has saved a load of tax, he should pump it into Bristol City, that's ludicrous.

The real point IMO is the suggestion that Bristol City or it's stadium only exists because of SL. That is equally as ludicrous.

Likewise, the notion by some posters on this thread that SL has made a loss on his investment into Bristol City. Ludicrous. The fact is SL acquired the football club at a discount to its real underlying value - because the freehold was grossly under valued in the accounts - and so the investment since, which he has made primarily in the stadium - not players, means he is sitting on an asset worth easily his investment.

Not saying SL is out to rob Bristol City, he's not, but the notion that he's some sort of God that we should be in awe of is equally as fanciful that he's an asset stripper.

Steve's done a good jn in terms of infrastructure, no more no less, and he owns that infrastructure. In footballing terms we are no further ahead than we were when Steve made his move to take over almost 20 years ago. And before the replies come on about the stadium, the training facilities, the youth, the latest strategy (one of many during Steve's tenure) ya dada, yes, but all progressive clubs have done that, but we are still exactly where we were in relative terms, mid table Division 2, to where we were.

Good to see an intelligent, well put counter argument, even if I don't agree with parts of it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but are you suggesting SL would recover his investment if he sold the club?

[Alessandro]

24 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Good to see an intelligent, well put counter argument, even if I don't agree with parts of it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but are you suggesting SL would recover his investment if he sold the club?

I personally cannot see where @NickJ is coming from here. If he could back up with some figures, i'd be interested to see.

You mentioned the value of Ashton Gate - well Ashton Gate stadium itself is only valuable to BCFC?

The land is therefore the most valuable thing? If sold off, I don't know it's current value, but Sainsbury's were going to pay £20m for it those few years back. That's certainly not putting a huge dent in the over £50m invested in the ground development and it's a small dent in SL's overall £200m investment in the club.

The value of BCFC? The value of the club to an investor. Just for comparison though, the recent Forest takeover was for £50m, but I imagine that would have included larger debts than we have. The Leicester City takeover in 2010 was for £40m.

Using the MMM club valuing model - Smaller premier league clubs tend to be worth between £100-150m. That drops to £40/50m in the Championship. 

The only way SL get's his money back is by establishing us in the premier league, by then though his investment would be most likely half, or twice as much again as the already £200m spent. Then wait for a massive takeover bid. 

Bare in mind Man City were bought by Sheikh Mansour for a reported £200m. Does BCFC have that potential?

 

[shelts]

Can’t believe his input is being questioned . Laughable 

[BCFC Rich]

23 hours ago, Marina's Rolls Royce said:

 

                                                                FINANCIAL PLANNING IN THE WORLD OF THE ORIGINAL OTIB:-

 

"Woke up and managed to get one last squeeze of toothpaste from tube thereby saving £2.50 on a new one.

Walked past car showroom and didn't buy the 2nd hand Ferrari on forecourt saving  a total of £48,000

Got to work and didn't receive a £100,000 bonus thus saving £50,000 in tax

Got home and then went to Pub but didn't buy it saving £350,000 in purchase price.

Went to bed having very happy to have saved a total of £448,002.50 during the day.

Spent night thinking about what the hell I'm gonna spend £448,025.50 on tomorrow."

This is my favorite ever OTIB post. 

[Nibor]

6 hours ago, Alessandro said:

I honestly think this is very debatable.

He's been chairman for 16 years. The average yearly loss of a championship is about £10m. So that's £160m. Rough estimates have his investment at around £200m - which includes the new ground, so you could argue it has averaged out pretty much down the middle.

 I'm not saying SL is perfect or the Messiah, but let's not pretend football is an exact science. There is no blue print to "success" beyond chucking millions at it for a sustained period. You say other teams do more with less, but it's very very few. Probably 2 or 3 in SL's tenure. But even the Brighton's and Bournemouth's threw more money at it then we've ever done. Where are Blackpool now? Perhaps Swansea, but their bubble looks to be bursting. In this division more recently Brentford or Preston, but they've not done anything beyond what we have, establishing themselves as solid mid-table Championship. We are doing that a year or two behind them - in fact we are pretty much at where Brentford are now, selling to survive, but that's not enough for many fans. 

Clearly though historically SL he had no real plan, but that's changed. Clearly he has made mistakes, but he seems to be learning from then. The academy, player development, the ground. It's all working - large profit's on transfers and real quality coming through the academy - stadium revenue up from £2m to £10m.

Why I can forgive those 'mistakes' unlike some City fans, is I can see the intention. The intention was always good and for the success of the club. Add to that the fact that he always clears up after himself - after the failed premier league push with GJ leaving us in a fair old bit of debt, he cleared it. 

 Ultimately, we've had no better offers in this time, in terms of ownership. If the potential was so great at BCFC, we would have had investment from outside. SL has always said he'd welcome more investment and if we were ever to get it now, it would be because he alone made BCFC more of a serious investment proposition. 

Er, it's substantially less than that over the last 16 years.  You can't take a figure from last year and use it to apply retrospectively to 16 years.

If you look at our first go in the championship in SL's tenure under GJ and then Coppell and Millen and McInnes there was a huge amount of money wasted on players where we overpaid for the wrong reasons.

We've been better in recent years but we are still making 8 figure losses without really moving forward.

SL is too involved in the football side and interferes too much.  He has resisted hiring people to run the club who have a track record of running football clubs well. 

A fraction of the money spent on playing staff spend instead on the right people in the boardroom would have gone much, much farther IMO.

[Red Exile]

21 minutes ago, Nibor said:

He has resisted hiring people to run the club who have a track record of running football clubs well. 

A fraction of the money spent on playing staff spend instead on the right people in the boardroom would have gone much, much farther IMO.

I completely agree. Seems inexplicable.

[Langford Red]

We will always lose money

SL knows that. That is why he is making the club stand on its own two feet

There is only a couple of teams that make money

SL is our GOD

He pays all our debts off with no moaning

I do not know what the richest club in Bristol are doing? (GASH)

They always lose a fortune every year

How they keep serviving God only knows 

[EnderMB]

On 10/08/2018 at 18:46, BrightCiderLife said:

What has his personal tax got to do with the football club? (Hint: nothing, but read on to find out why.)

I never said it was a legitimate argument. Only that it was the common one I hear.

As for expecting a solid discussion around finances, I think anyone could've told you that wouldn't happen. Most people (myself included) know barely enough about our own finances, let alone how finances work at limited companies.

For that reason, I guess there is an argument there to say that Lansdown could do more to explain where money is being spent at Bristol Sport. Of course, he's under no obligation to, but transparency is (usually) a good thing in football.

[italian dave]

On 10/08/2018 at 10:36, cidered abroad said:

End of thread! 

I doubt it....

[Natchfever]

On 11/08/2018 at 12:46, Alessandro said:

I personally cannot see where @NickJ is coming from here. If he could back up with some figures, i'd be interested to see.

You mentioned the value of Ashton Gate - well Ashton Gate stadium itself is only valuable to BCFC?

The land is therefore the most valuable thing? If sold off, I don't know it's current value, but Sainsbury's were going to pay £20m for it those few years back. That's certainly not putting a huge dent in the over £50m invested in the ground development and it's a small dent in SL's overall £200m investment in the club.

The value of BCFC? The value of the club to an investor. Just for comparison though, the recent Forest takeover was for £50m, but I imagine that would have included larger debts than we have. The Leicester City takeover in 2010 was for £40m.

Using the MMM club valuing model - Smaller premier league clubs tend to be worth between £100-150m. That drops to £40/50m in the Championship. 

The only way SL get's his money back is by establishing us in the premier league, by then though his investment would be most likely half, or twice as much again as the already £200m spent. Then wait for a massive takeover bid. 

Bare in mind Man City were bought by Sheikh Mansour for a reported £200m. Does BCFC have that potential?

 

One point.

Not that I think it would happen, but the way to greatly increase the value of AG would be to commit at least the football and rugby clubs to minimum 25 year leases at a couple of million £ per annum rent each.

Capitalise that revenue and and you are in good shape.

[NickJ]

On 11/08/2018 at 12:46, Alessandro said:

I personally cannot see where @NickJ is coming from here. If he could back up with some figures, i'd be interested to see.

You mentioned the value of Ashton Gate - well Ashton Gate stadium itself is only valuable to BCFC?

The land is therefore the most valuable thing? If sold off, I don't know it's current value, but Sainsbury's were going to pay £20m for it those few years back. That's certainly not putting a huge dent in the over £50m invested in the ground development and it's a small dent in SL's overall £200m investment in the club.

The value of BCFC? The value of the club to an investor. Just for comparison though, the recent Forest takeover was for £50m, but I imagine that would have included larger debts than we have. The Leicester City takeover in 2010 was for £40m.

Using the MMM club valuing model - Smaller premier league clubs tend to be worth between £100-150m. That drops to £40/50m in the Championship. 

The only way SL get's his money back is by establishing us in the premier league, by then though his investment would be most likely half, or twice as much again as the already £200m spent. Then wait for a massive takeover bid. 

Bare in mind Man City were bought by Sheikh Mansour for a reported £200m. Does BCFC have that potential?

 

Yes, I think there is a good chance the investment would be recovered if/when eventually sold, because in my judgment Steve views this as a business and will have weighed up the investment made against the chances of recovering it if he decides to sell up.

Don't think Steve's investment is anywhere near £200 million, how do you arrive at that figure?

 

 

[The Original OTIB]

5 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Yes, I think there is a good chance the investment would be recovered if/when eventually sold, because in my judgment Steve views this as a business and will have weighed up the investment made against the chances of recovering it if he decides to sell up.

Don't think Steve's investment is anywhere near £200 million, how do you arrive at that figure?

 

 

A significant proportion of the finance is loans which are repayable. He does indeed expect a return.