Losses up to £23.5m?

[Bristol Rob]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Bristol City accounting year end is 31st May. 

I thought that our loss was gonna be £18m because SL converted that much to shares thru last year. 

Does this mean he’s not underwritten £5m of the £23m loss?

....and now people might start to realise that in our most successful season in 10 years we made the biggest loss ever and therefore 

1. We didn’t go mad in january

2. Why we had players leave in the summer

Food for thought, eh?

That won't stop people saying 'SL is a billionaire, he should have signed 'x' for eleventhy-million and paid them a 100k a week, NO AMBITION'.

Which is the default status of a lot of fans.

[downendcity]

23 minutes ago, pongo88 said:

Financial years run from April to March, so the accounts will never align with the football season. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, The Original OTIB said:

You are confusing with personal tax years. Co year ends can vary.

Might be thinking of ffp requirements.

I think I'm right in saying that under the new ffp rules, clubs are required to produce projected annual accounts by the end of March in the third year of the three year cycle. 

This is to enable the EFL to cary out full assessment and if a club has breached they can apply sanctions/penalty in that same season. This avoids the previous problem, whereby clubs like QPR and Bournemouth could flout the financial rules, gain promotion as result,, but were  in the prem by the time the breach was identified,so beyond the EFL's reach.

[Bristol Rob]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yes there was. No Idea what it really meant though. Perhaps ML had got SL by the balls 

Might well be a tax planning exercise.

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

Do people actually say that? Or are you just assuming they do? Leeds are unremarkable mid-table spenders in this division much like ourselves.

They only bought two players for a fee in the summer, totalling about £10m.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/leeds-united/transfers/verein/399

We can compete with Leeds. But there are plenty of Championship clubs much further up that list spending an awful lot more on wages than us.

Leeds have a higher revenue base though- they unsurprisingly have been exceptionally prudent for this level in recent years (unsure about this season or last). Can't remember where I read it but apparently in 16/17, average wages/turnover ratio  at this level was 88% of turnover. Leeds was about 60% or so- will try to find the original piece.

@downendcity I think that's right about FFP yeah.

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

That won't stop people saying 'SL is a billionaire, he should have signed 'x' for eleventhy-million and paid them a 100k a week, NO AMBITION'.

Which is the default status of a lot of fans.

You’re right, but they don’t want to understand FFP!!!!!

4 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Might well be a tax planning exercise.

Yes, wonder who she’s using to advise her 

[Major Isewater]

4 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

That won't stop people saying 'SL is a billionaire, he should have signed 'x' for eleventhy-million and paid them a 100k a week, NO AMBITION'.

Which is the default status of a lot of fans.

I'm not sure that is a widely held view is it ? 

I think the majority realise that we can't just ignore ffp and that SL wants the club to be sustainable on it's own without the need for him to chuck in twenty million every year . 

[Bristol Rob]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

You’re right, but they don’t want to understand FFP!!!!!

 

They will the follow that up with, 'But if we got 'X' in during the January window, we WOULD have made the play offs.'

Which, when you reply with, 'Maybe, but when then faced with a transfer embargo and possible points deduction, seems a fruitless exercise.'

Maybe someone should paint the FFP rules on the side of a big red coach?

That seems to make some people sit up and take notice.

[Bristol Rob]

4 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

I'm not sure that is a widely held view is it ? 

I think the majority realise that we can't just ignore ffp and that SL wants the club to be sustainable on it's own without the need for him to chuck in twenty million every year . 

Maybe not widely held, but a vocal minority like to brush over the realities of where we are and use it as a stick to beat the club with.

[View from the Dolman]

25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Saw this on Twitter, Kieran Maguire- accounts related, but not necessarily numerically.

@Super Sales this summer will be included in 18/19 accounts (no idea about instalments though)!

He seems to have missed that's a file from March 1982 - probably just means its been imported into the new Companies House web service.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01501663/filing-history/MzIxODM5MzMwOGFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0

[And Its Smith]

And people think Lansdown should increase his spending even more in order to reach the Premier League!

Some fans are a danger!

[downendcity]

16 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yes, wonder who she’s using to advise her 

I want to know who's advising Mrs Downend, because she's using the same tax planning tactics - and I'm no billionnaire!

[And Its Smith]

@BS4 on Tour... considering the above, do you still think that there shouldnt be a player out of our reach? 

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, RedDave said:

@BS4 on Tour... considering the above, do you still think that there shouldnt be a player out of our reach? 

There probably isn’t, but he’d need to play alongside 10 Downs League players paying £5 subs!!!! 

[CyderInACan]

More FFS than FFP 

[WhistleHappy]

1 hour ago, Bristol Rob said:

Was there not something the other week about this, with Maggie taking a percentage or was that something different?

WOT??     …. The 'Milk Snatcher' is still at it?  ffs   

 

 

[Bristol Rob]

18 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

More FFS than FFP 

At least the situation is being managed Reg, would rather a FFS than waking up to a WTF when people haven't realised what the state of affairs is...

It would be like someone suggesting a football stadium gets sold for housing and using the money from the sale to fund a new stadium... forgetting that there is already a charge on it. Or believing that because they played an away game at Chelsea that made them a few quid, that money is just sitting there doing nothing, and wasn't just part of their annual turnover and reduced the loss slightly....

[Port Said Red]

2 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

At least the situation is being managed Reg, would rather a FFS than waking up to a WTF when people haven't realised what the state of affairs is...

It would be like someone suggesting a football stadium gets sold for housing and using the money from the sale to fund a new stadium... forgetting that there is already a charge on it. Or believing that because they played an away game at Chelsea that made them a few quid, that money is just sitting there doing nothing, and wasn't just part of their annual turnover and reduced the loss slightly....

And those people will be looking at these figures and jumping to their usual conclusion that SL will be running for the hills soon leaving us in the lurch. The plans for investing in the area that came out last month will be but a distance memory in their tiny minds.

[robin_unreliant]

1 hour ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Eh?? No such theory existed.

In fact, postings on here by those who can get their heads round it all (Mr. P and DaveFevs for example)  have consistently suggested the opposite - that we are OK re FFP but only just.  

There has been no suggestion by those who understand the financial side of things that we have a warchest ready to splurge on new signings. Quite the contrary.

I've seen a number of posts along those lines. Maybe by those who don't understand FFP but I didn't say they were believable. Some fans are in denial of financial reality.

[hoxton casual]

1 hour ago, View from the Dolman said:

He seems to have missed that's a file from March 1982 - probably just means its been imported into the new Companies House web service.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01501663/filing-history/MzIxODM5MzMwOGFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0

I assume every Rovers fan has this printed on duvet covers, t -shirts and beer mats!

[BS4 on Tour...]

1 hour ago, ChippenhamRed said:

Do people actually say that? Or are you just assuming they do? Leeds are unremarkable mid-table spenders in this division much like ourselves.

They only bought two players for a fee in the summer, totalling about £10m.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/leeds-united/transfers/verein/399

We can compete with Leeds. But there are plenty of Championship clubs much further up that list spending an awful lot more on wages than us.

Yes they do say that, I think they just assume because Leeds have big support that they are a bigger club who can afford the better players - they are a huge club but it seems we pay higher wages...

[Sturny]

3 hours ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

So we pay higher wages than Leeds? That’s interesting...especially when people say we can’t compete with them in the transfer market etc...

Could be because they may have less players but pay them more (Which could still equal less in total but individual players are on more). Whilst we have more quantity of players on an average wage making up past the difference maybe 

 

Whoever argued that point might've meant Leeds can just offer more dough if needed 

[BS4 on Tour...]

57 minutes ago, RedDave said:

@BS4 on Tour... considering the above, do you still think that there shouldnt be a player out of our reach? 

Those figures don’t include the amounts we received for selling Mags, Flint, Bryan and Reid and it probably doesn’t include some of the Kodjia fee that we are still to receive....and I dunno why @29AR found your post funny...how strange...

[downendcity]

It isn't just this club that has fans haven't perhaps grasped how ffp affects the way clubs now have to be run.

In the summer when Villa were struggling to pay the tax man and when there was a real possibility they could be wound up by HMRC, I went on their forum for a nose.

Some fans were expressing concerns that their then current predicament was only a foretaste of the ffp problems they were going to encounter later in the season - this being the third in the 3 year cycle. I was staggered by the responses from some of their fans, suggesting that once their owner could get his money into the country they would be back on their feet and then saying how they needed to reinforce the squad for the season ahead. Some even suggested that the EFL would not really want to punish Villa, as far as ffp was concerned, because they are such a big club that needs to be back in the prem " where they belong".

Villa's owner had to sell off part off a good chunk of the club in order to resolve their immediate financial problems( i.e. staying afloat!) but this does not guarantee they will escape ffp problems. I think that the way SL has been re-organising the club's structure over the last few seasons, and especially to avoid falling foul of ffp, ensures our ownership stays secure and certain - even though I know there will be some fans not best pleased by this prospect! 

It isn't just this club that has fans haven't perhaps grasped how ffp affects the way clubs now have to be run.

In the summer when Villa were struggling to pay the tax man and when there was a real possibility they could be wound up by HMRC, I went on their forum for a nose.

Some fans were expressing concerns that their then current predicament was only a foretaste of the ffp problems they were going to encounter later in the season - this being the third in the 3 year cycle. I was staggered by the responses from some of their fans, suggesting that once their owner could get his money into the country they would be back on their feet and then saying how they needed to reinforce the squad for the season ahead. Some even suggested that the EFL would not really want to punish Villa, as far as ffp was concerned, because they are such a big club that needs to be back in the prem " where they belong".

Villa's owner had to sell off part off a good chunk of the club in order to resolve their immediate financial problems( i.e. staying afloat!) but this does not guarantee they will escape ffp problems. I think that the way SL has been re-organising the club's structure over the last few seasons, and especially to avoid falling foul of ffp, ensures our ownership stays secure and certain - even though I know there will be some fans not best pleased by this prospect! 

[downendcity]

.

[Bristol Rob]

6 minutes ago, downendcity said:

It isn't just this club that has fans haven't perhaps grasped how ffp affects the way clubs now have to be run.

In the summer when Villa were struggling to pay the tax man and when there was a real possibility they could be wound up by HMRC, I went on their forum for a nose.

Some fans were expressing concerns that their then current predicament was only a foretaste of the ffp problems they were going to encounter later in the season - this being the third in the 3 year cycle. I was staggered by the responses from some of their fans, suggesting that once their owner could get his money into the country they would be back on their feet and then saying how they needed to reinforce the squad for the season ahead. Some even suggested that the EFL would not really want to punish Villa, as far as ffp was concerned, because they are such a big club that needs to be back in the prem " where they belong".

Villa's owner had to sell off part off a good chunk of the club in order to resolve their immediate financial problems( i.e. staying afloat!) but this does not guarantee they will escape ffp problems. I think that the way SL has been re-organising the club's structure over the last few seasons, and especially to avoid falling foul of ffp, ensures our ownership stays secure and certain - even though I know there will be some fans not best pleased by this prospect! 

It isn't just this club that has fans haven't perhaps grasped how ffp affects the way clubs now have to be run.

In the summer when Villa were struggling to pay the tax man and when there was a real possibility they could be wound up by HMRC, I went on their forum for a nose.

Some fans were expressing concerns that their then current predicament was only a foretaste of the ffp problems they were going to encounter later in the season - this being the third in the 3 year cycle. I was staggered by the responses from some of their fans, suggesting that once their owner could get his money into the country they would be back on their feet and then saying how they needed to reinforce the squad for the season ahead. Some even suggested that the EFL would not really want to punish Villa, as far as ffp was concerned, because they are such a big club that needs to be back in the prem " where they belong".

Villa's owner had to sell off part off a good chunk of the club in order to resolve their immediate financial problems( i.e. staying afloat!) but this does not guarantee they will escape ffp problems. I think that the way SL has been re-organising the club's structure over the last few seasons, and especially to avoid falling foul of ffp, ensures our ownership stays secure and certain - even though I know there will be some fans not best pleased by this prospect! 

^ double accounting! 

[ExiledAjax]

2 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

Was there not something the other week about this, with Maggie taking a percentage or was that something different?

correct, were it current the big bold letters would not still say "Limited".

Oh bugger that was meant to be in reply to whoever spotted it was a 1982 filing.

[Bristol Rob]

All explained. From the Post.

Revealed on Wednesday, October 31, the Bristol City’s losses have ballooned from £3.5m last year to an eye-watering £23.5m for the financial year ending in May 2018.

That notable increase is a result of lower profits from platers sales and a higher wage bill.

 

I know I didn't spend anything on platers during that period of time, and I think some of you need to have a word with yourself if you too think back and realise that you too didn't buy any platers either.

[wendyredredrobin]

Just a suggestion here, but the fact that a few teams like Wolves and Leeds have lower than expected wages might suggest that some of the player expenses might not be going through the books.  I read a story recently suggesting that some football clubs were being looked at closely due to money laundering concerns.

[eardun]

4 hours ago, Super said:

I'm guessing these figures don't include the sale of Flint Reid and Bryan?

No, but the figures do explain why we sold them.

[Red-Robbo]

27 minutes ago, wendyredredrobin said:

Just a suggestion here, but the fact that a few teams like Wolves and Leeds have lower than expected wages might suggest that some of the player expenses might not be going through the books.  I read a story recently suggesting that some football clubs were being looked at closely due to money laundering concerns.

Last bloke at Leeds had a bit of history with tax evasion and dodgy links. As for Wolves, see this about their owner:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guo_Guangchang