Did Bristol City FC take out a £40 million loan to help finance the Ashton Gate rebuild?

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Do you know who the lender was?  0.9% over base seems very favourable....when clubs borrowing against future tv money are paying silly rates?

I looked through both BCFC Holdings and AGL Accounts but seemed to be no particular indicator.  It says at start of accounts "Barclays Bank plc Bristol & North Somerset Group". Could be them perhaps but beyond that, who knows.

[AJgEEZa]

Absolutely, it is a business. Anyone with a financial background would do the same. He loves the club and we will never be in an sort of danger whilst he is at the helm. Let it go.

[View from the Dolman]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

@Mr Popodopolous this was what I was saying to you the other day about Bristol City FC and Ashton Gate Limited being part of Bristol City Holdings, and ultimately through a tangled web, BCH being part of Pula Sports group.  BCH itself does not trade, it it used purely to consolidate BCFC and AGL positions.

Ultimately we’ve taken out a loan, guaranteed by Pula (SL in effect).  Who was the lender?

City, Bears pay rent to AGL. 

I'd say Citibank are the lenders based on this charge against Ashton Gate Ltd but that's not definitive... 

The AG Ltd accounts initially showed it being at 1.4% above base rate, this dropped down to 0.9% above base rate in the 16/17 accounts (perhaps it was re-financed by Citibank which saw this drop in interest rates?). This is secured by a guarantee from Pula Sport Ltd (registered in Guernsey so not much available on that one!).

[The Constant Rabbit]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I think in summary I would say I’m glad we gave an owner like SL, he does like Bristol City, wants us to be a success, but he ain’t doing it purely for the love.  He’s making some money from backing us and has a whopping asset (AG) to secure that “investment”.

I think you'll find that the first 500 houses being built currently will make a nice 'brucie-bonus' for Saint Stephen.

Even at £250k each  - thats £125,000,000 ( which is about 60% of what he's put in over the last 20 yrs if the figure of £200,000,000 is correct)

The other £75,000,000 - well I think he might just squeeze that back out of the clubs and stadium - let alone the 5,000 housing units soon to be built when the brown land changes to residential

Plus the 3 clubs he owns, the stadium he owns, the 2 hotels, commercial towers and all that soon-to-be-residential land over the road.

Yes the club has a nice new stadium, and season ticket prices reflect exactly that.

But he owns 100% of everything, right down to the wheelnuts on the team coach.

We used to own our club and ground.

We now own nothing, and are entirely at the whims and wiles of one family, who can do exactly what they want, when they want to whatever/whoever they want at BS.

If Lansdown wanted Prem football, he'd have it by now. Cherry on top for new buyer and all that.

Yes, he funds the clubs on a yearly basis  etc etc

But he's making a mint out of it when he leaves - he won't be handing it over to junior, that's for sure.

 

[JasonM88]

28 minutes ago, SX227 said:

I think you'll find that the first 500 houses being built currently will make a nice 'brucie-bonus' for Saint Stephen.

Even at £250k each  - thats £125,000,000 ( which is about 60% of what he's put in over the last 20 yrs if the figure of £200,000,000 is correct)

The other £75,000,000 - well I think he might just squeeze that back out of the clubs and stadium - let alone the 5,000 housing units soon to be built when the brown land changes to residential

Plus the 3 clubs he owns, the stadium he owns, the 2 hotels, commercial towers and all that soon-to-be-residential land over the road.

Yes the club has a nice new stadium, and season ticket prices reflect exactly that.

But he owns 100% of everything, right down to the wheelnuts on the team coach.

We used to own our club and ground.

We now own nothing, and are entirely at the whims and wiles of one family, who can do exactly what they want, when they want to whatever/whoever they want at BS.

If Lansdown wanted Prem football, he'd have it by now. Cherry on top for new buyer and all that.

Yes, he funds the clubs on a yearly basis  etc etc

But he's making a mint out of it when he leaves - he won't be handing it over to junior, that's for sure.

 

He will not even entertain the thought of selling until he feels he’s on his way out, trust me on that one. I also feel he understands his son is most definitely not a potential owner. 

[Olé]

I have no insight here but I really think anyone with concerns is missing the point of the purpose of loans.

I would guess it's a necessary structure so that if we are ever big enough that we require additional external funding from other parties to grow further, SL and his family don't get unfairly diluted versus what they have actually put into the club.

Or in other words this actually shows an owner setting the club up to support fair transition or reinvestment - quite the opposite of this being all about SL owning 100% of everything. If that's all he cared about he could just own the effin stadium.   

At the other extreme if he gifts the club a £40m stadium (huge versus value of the club), existing and future shareholders would inherit a share of the equity value of this asset if SL gives it away and isn't properly credited for it in his shareholding. 

The loans are a nice compromise that allow him to reflect that 100% of the stadium investment is owed to him, and then convert that debt to equity if or when needed, to rebalance shareholdings. The loans are turning into share issues over time. 

As @BTRFTG has said, I very much doubt it's an issue to SL if he never gets paid back, but if he (and we) want to leave the door open for the club to grow further and with other investors, SL would need a mechanism like this in place to be happy.

[CyderInACan]

10 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I think in summary I would say I’m glad we gave an owner like SL, he does like Bristol City, wants us to be a success, but he ain’t doing it purely for the love.  He’s making some money from backing us and has a whopping asset (AG) to secure that “investment”.

And once the new Sporting Quarter is built his asset will be even stronger. It really will be an empire! 

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 hours ago, SX227 said:

I think you'll find that the first 500 houses being built currently will make a nice 'brucie-bonus' for Saint Stephen.

Even at £250k each  - thats £125,000,000 ( which is about 60% of what he's put in over the last 20 yrs if the figure of £200,000,000 is correct)

The other £75,000,000 - well I think he might just squeeze that back out of the clubs and stadium - let alone the 5,000 housing units soon to be built when the brown land changes to residential

Plus the 3 clubs he owns, the stadium he owns, the 2 hotels, commercial towers and all that soon-to-be-residential land over the road.

Yes the club has a nice new stadium, and season ticket prices reflect exactly that.

But he owns 100% of everything, right down to the wheelnuts on the team coach.

We used to own our club and ground.

 We now own nothing, and are entirely at the whims and wiles of one family, who can do exactly what they want, when they want to whatever/whoever they want at BS.

 If Lansdown wanted Prem football, he'd have it by now. Cherry on top for new buyer and all that.

Yes, he funds the clubs on a yearly basis  etc etc

 But he's making a mint out of it when he leaves - he won't be handing it over to junior, that's for sure.

  

Agree that he owns it all- that much is clear.

The other stuff- jury out a bit I feel. Is it homes for sale or rent?

The bit I really query however is "If Lansdown wanted Prem football, he'd have it by now". I query that because from about 2015/2016 most definitely and in different ways, 2012-15 say FFP has been a factor and we just didn't have the income to compete in that environment pre re-development. The accounts show this from pre re-development.

[Natchfever]

15 hours ago, AJgEEZa said:

Absolutely, it is a business. Anyone with a financial background would do the same. He loves the club and we will never be in an sort of danger whilst he is at the helm. Let it go.

No teeth gnashing from what I can see on this thread, just interest, so i'll maintain my curiosity if that's ok by you Steve.

[Natchfever]

4 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Agree that he owns it all- that much is clear.

The other stuff- jury out a bit I feel. Is it homes for sale or rent?

The bit I really query however is "If Lansdown wanted Prem football, he'd have it by now". I query that because from about 2015/2016 most definitely and in different ways, 2012-15 say FFP has been a factor and we just didn't have the income to compete in that environment pre re-development. The accounts show this from pre re-development.

Mr P, if development land was vested in BCFC would capital receipts help counter FFP ? 

[Mr Popodopolous]

16 minutes ago, Loon plage said:

Mr P, if development land was vested in BCFC would capital receipts help counter FFP ? 

That is an excellent point.  What you're saying is in the sense of homes built, vested in BCFC and therefore the revenue from rent/sale go to us? In other words, property/land as a source of income?

Given that it would be legitimate income and provided it isn't artificially inflated by owners for example,  it might well do- I don't see how it couldn't, it may also depend on the involvement of related parties- i.e. related party transactions. 

I'm not sure that as a source of income in FFP terms has truly been tested actually- it may well class as one.

[bcfcshorey]

56 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

That is an excellent point.  What you're saying is in the sense of homes built, vested in BCFC and therefore the revenue from rent/sale go to us? In other words, property/land as a source of income?

Given that it would be legitimate income and provided it isn't artificially inflated by owners for example,  it might well do- I don't see how it couldn't, it may also depend on the involvement of related parties- i.e. related party transactions. 

I'm not sure that as a source of income in FFP terms has truly been tested actually- it may well class as one.

Surely it would be the exact same as BCFC Holdings (I'm presuming their income goes towards FFP?) owning the stadium and receiving rent from the Bears.

Seems as the Rugby club isn't under as strict financial jurisdiction, is seems silly not to route as much income through BCFC as possible. This might in the future include income from the Bball arena/hotel etc.

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, bcfcshorey said:

Surely it would be the exact same as BCFC Holdings (I'm presuming their income goes towards FFP?) owning the stadium and receiving rent from the Bears.

Seems as the Rugby club isn't under as strict financial jurisdiction, is seems silly not to route as much income through BCFC as possible. This might in the future include income from the Bball arena/hotel etc.

What none of us know if whether City submit their FFP report as BCFC Limited or BC Holdings Ltd (which includes BCFC Ltd and Ashton Gate (Stadium) Ltd).  The Stadium is not a huge money making machine as you’ll see below.  Don’t forget City pay rent to AG Ltd too!!!  It’s not a one way arrangement for the benefit of City and not the Bears!

AG Ltd actually made a loss last year, but I suspect depreciation can be knocked off for FFP purposes.  I suspect that AG Ltd, makes BCFC’s FFP report look better to the tune of about £1.2m (£1.3m loss offset by £2.5m = £1.2m profit).

So The BCH Ltd group loss of £25.1m is probably reduced by:

• £1.2m from AG Ltd
• £4-5m from BCFC - allowable exclusions like academy etc

Lets say £6m in total, meaning an FFP loss of £19.1m.

You cannot just ‘move / apportion’ money between businesses willy-nilly.  It would have to be done as an inter-company loan, treated at arms-length, e.g. at the going commercial rate.

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

That is an excellent point.  What you're saying is in the sense of homes built, vested in BCFC and therefore the revenue from rent/sale go to us? In other words, property/land as a source of income?

Given that it would be legitimate income and provided it isn't artificially inflated by owners for example,  it might well do- I don't see how it couldn't, it may also depend on the involvement of related parties- i.e. related party transactions. 

I'm not sure that as a source of income in FFP terms has truly been tested actually- it may well class as one.

Summary of current FFP RegulationsEdit

Only a club's outgoings in transfers, employee benefits (including wages), amortisation of transfers, finance costs and dividends will be counted over income from gate receipts, TV revenue, advertising, merchandising, disposal of tangible fixed assets, finance, sales of players and prize money. Any money spent on infrastructure, training facilities or youth development will not be included.

I think you wouldn’t get away with houses being included in FFP....it’s not football infrastructure, nor football income per se.

[Natchfever]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

What none of us know if whether City submit their FFP report as BCFC Limited or BC Holdings Ltd (which includes BCFC Ltd and Ashton Gate (Stadium) Ltd).  The Stadium is not a huge money making machine as you’ll see below.  Don’t forget City pay rent to AG Ltd too!!!  It’s not a one way arrangement for the benefit of City and not the Bears!

AG Ltd actually made a loss last year, but I suspect depreciation can be knocked off for FFP purposes.  I suspect that AG Ltd, makes BCFC’s FFP report look better to the tune of about £1.2m (£1.3m loss offset by £2.5m = £1.2m profit).

So The BCH Ltd group loss of £25.1m is probably reduced by:

• £1.2m from AG Ltd
• £4-5m from BCFC - allowable exclusions like academy etc

Lets say £6m in total, meaning an FFP loss of £19.1m.

You cannot just ‘move / apportion’ money between businesses willy-nilly.  It would have to be done as an inter-company loan, treated at arms-length, e.g. at the going commercial rate.

Summary of current FFP RegulationsEdit

Only a club's outgoings in transfers, employee benefits (including wages), amortisation of transfers, finance costs and dividends will be counted over income from gate receipts, TV revenue, advertising, merchandising, disposal of tangible fixed assets, finance, sales of players and prize money. Any money spent on infrastructure, training facilities or youth development will not be included.

I think you wouldn’t get away with houses being included in FFP....it’s not football infrastructure, nor football income per se.

Wouldn't the sale of property be regarded as the disposal of tangible fixed assets though Dave ? The wording above doesn't appear to define what type of assets, just that they are tangible/physical.

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, Loon plage said:

Wouldn't the sale of property be regarded as the disposal of tangible fixed assets though Dave ? The wording above doesn't appear to define what type of assets, just that they are tangible/physical.

That’s just it, I don’t know.  If we were to make money from the houses, wouldn’t we gave to buy the land, pay for the build, etc in the first place?

[Drew Peacock]

7 minutes ago, Loon plage said:

Wouldn't the sale of property be regarded as the disposal of tangible fixed assets though Dave ? The wording above doesn't appear to define what type of assets, just that they are tangible/physical.

Not if you are trading land/property.  It would be trading income.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Spun off as something like BCFC Property Ltd, would that make any difference?

The question as to whether property can be counted towards income actually an open one IMO, because Arsenal seem to have property income still.

From an analysis on an Arsenal Supporters Trust of their 6-month Arsenal Holdings accounts to 30th November 2017.

Quote

Property and player loans

 

The club signalled in the autumn that it had sold the Holloway Road site and revenue of £14m and profits of £5m were booked in the half year. The Hornsey Road site remains in the books at £8m and was planned for student accommodation. We estimate potential sale proceeds of around £20m.

In terms of loans, Perez and Campbell were the notable loanees, although generating under £1m in fees. More will follow in the second half when the bulk of the fees fall due.

 

[Davefevs]

17 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Spun off as something like BCFC Property Ltd, would that make any difference?

The question as to whether property can be counted towards income actually an open one IMO, because Arsenal seem to have property income still.

From an analysis on an Arsenal Supporters Trust of their 6-month Arsenal Holdings accounts to 30th November 2017.

 

What we don’t know is whether this was included in their FFP report though.  It’s all a bit ambiguous.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

What we don’t know is whether this was included in their FFP report though.  It’s all a bit ambiguous.

It is indeed a bit ambiguous. It's an unknown really. That's what I mean though, it's never really been tested, no real test case to define whether it's acceptable income or not.

[The Constant Rabbit]

Great questions - points well made.

 

 

 

On 10/01/2019 at 17:54, Olé said:

I have no insight here but I really think anyone with concerns is missing the point of the purpose of loans.

I would guess it's a necessary structure so that if we are ever big enough that we require additional external funding from other parties to grow further, SL and his family don't get unfairly diluted versus what they have actually put into the club.

Or in other words this actually shows an owner setting the club up to support fair transition or reinvestment - quite the opposite of this being all about SL owning 100% of everything. If that's all he cared about he could just own the effin stadium.   

At the other extreme if he gifts the club a £40m stadium (huge versus value of the club), existing and future shareholders would inherit a share of the equity value of this asset if SL gives it away and isn't properly credited for it in his shareholding. 

The loans are a nice compromise that allow him to reflect that 100% of the stadium investment is owed to him, and then convert that debt to equity if or when needed, to rebalance shareholdings. The loans are turning into share issues over time. 

As @BTRFTG has said, I very much doubt it's an issue to SL if he never gets paid back, but if he (and we) want to leave the door open for the club to grow further and with other investors, SL would need a mechanism like this in place to be happy.

He does own the stadium Ole.

How can he gift it to the club, when the club is owned, in a roundabout way by himself?

He may as well give himself the Flyers for his birthday and the bears for Xmas.

He owns EVERYTHING - albeit under different companies, both on and off-shore.

Do you think there is another silent owner of BS mate?

He may well be able to use the house sales/rental towards FFP - great news if true.

But, at the end of his tenure, Lansdown will sell what he owns - which is everything - to the new buyer, unless he wants to retain a small % for himself, which frankly i can't see him ever doing.

SL has used his own money to buy the entire entity 100% - fair play!

He can't gift the club to the club as he actually already owns the club!

I'm sure when he sells the new owner will buy the lot unencumbered - which is as much as he can do to ensure the 'club' BCFC, start on a debt free  basis.

Don't forget Bristol City Football Club PAY RENT to SL to play at Ashton Gate!

[Up The City!]

On 10/01/2019 at 00:05, SX227 said:

 

We used to own our club and ground.

We now own nothing, and are entirely at the whims and wiles of one family, who can do exactly what they want, when they want to whatever/whoever they want at BS.

 

Since when did we own anything? Since when did we the fans ever own this club?

You may like to have a romantic view of football but the reality is the owners own every single club up and down the country and all of its assets.