Lansdown raises £100m

[Spoons]

23 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Hi @ITK..... @Atyeo's lift

What Facts do you actually think are incorrect in my post?

Happy to post a revised version if factual inaccuracies but I'm in where you believe that to be factually incorrect.

Every time someone likes your post to you quote them and day thank you? 

If I want to give you an aubergine I will I certainly don't have to explain it. 

I do find your self acclaimed style of posts very preaching and basically your an ego maniac!! 

What's your Normal job?? 

[wendyredredrobin]

I assume with all this COVID going on, FFP will go out of the window.  Does that mean that all of those in breach prior to lockdown are off the hook or are we expecting a few point deductions when (if) the season restarts?

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, ITK..... said:

Every time someone likes your post to you quote them and day thank you? 

If I want to give you an aubergine I will I certainly don't have to explain it. 

I do find your self acclaimed style of posts very preaching and basically your an ego maniac!! 

What's your Normal job?? 

Just wondered if you had anything constructive to add, in terms of counterpoints. Possibly was a flippant comment by me. 

Obviously yeah, just wondered what your point was.

Ego maniac? What a laugh.

[Ron W]

On 30/04/2020 at 18:36, wendyredredrobin said:

I see it more along the lines of if Steve remained a UK resident, £40m would go to the tax man, whereas by being non resident, he could choose to spend that £40m on BCFC.  I guess that depends on what your point of view is and how you rate your priorities.

Either way that money would probably end up going into a bottomless pit

£40m to help keep the country running or to buy some football players - not much of a competition!

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, REDOXO said:

SL is not on the board of BCFC is my understanding. Decisions are made by the board based upon decisions made by HM Govt. The board has furloughed employees who get a government payout to stay at home. SL taking a few bob from his portfolio is a separate issue and is up to him. As for the players, they are the key assets of the football club and as such have leverage, thus an agreement has been reached with them....Who do people think is funding the players wages with no income? Clue its not the ******* tooth fairy! I don’t see anything here!

As for Richard Branson. He is asking for Multi Billions to prop up a failing airline. Whether you think he should or should not get it rather depends on your outlook. Fly be and all those other airlines that have gone under in the last 18 months might object, or wave their hands out too. 

When this shit fest is over industries and lives will be changed forever Airlines and Aviation will take years to recover!!

Similar to Steve Gibson or different? Only he topped up the furloughed staff wages. 

So SL doesn't take the big decisions at City then, not being on the board.

In a national emergency and when said company is taking public money, I question how well that holds.

Now SL aside, as a club we DID pay tax last season but we also in past years have taken tax credits.

That's with respect to corporation tax, a key question could be whether the tax credits or similar have been less than, equal to or greater than what we paid last season.

Agreed. This is much different to Branson with significant precedents as you say.

They will, yes.

@RonWalker 

You unless I am mistaken have written for Sky Sports before. Sure I saw something on here?

In your media opinion, is it newsworthy or not, in a national sports context? Eg an article or section in the Mail.

[Rich]

31 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Similar to Steve Gibson or different? Only he topped up the furloughed staff wages. 

So SL doesn't take the big decisions at City then, not being on the board.

In a national emergency and when said company is taking public money, I question how well that holds.

Now SL aside, as a club we DID pay tax last season but we also in past years have taken tax credits.

That's with respect to corporation tax, a key question could be whether the tax credits or similar have been less than, equal to or greater than what we paid last season.

Agreed. This is much different to Branson with significant precedents as you say.

They will, yes.

@RonWalker 

You unless I am mistaken have written for Sky Sports before. Sure I saw something on here?

In your media opinion, is it newsworthy or not, in a national sports context? Eg an article or section in the Mail.

On a side note but possibly relevant. If Mr L decided to dip into his own pockets to top up the players/staff wages of BCFC, could this be taken into account with FFP, as far as putting more money into the club than the club actually produces. Apologies if this has been covered before.

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, Rich said:

On a side note but possibly relevant. If Mr L decided to dip into his own pockets to top up the players/staff wages of BCFC, could this be taken into account with FFP, as far as putting more money into the club than the club actually produces. Apologies if this has been covered before.

Fair point.

I think certain allowances and adjustments might be made given the unprecedented in peace time, nature of all this.

However yes, for all we know we could be close to the line- I doubt it given our clever trading and allowable costs but is it possible? Yes. 

I think it wouldn't be the biggest consideration however given that players wages are quite clearly the biggest cost for clubs.

Ours is no exception in this respect. I'm not sure SL eg topping up 20% for furloughed non football staff would push us over the line. Not least as the players have taken a 30% deferral for 3 months. 

One model I quite liked was Leeds. Think their football staff voluntarily took an indefinite deferral and this enabled non playing staff to be paid. As far as I can gather, without recourse to furlough.

26th March 2020. Full kudos. Granted it's not a cut but it's a fairly grand gesture. 

[REDOXO]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Similar to Steve Gibson or different? Only he topped up the furloughed staff wages. 

So SL doesn't take the big decisions at City then, not being on the board.

In a national emergency and when said company is taking public money, I question how well that holds.

Now SL aside, as a club we DID pay tax last season but we also in past years have taken tax credits.

That's with respect to corporation tax, a key question could be whether the tax credits or similar have been less than, equal to or greater than what we paid last season.

Agreed. This is much different to Branson with significant precedents as you say.

They will, yes.

@RonWalker 

You unless I am mistaken have written for Sky Sports before. Sure I saw something on here?

In your media opinion, is it newsworthy or not, in a national sports context? Eg an article or section in the Mail.

Gibson and SL are on good terms. Largely as Gibbo was a tax exile in Jersey while SL was  n Guernsey. Gibbo came back to the mainland largely because he missed his mates. I know this due to having ‘friends’ ‘living’ there. 
 

Gibson is a top bloke. But in my estimations so is SL. HE HAS SPENT millions upon millions on our club. 
 

however. The BoD has made a decision and I’m not sure why SL would be expected to put his hand in his pocket to add 20% to staff wages. The club will have to cut the umbilical cord to SLs bank account one day. However as stated the players are chipping in with an agreement that I guess loses them about the same % wise as the staff. 
 

I admire you feeling that something else should be done by the benefactor. But we dont know it won’t. The idea that this is news worthy is a bit OTT unless we have staff struggling. 
 

are there any links to staff complaining or in financial trouble?
 

 

[Pezo]

Does everyone understand the difference between HL, SL, Bristol sport and Bristol City?

The way some people write on here it comes across that they think SL's bank account is the Bristol Sport or Bristol City bank account so as soon as he sells some shares that's just money that is ready to be spent within Bristol Sport.

I don't see anyone saying that he should be propping up wages in any other businesses that he owns a proportion of, should he be propping up wages at HL for fund managers?

As for the making 1,000 people millionaires - they would be paper millionaires and if they tried to turn it to cash its likely that some of them wouldn't be able to buy a chocolate bar with what SL gave them. SL is a paper billionaire he's not scrounge Mcduck diving around in vaults of gold and cash (although he does have a £100m now but someone like SL would likely be using that to pay a line of credit he already owes for expenses he has already paid).

[REDOXO]

41 minutes ago, Pezo said:

Does everyone understand the difference between HL, SL, Bristol sport and Bristol City?

The way some people write on here it comes across that they think SL's bank account is the Bristol Sport or Bristol City bank account so as soon as he sells some shares that's just money that is ready to be spent within Bristol Sport.

I don't see anyone saying that he should be propping up wages in any other businesses that he owns a proportion of, should he be propping up wages at HL for fund managers?

As for the making 1,000 people millionaires - they would be paper millionaires and if they tried to turn it to cash its likely that some of them wouldn't be able to buy a chocolate bar with what SL gave them. SL is a paper billionaire he's not scrounge Mcduck diving around in vaults of gold and cash (although he does have a £100m now but someone like SL would likely be using that to pay a line of credit he already owes for expenses he has already paid).

Thank You!!

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

Gibson and SL are on good terms. Largely as Gibbo was a tax exile in Jersey while SL was  n Guernsey. Gibbo came back to the mainland largely because he missed his mates. I know this due to having ‘friends’ ‘living’ there. 
 

Gibson is a top bloke. But in my estimations so is SL. HE HAS SPENT millions upon millions on our club. 
 

however. The BoD has made a decision and I’m not sure why SL would be expected to put his hand in his pocket to add 20% to staff wages. The club will have to cut the umbilical cord to SLs bank account one day. However as stated the players are chipping in with an agreement that I guess loses them about the same % wise as the staff. 
 

I admire you feeling that something else should be done by the benefactor. But we dont know it won’t. The idea that this is news worthy is a bit OTT unless we have staff struggling. 
 

are there any links to staff complaining or in financial trouble?
 

 

Thanks for the explanation. The context.

Wasn't aware Gibson was also a tax exile, or has been- that puts a different spin on it. 

Both are top owners, can't argue with that. 

It's a fair point. I would distinguish between furlough and deferral, but they've took a hit for cash flow.

On a general note, I struggle to see how we can get off the reliance off SL, while we're in this division. In PL, maybe in due course, possibly even as a high end League One club. Not at this level anytime soon IMO. 

I don't know, my views keep swinging. I certainly won't be blabbing anywhere. I've calmed down anyway.

It just feels like a little more could or could've been done given it's a global pandemic, my views are conflicted though.

[Selred]

3 hours ago, Pezo said:

I don't see anyone saying that he should be propping up wages in any other businesses that he owns a proportion of, should he be propping up wages at HL for fund managers?

If they are furloughing people then yes. 

[Pezo]

1 hour ago, Selred said:

If they are furloughing people then yes. 

What's the situation he is in that means he should do that? Is it because he is a billionaire? I will take that as the assumption. If that's the case I wonder what the cutoff is. 

You do realise the consequences of that action rolled out across every business he part owns would likely make SL broke in a couple months?

Do you expect every billionaire to do the same, if that's the case then everthing SL and every other billionaire in the country owns would likely be in a fire sale, snapped up by people and questionable governments outside the country and used to siphon profits to invest in there own country for the foreseeable future. No investment or jobs in this country, people out of work, widespread unrest.

I've got a few shares in Lloyd's bank (because I seem to love losing money) should I be paying for any furloughed staff they have? 

If you have a pension you likely have shares in hundreds of company's are you selling your assets to pay for there furloughed workers?

[Selred]

15 minutes ago, Pezo said:

You do realise the consequences of that action rolled out across every business he part owns would likely make SL broke in a couple months?

Where he has majority stakes yes I'd like him to stump up. 

A lot of billionaires will have their billions still after all of this. Vs the other end of the spectrum where those who have little money will have even less due to not working etc. 

[Pezo]

10 hours ago, Selred said:

Where he has majority stakes yes I'd like him to stump up. 

A lot of billionaires will have their billions still after all of this. Vs the other end of the spectrum where those who have little money will have even less due to not working etc. 

So if you put yourself in SL shoes and you have a choice - give people money for doing nothing, get no outcome and cancel the rest of development of Ashton Gate or don't pay them extra and create loads of jobs developing and then running the expansion of Ashton Gate what do you choose?

IMO the question should be why do those people have little money? I don't want to daemonise them or create a divide a conquer perspective (more thinking about education to be honest) but why don't they have enough money to last 3 to 6 months without any money let alone cope for 3 months with 80% of wages.

For someone like me being frugal and saving to make sure I can get through hard times, then having to work through this while others are getting free handouts + then working on top of the free handouts I find it all a little frustrating. If everyone had enough savings to be able to not have any handouts then the austerity we're likely to get over the next few years wouldn't be needed but no doubt when the government implements some cuts it will somehow be the governments fault.

[Selred]

1 hour ago, Pezo said:

IMO the question should be why do those people have little money? I don't want to daemonise them or create a divide a conquer perspective (more thinking about education to be honest) but why don't they have enough money to last 3 to 6 months without any money let alone cope for 3 months with 80% of wages

Why don't businesses? 

[Pezo]

2 hours ago, Selred said:

Why don't businesses? 

Businesses are designed to take risks with money to provide products and services to people, this is almost completely the opposite goal of saving money to be able to pay staff when they aren't working.

If a business provides something that people want then everyone benafits (the creator the most) if it doesn't then bankruptcy for the business. If you want all businesses to hold capital then you also have to accept less investment and essentially progress.

[Selred]

33 minutes ago, Pezo said:

Businesses are designed to take risks with money to provide products and services to people, this is almost completely the opposite goal of saving money to be able to pay staff when they aren't working.

If a business provides something that people want then everyone benafits (the creator the most) if it doesn't then bankruptcy for the business. If you want all businesses to hold capital then you also have to accept less investment and essentially progress.

Sorry but you expect people to save up 3-6 months of money to live on, but if this was the case businesses wouldn't be able to run because people wouldn't be investing into them. Especially into tourism, entertainment, housing, having children etc. If everyone saved 3 to 6 months then our economy would fail.

It works both ways. 

[Pezo]

7 minutes ago, Selred said:

Sorry but you expect people to save up 3-6 months of money to live on, but if this was the case businesses wouldn't be able to run because people wouldn't be investing into them. Especially into tourism, entertainment, housing, having children etc. If everyone saved 3 to 6 months then our economy would fail.

It works both ways. 

I disagree, I have missed out on holidays in the past, going to games ect, I bought a house at 28ish and had my first child a year ago. 

I haven't always had the 3 to 6 months saved but most of the time I have. I wouldn't recommend everyone doing it all at the same time (because they won't) though and I'm not saying everyone should do it aggressively it's about being consistent over a long period of time but people should try saving something from now on £25, £100, £200 whatever, it soon adds up.

[Miah Dennehy]

Pay rise for Lee.

[Ron W]

On 02/05/2020 at 16:23, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

@RonWalker 

You unless I am mistaken have written for Sky Sports before. Sure I saw something on here?

In your media opinion, is it newsworthy or not, in a national sports context? Eg an article or section in the Mail.

Yes - still work there until the Premier League goes bankrupt!

SL is not much different to John Henry or Joe Lewis in my opinion, but the flak they got from all sides was totally different to what Lansdown is getting even on a BCFC-sized scale.

It could be media worthy but I don’t think it was ever going to be in reality. Gregor has already been furloughed and it’s not really in the Post’s interests to kick up a stink with a story which puts them in the club’s bad books (assuming the Post do think there are moral questions to be answered) and when a fair proportion of our fans, from reading online at least, don’t think he’s done anything wrong, and maybe he hasn’t.

Beyond the Post there’s just not enough scope for anyone to care outside of our own sphere, but personally it doesn’t sit comfortably at all that a man who earns £13m in dividends from Hargreaves Lansdown is letting the Government subsidise a maximum of £800k in wages at BCFC. He could pay the furlough of every staff member at Hargreaves Lansdown too (if he weren’t a minority shareholder) and still have change left over.

[Mr Popodopolous]

12 hours ago, RonWalker said:

Yes - still work there until the Premier League goes bankrupt!

SL is not much different to John Henry or Joe Lewis in my opinion, but the flak they got from all sides was totally different to what Lansdown is getting even on a BCFC-sized scale.

It could be media worthy but I don’t think it was ever going to be in reality. Gregor has already been furloughed and it’s not really in the Post’s interests to kick up a stink with a story which puts them in the club’s bad books (assuming the Post do think there are moral questions to be answered) and when a fair proportion of our fans, from reading online at least, don’t think he’s done anything wrong, and maybe he hasn’t.

Beyond the Post there’s just not enough scope for anyone to care outside of our own sphere, but personally it doesn’t sit comfortably at all that a man who earns £13m in dividends from Hargreaves Lansdown is letting the Government subsidise a maximum of £800k in wages at BCFC. He could pay the furlough of every staff member at Hargreaves Lansdown too (if he weren’t a minority shareholder) and still have change left over.

Thought I recognised the name...think the PL is 'too big to fail' as it were, but who knows! Hope the theory isnt tested.

I have no faith in the Post in this respect. Firstly as you say Gregor furloughed, second access and keeping club sweet, third the differing attitudes are quite interesting. 

Nothing like the Liverpool and Tottenham situations in terms of fan reaction certainly. Interesting sociologically- or just a reflection of income differences between those club and ours? Ie they have deeply u

One or two if the posts in this thread are laughable though. The one who said he'd burn through his wealth if he didn't furlough. Doesn't stack up!

£800k you say. Didn't he earn £100m net of capital gains, ie zero capital gains last week. 

Some of the mental gymnastics too in this thread are quite something! Like I say, my favourite was one who said he'd burn through his wealth if he did a few months of furlough.

Think Joe Lewis has been a tax exile for some while. I think it's a bit more complex than SL but it doesn't quite feel right.

£800k figure. Is that the wages or the top up figure? 

I think it could be newsworthy from a business ethics POV almost regardless of fans reactions.

Anyway from my POV it's moot as I have no media contacts or am not in the business of flagging it widely, just speculation really.

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 02/05/2020 at 18:07, Pezo said:

Does everyone understand the difference between HL, SL, Bristol sport and Bristol City?

The way some people write on here it comes across that they think SL's bank account is the Bristol Sport or Bristol City bank account so as soon as he sells some shares that's just money that is ready to be spent within Bristol Sport.

I don't see anyone saying that he should be propping up wages in any other businesses that he owns a proportion of, should he be propping up wages at HL for fund managers?

As for the making 1,000 people millionaires - they would be paper millionaires and if they tried to turn it to cash its likely that some of them wouldn't be able to buy a chocolate bar with what SL gave them. SL is a paper billionaire he's not scrounge Mcduck diving around in vaults of gold and cash (although he does have a £100m now but someone like SL would likely be using that to pay a line of credit he already owes for expenses he has already paid).

What a bizarre first couple of paragraphs.

Strawman argument if ever one existed.

High end wages vs normal and lower earners. 

Fund managers will still be working surely, from home or otherwise. Working from home usually means full wages- would be surprised if they've furloughed them!

Why would SL be expected to foot the bill? He's not a majority shareholder.

That last paragraph is quite feasible though. Wealth maybe tied up in all sorts, assets etc. 

£800k figure mentioned by Ron Walker however, doesn't seem like an excessive hardship for SL. How much does he put into the club in a typical season?

I've got mixed views still.

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 03/05/2020 at 10:36, Pezo said:

So if you put yourself in SL shoes and you have a choice - give people money for doing nothing, get no outcome and cancel the rest of development of Ashton Gate or don't pay them extra and create loads of jobs developing and then running the expansion of Ashton Gate what do you choose?

IMO the question should be why do those people have little money? I don't want to daemonise them or create a divide a conquer perspective (more thinking about education to be honest) but why don't they have enough money to last 3 to 6 months without any money let alone cope for 3 months with 80% of wages.

For someone like me being frugal and saving to make sure I can get through hard times, then having to work through this while others are getting free handouts + then working on top of the free handouts I find it all a little frustrating. If everyone had enough savings to be able to not have any handouts then the austerity we're likely to get over the next few years wouldn't be needed but no doubt when the government implements some cuts it will somehow be the governments fault.

Interesting post. Great mental gymnastics contained within, must be said!

How is £800k if the figure by Ron Walker within range going to put these projects in jeopardy? Your sums appear to be fairly selective across some of your posts.

Savings point and education is quite interesting too. Clearly people can save more, but this isn't by any means universal. 

Has your education informed of the fact that there are quite a few zero hour, part time jobs. 3-6 month savings? Gotta laugh!

Likewise, in work benefits employees. Again 3-6 months of savings, haha!!

By no means universal that people can save in the rates you suggest.

Austerity return...will be interesting to see the public mood. Because after major sacrifices made now and nearly a decade of austerity, will the public accept it once more?

Tax rises were mooted.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thought I recognised the name...think the PL is 'too big to fail' as it were, but who knows! Hope the theory isnt tested.

I have no faith in the Post in this respect. Firstly as you say Gregor furloughed, second access and keeping club sweet, third the differing attitudes are quite interesting. 

Nothing like the Liverpool and Tottenham situations in terms of fan reaction certainly. Interesting sociologically- or just a reflection of income differences between those club and ours? Ie they have deeply u

One or two if the posts in this thread are laughable though. The one who said he'd burn through his wealth if he didn't furlough. Doesn't stack up!

£800k you say. Didn't he earn £100m net of capital gains, ie zero capital gains last week. 

Some of the mental gymnastics too in this thread are quite something! Like I say, my favourite was one who said he'd burn through his wealth if he did a few months of furlough.

Think Joe Lewis has been a tax exile for some while. I think it's a bit more complex than SL but it doesn't quite feel right.

£800k figure. Is that the wages or the top up figure? 

I think it could be newsworthy from a business ethics POV almost regardless of fans reactions.

Anyway from my POV it's moot as I have no media contacts or am not in the business of flagging it widely, just speculation really.

To also add, I forgot to put it in but John Henry is American. From that POV, Liverpool an overseas business.

Does he have that much obligation, not least as Liverpool has tended to be making an underlying profit in recent years.

So the cases are similar but different. Might there not be more of an expectation on him to be focusing on helping to prop up his US business interests first and foremost. Unsure of his tax or living arrangements though.

[Ron W]

8 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thought I recognised the name...think the PL is 'too big to fail' as it were, but who knows! Hope the theory isnt tested.

I have no faith in the Post in this respect. Firstly as you say Gregor furloughed, second access and keeping club sweet, third the differing attitudes are quite interesting. 

Nothing like the Liverpool and Tottenham situations in terms of fan reaction certainly. Interesting sociologically- or just a reflection of income differences between those club and ours? Ie they have deeply u

One or two if the posts in this thread are laughable though. The one who said he'd burn through his wealth if he didn't furlough. Doesn't stack up!

£800k you say. Didn't he earn £100m net of capital gains, ie zero capital gains last week. 

Some of the mental gymnastics too in this thread are quite something! Like I say, my favourite was one who said he'd burn through his wealth if he did a few months of furlough.

Think Joe Lewis has been a tax exile for some while. I think it's a bit more complex than SL but it doesn't quite feel right.

£800k figure. Is that the wages or the top up figure? 

I think it could be newsworthy from a business ethics POV almost regardless of fans reactions.

Anyway from my POV it's moot as I have no media contacts or am not in the business of flagging it widely, just speculation really.

£800k is a maximum figure from City's last accounts - there are just over 100 non-playing staff from memory. £2.5k a month, for the length of the furlough scheme, 3 months, near enough £80k. And that's assuming they each earn at least the top boundary.

Joe Lewis is definitely more complicated that's very true, has anyone ever seen him?! But for all that, his estimated worth is only about double that of SL's. And if we're getting into multi-billionaires, what's a couple of billion between friends?

Outside of Bristol there's just no interest sadly. People are probably more likely to know SL from their investment fund than as our owner.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, RonWalker said:

£800k is a maximum figure from City's last accounts - there are just over 100 non-playing staff from memory. £2.5k a month, for the length of the furlough scheme, 3 months, near enough £80k. And that's assuming they each earn at least the top boundary.

Joe Lewis is definitely more complicated that's very true, has anyone ever seen him?! But for all that, his estimated worth is only about double that of SL's. And if we're getting into multi-billionaires, what's a couple of billion between friends?

Outside of Bristol there's just no interest sadly. People are probably more likely to know SL from their investment fund than as our owner.

Yeah, agreed- £800k sounds like it's towards the upper end.

The absent owner? Possibly some light shed on him here!

This was actually written a few days after furlough was reversed I think.

Even Redknapp was taken by surprise, it seems:

Quote

'I can't believe it,' Harry Redknapp told the Sun. 'Tottenham are owned by Joe Lewis, one of the richest men in the world, and his club are cutting the wages of all their non-football staff by 20 per cent. I can't believe it.'

Quite possible, but I wonder. Daily Mail (I know) are always running stories on Derby- not very many of them positive, in recent years certainly- A bigger club for sure, but not a PL side, not been in the PL since 2007-08...