Other Manager Options (Merged)

[Nibor]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

For info, Amortisation Costs will have increased in 19/20 season, by several millions by virtue of the fees we paid last summer.  Webster was the only player we sold last summer who had any tangible amortisation figure (£0.875m pa) on our books.  LJ spent over £20m, amortised at about £6.5m per annum.  That’s quite a millstone around our neck, unless new manager trades those players.

Players who’ve left this season has tiny amortisation values:

• Pack - negligible if not already realised as £0
• Smith - zero as fully amortised
• Taylor - zero as fully amortised
• Wright - zero as fully amortised
• Brownhill - tiny
• Eisa - £333k if he did cost £1 initially
• Maenpaa - zero as fully amortised

I was predicting an £18m loss for 19/20 before covid struck....that’s with transfer profit included.

20/21 has a starting point of a £20-25m loss before we start trading.

That to me says we won’t be spending on fees and wages like previous year....but I suspect the new manager will be delighted if you’re prediction is more accurate.

Re solidarity payments, I thought the proposal last year was only for Lg1/2 clubs in the wake of Bury’s demise.  Happy if you’ve got better news there?

It's a good effort but worth bearing in mind that the accounting policy for contracts gives a lot more flexibility than you're assuming (essentially they give themselves room for a fully finger in the air estimate particularly with respect to renewals) and of course you have to put the player trading income in the income column which is very significant.

I am referring to the solidarity payment of about £4.5m that is agreed from 2019-2022, there have been a number of murmurs about that being increased - not related to Bury but related to COVID - not sure if they have come to anything as the plans for next season still seem unfixed.

[mozo]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Don’t disagree with any of your rationale. Think it’s more the post-covid financial state that will drive some of your question marks turning into underlined players.

Eliasson and Diedhiou are gonna tell us a lot about the state of play I reckon.

Let's assume we bring in £12m from sales, and we reinvest that into recruitment. You're basically looking at a bunch of free agents and one or two significant signings. A Hughton might just about live with that for the 1st year.

Let's assume whatever we bring in for Eliasson, Diedhiou, Watkins and another fringe player, goes straight back to balancing the books. You're probably only going to be headed up by the likes of Robbie Fowler, Paul Cook etc.

Maybe we are unravelling the most likely hurdle to the appointment. Can we offer Hughton a budget that he feels this squad needs? If not, can the board settle on a "cheap option"? 

[Nibor]

59 minutes ago, TransferForum said:

Vaulks was in several of the squads and Morrell was selected ahead of him

Maybe we're talking at cross purposes but AFAIK Vaulks was in the last squad announced as was Morrell, the two Charlton players weren't?

[havanatopia]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Serious question, do you see our revenue increasing next season?

The tv deal is already in place, 5 year deal signed in 2018

How much of the season card revenue will they need to refund through lack of crowd attendance.  They won’t replace it with Robinstv subs, nor additional games on Sky.  Commercial income will be down as will match day revenue.

Plus Ashton Gate Ltd (part of Bristol City Holdings) which we use to report FFP numbers are rumoured to be have £8m losses....need to see that play out.

When MA talks about austerity, it is for a reason.

At best, I can see the new manager being able to spend what he generates.  Even LJ wasn’t allowed that, in better financial climes.

We are fortunate that we’ve built some contingency into our 3 year FFP cycle, but a lot if that will be used by up reduced revenues from the current season and next.

Excuse me jumping in if i missed it Dave but why is matchday revenue down over a million year on year? Has it been pushed somewhere else in that list ?

[Davefevs]

19 minutes ago, Nibor said:

It's a good effort

you cheeky blighter

but worth bearing in mind that the accounting policy for contracts gives a lot more flexibility than you're assuming (essentially they give themselves room for a fully finger in the air estimate particularly with respect to renewals) and of course you have to put the player trading income in the income column which is very significant.

we are not Mel Morris and Derby County.  We flatline depreciate over the term of the contract.  We follow exactly the same method at contract renewal too, taking the asset value at that time and depreciate again over the new remaining term.  There is no flexibility, we do not revalue upon renewal.  Derby, I think, are the only club in the EFL who use that method.  

Player trading only becomes an income stream when you sell a player.  That’s why we keep saying until we starting selling we start the season with a £20-25m loss on our books.

I am referring to the solidarity payment of about £4.5m that is agreed from 2019-2022, there have been a number of murmurs about that being increased - not related to Bury but related to COVID - not sure if they have come to anything as the plans for next season still seem unfixed.

Covid solidarity payment discussions seem to focus on an advancement of monies due, not an increase, from the links I’ve found on EFL site. Of course that will help, but hinder future years projections.

 

[BrizzleRed]

3 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

He's more mobile than Pack too which was a big problem on the counter at times with Pack imo.

Would not surprise me if we are looking at Mpanzu again from Luton. We were rumoured to be after him in January. I think he is out of contract too.

And we came close to signing Ampadu from Chelsea on loan. Only couldn't because RB Leipzig would not let Chelsea recall him.

Versatile player who could play in our midfield if needed. Or if playing back 3 he could be handy there with Moore each alongside Kalas.

I wonder if a back 5 would give our midfield a nicer bit of protection meaning maybe Morrell and Walsh could play alongside each other. 

Not sure if that would work. Would be interesting to see. Technically I can't imagine a ball playing back 3 and those 2 in midfield having too many problems playing it out from the back.

Good options there, but I wonder if that Chelsea link is still as strong these days?

Whatever happens, it’ll be interesting to see what a different head coach can get out of this squad, as many of them were looking like confused, lost souls at times this season  

Although it wasn’t amazing under Dean Holden, it definitely looked to me like a team who were given more freedom to take responsibily and play to their individual strengths for a change.  We also had more fluidity and it made us far less predictable, so these players clearly have more to offer.

[Nibor]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

we are not Mel Morris and Derby County.  We flatline depreciate over the term of the contract.  We follow exactly the same method at contract renewal too, taking the asset value at that time and depreciate again over the new remaining term.  There is no flexibility, we do not revalue upon renewal.  Derby, I think, are the only club in the EFL who use that method.  

That is not what the accounts say.

[Davefevs]

24 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

He's more mobile than Pack too which was a big problem on the counter at times with Pack imo.

Would not surprise me if we are looking at Mpanzu again from Luton. We were rumoured to be after him in January. I think he is out of contract too.

And we came close to signing Ampadu from Chelsea on loan. Only couldn't because RB Leipzig would not let Chelsea recall him.

Versatile player who could play in our midfield if needed. Or if playing back 3 he could be handy there with Moore each alongside Kalas.

I wonder if a back 5 would give our midfield a nicer bit of protection meaning maybe Morrell and Walsh could play alongside each other. 

Not sure if that would work. Would be interesting to see. Technically I can't imagine a ball playing back 3 and those 2 in midfield having too many problems playing it out from the back.

I prefer Pelly Ruddock out of the two!!

Seriously, I think he’s the kind of brick outhouse who’d do well in our midfield.

24 minutes ago, mozo said:

Let's assume we bring in £12m from sales, and we reinvest that into recruitment. You're basically looking at a bunch of free agents and one or two significant signings. A Hughton might just about live with that for the 1st year.

Let's assume whatever we bring in for Eliasson, Diedhiou, Watkins and another fringe player, goes straight back to balancing the books. You're probably only going to be headed up by the likes of Robbie Fowler, Paul Cook etc.

Maybe we are unravelling the most likely hurdle to the appointment. Can we offer Hughton a budget that he feels this squad needs? If not, can the board settle on a "cheap option"? 

Wouldn’t surprise me.  With all recruitment, whether it’s fees or frees, it’s the overall impact on the budget.

14 minutes ago, Nibor said:

Maybe we're talking at cross purposes but AFAIK Vaulks was in the last squad announced as was Morrell, the two Charlton players weren't?

Who are the two Charlton players?  Jonny Williams?

7 minutes ago, havanatopia said:

Excuse me jumping in if i missed it Dave but why is matchday revenue down over a million year on year? Has it been pushed somewhere else in that list ?

I don’t know, but I’m thinking Man Utd and Man City.

[Nibor]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Who are the two Charlton players?  Jonny Williams?

And Matt Smith.

The only point I'm really making is that being in a Wales squad doesn't mean he's good enough for 40 games at the top end of the championship - certainly not something that the club should bet on without having a manager look at him.  Which seemed oddly contentious for some reason?

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Nibor said:

That is not what the accounts say.

Bloody hell, you’re right.  I apologise.  But in practice I am told they do flatline.

[BrizzleRed]

Just now, JonDolman said:

If Hughton is the man then I can't see him going 352 like we've seen recently. 

He's usually been a 442/4411 guy at this level.

Was thinking that before I replied, but he seems quite pragmatic, so maybe he’ll just move with the times.

Won’t matter if he goes to Watford though!!!

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, Nibor said:

And Matt Smith.

The only point I'm really making is that being in a Wales squad doesn't mean he's good enough for 40 games at the top end of the championship - certainly not something that the club should bet on without having a manager look at him.  Which seemed oddly contentious for some reason?

Agree, every player is rated differently by different managers.

[Nibor]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Bloody hell, you’re right.  I apologise.  But in practice I am told they do flatline.

I'm sure they do, just they give themselves the opportunity to change their minds about that and it wouldn't surprise me if now is the time.

[havanatopia]

20 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I don’t know, but I’m thinking Man Utd and Man City.

Yes, you are probably right. Cheers.

I cannot see Hughton coming now. 

[tin]

On 8 August 2019, Pack was sold to Cardiff and Nagy arrived as his replacement from Bologna. It seems Ashton rightly has contingency plans in place whenever a player leaves the club as replacements are usually lined up in advance and brought in fairly quickly. I was under the impression the same plans were in place when it came to managers/coaches. 

Surely Ashton, the Lansdowns, the board or whoever is leading the search for the new boss/head coach should’ve done their due diligence before sacking LJ and had a list of preferred candidates they wished to speak to straight away. 

I accept this isn’t the best analogy but Liverpool, in comparison, didn’t wait to see who applied for the job to replace Rodgers. They wanted Klopp before they sacked Rodgers and appointed him four days’ later. That’s how it should work, although Liverpool can of course take their pick from a far bigger pool of candidates than us. The point remains: they’d done their due diligence before the axe fell on Rodgers, so why are we doing ours four weeks after sacking LJ in a shorter than usual off-season? Our stock has never been higher and our dithering risks losing the best candidates. 

[mozo]

Fair comment. It's bizarre that we're seemingly treating this recruitment process as though we're hiring a sales exec or something. 

[Robbored]

7 minutes ago, tin said:

I accept this isn’t the best analogy but Liverpool, in comparison, didn’t wait to see who applied for the job to replace Rodgers. They wanted Klopp before they sacked Rodgers and appointed him four days’ later. That’s how it should work, although Liverpool can of course take their pick from a far bigger pool of candidates than us. The point remains: they’d done their due diligence before the axe fell on Rodgers, so why are we doing ours four weeks after sacking LJ in a shorter than usual off-season? Our stock has never been higher and our dithering risks losing the best candidates. 

I think that the sacking of LJ came as something of a surprise. It seems as if SL finally lost patience with him when the play offs became out of reach and wielded the axe.

Thats means that there was no preparation time to recruit a replacement...... Hence the reason why it seems to be taking an age to replace LJ

That said maybe the appointment has bean made already but the club are keeping it quiet possibly to make it appear as if they’ve been exceptionally thorough in the appointment procedure......who knows?   
 

 

[Coppello]

I think Johnson is coming back. They've taken him away, dangled some horrible John Terry shaped carrots in front of us. Ashton and Lansdown are using this tactic to make us appreciate what we had and are hoping that he would be welcomed back with open arms. In the next couple of weeks we'll have Martin Allen and Felix Magath before this image gets tweeted again:

[Eddie Hitler]

Yes, it's bonkers.

If you know the candidates records and personalities, as you do in this media world, then you know which one has the qualities, abilities and experience that you want.

I generally was hired for my jobs through a similar process of interviews but the exception was where somebody had worked with me a lot previously and just asked if I wanted to do it and then took me to lunch to discuss terms.  In that case I would have been pretty insulted had I been required to go through the same procedure as an unknown but commonsense ruled.

When Neil Warnock was appointed by Cardiff he said a major reason for accepting was that there was no interview process because Vincent Tan said his record in football management stood for itself. 

Classy.

As Mr Punch would say: that's the way to do it.

 

[tin]

4 minutes ago, Robbored said:

I think that the sacking of LJ came as something of a surprise. It seems as if SL finally lost patience with him when the play offs became out of reach and wielded the axe.

That may well be right, but it doesn’t address the question: why doesn’t the powers that be have contingency plans in place for managers/coaches in the same way they do with players? If LJ’s sacking was a surprise to the board, they should’ve had a list of suitable candidates already lined up that they wanted to speak to weeks before now. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

50 minutes ago, Nibor said:

That is not what the accounts say.

 

40 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Bloody hell, you’re right.  I apologise.  But in practice I am told they do flatline.

 

36 minutes ago, Nibor said:

I'm sure they do, just they give themselves the opportunity to change their minds about that and it wouldn't surprise me if now is the time.

Will be interesting to see.

I've not actually looked at our accounts for a while, because I've been focusing on FFP etc with other clubs.

It states in both 2015 and 2019 though- I chose those owing to it being a reasonable timeframe:

Quote

Players' contracts and transfer fees

The costs associated with acquiring players' registrations or extending their contracts are capitalised as intangible assets and amortised, in equal instalments, over the period of the respective players' contracts. 

Now there's more about extension of contracts etc but that's a useful starting point?

There's many different ways but I'd be very surprised indeed were we doing a Derby- indeed one of Derby's charges in the current EFL hearing is with respect to this very issue!

It doesn't specify straight line but "amortised, in equal instalments, over the period of the respective player's contracts"- Is that not similar?

Suggests the same under Bristol City Holdings for 2018/19.

Of course Impairment is quite possible- is Impairment of Intangible Fixed Assets (by which I mean Player Registration) a factor here? Doesn't appear to be anything about Residual Value unlike Derby.

[bcfcnick]

I think the lack of preparation for a replacement is linked to the Lansdown's close relationship with the Johnson's.   SL puts a lot of emphasis on behaving honourably and, no doubt, more so with family friends.  He wouldn't want a scenario to emerge where it was clear he and his son were planning behind LJ's back. 

I don't think this would have applied to other managers but for the Lansdown's it was a bit different with LJ and probably to the detriment of the Club.

 

[Nibor]

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Will be interesting to see.

I've not actually looked at our accounts for a while, because I've been focusing on FFP etc with other clubs.

It states in both 2015 and 2019 though- I chose those owing to it being a reasonable timeframe:

Now there's more about extension of contracts etc but that's a useful starting point?

There's many different ways but I'd be very surprised indeed were we doing a Derby- indeed one of Derby's charges in the current EFL hearing is with respect to this very issue!

It doesn't specify straight line but "amortised, in equal instalments, over the period of the respective player's contracts"- Is that not similar?

Suggests the same under Bristol City Holdings for 2018/19.

Of course Impairment is quite possible- is Impairment of Intangible Fixed Assets (by which I mean Player Registration) a factor here? Doesn't appear to be anything about Residual Value unlike Derby.

Consider a situation like career ending injury.

For FFP it might be advantageous (and fair actually) to take the hit in the present season.  It might also be advantageous not to. 

The rules here say amortised in equal instalments, which you'd think is straightforward, but they do not really specify a valuation that well.

Nor do they say what happens when a compromise agreement is used to terminate a contract early.

The club's last accounts specifically say in the policy section they can make up any valuation they like leaning heavily on management opinion.

FFP tries to take a more structured view but still has gaps.

In theory you can make the rules very detailed to cover lots of situations.  You always end up having to stop somewhere and make assumptions though.

In practice with this sort of regulation there is usually a fair bit of grey area which is handled through audit, creating a nice little earner for the accountants.

It might well be the case that clubs are allowed to use such grey areas through relaxed auditing to help out with COVID impacts.

[Lez]

Give the job to Paul Cook!!!

[Harry]

30 minutes ago, tin said:

On 8 August 2019, Pack was sold to Cardiff and Nagy arrived as his replacement from Bologna. It seems Ashton rightly has contingency plans in place whenever a player leaves the club as replacements are usually lined up in advance and brought in fairly quickly. I was under the impression the same plans were in place when it came to managers/coaches. 

Surely Ashton, the Lansdowns, the board or whoever is leading the search for the new boss/head coach should’ve done their due diligence before sacking LJ and had a list of preferred candidates they wished to speak to straight away. 

I accept this isn’t the best analogy but Liverpool, in comparison, didn’t wait to see who applied for the job to replace Rodgers. They wanted Klopp before they sacked Rodgers and appointed him four days’ later. That’s how it should work, although Liverpool can of course take their pick from a far bigger pool of candidates than us. The point remains: they’d done their due diligence before the axe fell on Rodgers, so why are we doing ours four weeks after sacking LJ in a shorter than usual off-season? Our stock has never been higher and our dithering risks losing the best candidates. 

Agree Tin. 
I’m sure Ashton once said in one of his interviews that they always have a ‘due diligence’ list of potential managers as well as players. 
Supposedly the world class analytics that they operate has them fully prepared for any contingency. 
Methinks that’s bull! 
 

Or - the database threw up Gerrard as their preferred candidate and he’s not interested, so they’ve had to go back to the supercomputer and ask it for plan b. 
“Mr Babbage - Stevie was top answer. Please reveal the 2nd most popular”. 
 

The longer this process goes on, I’m convinced that Gerrard was number 1 target and they had no idea who else. The process which they’ve lauded as being ready to strike when needed is clearly flawed. 
Hughton simply doesn’t fit the requirements that they’ve clearly stated. 

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Nibor said:

Consider a situation like career ending injury.

For FFP it might be advantageous (and fair actually) to take the hit in the present season.  It might also be advantageous not to. 

The rules here say amortised in equal instalments, which you'd think is straightforward, but they do not really specify a valuation that well.

Nor do they say what happens when a compromise agreement is used to terminate a contract early.

In theory you can make the rules very detailed to cover lots of situations.  You always end up having to stop somewhere and make assumptions though.

In practice with this sort of regulation there is usually a fair bit of grey area which is handled through audit, creating a nice little earner for the accountants.

It might well be the case that clubs are allowed to use such grey areas through relaxed auditing to help out with COVID impacts.

It looks like we were both right.  Different pages of the same published accounts.  

[BigTone]

45 minutes ago, tin said:

On 8 August 2019, Pack was sold to Cardiff and Nagy arrived as his replacement from Bologna. It seems Ashton rightly has contingency plans in place whenever a player leaves the club as replacements are usually lined up in advance and brought in fairly quickly. I was under the impression the same plans were in place when it came to managers/coaches. 

Surely Ashton, the Lansdowns, the board or whoever is leading the search for the new boss/head coach should’ve done their due diligence before sacking LJ and had a list of preferred candidates they wished to speak to straight away. 

I accept this isn’t the best analogy but Liverpool, in comparison, didn’t wait to see who applied for the job to replace Rodgers. They wanted Klopp before they sacked Rodgers and appointed him four days’ later. That’s how it should work, although Liverpool can of course take their pick from a far bigger pool of candidates than us. The point remains: they’d done their due diligence before the axe fell on Rodgers, so why are we doing ours four weeks after sacking LJ in a shorter than usual off-season? Our stock has never been higher and our dithering risks losing the best candidates. 

But none of us know what is happening or what has been done or is being done so all a bit pointless getting ourselves in a knot over it. Assumptions are being made which very likely are way off beam.

Relax, chill, book a 7 day holiday in Spain and put your feet up for 3 weeks.

[Nibor]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

It looks like we were both right.  Different pages of the same published accounts.  

Have you ever heard an accountant give an opinion without qualifying it? They like wiggle room.

[LondonBristolian]

8 minutes ago, Harry said:

Agree Tin. 
I’m sure Ashton once said in one of his interviews that they always have a ‘due diligence’ list of potential managers as well as players. 
Supposedly the world class analytics that they operate has them fully prepared for any contingency. 
Methinks that’s bull! 
 

Or - the database threw up Gerrard as their preferred candidate and he’s not interested, so they’ve had to go back to the supercomputer and ask it for plan b. 
“Mr Babbage - Stevie was top answer. Please reveal the 2nd most popular”. 
 

The longer this process goes on, I’m convinced that Gerrard was number 1 target and they had no idea who else. The process which they’ve lauded as being ready to strike when needed is clearly flawed. 
Hughton simply doesn’t fit the requirements that they’ve clearly stated. 

I was sure that had been said by Ashton or someone in the club at some point.

I do think any club, even if they're not actively expecting to change their manager, should have a shortlist in mind of five or six managers they might approach if needed and to keep that updated regularly as managers move in and out of work. There's always a risk managers will go on a bad run and get sacked, or a really good run and get poached, so it seems absurd if there wasn't a clear list in mind.

I'm by no means as wedded to Hughton as some other posters on here - I think there are three or four different routes the club could reasonably go down and realistic potential managers that make a degree of sense within all those routes - but there doesn't seem to be a clear indication the club know what route is that they want. I take @BigTone's point that we don't know what is happening behind the scenes but the little bits being reported imply a degree of confusion over the potential direction. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

I noticed that second bit but couldn't be bothered to type out another section- which would take precedence then?

Impairment.

Impairment of Player Registrations tends to count against FFP- and Covid19 may change things entirely. Rightly so too. This may well be different with respect to a career ending injury and again rightly so, or of a new £10m signing gets a lengthy crock- again seems fair enough- this would be part of the EFL's exceptional Items policy, may need to be debated/haggled over.

However if you write down a player registration as basically they aren't that good, then it counts against FFP- just as amortisation would. The flipside is the ability to sell at a greater profit if things pick up a bit?