Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

Stephen Lansdown sleepless nights are over.


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, ashton_fan said:

He sold most of his HL shares to pay for the AG stadium (about £75m) so that's why his dividend payment is less than for Hargreaves so he's put a significant part of his fortune into this club.

 Not true. He's still worth nearly £2bn according to Forbes.

https://www.forbes.com/profile/stephen-lansdown/#33e204f450b0

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ashton_fan said:

Well he obviously has assets other than those shares

He does, but his selling of his stake made him more than £660m.  The rebuild only took a small portion of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Red-Robbo said:

He does, but his selling of his stake made him more than £660m.  The rebuild only took a small portion of this.

Wasn't part of the rebuild also financed by external loans? Read conflicting things on this. SL or SL's companies the guarantor of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Wasn't part of the rebuild also financed by external loans? Read conflicting things on this. SL or SL's companies the guarantor of course.

Not sure. Point is, he didn't use "most of his HL shares" to pay for it. As grateful as I am for the support he has given over the years.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Not sure. Point is, he didn't use "most of his HL shares" to pay for it. As grateful as I am for the support he has given over the years.

Yeah, definitely didn't use most of shares- but it'd be interesting to see his total investment/expenditure- money down the drain ;) over the years, must be very high!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Yeah, definitely didn't use most of shares- but it'd be interesting to see his total investment over the years, must be very high!

 

It's why I think he values Mark Ashton so much, despite the opinions of others.

Ashton's 'sell the stars' strategy has brought significant money in recently and reduced the big holes he might otherwise be called on to fill.

If Chris Hughton said he just wanted an annual  budget, but didn't want a CEO telling him who to spend it on and who to sell - as I can imagine he did - it was Ashton's role at the club that ended his interest in a job here. 

  • Like 3
  • Flames 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

It's why I think he values Mark Ashton so much, despite the opinions of others.

Ashton's 'sell the stars' strategy has brought significant money in recently and reduced the big holes he might otherwise be called on to fill.

If Chris Hughton said he just wanted an annual  budget, but didn't want a CEO telling him who to spend it on and who to sell - as I can imagine he did - it was Ashton's role at the club that ended his interest in a job here. 

Such a good point.  There’s:

  • Heres the playing budget get in with it and there’s, 
  • here’s the playing budget, I’ll tell you how you spend it
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, P'head Red said:

The status of Lansdowns' fortunes should only be talked about if they take a downward spiral. Yes, of course he's invested a lot of money over the years, but the club needs to be self sustainable. Some fans seem to think he can just chuck in £50m for transfers without any repercussions. It doesn't work that way. 

Does it not?

For argument sake, why couldn't Lansdown slap Hargreaves Lansdown everywhere on the stadium and on our shirts, and then gradually pump additional funds into the club.

Obviously, he wouldn't because he wants the club to be self-sustainable (which is the smartest option), but if he wanted to bankroll a lower-tier galactico, he could.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bat Fastard said:

We don't really know where all this will end. Club finances ae based on projected turnover and that may be badly impacted over last season and next - with debts that have to be covered afterwards on top. Very hard to predict.

Exactly this which is why we are where we are with DH appointment and the mini backroom staff cull. The future is even more unpredictable/worrying than when Lee was relieved of his duties and the financial situation has worsened since that time as well which is why SL's statement during lockdown now appears to be way off the mark. Even he didn't know how hard this is going to hit. All about survival from this point .

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EnderMB said:

Does it not?

For argument sake, why couldn't Lansdown slap Hargreaves Lansdown everywhere on the stadium and on our shirts, and then gradually pump additional funds into the club.

Obviously, he wouldn't because he wants the club to be self-sustainable (which is the smartest option), but if he wanted to bankroll a lower-tier galactico, he could.

Would only work up to a point- there's a Fair Value Test for RPTs.

I suppose benchmarking in this scenario would be equivalent divisional deals with genuine third parties. Might give a bit here and there but nothing groundbreaking in our current position- especially as Sponsorship could take a hit with Covid.

For comparisons sake, Sheffield Wednesday's deals with Chansiri which contain a variety of aspects represent about £1-1.5m per season- bigger club too, though the South is more expensive! Maybe the two would balance out?

Hell, what would the difference be between what we receive from sponsorship at present and this? Fair value wise I mean- may not be much at all!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EnderMB said:

Does it not?

For argument sake, why couldn't Lansdown slap Hargreaves Lansdown everywhere on the stadium and on our shirts, and then gradually pump additional funds into the club.

Obviously, he wouldn't because he wants the club to be self-sustainable (which is the smartest option), but if he wanted to bankroll a lower-tier galactico, he could.

Because Hargreaves wouldn't want to be  associated with the comical goings on at the theatre of comedy

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

It's why I think he values Mark Ashton so much, despite the opinions of others.

Ashton's 'sell the stars' strategy has brought significant money in recently and reduced the big holes he might otherwise be called on to fill.

If Chris Hughton said he just wanted an annual  budget, but didn't want a CEO telling him who to spend it on and who to sell - as I can imagine he did - it was Ashton's role at the club that ended his interest in a job here. 

Can we hold this in evidence please next week. Very likely I would say. Top post

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, James54De said:

Most certainly he will never recoup most of what he’s spent on football. 

The old saying is that if you want to make a small fortune out of football, start with a big one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, EnderMB said:

Does it not?

For argument sake, why couldn't Lansdown slap Hargreaves Lansdown everywhere on the stadium and on our shirts, and then gradually pump additional funds into the club.

Obviously, he wouldn't because he wants the club to be self-sustainable (which is the smartest option), but if he wanted to bankroll a lower-tier galactico, he could.

I should also add to my prior post, there are some legitimate avenues not yet explored.

  1. Sponsor each stand for the going rate.
  2. Naming rights for the stadium itself.
  3. Naming rights for the training ground.

Reckon there are likely more.

Beyond that, at the expense of our sponsors currently, would there be much of an uptick- remember that pesky fair value clause again :) - and it might even be a short term hit if we had to pay a penalty clause to terminate.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ashton_fan said:

He sold most of his HL shares to pay for the AG stadium (about £75m) so that's why his dividend payment is less than for Hargreaves so he's put a significant part of his fortune into this club.

If he's worth 2 billion i would say that 75 million is a drop in the ocean and certainly not a significant part of his fortune that's less than4% of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

Ashton's 'sell the stars' strategy has brought significant money in recently and reduced the big holes he might otherwise be called on to fill.

Get promoted to the Premier League and to the greater extent all this changes...

Food for thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Squire Dastardly said:

Hargreaves Lansdown are highly successful  and profitable stockbrokers. Bristol City are a moderately successful and unprofitable football club owned and run by Lansdowns. At the moment, this club is in one hell of a mess. If we recruited Mr Hargreaves as manager/head coach might that be just what we need?

Having met and worked for both - if you've think Steve Lansdown has a tight grip on the pursestrings - Hargreaves would have a death grip.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, EnderMB said:

Does it not?

For argument sake, why couldn't Lansdown slap Hargreaves Lansdown everywhere on the stadium and on our shirts, and then gradually pump additional funds into the club.

Obviously, he wouldn't because he wants the club to be self-sustainable (which is the smartest option), but if he wanted to bankroll a lower-tier galactico, he could.

If he wanted to do something like that he would need to own the company out right as the other shareholders might be a bit miffed if there profits were being syphoned off to pay for a football club.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, pillred said:

If he's worth 2 billion i would say that 75 million is a drop in the ocean and certainly not a significant part of his fortune that's less than4% of it.

Worth £2b doesn't mean he has £2b.

He will have a wide range of assets providing income sources (and some assets that don't - us), those income generating assets will likely be the majority of his £2b but will also be illiquid and if for example were office's could actually be worth a lot less following the pandemic.

Of course it's all forbs taking an educated guess as well they don't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, pillred said:

If he's worth 2 billion i would say that 75 million is a drop in the ocean and certainly not a significant part of his fortune that's less than4% of it.

Meanwhile, a season ticket next season is around 2.2% of the National Living Wage.... and lots of people on here are proudly stating they won't be buying next season....

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, pillred said:

If he's worth 2 billion i would say that 75 million is a drop in the ocean and certainly not a significant part of his fortune that's less than4% of it.

So if someone took away 4% of your money (including the value of your house etc) you wouldn't even notice as its a drop in the ocean?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mad Cyril said:

Meanwhile, a season ticket next season is around 2.2% of the National Living Wage.... and lots of people on here are proudly stating they won't be buying next season....

Yes proudly is a bit much, but with all the uncertainty you can't really blame people for holding back a bit until we know what's going to happen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ashton_fan said:

So if someone took away 4% of your money (including the value of your house etc) you wouldn't even notice as its a drop in the ocean?

It's all relative, if you don't have much even 4% is a lot to you I would suggest that Steve Lansdown losing £75 million would barely if at all impact on his life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Robert the bruce said:

Get promoted to the Premier League and to the greater extent all this changes...

Food for thought.

I've got a more pessimistic take... 

Covid aside, we could turn a profit as a high end League One club. Or a club that bounces between the two middle divisions with Cup runs, a productive academy and timely but not regular or urgent player sales thrown in.

That's a distinctly less positive side of the coin but with a similar end result.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...