Jump to content
IGNORED

19/20 accounts released


Fordy62

Recommended Posts

Just now, JonDolman said:

I don't think our recruitment has been anywhere near as bad as what people say.

Whatever the reason our players get injured is the biggest problem we have imo.

I think we have a really strong squad if we didnt have so many injuries

Yep... really strong squad... they just don’t play well for some reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BigTone said:

He might be worth £1.7bn but that is paper money and is tied up in the value of several enterprises. He can't go and draw that much cash on his debit card.

He sold up £260m of his H&L shares last year, so that is cash ready to go, much of it on the development costs at the Sporting Quarter and Ashton Vale. Plus undoubtedly a fair bit on City/Bears. He's doing alright. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
4 hours ago, Hxj said:

Maybe you could ring round that healthy list looking for someone with a spare £200 million or so to give away to fund your dream?

You and many others would probably be surprised with the talks going on in the background about our club

In some circles it is common knowledge that there would have been movement had Covid not kicked in around the globe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lrrr said:

@Davefevs @Mr Popodopolous Anything to stop Lansdown renaming Ashton Gate 'Pula Ashton Gate' on a 1/2 year deal as long as the value of the deal was a realistic amount for naming rights per season? As much as some fans would detest the idea, its perhaps one of the more realistic ways of reducing losses over the next 12/18 months?

Subject to fair value regs.

There are lots of avenues. Stadium is one.

Individual naming rights of stands feels another. SL has many companies/business interests.

Training ground another, I wonder what club assets would also be applicable.

Would it be a game changer? I'd suggest not. Would it help? Of course! It all helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mozo said:

The Millwall game is really important for us, particularly seeing as we're not looking like a good bet for the playoffs.

Under an empty stadium the FA pays out how exactly ?

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Based on these numbers we actually need to make a “transfer profit” of £35m to break even.  This year we made £25m, but still lost £9m ???

Plenty of sobering negative numbers in that P&L account. Not least the near 14 Million, up on 10 million, for depreciation and amortization. Those would not be related to the new training ground. That's a huge annual write down. Are we talking a mixture of bricks and mortar and player assets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, BigTone said:

He might be worth £1.7bn but that is paper money and is tied up in the value of several enterprises. He can't go and draw that much cash on his debit card.

The dividends his investments pay out to him every year are probably more than you or I will earn in a lifetime, never mind the shareholdings he's able to cash in.

Money begets money. If anyone knows that, it's a bloke like Lansdown. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess this is the risk of the ‘sell to balance the books and reinvest’ model. If the recruitment goes wrong, or that next pool of talent isn’t there, then you’ve spent beyond your means and the player sales aren’t there to plug those gaps anymore. 
So imagine we kept Bobby and Joe, at the risk of their contracts running down, sold Flint and replaced with Webster. That would have been a team ready for a real go at promotion. The club goes into the Prem and with frugal spending theres 100m in the coffers and three seasons of parachute payments. Plus you likely convince Bobby and Joe to sign new contracts. 
Both approaches have risk/reward and I’d argue you need a mix of the two to be successful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really read the accounts in full but on one level they're better than I feared.

However a £10m loss despite that hefty profit on transfers.

Not looked at anything beyond the Headline figures yet- makes me think that summer 2019 was the beginning of a big 2 year push, window for promotion with only incremental changes in the subsequent period.

Assuming allowable costs remain at £3m per season, a very brief calculation:

Accounts (FFP) 

2017/18- £25m loss (£22m) 

2018/19- £10m profit (£13m) 

2019/20- £10m loss (-£7m)

No Covid and we're good to go, with maybe some strengthening of team or maybe moreso manager that many wanted in summer.

However we have to factor in a) The major transfer profit in the last two seasons.

b) That 2017/18 loss still remains on the books.

c) Last and this season are added and then halved.

Do wonder whether we might be walking the line a bit for this season only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Dredd said:

I guess this is the risk of the ‘sell to balance the books and reinvest’ model. If the recruitment goes wrong, or that next pool of talent isn’t there, then you’ve spent beyond your means and the player sales aren’t there to plug those gaps anymore. 
So imagine we kept Bobby and Joe, at the risk of their contracts running down, sold Flint and replaced with Webster. That would have been a team ready for a real go at promotion. The club goes into the Prem and with frugal spending theres 100m in the coffers and three seasons of parachute payments. Plus you likely convince Bobby and Joe to sign new contracts. 
Both approaches have risk/reward and I’d argue you need a mix of the two to be successful. 

If we'd kept those players at that time then we would have failed FFP by my calculations, and EFL do have in-season assessments available.

Perhaps we could have sold some of them in January but..only 6 months on deal.

Having said that, in your counterfactual how many of:

Maenpaa, Watkins, Adelakun, Weimann- plus Kalas and DaSilva, latterly in January Palmer, on loan do we sign? 

EFL do have past, present and future monitoring at their disposal. This can absolutely restrict inbound transfer activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 But I’d need an accountant to tell why Player Trading is one figure and transfer profit another.

All I do know is that it’s a bloody big loss W/o selling players.

"Player trading" includes the amortisation of player contracts - rather than the full transfer cost - as well as profits.

Eg. we sign Tomas Kalas for c£8m on a 4 year deal - the amortisation each year is £2m.

We'd have still had some of that cost this year even if we signed no-one, based on the signings from earlier years. Probably around £6m of the £11m relates to 19/20 signings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

I don't think our recruitment has been anywhere near as bad as what people say.

Whatever the reason our players get injured is the biggest problem we have imo.

I think we have a really strong squad if we didnt have so many injuries

I don’t expect the club to get every signing right . There’s always been a risk. However , if you went through every signing since ashtons been at the club . You have to say it’s been a failure 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, havanatopia said:

Plenty of sobering negative numbers in that P&L account. Not least the near 14 Million, up on 10 million, for depreciation and amortization. Those would not be related to the new training ground. That's a huge annual write down. Are we talking a mixture of bricks and mortar and player assets?

£11m is player assets / £3m is the physical assets

Big increase is due to the signings that year (Kalas, HNM, Wells, Palmer, Bentley, Dasilva, Nagy) - total of £26m spent..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

Yep... really strong squad... they just don’t play well for some reason. 

Think recruitment has been a mixed bag personally, but that aside. 

Probably a variety of factors. Utilisation of players isn't the best at times, and of course injuries this season, well check the injury thread it's been beyond farcical even factoring in Covid! 

From my rough calculations, we've had an average of 6-7 players out injured per League game from Day 1 so far this season! 

Not only does it deny quality, but it also wears down players, removes a vital ability to rest and rotate- think Martin eg is one who has had to be overplayed due to this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

He sold up £260m of his H&L shares last year, so that is cash ready to go, much of it on the development costs at the Sporting Quarter and Ashton Vale. Plus undoubtedly a fair bit on City/Bears. He's doing alright. 

He did, but it doesn't mean that is now sitting in his current account now does it. You are so substantially ITK that you know SL's full financial details ? With all due respect, you do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

The dividends his investments pay out to him every year are probably more than you or I will earn in a lifetime, never mind the shareholdings he's able to cash in.

Money begets money. If anyone knows that, it's a bloke like Lansdown. 

And maybe, just maybe he has other interests he needs to finance. Why does everyone think his only interest is BCFC ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Spoons said:

We need to do a derby and Sheffield Wednesday...... Sell our ground to are holding company for £££££

Selling to the holding company merely adjusts out the gain on consolidation. Or should. 

A new property company however...could call it Bristol City FC Properties Limited. However I wonder if the EFL are now so receptive to such creative solutions? It's unclear!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

He sold up £260m of his H&L shares last year, so that is cash ready to go, much of it on the development costs at the Sporting Quarter and Ashton Vale. Plus undoubtedly a fair bit on City/Bears. He's doing alright. 

Don't forget his golf hotel rebuild on Gurnsey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

I don’t expect the club to get every signing right . There’s always been a risk. However , if you went through every signing since ashtons been at the club . You have to say it’s been a failure 

especially when you think Kodjia (signed by Cotts, before him), Flint (here before him), Bryan (academy), Reid (academy), Kelly (academy), Webster (LJ publicly chose him), Brownhill (LJ's man) are all the big money sells or 'trades' - none of them were MA's men

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, petehinton said:

especially when you think Kodjia (signed by Cotts, before him), Flint (here before him), Bryan (academy), Reid (academy), Kelly (academy), Webster (LJ publicly chose him), Brownhill (LJ's man) are all the big money sells or 'trades' - none of them were MA's men

Just wait until we sell COD for £10milion to one of the big boys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Now you're being silly. I am simply putting the losses the club makes in the context of Steve's wealth. 

Some more context for you, his wealth has increased by around £500m since 2015. These are numbers that bring him unimaginable wealth in comparison to most of us. He could give away 75% of his wealth and still afford to run City. 

Its got nothing to do with his wealth and what proportion he puts in to fund the club, its about the losses. Yes £10 million or more may be small in comparison to his wealth, but its a lot of money and not many people are willing to or can afford to write that off every year to keep the club afloat (particularly some investor who has no affiliation to the club and will look for a return).

Its always easy to jump on the bandwagon and knock what someone else has done and even easier with hindsight, but worse to base it upon so called "facts" given in a forum, which at times even if they have a small amount of truth will not reflect the bigger picture.

I am very grateful we have an owner like SL and long may he keep trying to progress the club

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

The dividends his investments pay out to him every year are probably more than you or I will earn in a lifetime, never mind the shareholdings he's able to cash in.

Money begets money. If anyone knows that, it's a bloke like Lansdown. 

£85m in dividends last year I believe. 

18 minutes ago, BigTone said:

He did, but it doesn't mean that is now sitting in his current account now does it. You are so substantially ITK that you know SL's full financial details ? With all due respect, you do not.

I didn't say the funds were in a current account, they might be, who knows? The point is he has hundreds of millions readily available to spend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kid in the Riot said:

£85m in dividends last year I believe. 

I didn't say the funds were in a current account, they might be, who knows? The point is he has hundreds of millions readily available to spend. 

You know this for sure ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Olé said:

True - I may be misreading how they allocate things. I use the loss excluding player trading as a shortcut to calculate, as the £35M operating losses line seems to include amortisation expense which is also broken out in the player trading number. As I'm assuming no transfer activity I'm using the loss excluding player trading to deal only with economics of running the club. 

You might have a point that even prior transfers will still be carrying cost of amortisation into 20-21, in which case yes, £35 would be a best case.

Well yes, I assume that transfer fees are amortised over the length of the contract (just guessing) so will continue at similar levels. And of course if we have bought players for fees but sold none, or less, then transfer fees could be negative rather than neutral, aside from what I expect will be increased day to day losses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

In fairness Rob, this is the bit I never can quite understand, but the difference £11,125,274 is shown in point 12....

49ED6805-847D-4771-9D66-5096C84900B4.thumb.jpeg.e04e9512872ae82f0287c7a57992d4cc.jpeg

in effect, had we not sold those players was our loss was £34m....is that not right?  But I’d need an accountant to tell why Player Trading is one figure and transfer profit another.

Same thing I was wrestling with! I think the difference is the £34m loss includes amortisation (c. £14m) three lines above, which I believe is where player purchases are reflected on a linear rather than one-off basis.

In other words the £25m player sales is offset by a large chunk of that amortisation cost, to get to the equivalent £14m net player trading gain in the lower line. Yes if we didn't sell those players our loss is £34m, but if we also didn't have the level of new player acquisition hitting amortisation, we also wouldn't have a large chunk of £12-13m costs too.

Again, all of this is why I used the "excluding player trading" lines to isolate the non-transfer P&L without having to figure out how transfer revenues and costs are included above - and those lines imply £20m non-transfer operating loss??! ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

I do. His development projects are going to cost a lot of money - tens of millions - so he needs the cash to be fair. 

Maybe he is using bank money for this. Can you 100% say he isn't ? A person's net worth is completely different to what they can put their hands on in ready funds. Ask Branson or Trump for confirmation of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...