19/20 accounts released

[phantom]

[The Constant Rabbit]

On 20/01/2021 at 22:13, Kid in the Riot said:

You are using the fact that the club, ultimately run by Steve Lansdown, is losing money hand over fist as a reason to defend him? The mind boggles. 

The question is: do you know how much it costs SL to run BCFC in the context of his overall wealth? We have run up a £10m loss in the 19/20 season. SL is worth around £1.72bn. That's 1,720 million pounds, and his wealth is increasing year on year. Suddenly that £10m sounds like a drop in the ocean, doesn't it? 

You are right, he is better than some owners, however his overall achievement at BCFC over the past 20 years versus his investment is well below par. 

Do you seriously think if BCFC went up for sale tomorrow there wouldn't be a healthy list of interested parties? I think there would be. 

Personally, I am at a point where if Steve put the club up for sale tomorrow (and don't worry, he won't be, not for a few years at least) I wouldn't be too disappointed. I'd be willing to "twist" and see where a new owner would take us.

Yes, I would be a bit fearful of what the future would hold, but I'd also be excited. The new owners would likely come from one of three places: the far east, the middle east or America. I realise that would make some uneasy, however there are examples of successful owners from all of those places, and I would trust SL to sell to someone "fit and proper" as opposed to an ill-intentioned person/group. 

Lansdown has put in £200mil since being owner

He's gained over £600 mil in investment dividends in that time.

He hasn't touched a penny of capital - all money spent has been interest on investments (fair play to him)

But that has bought him the ground, 3 teams (4 if you count Womens football) - all the AV land plus offices and homes to sell.

I cannot understand how some still cannot fathom that BCFC is just a tiny bit of the BS and AV venture. It's mind-blowing how so many simply do not understand. The Football was just his toy (it's my money, I'll do as I want) - now he is much more interested in the Bears as they are winners and 1/10th of the cost.

 

Some fans on here still don't even realise City pay rent to Lansdown to play at AG!

 

As for part 2 - USA and China, Will - no M.E. consortium on horizon.

USA in the more advanced position - but Covid is playing havoc with any deal due to the evolving circumstances that affect land and house values, not to mention jobs and entertainment spending money for people. Theres no value in 6 concerts a year at AG if you can't host one for the next 2 years.

I'm thinking the exit plan may be pushed back to 2024 now.

[phantom]

@Kingswood Robin

As per your request earlier this week. 

See post above 

[Cidre Monita]

The real issue will hit this summer. We will , most likely lose Weimann , Hunt, Fam, Patterson, Walsh , Adelakun, Watkins and Baker . You can argue about their playing ability, and yes it would free up a wage bill. However, the cost of replacements (our investment in that group was what ? £15 to 15 M)  are the real issue even if we had a clue about identifying talent. The FFP headroom we have, as detailed above is a false hope, as it does not convey the huge increase in wage bill and the loss of income from lack of sales and matchday of 20/21. Meaning the losses for this season risk being astronomical and wiping out the supposed FFP headroom rather rapidly. As a very rough guess , at least a £20m loss but more likely a  25M loss is coming. So this summer, our building plans for next season, with a need to replace 7 or 8 players (unless we resign some) with minimal funding, well  that looks ripe for a disaster. Of course there are likely to be large numbers of players out of contract , but paying transfer fees of note ? That will not happen.  

To have had all that transfer income and be left with a threadbare squad with few players of any real value is why many, myself included, cannot understand how Ashton still has a job. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

33 minutes ago, Psychopomp said:

The real issue will hit this summer. We will , most likely lose Weimann , Hunt, Fam, Patterson, Walsh , Adelakun, Watkins and Baker . You can argue about their playing ability, and yes it would free up a wage bill. However, the cost of replacements (our investment in that group was what ? £15 to 15 M)  are the real issue even if we had a clue about identifying talent. The FFP headroom we have, as detailed above is a false hope, as it does not convey the huge increase in wage bill and the loss of income from lack of sales and matchday of 20/21. Meaning the losses for this season risk being astronomical and wiping out the supposed FFP headroom rather rapidly. As a very rough guess , at least a £20m loss but more likely a  25M loss is coming. So this summer, our building plans for next season, with a need to replace 7 or 8 players (unless we resign some) with minimal funding, well  that looks ripe for a disaster. Of course there are likely to be large numbers of players out of contract , but paying transfer fees of note ? That will not happen.  

To have had all that transfer income and be left with a threadbare squad with few players of any real value is why many, myself included, cannot understand how Ashton still has a job. 

I'm not quite as pessimistic as you but I fear that things are closing in a bit. However, IF we recruit smartly and in a reasonably astute way financially, I don't think all is lost. It's a hugely important summer ahead though.

There are still variables and lots of them to throw into the mix.

1) As well as wages it will free up amortisation, which although as we know is a non cash expense, nonetheless is an FFP metric.

2) Quite a lot of good free agents within an acceptable, possibly even ideal age range will be available in the Championship this summer.

3) The FFP losses- when you say £20-25m, do you mean for this season in isolation or as a combined average of this and last- because this is how it seems to be getting judged, dunno how it carries into 2021/22 though.

4) Of those losses per season, there is about £4.5-5m excluded it appears.

5) Various losses directly attributable to Covid are also excluded for this and last season, the criteria seems less than clear though.

Cost of sanitising, PPE, testing seems obvious but I'd argue that gate receipts, commercial revenue both on and off matchday should also be applicable!

6) This huge hit will surely drive down wages in the Championship. Could that actually give us an advantage over a lot of Championship clubs going into 2021/22?

Especially if they continue the rolling up of this and last season and our new starting point is the £10m (+ FFP costs) of 2018/19.

Said it elsewhere, don't think all is lost. Mess up this summer however and it might well be!!

I'd argue that the rolling up should stay on the books otherwise, well take us eg. The £25m of 2017/18 sticks around for longer but we wouldn't get to utilise 2018/19 £10m profit in full due to a sudden, arbitrary return to 3 years in 2021/22 ie it wouldn't be the starting point that it should be.

[Kingswood Robin]

41 minutes ago, phantom said:

@Kingswood Robin

As per your request earlier this week. 

See post above 

Very interesting, thanks for pointing it out. As they say, nothings forever.

[Davefevs]

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'm not quite as pessimistic as you but I fear that things are closing in a bit. However, IF we recruit smartly and in a reasonably astute way financially, I don't think all is lost. It's a hugely important summer ahead though.

There are still variables and lots of them to throw into the mix.

1) As well as wages it will free up amortisation, which although as we know is a non cash expense, nonetheless is an FFP metric.

2) Quite a lot of good free agents within an acceptable, possibly even ideal age range will be available in the Championship this summer.

3) The FFP losses- when you say £20-25m, do you mean for this season in isolation or as a combined average of this and last- because this is how it seems to be getting judged, dunno how it carries into 2021/22 though.

4) Of those losses per season, there is about £4.5-5m excluded it appears.

5) Various losses directly attributable to Covid are also excluded for this and last season, the criteria seems less than clear though.

Cost of sanitising, PPE, testing seems obvious but I'd argue that gate receipts, commercial revenue both on and off matchday should also be applicable!

6) This huge hit will surely drive down wages in the Championship. Could that actually give us an advantage over a lot of Championship clubs going into 2021/22?

Especially if they continue the rolling up of this and last season and our new starting point is the £10m (+ FFP costs) of 2018/19.

Said it elsewhere, don't think all is lost. Mess up this summer however and it might well be!!

I'd argue that the rolling up should stay on the books otherwise, well take us eg. The £25m of 2017/18 sticks around for longer but we wouldn't get to utilise 2018/19 £10m profit in full due to a sudden, arbitrary return to 3 years in 2021/22 ie it wouldn't be the starting point that it should be.

That’s where I’m not hopeful at all.

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 hours ago, Davefevs said:

That’s where I’m not hopeful at all.

Maybe that's an oversimplification by me.

If a club can actively demonstrate then they've had to refund X in season tickets, Y in partial rebate for Robins TV (or equivalent channel), maybe that.

Commercially if a club has had to cancel a planned concert eg, scope to demonstrate those losses?

I still think there is a good chance that we would be one of the better placed of the none parachute clubs- only Brentford and for differing reasons, potentially some of Barnsley, Birmingham, Luton, Millwall and Preston might be placed alright.

The smaller clubs due to said smaller budgets, Birmingham due largely to a LOT of profit on disposal from 2018/19 to present. Still a might in all 5.

The flipside is, if it's a deflationary market (it might well be) and we're worrying about our losses we will have a lot of headroom over many clubs, so still might be at an advantage.

Either way, we need to recruit really smartly, with first team, growth and value in mind.

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Maybe that's an oversimplification by me.

If a club can actively demonstrate then they've had to refund X in season tickets, Y in partial rebate for Robins TV (or equivalent channel), maybe that.

Commercially if a club has had to cancel a planned concert eg, scope to demonstrate those losses?

I still think there is a good chance that we would be one of the better placed of the none parachute clubs- only Brentford and for differing reasons, potentially some of Barnsley, Birmingham, Luton, Millwall and Preston might be placed alright.

The smaller clubs due to said smaller budgets, Birmingham due largely to a LOT of profit on disposal from 2018/19 to present. Still a might in all 5.

The flipside is, if it's a deflationary market (it might well be) and we're worrying about our losses we will have a lot of headroom over many clubs, so still might be at an advantage.

Either way, we need to recruit really smartly, with first team, growth and value in mind.

Totally fair response.

My gut feel was if those things were allowable “costs” we’d be doing more than bringing loans back.

But it’s a big unknown isn’t it?

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 22/01/2021 at 17:22, Davefevs said:

Totally fair response.

My gut feel was if those things were allowable “costs” we’d be doing more than bringing loans back.

But it’s a big unknown isn’t it?

Definitely a big unknown- possibly best to err on the side of caution at this stage- and disregarding financials for a second- injuries are bound to turn soon eh. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Thought I'd have a quick look at the other bits- not the P&L but the cash side. Balance sheet too- note the Debtors.

That short term shift from Net Current liabilities to Net current assets feels very timely- within one year at a time of Covid- well done to SL for refinancing! Thank you too.

Increasing debtors and decreasing debtors- again very timely what with Covid!

Depreciation and Amortisation are of course non cash expenses, whereas payables and receivables are Cash Flow and at times Balance Sheet, but not important for P&L. £14.2m NET cash flow from investing activities seems very reasonable. I note Interest rose by about £235k- that's Finance Costs- but finance income seemed to rise by £555k which is handy- no idea if that's a one off gain or whatever.

Again only credit due surely? It goes into it in more depth but external Debtors rising...

...while external Creditors fall! The biggest creditor of all has seen what is due to them very much increase however.

I dread to think how some of our competitors look!

[View from the Dolman]

Swiss Ramble has a thread on our accounts starting here: https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1354331641863413761

 

Swiss Ramble's FFP review suggests an allowance of £2m for last season on COVID Impact so this would suggest to me that things like lost ticket sales are taken into account and it's not purely costs of testing etc (remembering that these accounts only covers through to the end of May and only small group training was permitted for the final few days of May so there'd be very little testing covered in this period)

[Bristol Rob]

Directors remuneration of 143k, who do you think was the beneficiary of that?

[Olé]

15 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Directors remuneration of 143k, who do you think was the beneficiary of that?

At the risk of sounding like I have an agenda by mentioning it again - I don't, I just cross checked this when I saw it too - that isn't footballing remuneration which is in the Bristol City subsidiary, for which the highest paid director (almost certainly CEO - Mark Ashton) is circa £450k. For BC Holdings the only 3 directors are Jon Lansdown, Doug Harman, and Gavin Marshall (who is CFO). As all three are also directors across the subsidiaries (although not DH for AG Ltd) you take your pick on who you think is paid at BC Holdings level. It's possible £143k is just covering an incremental payment to all of them for their duties as directors of BCH. If not, as it seems low for JL, I would make an educated guess it might be the CFO given that BCH is top of the tree from a reporting and compliance perspective.

[BTRFTG]

On 22/01/2021 at 00:11, Psychopomp said:

As a very rough guess , at least a £20m loss but more likely a  25M loss is coming

To hit those numbers we'd have had to have generated £20+ in net transfers - £30m+ in sells.

So who's going for decent money this year?  If Fam holds out we're looking at 'talent' the equivalent of coins down the back of the sofa.

[Hxj]

59 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

 

Swiss Ramble's FFP review suggests an allowance of £2m for last season on COVID Impact so this would suggest to me that things like lost ticket sales are taken into account and it's not purely costs of testing etc

The EFL rules make this clear - 

1.1.7  COVID-19 Costs means lost revenues and/or exceptional costs incurred by a Club that are directly attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and that are identified and calculated in accordance with such guidance as issued by the Board;

[View from the Dolman]

1 minute ago, Hxj said:

The EFL rules make this clear - 

1.1.7  COVID-19 Costs means lost revenues and/or exceptional costs incurred by a Club that are directly attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and that are identified and calculated in accordance with such guidance as issued by the Board;

Yes, I'd always read it to cover such things but I think there was some dispute in another thread that I struggled to find earlier.

[Olé]

I made a point much earlier in this thread (here) about SL always being careful to ensure his investments are reflected in appropriate financial terms because (my theory) that ensures he isn't unfairly diluted if we ever take external investment (i.e. his "cash", where not converted to equity, has the same value as anyone who puts new cash in later - or more simply, a new investor should see no benefit from non-equity investments, i.e. SL gets paid back properly for loans).

On this note, today's Swiss Ramble thread makes an interesting observation that I hadn't appreciated was so unusual versus other clubs - the level of interest that is charged to us on the new consolidated loan SL provides, is high, and where many others charge no interest at all. Again, I'm not raising this to bash SL, quite the opposite, I think it's sensible accounting on SL's part IF we are bringing in additional third party investment. So the question is, are we preparing to?

By way of some context, there is a lot of overseas interest around Championship clubs reported more or less every week, at clubs with a smaller footing than ours (Barnsley, and into the lower divisions). I would be amazed if we're not regularly approached. It also occurs SL may see sharing the burden as a route to success in his lifetime. SL may convert some lending to equity, but ensuring fair terms suggests to me he foresees other investors during the life of the loan?

[BTRFTG]

On 20/01/2021 at 20:18, phantom said:

History never had supporters away from games for over a year.

But there have been years where supporters had to do without games.

In the Great War crowds were down by around 40% for the amended schedule and income severely diminished (everybody was skint and some clubs gave free/reduced admittance to those in uniform or directly supporting the war effort.) 

During the Second World War when football was suspended and the regional leagues created, attendances were initially capped for fear of a visible disaster should a stadium be attacked incurring mass casualties. Fixtures were also held at unusual times, often midweek, early afternoon. The further the war progressed the size of crowds was allowed to increase. Given the whole shebang was for morale boosting purposes and to create just enough revenue and purpose to keep clubs afloat, the Pathe filmed later stages of the War Cup, plus a select few fixtures, were sanctioned to allow full attendance (hence there were MASSIVE crowds,) such cinemas could show a degree of inspirational normalcy. The government took the risk that an attack wouldn't occur, but those vast attendances were the exception, not that archive coverage would lead one to think so.

[BTRFTG]

6 minutes ago, Olé said:

I made a point much earlier in this thread (here) about SL always being careful to ensure his investments are reflected in appropriate financial terms because (my theory) that ensures he isn't unfairly diluted if we ever take external investment (i.e. his "cash", where not converted to equity, has the same value as anyone who puts new cash in later - or more simply, a new investor should see no benefit from non-equity investments, i.e. SL gets paid back properly for loans).

On this note, today's Swiss Ramble thread makes an interesting observation that I hadn't appreciated was so unusual versus other clubs - the level of interest that is charged to us on the new consolidated loan SL provides, is high, and where many others charge no interest at all. Again, I'm not raising this to bash SL, quite the opposite, I think it's sensible accounting on SL's part IF we are bringing in additional third party investment. So the question is, are we preparing to?

By way of some context, there is a lot of overseas interest around Championship clubs reported more or less every week, at clubs with a smaller footing than ours (Barnsley, and into the lower divisions). I would be amazed if we're not regularly approached. It also occurs SL may see sharing the burden as a route to success in his lifetime. SL may convert some lending to equity, but ensuring fair terms suggests to me he foresees other investors during the life of the loan?

I think the reason SL does this (correctly methinks,) is that at some stage when HMRC are not focussed on more pressing matters they'll begin to investigate football loans beyond those Loan Charge arrangements so beloved of Rangers et al (and look where that led them.)

I'm no tax specialist but think demonstrating that loans were on standard commercial terms may make it easier should, later and possibly post SL's demise, they be partially be written-off as irrecoverable. Not taking an 'income' might be argued demonstration they were never designed to be repaid.

[Bristol Rob]

6 minutes ago, Olé said:

I made a point much earlier in this thread (here) about SL always being careful to ensure his investments are reflected in appropriate financial terms because (my theory) that ensures he isn't unfairly diluted if we ever take external investment (i.e. his "cash", where not converted to equity, has the same value as anyone who puts new cash in later - or more simply, a new investor should see no benefit from non-equity investments, i.e. SL gets paid back properly for loans).

On this note, today's Swiss Ramble thread makes an interesting observation that I hadn't appreciated was so unusual versus other clubs - the level of interest that is charged to us on the new consolidated loan SL provides, is high, and where many others charge no interest at all. Again, I'm not raising this to bash SL, quite the opposite, I think it's sensible accounting on SL's part IF we are bringing in additional third party investment. So the question is, are we preparing to?

By way of some context, there is a lot of overseas interest around Championship clubs reported more or less every week, at clubs with a smaller footing than ours (Barnsley, and into the lower divisions). I would be amazed if we're not regularly approached. It also occurs SL may see sharing the burden as a route to success in his lifetime. SL may convert some lending to equity, but ensuring fair terms suggests to me he foresees other investors during the life of the loan?

Reading this makes my spidey-senses tingle slightly, and putting 2+2 together neatly arriving at the number 5, if we (well, SL and Bristol Sport) considering 3rd party investment....

My money would be on investment from the other side of the pond and funding from the States being a possibility.

Rugby is (apparently) a growing sport in the States, the popularity of 'soccer' seems to be only heading in one direction and Basketball already being firmly established, there could be opportunities for loans, tie-ins, sponsorship and who-knows-what with a US partner.

And that's partner without a 'Howdy!' in front of it.

Tis only a guess mind, and nothing more than an initial thought.

Oooh, and we had that Stateside pre season a couple of years back.

[Hxj]

I doubt very much that it has anything to do with tax.  Far more likely that it is part of sensible business practice and the sustainability push.  If want X in funding it will cost you Y in interest, so you need to factor that cost in. It helps those making decisions to work on the real economics and not just say "Steve's got lots of money - I can spend some of it for him".

As to third party investment not sure how that would make any difference in the slightest to the cash available to the group. 

[Lrrr]

38 minutes ago, Olé said:

I made a point much earlier in this thread (here) about SL always being careful to ensure his investments are reflected in appropriate financial terms because (my theory) that ensures he isn't unfairly diluted if we ever take external investment (i.e. his "cash", where not converted to equity, has the same value as anyone who puts new cash in later - or more simply, a new investor should see no benefit from non-equity investments, i.e. SL gets paid back properly for loans).

On this note, today's Swiss Ramble thread makes an interesting observation that I hadn't appreciated was so unusual versus other clubs - the level of interest that is charged to us on the new consolidated loan SL provides, is high, and where many others charge no interest at all. Again, I'm not raising this to bash SL, quite the opposite, I think it's sensible accounting on SL's part IF we are bringing in additional third party investment. So the question is, are we preparing to?

By way of some context, there is a lot of overseas interest around Championship clubs reported more or less every week, at clubs with a smaller footing than ours (Barnsley, and into the lower divisions). I would be amazed if we're not regularly approached. It also occurs SL may see sharing the burden as a route to success in his lifetime. SL may convert some lending to equity, but ensuring fair terms suggests to me he foresees other investors during the life of the loan?

I would assume its a case of Lansdown being aware of how much interest is due on his investment and therefore the investment reflects how much interest he'd get ie puts an extra x amount in knowing 1.138 would be coming back? So don't think it would negatively effect the club. 

Also on your point of outside investors/potential new owners I saw RIchard Scudamore has been appointed to the board of a US company which is looking to invest in European football, another person involved with the company is Billy Beane, no doubt they'd probably want to take over a prem team (Newcastle looks like it would be all but perfect for them) but with Scudamore being a City fan he'd be well aware of the potential of the club, especially if we got to the premier league.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Olé said:

At the risk of sounding like I have an agenda by mentioning it again - I don't, I just cross checked this when I saw it too - that isn't footballing remuneration which is in the Bristol City subsidiary, for which the highest paid director (almost certainly CEO - Mark Ashton) is circa £450k. For BC Holdings the only 3 directors are Jon Lansdown, Doug Harman, and Gavin Marshall (who is CFO). As all three are also directors across the subsidiaries (although not DH for AG Ltd) you take your pick on who you think is paid at BC Holdings level. It's possible £143k is just covering an incremental payment to all of them for their duties as directors of BCH. If not, as it seems low for JL, I would make an educated guess it might be the CFO given that BCH is top of the tree from a reporting and compliance perspective.

I’m waiting for the individual Football club and Stadium accounts to be published.  And Bristol Sport too, to see if we’ve moved some “costs”.  

[Cidre Monita]

3 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

To hit those numbers we'd have had to have generated £20+ in net transfers - £30m+ in sells.

So who's going for decent money this year?  If Fam holds out we're looking at 'talent' the equivalent of coins down the back of the sofa.

I was being generous, and agree. There is no income from transfers, and the wage bill has got out of control. They will need to dump all of the OOC players this summer. I doubt we can afford to keep Fam anyway and they would really love a last minute offer. Sheffield United, 2 or 3 million, worth a gamble in their situation. We would have to take it. The summer will be free transfers and youth players. Same for all apart from parachute payment clubs. No wonder they want a salary cap of 18M . 

[BTRFTG]

23 minutes ago, Psychopomp said:

No wonder they want a salary cap of 18M . 

'They' didn't include City. I listened to Lansdown bring interviewed about both rugby and football wage caps and he was one of the exceptions against them. In Rugby he was one of two leading advocates to scupper plans. His attitude was 'the market prevails' and 'if I agree a contract I intend to see it through.'

Whilst it may have worked for him in egg-chasing it certainly hasn't with City.

[Davefevs]

40 minutes ago, Psychopomp said:

I was being generous, and agree. There is no income from transfers, and the wage bill has got out of control. They will need to dump all of the OOC players this summer. I doubt we can afford to keep Fam anyway and they would really love a last minute offer. Sheffield United, 2 or 3 million, worth a gamble in their situation. We would have to take it. The summer will be free transfers and youth players. Same for all apart from parachute payment clubs. No wonder they want a salary cap of 18M . 

I think that is what MA is hoping.

[Bristol Rob]

7 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

His attitude was 'the market prevails' and 'if I agree a contract I intend to see it through.'

Whilst it may have worked for him in egg-chasing it certainly hasn't with City.

He probably has a very different view to a lot of rugby club owners, if he agrees to paying a rugby player 100k a year even if they only achieve 'average' form and stats, compared to a footballer who might earn the same in a month, there is value in them egg chasers!

[Cidre Monita]

32 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

'They' didn't include City. I listened to Lansdown bring interviewed about both rugby and football wage caps and he was one of the exceptions against them. In Rugby he was one of two leading advocates to scupper plans. His attitude was 'the market prevails' and 'if I agree a contract I intend to see it through.'

Whilst it may have worked for him in egg-chasing it certainly hasn't with City.

Must have changed their mind. City "wholeheartedly support " a wage cap

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/bristol-city-ceo-claims-championship-4550108

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, Psychopomp said:

Must have changed their mind. City "wholeheartedly support " a wage cap

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/bristol-city-ceo-claims-championship-4550108

Doesn't say what he means by 'support'.  To reference what has already occured in egg-chasing: Lansdown (City or his puppet Ashton) wasn't opposed to a wage-cap per se, rather was opposed to any common cap (as per NFL annual limits) or any cap linked to turnover/profit (as demonstrated elsewhere clubs turnover may be easily and temporarily adjusted to suit. If prize monies are taken into consideration it also means the strong thrive and the weak struggle.) Quite how any cap would be defined God only knows?

More importantly he thought there should be exceptions:

All existing contracts should be honoured in full and exempt from caps;

There should be a number of exceptional exemptions for certain types of talent (perhaps each club having 2-3 marquee players who could be paid any amount;)

Being a good accountant (and like the NFL,) there were also many proposals for forms of deferred payment (mainly pensions) to be exempt from annual caps - ie the policy cost of providing future contingency for a player's nominated pension might be incurred as a business rather than individually allocated expense, players being liable for any tax as benefits arise.

So whilst he might see the longer term benefit in controlling wages he wasn't prepared to sign up to any proposal now. He also sussed that the Bears were in a much better position to exploit 'turnover caps' than City who had long since missed the boat.