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

IGNORED

19/20 accounts released


Recommended Posts

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 post
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 post
Share on other sites

What I always find staggering is people who say Lansdown can afford it etc but in the next breath moan about the delay in say a refund for a missed game on their season ticket.  The same people who moan about the price of the 4 games advertised from Boxing Day and January as it was a few pound more than the cost per game of their ST.

Whilst he’s a billionaire it’s all relative, so a few million is a few pounds to everyone else yet there is a small core who expect SL to fund the club.  The infrastructure seems too heavy as do the number of players we have collected over the last years that bloated our squad, so a big restructure is necessary to reduce overheads.

I dread to see finances for 20/21 but you know it won’t be me or you funding the massive loss that is inevitable !

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Nobody does. But you know that.

And this isn't outraged entitlement btw. Just recognising the plain facts of the matter.

I do not pretend to know anything about SL's personal wealth or how he spends it. What I am sure of is that an individuals nett wealth is a completely different thing and some need to understand that.

As is the same with everyone on here my own nett wealth is much different to my funds at hand to finance various ideas.

A person may own property etc worth £500k but it doesn't mean they have £500k to go out and spend.

Neither should we expect entitlement as to how SL spends his money.

Edited by BigTone
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really sure why people get so concerned over this? A lot may criticise some of his football decisions but as a businessman I don’t think anyone here can criticise. Looking at some other clubs and their owners, I think we are laughing. As long as he is in charge I won’t get too concerned over the club’s finances.

I would leave it to SL.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Olé said:

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??! 😕

Thanks for explaining it all.

 

Those other operating expenses at £15m seem massive in relation to our turnover.

With most businesses staff wages are around 80% of total costs. 

Do they ever break down what the "other operating expenses are?"

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, BigTone said:

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.

I think people forget, that Bristol Sport will also count as an asset towards SL's actual wealth.

His investment in the organisation is through either the purchase or reissue of shares. 

Thus we would probably show on his balance sheet as being a £100m+ asset.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

Does anyone even know if Ashton does go out there and sign players for the manager? 

He obviously negotiates the deals, but does he really go out and choose who the manager will have for the season.

He’s in charge and heads up recruitment. He brought in Palmer, szmodics , adelukan , all in one window . No joined up thinking . Players LJ obviously didn’t want because he didn’t play them . Imo the manager should always choose the players but it’s not the modern way and I’m not sure LJ chose many . Buck stops with Ashton 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, BigTone said:

I do not pretend to know anything about SL's personal wealth or how he spends it. What I am sure of is that an individuals nett wealth is a completely different thing and some need to understand that.

As is the same with everyone on here my own nett wealth is much different to my funds at hand to finance various ideas.

A person may own property etc worth £500k but it doesn't mean they have £500k to go out and spend.

Neither should we expect entitlement as to how SL spends his money.

I don’t think comparing OTIB’ers and SL’s net wealth percentage is a fair comparison. For an average person,  who owns a house, the house as a percentage value of their total wealth will be high. This applies to me as my total wealth might seem to be high, but most of it is tied up in my house. Unless I sell and move to a cheaper house I can’t access this money  


I haven’t a clue of the value of SL house on Guernsey, but let’s say it’s £10m. As his total wealth is reported to be somewhere in the region of two billion pounds, the amount tied up in his house is minuscule. He must have some investments which are difficult to liquidate quickly but he also has a few million which is very easy to liquidate - eg the Hargreaves Lansdown shares he sells on a regular basis. 
 

I do agree with your last sentence. SL can spend his money anyway he likes. 

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

Under an empty stadium the FA pays out how exactly ?

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?

 

57 minutes ago, Olé said:

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??! 😕

I’m gonna try and map each player bought and sold into the published accounts.  My data is pretty darned close, so comfortable I can explain it better....

....at some point.

I’m sat reading Kieran Maguire’s price of football book, trying to answer 🤣

F4063B66-3E14-49C0-9C63-F93ED00AE056.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Olé said:

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??! 😕

The trick here is that the amortisation you refer to of £14.5 million includes all amortisation, including that on fixed assets such as the stadium of about £2.9 million.  The depreciation on player contracts is about £11.1 million.

The £11.1 million is the difference between the Profit on Player Contracts and the Player Trading Profit

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, pongo88 said:

I don’t think comparing OTIB’ers and SL’s net wealth percentage is a fair comparison. For an average person,  who owns a house, the house as a percentage value of their total wealth will be high. This applies to me as my total wealth might seem to be high, but most of it is tied up in my house. Unless I sell and move to a cheaper house I can’t access this money  


I haven’t a clue of the value of SL house on Guernsey, but let’s say it’s £10m. As his total wealth is reported to be somewhere in the region of two billion pounds, the amount tied up in his house is minuscule. He must have some investments which are difficult to liquidate quickly but he also has a few million which is very easy to liquidate - eg the Hargreaves Lansdown shares he sells on a regular basis. 
 

I do agree with your last sentence. SL can spend his money anyway he likes. 

But we must also remember if he has money in shares they can be worth millions today and zero tomorrow. Nett worth is not a good reflection on personal wealth. 

Branson for example is allegedly worth circa $4bn but still had to put up Necker as collateral and find a backer to help bail out Virgin.

Trump is apparently worth similar but is allegedly pissing his Y-fronts while one of his bankers are trying to call in $220m in loans that he guaranteed personally.

Edited by BigTone
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alex_BCFC said:

Ya

I wouldn't expect to see AG sold out anytime this season or even next. Covid has put paid to that IMO.

I don't see any kind of normality returning until 2023 by which time football will be turned on its head from what we all accepted in the past as being the norm. Many clubs will be dead and buried.

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

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.

I think that the FFP are distinctly better that you paint them.

The 'to be added back depreciaton' on the fixed assets was £2.8 million, £2.9 million and £2.8 million across the three years, I suspect that the FFP adjustment is nearer £6 million rather than £3 million.  The 2020 figures will also include a signifcant Covid Adjustment, my rough number is £4 million.

So I get FFP figures of:

2017/18 -£19 million

2018/19 +£16 million

2019/20 nil.

2020/21  headroom £72 million.  (£72 million+ nil)/2 + 16 million - 19 million = 39 million.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, derkow said:

£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..

So they've written down 14 million for that this year because I am talking about depreciation and amortization?

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

I wouldn't expect to see AG sold out anytime this season or even next. Covid has put paid to that IMO.

I don't see any kind of normality returning until 2023 by which time football will be turned on its head from what we all accepted in the past as being the norm. Many clubs will be dead and buried.

That's a very sad and sobering thought Tone. I hope you are very wrong.

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

I wouldn't expect to see AG sold out anytime this season or even next. Covid has put paid to that IMO.

I don't see any kind of normality returning until 2023 by which time football will be turned on its head from what we all accepted in the past as being the norm. Many clubs will be dead and buried.

I said fans will flock back when city start winning and we are allowed to go.

Normality has to come much sooner than 2023 and will do with the vaccine being done at the pace it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The trick here is that the amortisation you refer to of £14.5 million includes all amortisation, including that on fixed assets such as the stadium of about £2.9 million.  The depreciation on player contracts is about £11.1 million.

The £11.1 million is the difference between the Profit on Player Contracts and the Player Trading Profit

So, would you class our losses without selling players at £34m or £23m?

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

I said fans will flock back when city start winning and we are allowed to go.

Normality has to come much sooner than 2023 and will do with the vaccine being done at the pace it is.

Jim The Office GIFs | Tenor

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

I said fans will flock back when city start winning and we are allowed to go.

Normality has to come much sooner than 2023 and will do with the vaccine being done at the pace it is.

Circa 68m people in UK. About 3m vaccinated so far. Leaves 65m left. Currently vaccinated approx 1m per week so 65 weeks until all done. Even increasing that 3 fold then approx 22 weeks until complete. Then factor in the people ready for 2nd vaccination then increase again by 50% until complete. That brings us towards the end of this year or into 2022.

Now doubts are being cast over the Pfizer vaccine (for example) so maybe not all that we expect. This is going to rumble on for a good while yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, BigTone said:

Circa 68m people in UK. About 3m vaccinated so far. Leaves 65m left. Currently vaccinated approx 1m per week so 65 weeks until all done. Even increasing that 3 fold then approx 22 weeks until complete. Then factor in the people ready for 2nd vaccination then increase again by 50% until complete. That brings us towards the end of this year or into 2022.

Now doubts are being cast over the Pfizer vaccine (for example) so maybe not all that we expect. This is going to rumble on for a good while yet.

Not everyone needs to be vaccinated. Once everyone above 50 and vulnerable groups are done then normality will start to come as hospitalisations and deaths should be very low by then.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alex_BCFC said:

Not everyone needs to be vaccinated. Once everyone above 50 and vulnerable groups are done then normality will start to come as hospitalisations and deaths should be very low by then.

Let's wait and see then

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...