Robert Atkinson - Now Signed (Merged)

[kidjupiter]

6 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

There is also the possibility that we sell players like maybe Bentley, Nagy, Semenyo which would help fund transfers.

Although obviously that means we'll have more players to replace.

[Redrascal2]

1 hour ago, JoeAman08 said:

We are in serious trouble if we can’t pay 2m for top L1 performers. That is the discounted covid price too. They sold dickie for closer to 2.5m and I hear at least the fans rate Atkinson more. It would be seriously disappointing if we miss out on an Atkinson when we have been signing players like Palmer, Wells and Kalas for 3m, 5m and 8m over the past couple seasons. 

Agreed and it would put in to question what financial backing that Pearson has been given for a major rebuild of the squad.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, Redrascal2 said:

Agreed and it would put in to question what financial backing that Pearson has been given for a major rebuild of the squad.

By my reckoning, we could make an Accounting Loss of up to £38m this coming season and remaim compliant. Albeit issues going into 2022/23, a £20-40m hole.

Subject to the obvious caveats of how the FFP rules will look. If it suddenly reverts back to normal then off the top of my head we, Middlesbrough, Brentford had they stayed down will have been adversely impacted not once but twice. Maybe Preston as well but not sure which year they made a Profit.

All would have kept 2017/18 losses on the books last season, with the rollup imposing some restraint but it that drops off going into 2021/22, that £10m Profit plus Allowables would disappear into the ether.

SL could be hedging though I believe that for any of the listed clubs impacted in this way, it'd be grossly unfair. Iniquitous, especially as it'd be through Player Sales not dodgy Asset Sales.

[Mr Popodopolous]

As for this, if we can't or won't pay £2m for Atkinson, that's not a good sign. Not like he'd command huge wages either.

[Davefevs]

15 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

By my reckoning, we could make an Accounting Loss of up to £38m this coming season and remaim compliant. Albeit issues going into 2022/23, a £20-40m hole.

Subject to the obvious caveats of how the FFP rules will look. If it suddenly reverts back to normal then off the top of my head we, Middlesbrough, Brentford had they stayed down will have been adversely impacted not once but twice. Maybe Preston as well but not sure which year they made a Profit.

All would have kept 2017/18 losses on the books last season, with the rollup imposing some restraint but it that drops off going into 2021/22, that £10m Profit plus Allowables would disappear into the ether.

SL could be hedging though I believe that for any of the listed clubs impacted in this way, it'd be grossly unfair. Iniquitous, especially as it'd be through Player Sales not dodgy Asset Sales.

How much of a loss do you think we are making for 20/21 season?  25m?

I agree we have headroom, but as you say:

19-20: £7.4m loss

20-21: £25m loss

21-22: without any transfer business another £15-20m loss?

With FFP allowances, pretty much on the £39m limit.

When 19-20 runs off, 22-23 looks bleak.

Hence why I don’t think we will be pushing the boat out this summer.  Back to basics.

[NcnsBcfc]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

How much of a loss do you think we are making for 20/21 season?  25m?

I agree we have headroom, but as you say:

19-20: £7.4m loss

20-21: £25m loss

21-22: without any transfer business another £15-20m loss?

With FFP allowances, pretty much on the £39m limit.

When 19-20 runs off, 22-23 looks bleak.

Hence why I don’t think we will be pushing the boat out this summer.  Back to basics.

I'm confused about how much the EFL are allowing losses wise due to COVID.

It's not just the match day income that is affected. All commercial activities outside of match day have been similarly affected in relation to the use of Ashton Gate. 

In addition of course, the transfer market was in essence shut for long periods of time, due to lockdowns; and social distancing.

Surely the EFL can't realistically be using the losses from the 20-21 season in their estimations towards the 3 year limit? If that was the case, I doubt there would be many clubs in the division that would not breach the £39m limit over those 3 seasons.

[BLRed]

Saw a twitter rumour this evening that Nagy is close to heading back to Italy with Empoli. If so, that should provide some good funds. Especially if he has a good tournament

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, NcnsBcfc said:

I'm confused about how much the EFL are allowing losses wise due to COVID.

It's not just the match day income that is affected. All commercial activities outside of match day have been similarly affected in relation to the use of Ashton Gate. 

In addition of course, the transfer market was in essence shut for long periods of time, due to lockdowns; and social distancing.

Surely the EFL can't realistically be using the losses from the 20-21 season in their estimations towards the 3 year limit? If that was the case, I doubt there would be many clubs in the division that would not breach the £39m limit over those 3 seasons.

Thanks to diligence of @Mr Popodopolousin interpreting the rules, then yes, EFL are basically allowing 19/20 and 20/21 to be used together in a 4 year submission including 17/18 and 18/19.  Although there are COVID allowances, we don’t know how far they reach, and can only be used once.

My figures above take us past last season, and into the next 3 year FFP cycle 19/20, 20/21 and the the upcoming season 21/22.

Clubs should’ve been cutting their cloth accordingly last season.  That was why the EFL agreed to the “4 years in 3 change” to give clubs a bit of time (an extra year) to get their house in order.  Some were well managed and will be in a strong position going into this summer.  Some appear to have ignored it.

[BLRed]

23 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Thanks to diligence of @Mr Popodopolousin interpreting the rules, then yes, EFL are basically allowing 19/20 and 20/21 to be used together in a 4 year submission including 17/18 and 18/19.  Although there are COVID allowances, we don’t know how far they reach, and can only be used once.

My figures above take us past last season, and into the next 3 year FFP cycle 19/20, 20/21 and the the upcoming season 21/22.

Clubs should’ve been cutting their cloth accordingly last season.  That was why the EFL agreed to the “4 years in 3 change” to give clubs a bit of time (an extra year) to get their house in order.  Some were well managed and will be in a strong position going into this summer.  Some appear to have ignored it.

Here’s the question. We’re we well managed and are we one of the ones in a strong position going into the summer?

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, BOSRed said:

Here’s the question. We’re we well managed and are we one of the ones in a strong position going into the summer?

Put it this way I’ve been worried about the finances for 3 years and performances for 2.  We aren’t too bad, imho, but we should’ve been in such a stronger position than we are.

[Davefevs]

26 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

Holden was allowed to bring in Mawson who is on 32k a week. Pearson has recently released Baker who was on about 20k a week. So i'd be surprised if Pearson is not allowed to spend a couple of million for a player who might be on about 8k a week.

Not sure if we paid all of Mawson's wage, but he wouldn't have been cheap.

It’s not just a netting off of one players’ salary versus another or saying we’ve freed up £x million.  Mawson would’ve been brought in with expectation of crowds being back in October…that was the hope last August. Budgets / forecasts change.  Even with 11 players released we still have a cost base £20-25 over revenue.

Don’t get me wrong, I think there is some flexibility there, but it might not be as obvious as we think. You hear things like “we’ve got a £x million war chest” for example.  It doesn’t really work like that.  Club will have month by month budget plans, and will monitor and react as an when things change.  That could be a player leaving.

[BLRed]

What I don’t get is clubs like Sunderland in a lower division able to spend 2 mill on a player like Sanderson yet we apparently can’t stretch to that much for a League one player...

do the league below have zero financial restrictions?

[bpexile]

On 27/05/2021 at 00:27, Dynamite Red said:

I would avoid loan players if we can, we need to build solid foundations and a team bond. Recruit players who are on board with the project long term.

Lets take some gambles on talented young players but also add some experience. We can look at the loan market later if still struggling. 

Agreed but imo with the exception of them being known to NP from his previous & that they arrive with an option to buy.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

How much of a loss do you think we are making for 20/21 season?  25m?

I agree we have headroom, but as you say:

19-20: £7.4m loss

20-21: £25m loss

21-22: without any transfer business another £15-20m loss?

With FFP allowances, pretty much on the £39m limit.

When 19-20 runs off, 22-23 looks bleak.

Hence why I don’t think we will be pushing the boat out this summer.  Back to basics.

More like £30-35m- talking the basic Accounting loss before taking off P&S Allowances but also that is me including the estimated £5m in FFP costs- if it's £25m then I'd have overshot and that'd be better still!

That's before Covid Costs. Something like: £30-35m-£5m + Covid Allowances- I'd argue we could put a lot in, e.g. Ticket Revenue which is universal but also the Corporate Stuff- we've surely had to put off a lot of events. Other clubs will be in the same boat of course but we were one of the better Championship regulars for this side of it.

Absolutely, 2022/23 would be a major problem if we gambled and failed- am just making the point that in theory if we thought we could do it in one, we could spend rather a lot. However like you, I don't think SL and NP would see that as the way to go.

[BLRed]

Well if we have the ability to spend a lot, that surely at least gives us room to make 2-3 quality signings amongst other frees to enable some sort of immediate impact without breaking the bank should we not get promoted.

im thinking the type of signing like Toney that cost 6 mill whereby one Good season could see him sold for 35mill. There must be a signing or two out there like that we should take the risk on?

[JoeAman08]

7 hours ago, SnozRobin said:

Out of interest, what do you think our asking price would be for Taylor Moore or Zak Vyner in the current market? Wouldn’t think it’d be as much as £2m despite more championship experience than Atkinson. I get we would be paying for potential but...

 

Feels to me like £2m is too much on a league one centre back.

Taylor Moore wouldn’t fetch much but he hasn’t just played a full season at L1 level for a playoff side. 
 

Vyner is tougher because he hasn’t bailed down a position. I think both aren’t great examples but I don’t have any alternatives. 
 

What I would say is 2m would be a top 50(45-50 range) transfer for a L1 club. So not really noteworthy. Examples of CB leaving in the 2-3m range from L1 clubs are Konsa, Dickie, Holding, Harry Maguire and Matt Clarke. Think all worth a lot more than the 2-3m paid for them. The only meh I could find in there was Paddy McNair and he is at least a solid championship player. 
 

I feel as a fanbase we are led to believe the lower league players are a high risk investment. We have been burned but at the same time, how many times was it the player’s fault? Szmodics, Eisa and Adelakun all weren’t given a fair chance for a good role in this club. Most other clubs use the players they invest in. That is why they reap the rewards. If you have a look at the top league one transfers of all time, there aren’t a lot of duds in there. An exceptional player there will likely be a good to exceptional player in the championship. 
 

 

[Davefevs]

55 minutes ago, BOSRed said:

What I don’t get is clubs like Sunderland in a lower division able to spend 2 mill on a player like Sanderson yet we apparently can’t stretch to that much for a League one player...

do the league below have zero financial restrictions?

Because they’ve only recently lost parachute payments, and over the past 2 years haven’t made huge losses.  Importantly their costs are lower than ours and their income more.

Sunderland income: £29m Costs: £31m (plus some others ins and outs)

Basically they got their cost base under relative control.

Bristol City income: £27.9m Costs: £62.6m

Cost base out of control, bailed out by selling players.  We no longer have much left to sell, nor at the value of previous sales.

Shocking really.

Profitability and Sustainability (FFP) is slightly different in Lg1/2, and recently introduced salary cap, bombed out.

So, that’s how.

40 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

I don't know anything about the clubs budgets but after releasing well over 100k a week in wages of players, I'd be surprised if Nige is not backed to bring in 4 or 5 of what he feels he needs.

Yeah they've put a bid in haven't they? I think we will be able to spend a couple of million on a player if thats what Nige wants and Lansdown agrees.

I’m sure NP will get his 4/5 players, but it’s the level of player we are after that seems to surprise a lot of you.

As above £62m of costs has previously been covered by selling players.  We can’t do that anymore, we don’t have the players to do so.  Yes, we’ve lost £5m in wages off the cost base, and no longer have such a big amortisation millstone around our neck, probably saving £10m in costs….but that’s still £50m of costs….against income of circa £25m next season if fans are back in reasonable numbers.

Basically we’ve not looked after the costs, and it’s now biting us.  Simple finances.

24 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

More like £30-35m- talking the basic Accounting loss before taking off P&S Allowances but also that is me including the estimated £5m in FFP costs- if it's £25m then I'd have overshot and that'd be better still!

That's before Covid Costs. Something like: £30-35m-£5m + Covid Allowances- I'd argue we could put a lot in, e.g. Ticket Revenue which is universal but also the Corporate Stuff- we've surely had to put off a lot of events. Other clubs will be in the same boat of course but we were one of the better Championship regulars for this side of it.

Absolutely, 2022/23 would be a major problem if we gambled and failed- am just making the point that in theory if we thought we could do it in one, we could spend rather a lot. However like you, I don't think SL and NP would see that as the way to go.

I agree with the theory, and as you say 22/23 becomes the problem.  My estimate is definitely erring in low side, you are probably right….worryingly. This next season is about re-establishing a sense of prudent finances and mid-table, rather than using any “allowance” to gamble on promotion.  We are miles from that at this juncture.

[Davefevs]

35 minutes ago, BOSRed said:

Well if we have the ability to spend a lot, that surely at least gives us room to make 2-3 quality signings amongst other frees to enable some sort of immediate impact without breaking the bank should we not get promoted.

im thinking the type of signing like Toney that cost 6 mill whereby one Good season could see him sold for 35mill. There must be a signing or two out there like that we should take the risk on?

We couldn’t afford a signing like that last summer….it ain’t gonna happen this summer.

[JoeAman08]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

As for this, if we can't or won't pay £2m for Atkinson, that's not a good sign. Not like he'd command huge wages either.

Yea I am not expecting a huge spend but I’d hope we could reinvest most of the wages we have shed and hopefully 5-6m in a transfer budget. 
 

Like you said Atkinson probably wouldn’t command a ridiculous wage. Over a 4 year contract and 10k a week at a 2m buy, isn’t that basically about 1m towards ffp per season? Surely we have some wiggle room under the 39m? 
 

You also have to look at it as an investment. Signing a bunch of 28 year olds on frees do not help ffp at all. They will not have any transfer value most likely. Whereas someone like Atkinson can be worth 2-3x(or even more)the amount he was bought for after a decent season. Everything is a gamble but young players usually can get you something back in return even if you lose out. 

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

Yea I am not expecting a huge spend but I’d hope we could reinvest most of the wages we have shed and hopefully 5-6m in a transfer budget. 
 

Like you said Atkinson probably wouldn’t command a ridiculous wage. Over a 4 year contract and 10k a week at a 2m buy, isn’t that basically about 1m towards ffp per season? Surely we have some wiggle room under the 39m? 
 

You also have to look at it as an investment. Signing a bunch of 28 year olds on frees do not help ffp at all. They will not have any transfer value most likely. Whereas someone like Atkinson can be worth 2-3x(or even more)the amount he was bought for after a decent season. Everything is a gamble but young players usually can get you something back in return even if you lose out. 

Lots to agree with Joe.  I don’t think you’d need £10k p.w. either.

[BLRed]

19 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Lots to agree with Joe.  I don’t think you’d need £10k p.w. either.

Also agree with joe. Which is why it also concerns me that players of the age of Smith et al are linked that will offer us nothing financially moving forward. If weee aceepting promotion is a long way off, then it shouldn’t matter if many of our signing are prospects that NP can mould into better players of higher value over time. We need to get back on that gravy train and move away from signing 28+YO players for ‘experience’ that potentially add a lot to the wage bill for minimal return

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, BOSRed said:

Also agree with joe. Which is why it also concerns me that players of the age of Smith et al are linked that will offer us nothing financially moving forward. If weee aceepting promotion is a long way off, then it shouldn’t matter if many of our signing are prospects that NP can mould into better players of higher value over time. We need to get back on that gravy train and move away from signing 28+YO players for ‘experience’ that potentially add a lot to the wage bill for minimal return

Early-mid 20's more of an ideal target market?

Still happy with some in late 20's bracket, for balance- if e.g. Adam Smith tomorrow left Bournemouth and was available on a free for the correct wage, Cook too these would represent strong additions despite being late 20's. Possibility if selling at the right time of some kind of profit on disposal too.

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, BOSRed said:

Also agree with joe. Which is why it also concerns me that players of the age of Smith et al are linked that will offer us nothing financially moving forward. If weee aceepting promotion is a long way off, then it shouldn’t matter if many of our signing are prospects that NP can mould into better players of higher value over time. We need to get back on that gravy train and move away from signing 28+YO players for ‘experience’ that potentially add a lot to the wage bill for minimal return

Agree.  Especially when we have Wells and Martin, and possibly Weimann too.  Forward is not a position we need a 28 year old.  But that doesn’t stop me thinking Michael Smith is a good player, a good fit for us as a player imho.  Whether he’s a good fit to blend with what else we’ve got is another matter.  But he’s cheap.  We aren’t talking £1.5-2.0m and £15-20k p.w. much more likely to be around the £500k and £6k p.w. mark (imho).

Maybe someone like Yates was right up there on the list of targets….but he’s probably become twice as expensive due to Blackpool’s promotion.

Its gonna be a funny market.

[JoeAman08]

6 hours ago, BOSRed said:

Also agree with joe. Which is why it also concerns me that players of the age of Smith et al are linked that will offer us nothing financially moving forward. If weee aceepting promotion is a long way off, then it shouldn’t matter if many of our signing are prospects that NP can mould into better players of higher value over time. We need to get back on that gravy train and move away from signing 28+YO players for ‘experience’ that potentially add a lot to the wage bill for minimal return

Yep. Need to stay away as much as possible. Though I will concede transfers rarely go in the order you want. I was telling a mate something like this as an example. If we signed Michael Smith and Tom Lees today, I’d be severely underwhelmed. That said, if we added say Atkinson, Twine and Aye afterward I would be much happier about things. 
 

I’d say stay away if you are mentioning experience anyway. We shouldn’t be signing anyone because they have experience. We should be signing them because they are good players. 

[cidered abroad]

9 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

Yep. Need to stay away as much as possible. Though I will concede transfers rarely go in the order you want. I was telling a mate something like this as an example. If we signed Michael Smith and Tom Lees today, I’d be severely underwhelmed. That said, if we added say Atkinson, Twine and Aye afterward I would be much happier about things. 
 

I’d say stay away if you are mentioning experience anyway. We shouldn’t be signing anyone because they have experience. We should be signing them because they are good players. 

To continue or clarify your last sentence, I would add:

"they are good players", good leaders and team members, making the sum of the squad greater than it's components.

 

[JoeAman08]

2 hours ago, cidered abroad said:

To continue or clarify your last sentence, I would add:

"they are good players", good leaders and team members, making the sum of the squad greater than it's components.

 

I worded that poorly. I just mean I’d rather have the better footballer than the more experienced one who is more graft than technique. You’d have to judge that in each scenario. For example, Michael Smith vs Aye. Aye to me looks the much better footballer but Smith has more experience in england. I’d rather have Aye in this case. 
 

We do need a bit more experience around though. Like I said in another post, I’d rather give an opinion after the window closes. If we signed a couple older experienced players but also added 3-4 younger ones, I’d be happy with that. Don’t want to rely on 5-6 27-30 year olds is all. 
 

[Super]

I was at college with a guy called Robert Atkinson.

[City1984]

18 hours ago, Jerseybean said:

Latest media coverage suggests, unsurprisingly, that we aren’t close to agreeing a fee of £2m: 

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/key-stumbling-block-emerges-as-bristol-city-consider-22-year-old-transfer/

 

This stinks of Mark Ashton parting gift telling his old mates what we can and probably will end up paying so dig your heels in and make sure my envelope is full of £50’s for my last piece of the pie instead of the £20’s it was for Callum. 
 

 

[tin]

Admittedly, I don't know a lot about Atkinson and haven't seen him play but £2m for someone who's only played 39 games in League One - and in professional football - seems excessive to me, especially in the current market.

By comparison, Taylor Moore's got 145 professional games under his belt, including 48 in the Championship. Zak Vyner's got 90 Championship appearances to his name. I'm not saying these two are better than Atkinson, but it makes me wonder what they must be worth if Oxford want £2m. 

[Supersonic Robin]

12 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Bristol City income: £27.9m Costs: £62.6m

Cost base out of control, bailed out by selling players.  We no longer have much left to sell, nor at the value of previous sales.

Shocking really.

I’m sure NP will get his 4/5 players, but it’s the level of player we are after that seems to surprise a lot of you.

As above £62m of costs has previously been covered by selling players.  We can’t do that anymore, we don’t have the players to do so.  Yes, we’ve lost £5m in wages off the cost base, and no longer have such a big amortisation millstone around our neck, probably saving £10m in costs….but that’s still £50m of costs….against income of circa £25m next season if fans are back in reasonable numbers.

Basically we’ve not looked after the costs, and it’s now biting us.  Simple finances.

Christ, I knew it was bad, but didn't realise it was quite that bad.

Any idea how our financial position compares to other Championship clubs for context? Is this relatively standard for Championship clubs right now? or are we in a more worrying position than most?

I've generally been under the impression that we're still in a better financial position than most other (non parachute payment) Championship clubs, but maybe that's inaccurate....