Jump to content
IGNORED

Now that the Bears are sh*t ..


myol'man
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, myol'man said:

Yes, carry on please, very interesting 👍 

Part deux!!

City’s accounts.

349C02F5-88F9-426E-8A90-C3889EF5699F.thumb.jpeg.8274a2d21645f37cc6a5fd2111436372.jpeg
We are currently waiting for last season’s accounts to be published - could be soon, could be Jan / Feb.

Why two sets?

As per part one City Ltd and Ashton Gate Ltd are part of Bristol City Holdings - nothing to do with Bears or Bristol Sport Ltd.  We can assume that for FFP purpose that we report at Holdings level, but I split the above the pic into Holdings at the top, City football at the bottom.  You can see that City’s income was £16.2m in 19/20 but costs were £49.8m, over 3x our income.  Thank **** we made £25.6m on transfers.

Thats the model - sell players to cover the costs.  Even with those sales we still lost £7.4m (City / £9.1m (Holdings)

Whoaaaaaaa, hang on a minute.  That’s not really sustainability is it?

As an owner might you question:

- what happens if you don’t make so much money on transfers

- what happens if costs keep going up (wages up 93% in 4 years, amortisation 419%, other costs 129%)

As a smarmy golden bollox CEO you might answer (in annoying midland accent):

- nobody understands the market as well as I do

The head-coach might say:

- I need that that extra “no10” / club in the bag

Ah yes, but nobody could have foreseen a pandemic.  Indeed not, but all covid did was bring forward the point when we no longer had enough assets (players to sell) to cover the rising cost base.  I’ve been on the case for 3+ years.  I’m not an accountant but I saw it coming.  Lansdown (snr and jr) took their eyes off the ball, the chief protagonists have left for League One.  Dean Holden got the first end of the rough stick, Nige is getting the double ended dildo of the mess left by to use his words - “the collective”.

To add some balance, thank **** we did make those player sales, we’d have lost over £100m otherwise, and thank **** we did make a profit in 18/19.  I’ll come back to that.

You ready for part three….what it means for City going forward - January and beyond?

  • Like 5
  • Flames 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Part deux!!

City’s accounts.

349C02F5-88F9-426E-8A90-C3889EF5699F.thumb.jpeg.8274a2d21645f37cc6a5fd2111436372.jpeg
We are currently waiting for last season’s accounts to be published - could be soon, could be Jan / Feb.

Why two sets?

As per part one City Ltd and Ashton Gate Ltd are part of Bristol City Holdings - nothing to do with Bears or Bristol Sport Ltd.  We can assume that for FFP purpose that we report at Holdings level, but I split the above the pic into Holdings at the top, City football at the bottom.  You can see that City’s income was £16.2m in 19/20 but costs were £49.8m, over 3x our income.  Thank **** we made £25.6m on transfers.

Thats the model - sell players to cover the costs.  Even with those sales we still lost £7.4m (City / £9.1m (Holdings)

Whoaaaaaaa, hang on a minute.  That’s not really sustainability is it?

As an owner might you question:

- what happens if you don’t make so much money on transfers

- what happens if costs keep going up (wages up 93% in 4 years, amortisation 419%, other costs 129%)

As a smarmy golden bollox CEO you might answer (in annoying midland accent):

- nobody understands the market as well as I do

The head-coach might say:

- I need that that extra “no10” / club in the bag

Ah yes, but nobody could have foreseen a pandemic.  Indeed not, but all covid did was bring forward the point when we no longer had enough assets (players to sell) to cover the rising cost base.  I’ve been on the case for 3+ years.  I’m not an accountant but I saw it coming.  Lansdown (snr and jr) took their eyes off the ball, the chief protagonists have left for League One.  Dean Holden got the first end of the rough stick, Nige is getting the double ended dildo of the mess left by to use his words - “the collective”.

To add some balance, thank **** we did make those player sales, we’d have lost over £100m otherwise, and thank **** we did make a profit in 18/19.  I’ll come back to that.

You ready for part three….what it means for City going forward - January and beyond?

So salaries are a bit more than £12M, then 😉.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

 

You clearly don't know the restrains of FFP then.....

And I wonder what could have happened in the last 20 ish months that might have changed the financial standpoint of the club from when people were talking about having a healthy buffer....

Ah! I wondered how long it would be before someone mentioned the C word

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, myol'man said:

Taking pot shot at rugby Premiership for no relegation policy, Bears are just part of the closed shop now so they don't need anymore SL funding, finish bottom every season, no one cares!

Only last season and this I think? The idea is to get all the 13 "big clubs" plus one into the Premiership, then 1up 1down. Almost a closed shop but not quite. Otherwise it would almost always be the case that the 1/13 that gets relegated comes straight back up again. 

I think basically Exeter f'd the system up by not getting relegated and becoming a "big" club when they went up. 

At the end of next season one of the minnows can go up if they want it / can afford it but will be odds-on to go straight back down. So almost a closed shop but not quite. Not sure what happens if none of the minnows fancy it because you'd end up with an unbalanced 13 team league like this season, with 1 team always having a blank weekend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Bears and City “funding” is completely separate, although both companies form part of Pula Sport…which SL owns.

20E0D1F0-C85F-4914-ADC5-4ED745446F5C.thumb.jpeg.747ce16b5aa32e32aa4b8679ff9d0113.jpeg

SL can put as much money as he likes into Bristol City, but unfortunately FFP means it’s pointless, because FFP says he can only cover losses not inject money - this is to stop an owner buying their way to success.  A Champ club is allowed to make losses of £15m over a normal 3 year cycle (let’s ignore covid for now) without an owner offering to support (Ave. £5m p.a).  If an owner offers to underwrite losses, then those increase to £39m of losses (Ave. £13m p.a).  There are a few costs that are allowed to be left out of FFP, e.g. Academy and Ladies football.

The losses over the last few years get complicated  by covid.

So that’s part one.  Do you want to get into City’s position?

 

Let's sign Sancho to be a long term academy coach, 200k p/w.

And then offer him £500 to play for the first team too ;)

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Bears and City “funding” is completely separate, although both companies form part of Pula Sport…which SL owns.

20E0D1F0-C85F-4914-ADC5-4ED745446F5C.thumb.jpeg.747ce16b5aa32e32aa4b8679ff9d0113.jpeg

SL can put as much money as he likes into Bristol City, but unfortunately FFP means it’s pointless, because FFP says he can only cover losses not inject money - this is to stop an owner buying their way to success.  A Champ club is allowed to make losses of £15m over a normal 3 year cycle (let’s ignore covid for now) without an owner offering to support (Ave. £5m p.a).  If an owner offers to underwrite losses, then those increase to £39m of losses (Ave. £13m p.a).  There are a few costs that are allowed to be left out of FFP, e.g. Academy and Ladies football.

The losses over the last few years get complicated  by covid.

So that’s part one.  Do you want to get into City’s position?

 

This is the nonsense of FFP. It is not fair play when there are parachute payments. Why  is it that a  wealthy owner is  not be allowed to invest the same as the Premier league gives to a few clubs. That is not fair play, that is making an unfair system even more unfair. Of course you want to see the money, not like Derby where it is loans upon loans. But FFP should allow an owner to invest the same as the Premier league does . Or, just get rid of parachute payments. Steve L should be allowed to add £30M to our budget in funding if he wisihes, otherwise the EFL is just creating the most unfair league in the world. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, billywedlock said:

This is the nonsense of FFP. It is not fair play when there are parachute payments. Why  is it that a  wealthy owner is  not be allowed to invest the same as the Premier league gives to a few clubs. That is not fair play, that is making an unfair system even more unfair. Of course you want to see the money, not like Derby where it is loans upon loans. But FFP should allow an owner to invest the same as the Premier league does . Or, just get rid of parachute payments. Steve L should be allowed to add £30M to our budget in funding if he wisihes, otherwise the EFL is just creating the most unfair league in the world. 

I’ve never quite “got” how a single solution of FFP solved two problems - 1) stop clubs going bust 2) create a level playing field.

Some of the salary cap / squad size proposals that Lg1/2 had put in place and then got rid of last season were a good starting point….a good starting point for discussion not implementation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, fgrsimon said:

A question for the more knowlegable

Is there no way that any of the Bears income can offset FFP for City? I'm thinking specifically of money through Ashton Gate given that it's owned by Bristol CITY Holdings. 

If not wouldnt it be better overall if Bcfc 1982 still technically owned the stadium? 

Different structures IMO but not looked into it massively.

Different groups- at least at the UK level. Although they sit under Pula, that isn't a UK company IIRC?

5 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

This is the nonsense of FFP. It is not fair play when there are parachute payments. Why  is it that a  wealthy owner is  not be allowed to invest the same as the Premier league gives to a few clubs. That is not fair play, that is making an unfair system even more unfair. Of course you want to see the money, not like Derby where it is loans upon loans. But FFP should allow an owner to invest the same as the Premier league does . Or, just get rid of parachute payments. Steve L should be allowed to add £30M to our budget in funding if he wisihes, otherwise the EFL is just creating the most unfair league in the world. 

As I understand it, the FFP regs such as they are- ie the 3 year P&S,, £39m- more on which in a minute- were voted in and ratified by the EFL, a majority of EFL clubs but in exchange for the Solidarity Payments. It was in a Governance review a couple of years back, will try and find it.

Further, you might want to add that not only can (subject to equity injections), PL sides receive the Parachute Payments on relegation and have them count as income, each PL season has an Upper Loss Limit of £35m...whereas in the Championship it is £13m.

@Davefevs I think there is actually something in the FFP regs about cash losses which should help with the solvency issue- although how enforceable this is, well clearly something has gone badly wrong with Derby. As for competitiveness, that's a whole different ballgame.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found the snippet in q- and two other articles which also mention the idea of P&S being tied to Solidarity Payments.

image.png.417bc95eb52086d1d23ee442e44a97de.png

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/image/201920/governance-reviews/governance-review.pdf

The two other sources.

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/the-championship-embargo-and-premier-league-s-role-in-the-rule-change

https://thedonstrust.org/2014/11/05/nov-14-dons-trust-board-meeting-summary/

Further down the first bit, I noticed this bit- would be useful to halt issues such as clubs getting promoted with FFP controversy under the current system- I can think of two in the Midlands.

Given the regs themselves are fundamentally the same in the PL and Championship, this should've been in from Day 1- ie 2016/17 but there we go.

image.png.d6cd6d4241a1b3273200466a2ee04c48.png

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Found the snippet in q- and two other articles which also mention the idea of P&S being tied to Solidarity Payments.

image.png.417bc95eb52086d1d23ee442e44a97de.png

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/image/201920/governance-reviews/governance-review.pdf

The two other sources.

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/the-championship-embargo-and-premier-league-s-role-in-the-rule-change

https://thedonstrust.org/2014/11/05/nov-14-dons-trust-board-meeting-summary/

Further down the first bit, I noticed this bit- would be useful to halt issues such as clubs getting promoted with FFP controversy under the current system- I can think of two in the Midlands.

Given the regs themselves are fundamentally the same in the PL and Championship, this should've been in from Day 1- ie 2016/17 but there we go.

image.png.d6cd6d4241a1b3273200466a2ee04c48.png

Almost as though we need an independent regulator isn't it...?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Davefevs in part 3 could you explain how at the end of his reign SL walks away with either a massive loss or a huge profit from his time here?

Blows £45m on stadium redevelopment plus £100m on propping up the football club, but, by the end will own steady championship football club + never to be relegated Premiership rugby club + ladies & basketball teams + huge new Sports Village including hotels, apartments and events venue + massive housing development site over at Ashton Vale. 

🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I’ve never quite “got” how a single solution of FFP solved two problems - 1) stop clubs going bust 2) create a level playing field.

Some of the salary cap / squad size proposals that Lg1/2 had put in place and then got rid of last season were a good starting point….a good starting point for discussion not implementation.

I feel scrapping the parachute system is step one, players will just have to have an x percent drop in salary on relegation. You cannot have it both ways when promoted you expect the increase. Anyway, it has to go. It seems to me salary cap is the  solution as is squad size (Prem should have same squad limitations too , all through the age groups to stop stockpiling ). The American sports system is not banal, it is actually very interesting. I am not advocating the draft system, but certainly like NBA squad size and salary cap. The current system is broken and it is only broken because players are paid too much as clubs seek to run bankrupt businesses in search of glory. The financial nonsense is another area that needs control . It is one thing to spend money another to keep creating loans that owners have no hope of being repaid and when the club becomes a burden they place the business into bankruptcy. FFP does not atop clubs going bust it just limits the debt for when they go bust. If you place a 30M salary cap in the league and dump parachute payments, watch how many people will want to own a Championship club . Why ? Because the costs are contained and understood plus if managed well you know you can compete. If football does not change we will destroy the pyramid and the cultural fabric of the game. In manay other countries it does not matter as the top league, and in most cases 2/3 teams are all that count. We have been different but in another decade we will see a bigger shift in that direction toward a very closed shop. The Championship and parachute payments has to be changed . The guy who created it sits in the directors box at our home games. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, JamesBCFC said:

Let's sign Sancho to be a long term academy coach, 200k p/w.

And then offer him £500 to play for the first team too ;)

I think Bears have done similar over the years.  Jon Afoa this season is both a player and coach.   Players with long term injuries have been found roles whilst going through recovery process which I imagine has removed them from the salary cap.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, JamesBCFC said:

Let's sign Sancho to be a long term academy coach, 200k p/w.

And then offer him £500 to play for the first team too ;)

Not a million miles from the set up Gilmartin had right?

@billywedlock did you read the Fan Led Review? It covers a lot of what you discuss in your fine post, including how to replace parachute payments, and why it doesn't think a salary cap would work. You make a good point about learning from the US sport systems, that is not really mentioned in the report.

Edited by ExiledAjax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I’ve never quite “got” how a single solution of FFP solved two problems - 1) stop clubs going bust 2) create a level playing field.

Some of the salary cap / squad size proposals that Lg1/2 had put in place and then got rid of last season were a good starting point….a good starting point for discussion not implementation.

I often think the EFL got it wrong in the major principle of FFP.

I never had a problem with Jack Walker giving money to Blackburn or leaving a trust for them when he died. It wasn’t even an ‘investment’ save wanting to see his team succeed on the pitch.

To my mind the issue was when clubs/owners  borrow the money to invest against the club and it’s assets, essential putting the club at risk. That’s the issue.

If Steven Lansdown wanted to make a one off donation of £100m, why shouldn’t he? You always had wealthier and poorer clubs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, myol'man said:

@Davefevs in part 3 could you explain how at the end of his reign SL walks away with either a massive loss or a huge profit from his time here?

Blows £45m on stadium redevelopment plus £100m on propping up the football club, but, by the end will own steady championship football club + never to be relegated Premiership rugby club + ladies & basketball teams + huge new Sports Village including hotels, apartments and events venue + massive housing development site over at Ashton Vale. 

🤔

Part three

and they all lived happily ever after in Guernsey and Bermuda.

ok, a bit about where we are now and what it means for the future, and for Average Joe what we might have available to spend in the window(s). Caveat - based on estimated figures as accounts for last season aren’t out yet, and obviously not this season and beyond either.

image.thumb.png.0ed3e21e9053fdddc096fe4e964e26a1.png
Firstly, we know that having made huge sums in transfer profit, up to 19/20, the depressed market has curtailed that Avenue of sustainability, last season we made a bit of money on Eliasson and Szmodics (believe it or not), but £2.6m transfer profit is nowhere near the amounts required to satisfy a high cost base.  I’m predicting a loss of £29.2m last season.  I’m probably being bullish, it could be £35m plus.  SL has said it will be “horrible”.  Part of the reason for me putting it lower is that I think a slug of costs also come out because we didn’t have to pay things if we weren’t having crowds!

I’m predicting a £20m loss this season, and that’s assuming we don’t sell anyone, because we have little to sell.  It also factors in Nige removing £10-12m of costs in the summer through reduced wages and amortisation coming to nil on the players he let go.  That is a big factor and one Nige deserves a lot of credit.  He’s working with one arm tied behind his back.

What we see above is the relevant year’s being added together to show a three year total (4 year cycle during covid years where 19/20 and 20/21 are aggregated and halved - highlighted in yellow) in the penultimate column.

In my previous post I said you can exclude Academy costs, amongst others and I reckon that saves us reporting £3m p.a., hence the £9m allowable exclusions in a 3 year cycle.

So, if we take the cycle to the end of this season (21/22), which includes 18/19, 19/20 (50%), 20/21 (50%) and 21/22, you can see we are sitting with a FFP reporting loss of £18.3m, well inside the £39m.

So why aren’t we going crazy in January?  Why didn’t we go crazy in the summer?

Well, it’s because the current FFP cycle includes 18/19, where we made a profit.  That drops off at the end of this season, and you then see next season's cycle suddenly bust FFP…and the season after that.

Basically, we are trying to correct years of huge overspend, when there is no transfer market to bail us out.  So we are correcting by reducing costs, in particular wage bill and amortisation.  Every fee we pay adds some costs onto those future year losses for the length of the players contract.  A £3m signing on £10k p.w. on a 3 year contract costs us £1.5m p.a over those 3 years.  A £6m striker on £20k p.w., double, obviously.  We can’t afford those committed costs over future years.

Hence why we are looking at free transfers, low fee / small wage players from Lg1/2 (Tanner / Atkinson).  Hence why we resigned Baker and Weimann on lower wage contracts.  We couldn’t afford to pay a fee to bring in other CB alongside Atkinson (£1.6m but longevity, future selling potential).  So we brought Baker back, and bar concussion, he’s played ever so well this season.  Likewise Weimann.

So that positions where we are.

As for SL, he may not make any money out of Bristol City, but he will make a load of money out of all the other pies he’s got his finger in.

Looking at your username, you’re not Jon L are you….trying to work out what yer dad is doing are you?

Part Four - ask away, what do you want to know?

  • Like 3
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, 054123 said:

I often think the EFL got it wrong in the major principle of FFP.

I never had a problem with Jack Walker giving money to Blackburn or leaving a trust for them when he died. It wasn’t even an ‘investment’ save wanting to see his team succeed on the pitch.

To my mind the issue was when clubs/owners  borrow the money to invest against the club and it’s assets, essential putting the club at risk. That’s the issue.

If Steven Lansdown wanted to make a one off donation of £100m, why shouldn’t he? You always had wealthier and poorer clubs.

Totally agree on that aspect.  Level playing field part of it goes out the window though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Totally agree on that aspect.  Level playing field part of it goes out the window though.

I know, but that’s part of it.

If Man City can draw crowds of 28k in division 3 with a comparatively huge marketing and merchandise division to say Forest Green, then it isn’t a level playing field, it’s just the way it is.

I have no problem with Jack Walker buying the league title for the people of Blackburn.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Part three

and they all lived happily ever after in Guernsey and Bermuda.

ok, a bit about where we are now and what it means for the future, and for Average Joe what we might have available to spend in the window(s). Caveat - based on estimated figures as accounts for last season aren’t out yet, and obviously not this season and beyond either.

image.thumb.png.0ed3e21e9053fdddc096fe4e964e26a1.png
Firstly, we know that having made huge sums in transfer profit, up to 19/20, the depressed market has curtailed that Avenue of sustainability, last season we made a bit of money on Eliasson and Szmodics (believe it or not), but £2.6m transfer profit is nowhere near the amounts required to satisfy a high cost base.  I’m predicting a loss of £29.2m last season.  I’m probably being bullish, it could be £35m plus.  SL has said it will be “horrible”.  Part of the reason for me putting it lower is that I think a slug of costs also come out because we didn’t have to pay things if we weren’t having crowds!

I’m predicting a £20m loss this season, and that’s assuming we don’t sell anyone, because we have little to sell.  It also factors in Nige removing £10-12m of costs in the summer through reduced wages and amortisation coming to nil on the players he let go.  That is a big factor and one Nige deserves a lot of credit.  He’s working with one arm tied behind his back.

What we see above is the relevant year’s being added together to show a three year total (4 year cycle during covid years where 19/20 and 20/21 are aggregated and halved - highlighted in yellow) in the penultimate column.

In my previous post I said you can exclude Academy costs, amongst others and I reckon that saves us reporting £3m p.a., hence the £9m allowable exclusions in a 3 year cycle.

So, if we take the cycle to the end of this season (21/22), which includes 18/19, 19/20 (50%), 20/21 (50%) and 21/22, you can see we are sitting with a FFP reporting loss of £18.3m, well inside the £39m.

So why aren’t we going crazy in January?  Why didn’t we go crazy in the summer?

Well, it’s because the current FFP cycle includes 18/19, where we made a profit.  That drops off at the end of this season, and you then see next season's cycle suddenly bust FFP…and the season after that.

Basically, we are trying to correct years of huge overspend, when there is no transfer market to bail us out.  So we are correcting by reducing costs, in particular wage bill and amortisation.  Every fee we pay adds some costs onto those future year losses for the length of the players contract.  A £3m signing on £10k p.w. on a 3 year contract costs us £1.5m p.a over those 3 years.  A £6m striker on £20k p.w., double, obviously.  We can’t afford those committed costs over future years.

Hence why we are looking at free transfers, low fee / small wage players from Lg1/2 (Tanner / Atkinson).  Hence why we resigned Baker and Weimann on lower wage contracts.  We couldn’t afford to pay a fee to bring in other CB alongside Atkinson (£1.6m but longevity, future selling potential).  So we brought Baker back, and bar concussion, he’s played ever so well this season.  Likewise Weimann.

So that positions where we are.

As for SL, he may not make any money out of Bristol City, but he will make a load of money out of all the other pies he’s got his finger in.

Looking at your username, you’re not Jon L are you….trying to work out what yer dad is doing are you?

Part Four - ask away, what do you want to know?

I like to think- great post and series of posts btw, but just on the excludable costs bit though (before we come to Covid), I like to think it might be closer to £5m per season. What with the hefty depreciation of recently built/redeveloped assets. IIRC it's £1.5m per year on a Category 2 Academy alone? Then Depreciation and a little of amortisation on non Football based Intangible Assets, plus Women's Football and Community- I like to think (well hope perhaps) that it's pushing £5m per season.

Agree, the splurge idea- it could have been possible in isolation for this season but the caveat would have, in technical financial terms ;) been get promotion right now or screwed. 

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I like to think- great post and series of posts btw, but just on the excludable costs bit though (before we come to Covid), I like to think it might be closer to £5m per season. What with the hefty depreciation of recently built/redeveloped assets. IIRC it's £1.5m per year on a Category 2 Academy alone? Then Depreciation and a little of amortisation on non Football based Intangible Assets, plus Women's Football and Community- I like to think (well hope perhaps) that it's pushing £5m per season.

Agree, the splurge idea- it could have been possible in isolation for this season but the caveat would have, in technical financial terms ;) been get promotion right now or screwed. 

Is the RHPC part of BC Holdings or AG Ltd?  I don’t know where it fits in if I’m being honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Is the RHPC part of BC Holdings or AG Ltd?  I don’t know where it fits in if I’m being honest.

I was using the BCFC Holdings accounts as my reference point- Robins High Performance (Ha on recent form) Centre? Interested to know if it's hit the Balance Sheet yet or if the £2.8m in Depreciation was before it arrived.

My basic calculation for the Tangible Fixed Assets Depreciation was to look at the BCFC Holdings Accounts and knock off the depreciation- could have missed something or double counted of course, although on the £5m for total allowables bit I also saw that on SwissRamble's calculations last season so I hope- the higher it is the better it is for us- that it is pushing towards £5m.

Double checked in fact, being an asset under construction (at that time), that Depreciation is as per the Accounts before the HPC hits the Balance Sheet- I think.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Davefevs said:

 

Looking at your username, you’re not Jon L are you….trying to work out what yer dad is doing are you?

Part Four - ask away, what do you want to know?

Ah yes, myol'man the billionaire you mean? I don't think so 🤔 

It would seem that due to EFL FFP rules no multimillionaire can plough money into his local club to break the parachute yo-yo monopoly, the Championship will become as divided as the Premier League. Every season there will be a top 2 or 3, with a dozen teams fighting for the scraps of a playoff place. 

From the fans point of view it might seem better to take the drop and hope for another Cotts season rather than bumbling along in the bottom half of the championship for the next 10 seasons.

Thanks to @Davefevsfor explaining in detail why SL can't hand is dusty wallet over to Pearson. 

Conclusion, we're f*cked!

Edited by myol'man
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, myol'man said:

Ah yes, myol'man the billionaire you mean? I don't think so 🤔 

It would seem that due to EFL FFP rules no multimillionaire can plough money into his local club to break the parachute yo-yo monopoly, the Championship will become as divided as the Premier League. Every season there will be a top 2 or 3, with a dozen teams fighting for the scraps of a playoff place. 

From the fans point of view it might seem better to take the drop and hope for another Cotts season rather than bumbling along in the bottom half of the championship for the next 10 seasons.

Thanks to @Davefevsfor explaining in detail why SL can't hand is dusty wallet over to Pearson. 

Conclusion, we're f*cked!

Thanks for bearing with my trilogy!!  I should’ve made it 5 parts (HHGTTG)!!

Its pretty shocking how it has been allowed to get in the state it has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, myol'man said:

From the fans point of view it might seem better to take the drop and hope for another Cotts season rather than bumbling along in the bottom half of the championship for the next 10 seasons.

This is a what most fans of bottom half prem teams tell you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, myol'man said:

Ah yes, myol'man the billionaire you mean? I don't think so 🤔 

It would seem that due to EFL FFP rules no multimillionaire can plough money into his local club to break the parachute yo-yo monopoly, the Championship will become as divided as the Premier League. Every season there will be a top 2 or 3, with a dozen teams fighting for the scraps of a playoff place. 

From the fans point of view it might seem better to take the drop and hope for another Cotts season rather than bumbling along in the bottom half of the championship for the next 10 seasons.

Thanks to @Davefevsfor explaining in detail why SL can't hand is dusty wallet over to Pearson. 

Conclusion, we're f*cked!

It’s a disgrace, I’ve mentioned this many times in posts, I’m wondering how long before people start to drift away from the Championship (fans) as there is such a bias to the parachute payment sides who are rewarded for failure.  I’d immediately open it up so all the other clubs can match the highest parachute payment each season, not all clubs could afford it, but for those that can it would help even it up.  Then I’d completely revamp FFP and the relationship between the Premier League and the Championship.

Let’s be fair, yo-yo clubs like Norwich must be building the bank account, a big wedge for going up, don’t spend too much, come down, parachute payment, go back up and another big wedge, fair play to them if that’s what they want to do, but how you can call a set of rules that allows that to happen, Financial Fair Play, is beyond me.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
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.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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