Jump to content
IGNORED

City release accounts - Ouch!


Henry
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, KegCity said:

Why not?

Because a club that is about to announce £38m losses cannot afford to reject offers of £8m to help offset this.

Whatever our view of HNM & his actual value the only fee we banked in the summer was the nominal one (£50k?) for George Nurse from Shrewsbury, which in the scale of our losses is about as valuable as to us as 50p.

There is already a storm over Derby turning down bids for players, if we do not drastically reduce our expenditure & cannot come up with a plan to stay within FFP then we’ll get a points deduction & things like this (if they are true) will not help our case at all.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, The Bard said:

 He's actually quite exposed to use horse racing terminology.

 

Clearly top division potential longterm but not in the same league financially as Lloyd Kelly for example.

Hence why he’s not going for Lloyd Kelly fee.

24 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Because a club that is about to announce £38m losses cannot afford to reject offers of £8m to help offset this.

Whatever our view of HNM & his actual value the only fee we banked in the summer was the nominal one (£50k?) for George Nurse from Shrewsbury, which in the scale of our losses is about as valuable as to us as 50p.

There is already a storm over Derby turning down bids for players, if we do not drastically reduce our expenditure & cannot come up with a plan to stay within FFP then we’ll get a points deduction & things like this (if they are true) will not help our case at all.

 

The decisions we’ve made as a club over the last few years makes it pretty believable to me.

  • Like 1
  • Hmmm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Because a club that is about to announce £38m losses cannot afford to reject offers of £8m to help offset this.

Whatever our view of HNM & his actual value the only fee we banked in the summer was the nominal one (£50k?) for George Nurse from Shrewsbury, which in the scale of our losses is about as valuable as to us as 50p.

There is already a storm over Derby turning down bids for players, if we do not drastically reduce our expenditure & cannot come up with a plan to stay within FFP then we’ll get a points deduction & things like this (if they are true) will not help our case at all.

 

Agreed. Here is how I think it might play out FWIW.

We submit our Projections in March as usual, and our actual for last season. We will be fine until 2021 and 2022.

The problem may well arise when it comes to the Future Financial Information for the period ending in 2023 and 2024..

Once it rolls into the period that ends next season ie:

Combined Average- 2019/20 and 2020/21- Actual

Accounts- 2021/22- Projection in March, pretty much updated in June/July time. Close to real.

The challenge for us then will be to fill the FFP hole that is set to arise in 2022/23 or face a deduction perhaps in Spring 2023. Deduction linked to size of breach, mitigating and aggravating factors etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

I think crucially what Stoke have done is adjust the existing and persisting amortisation bill down, on the basis that the amounts are no longer fair rep of market value. For us it would mean saying that Kalas may be a £2m per season amortisation cost, but that we should be allowed to reduce that by 75% to £500k. So even though we retain Kalas' as an asset, we save a huge amount by arguing that his value has drastically fallen due to the collapsed market, but we argue to add that back on for P&S purposes as a covid affect. 

Stoke say that their total impairment was £42-43m in total. Comprising an initial £12.4m "prior to Covid 19 considerations." and then a further £30.1m "directly" attributable to Covid. As I say, they seem to have taken their existing amortisation bill, and argue that 75-80% should be written off as a Covid-deductible. Note that Stoke's amortisation costs in the accounts to May 2020 were £30.3m, then they declare the impairment as well, and argue that 30.1m of it is allowable for P&S as a covid deductible. 

I think this is it. I might be getting tied in knots with amortisation and impairment.

Might get a coffee, listen to Nige's press conference, and come back to this in a bit.

I agree, and I also suspect that a unique treatment means that it's for that club to justify their unique take on things rather than the other 23 to agree to and adopt their methods unquestioningly. We use PKF Francis Clark to audit, Stoke used RSM. There will be different techniques around.

Okay, I’ve read the Stoke stuff again!

Individual players, no longer part of the first team (Afobe?) impaired by £12m.  Rest of the squad left impaired at 70-85%, is £18m….therefore £30m player impairment total due to covid.  Have I got that right?

I see the logic in this, if not the numbers themselves.

Playing Devil’s advocate…has the transfer market “collapsed” or just for transfer NOT to Premier League?  If you’ve got a player good enough to go to the PL might you still get a very high fee (in relation to the rest of the market)?  Think there are some debates to be had here.

If RG’s £30m of lost fees is indeed resolved by adjusting the amortisation down for each player, then it’s pretty similar to Stoke’s method.  I do think it has to be a proper accounting process / method, even if you then put something different in the P&S return.

If we “impaired” amortisation (wrong terminology no doubt, I’m not an accountant!) by 75%, wed cut this season’s amortisation from £6.7m to £1.7m and next season’s £6.6m to £1.65m, a saving of circa £10m.

Add in revues lost from football and commercial then you have a club with no P&S issues at all.

But what do you do if the market picks up?  Do you have to re-state values?  Just trying to think of any flaws?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Playing Devil’s advocate…has the transfer market “collapsed” or just for transfer NOT to Premier League?  If you’ve got a player good enough to go to the PL might you still get a very high fee (in relation to the rest of the market)?  Think there are some debates to be had here.

I think the argument there is that there's a big unknown element so we take a best guess. So long as it's fairly applied to all clubs it doesn't really matter right?

42 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

But what do you do if the market picks up?  Do you have to re-state values?  Just trying to think of any flaws?

On the face of it I'd say no you don't have to re-state. Accounts should consider value for the period that they cover, so if the market picks up this month then you can have your May 21 accounts use one value and May 22 accounts use another...and that would be ok. I think?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m certainly not qualified to talk at a finance level so this is likely over simplistic (and quite possibly stupid)… but is this a realistic explanation / example:

1. Watford bid $8m for Massengo

2. We turn it down as it’s not enough

3. Massengo plays more, still young, gets better and his theoretical value increases

4. Covid massively impacts club.

5. Club announces early that we’re “in trouble”

6. Offers come flooding in for Massengo but because “we’re skint” they’re in the $2m region.

7. Club “proves” that we’ve lost at least $6m (technically more as we felt $8m was undervalued)

8. Repeat process for all saleable player assets (or use Massengo loss percentage as baseline decrease for all player values)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, chinapig said:

I still find Gould's comments to be a bit of special pleading. Had we controlled our costs better and retained enough of the transfer profits to provide some resilience the risk of a points deduction would have been mitigated if not removed entirely. Instead we blew it on a bloated squad and wage bill.

Also the obverse of the hypothetical loss of transfer income is the kind of reduction in player wages we have seen with Weimann and Baker, which is not hypothetical and which is likely to continue imo.

Gambling on continuing to receive big fees was not the way to achieve the sustainability Steve claims to want.

We wouldn't of had an issue if the commercial and transfer market both collapsed at the same time

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, SydneyCity said:

I’m certainly not qualified to talk at a finance level so this is likely over simplistic (and quite possibly stupid)… but is this a realistic explanation / example:

1. Watford bid $8m for Massengo

2. We turn it down as it’s not enough

3. Massengo plays more, still young, gets better and his theoretical value increases

4. Covid massively impacts club.

5. Club announces early that we’re “in trouble”

6. Offers come flooding in for Massengo but because “we’re skint” they’re in the $2m region.

7. Club “proves” that we’ve lost at least $6m (technically more as we felt $8m was undervalued)

8. Repeat process for all saleable player assets (or use Massengo loss percentage as baseline decrease for all player values)

I don’t think it is that. Think we just didn’t want to sell. All this FFP stuff is relevant but at the end of the day, you need to do right by the team. You can say with hindsight, maybe we’d have been better off accepting(don’t know the details of the bid) as hasn’t always been first choice as lost some form. That said seems to be picking up and has probably been heavily involved in matches we won equating to more points than we’d be deducted for failing FFP. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Okay, I’ve read the Stoke stuff again!

Individual players, no longer part of the first team (Afobe?) impaired by £12m.  Rest of the squad left impaired at 70-85%, is £18m….therefore £30m player impairment total due to covid.  Have I got that right?

I see the logic in this, if not the numbers themselves.

Playing Devil’s advocate…has the transfer market “collapsed” or just for transfer NOT to Premier League?  If you’ve got a player good enough to go to the PL might you still get a very high fee (in relation to the rest of the market)?  Think there are some debates to be had here.

If RG’s £30m of lost fees is indeed resolved by adjusting the amortisation down for each player, then it’s pretty similar to Stoke’s method.  I do think it has to be a proper accounting process / method, even if you then put something different in the P&S return.

If we “impaired” amortisation (wrong terminology no doubt, I’m not an accountant!) by 75%, wed cut this season’s amortisation from £6.7m to £1.7m and next season’s £6.6m to £1.65m, a saving of circa £10m.

Add in revues lost from football and commercial then you have a club with no P&S issues at all.

But what do you do if the market picks up?  Do you have to re-state values?  Just trying to think of any flaws?

What I don't get is the fact that Stokes Accounts are to May 2020 YES MAY 2020 just a couple of months into the inpact of Covid , and a VERY high value of amortisation BUT WHY ? at May 2020 , that is not a true and fair assesment at that point in time.

Future period to May 2021 yes the CV-19 impact would certainly be severe , but surely it is against Accounting Standards to make provision for FUTURE Losses in a previous year submitted P&L  ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BRIAN WILSON said:

What I don't get is the fact that Stokes Accounts are to May 2020 YES MAY 2020 just a couple of months into the inpact of Covid , and a VERY high value of amortisation BUT WHY ? at May 2020 , that is not a true and fair assesment at that point in time.

Future period to May 2021 yes the CV-19 impact would certainly be severe , but surely it is against Accounting Standards to make provision for FUTURE Losses in a previous year submitted P&L  ?

I’m not an accountant but I seem to recall @Hxjstating that although the accounts are numbers at a given date you can factor in things that have happened between the end of the financial year and the accounts being written…and reflect that.

So, guesswork, Stoke have made their adjustments in that set of accounts, and won’t be trying to repeat again in this set of accounts….not the player bit anyway.

Happy to be corrected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was going to post this earlier but the computer wasn't really working right and had to nip out.

Basically this is a piece by a well known Birmingham author- who writes about Birmingham and sometimes FFP generally. Good stuff although related about a former failed CEO who left last season and certainly lefty his mark- does that sound familar ;) there are detailed points about Birmingham, FFP and their saga- where he got his info from I dunno! Doesn't sound desirable.

The points deduction with associated business plan may not be ideal!

https://almajir.net/2022/01/13/wheres-the-money-gone-dong/

Some salient points relating to FFP- although remember Birmingham were more reckless, losses rising without trying to turn the tide and dismissive of the need to control revenue- all things that we are not- e.g. they got 7 for the overspend itself, 3 for not trying/letting it shoot up and 1 back for cooperating and seemingly helping in the end.

Birmingham did not take heed of the warnings. Clearly.

I'll post these tomorrow, my print screen is playing up.

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

4 hours ago, JoeAman08 said:

I don’t think it is that. Think we just didn’t want to sell. All this FFP stuff is relevant but at the end of the day, you need to do right by the team. You can say with hindsight, maybe we’d have been better off accepting(don’t know the details of the bid) as hasn’t always been first choice as lost some form. That said seems to be picking up and has probably been heavily involved in matches we won equating to more points than we’d be deducted for failing FFP. 

Re-read my post and realised it isn't clear. I was using it as an example of how RG got to the "We're losing at least $30m on transfers alone" statement ie:

It's reported Watford did bid $8m for Massengo pre-Covid impact but we turned it down. Announcing we're skint encouraged a series of undervalue bids for Massengo, we then used the difference between pre and post covid bids to extrapolate that we've lost at least $30m in transfers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SydneyCity said:

Re-read my post and realised it isn't clear. I was using it as an example of how RG got to the "We're losing at least $30m on transfers alone" statement ie:

It's reported Watford did bid $8m for Massengo pre-Covid impact but we turned it down. Announcing we're skint encouraged a series of undervalue bids for Massengo, we then used the difference between pre and post covid bids to extrapolate that we've lost at least $30m in transfers.

I think it is possible they might do something like that after the fact. Just talking about Massengo as a one off I don’t think that would be the reason they rejected it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Was going to post this earlier but the computer wasn't really working right and had to nip out.

Basically this is a piece by a well known Birmingham author- who writes about Birmingham and sometimes FFP generally. Good stuff although related about a former failed CEO who left last season and certainly lefty his mark- does that sound familar ;) there are detailed points about Birmingham, FFP and their saga- where he got his info from I dunno! Doesn't sound desirable.

The points deduction with associated business plan may not be ideal!

https://almajir.net/2022/01/13/wheres-the-money-gone-dong/

Some salient points relating to FFP- although remember Birmingham were more reckless, losses rising without trying to turn the tide and dismissive of the need to control revenue- all things that we are not- e.g. they got 7 for the overspend itself, 3 for not trying/letting it shoot up and 1 back for cooperating and seemingly helping in the end.

Birmingham did not take heed of the warnings. Clearly.

I'll post these tomorrow, my print screen is playing up.

Thanks for this.  Really interesting seeing the dialogue with EFL and how they ignored it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

I think it is possible they might do something like that after the fact. Just talking about Massengo as a one off I don’t think that would be the reason they rejected it. 

Seems like we're debating a hypothetical rejection of a hypothetical offer?

 

Or did this really happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any club seeking to blame Covid for 'losses' (sic) in asset value should automatically be deducted additional points for having the gall so to do.

By all means adjust and report losses incurred by changes in accounting practice but that's something the club chooses to do and has sweet FA to do with Covid.

Some folks appear to forget the purpose and basis of accounting. It provides a useful tool to one wishing to assess or gauge value AND RISK but is not nor ever has been a guarantee of aforementioned value.

In signing a player all one is guaranteed is liability against contract value. All else is subjective speculation,  in reality players are all worthless. One may place a value on them but only market & time will prove whether that was in the right quantum. A player gets crocked or dies they're worthless, hence why clubs insure them (Sala and Cardiff a prime example of poor risk management in respect of their valuation of him.)

Transfer values in the UK are primarily dictated by Premier monies and whilst there was some impact from Covid it was marginal compared to their main income source, which wasn't impacted at all and which, perversely, may increase future income. If you want to see the future look at the NFL. Although much of last & this season saw reduced capacity stadiums the Commissioner wasn't shy in publishing their key money making stat - of the top 100 US TV audiences in 2021 91 were live NFL games, top 16 all NFL, 48 of the top 50 NFL.  TV, Advertisers Sponsors want those numbers, fans in stadia are atmosphere chicken-feed.

It's easy to blame Covid for folks finally cottoning-on that football had financially become unsustainable. If Covid wasn't the final straw, something else would have been. Downward adjustment had to happen.

 

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Thanks for this.  Really interesting seeing the dialogue with EFL and how they ignored it.

Reading it again earlier, some of the detail is astonishing- like I say hats off to Al Majir for getting hold of it or if not the documents themselves, the summaries- and wanting to spend another £27m when FFP had already been breached is just one mad detail- we're extremely far from that and that would mitigate, as would our losses not accelerating unchecked- think and remember pre Covid, it went up from a couple of million in 2015/16 to something like £37m in Year 3 via £15-20m in 2016/17!! Obviously this is prior to allowable deductions for FFP.

Otoh, I don't think us outright refusing to sell players would go down well either if it came to that- but our stance is a lot more promising than that of Birmingham, Hopefully some of my summaries will work today,

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

REBEL CLUBS IN EFL LEGAL FIGHT 

The EFL are facing the threat of a legal challenge from Championship clubs over their refusal to significantly alter profit and sustainability rules to account for the financial impact of the pandemic.

Around six clubs are understood to have had initial talks about joint legal action to challenge the EFL’s threshold for permitted losses, which is set at £3 9million over a three-year period. The EFL plan to give clubs an additional allowance of around £5m to cover for the absence of gate receipts when crowds were prohibited last season.

The rebel clubs want extra wriggle room due to the Covid-induced collapse of the transfer market, which has left many of them unable to balance their books by selling players. 

Derby and Reading have been deducted points for breaching the losses threshold in recent years. Middlesbrough, Stoke and Bristol City are at risk of a breach over the next three-year cycle judging by their most recent published accounts.

Via @MattHughesDM

Gulp!

Now, £5m- well if that is what Derby and Reading have been handed but we would have to significantly revise calculations then!

£48.4m loss (give or take)

Minus £10m in FFP allowances- give or take.

£38.4m- halved.

If they only make a £5m extra allowance. for clubs..well things get very testing. The key question is what did they allow for Derby and Reading, both in terms of a) Absolute numbers and b) Categories.

£16-17m loss the averaged out 2020 and 2021 loss? I still don't think we fail to THIS season or to 2021- but to 2022/23 is a problem absolutely.

FWIW there have been joint legal action attempts in the past but the rules have been upheld- if we or other clubs don't like it then we know the answer no? That's not to say I necessarily agree with a potential decision not to include commercial revenue in the allowed revenue losses but we have been a big supporter of these regulations as a club...so.

I don't know exactly whether you subtract the £5m from the halved average or you subtract initially then divide.

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

Hopefully now this stuff will post.

image.thumb.png.f3a08d342b078d476ec2a60d181f5d55.png

As we can see- annotations those of Al Majir or those he got the info from- I don't know if this was Birmingham or the EFL who put the ideas forward but it shows a) The problems and b) The potential solutions. It's not pretty- I've also read in the past that they tried naming rights and yes these were allowed but their view of the fair value vs the actual value...these vastly differed and it was the latter that won the day!

This was to stave off a breach in the season just gone and beyond- our position I believe would be to stave off a breach in the upcoming season and probably beyond

image.png.a1abcc647c26bfeb687df00edac18916.png

image.thumb.png.ae17fdf0ed70749a6da9cbc1cfa153ad.png

Even Harvey took exception- Birmingham at that time, really went above and beyond it seems! £27m on 8 new players despite a) The overspend b) Pedersen issue c) The upcoming seasons figures!?

It did result in future misconduct charges, in addition to the -9. Though Birmingham won their case, the EFL won their appeal. No sanction but principle upheld and principle upheld probably could lead to a sanction for clubs in the future.

I happen to believe the EFL might have botched this 2nd bit- a view I've held for a while but again it isn't pretty for clubs in that boat moving forward. Wasn't great for Birmingham either!

image.thumb.png.214627d00480204ce75b6ddab6c5d4a9.png

image.png.06159a710b40551121a052cbb04be1a5.png

He has possibly conflated this a little here- as it turned out they hit the target they seemed to get quite lucky to avoid this 2nd one on one level by improved conduct in general terms, selling Adams at the start of July 2019 and the stadium for what actually seemed fair value at the end of 2018/19- a loophole that is no longer open to clubs. Birmingham should be fine to this and next season but wonder if might come around in 2023/24 again under the current regs,

I also believe that the EFL learnt from this to an extent with Reading- 6 points off now and a budget, if that or a range of other conditions not adhered to, a further 6 this or next season- to be applied instantly on breach.

Had they sold Adams in Jan 2019, they might have fallen within.

On the one hand, our conduct in the runup is better by far and we have a strong track record- but otoh if we refuse to sell players and take the points deduction it's not a great path due to all that can come with it!

We breach and we actively choose not to sell to avoid Breach Number 2? Could be the points tariff plus perhaps an extra 3 for breach of agreed budget or aggravating factor the 2nd time around- 2nd offence that sort of thing.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/01/2022 at 17:39, chinapig said:

I still find Gould's comments to be a bit of special pleading. Had we controlled our costs better and retained enough of the transfer profits to provide some resilience the risk of a points deduction would have been mitigated if not removed entirely. Instead we blew it on a bloated squad and wage bill.

Also the obverse of the hypothetical loss of transfer income is the kind of reduction in player wages we have seen with Weimann and Baker, which is not hypothetical and which is likely to continue imo.

Gambling on continuing to receive big fees was not the way to achieve the sustainability Steve claims to want.

Great post - concise & understandable for 'non finance people such as myself 😀.

Another example of poor decision making - gambling even from the headshed..

Hard to quantify from a fortune made in the financial sector...

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

On 12/01/2022 at 09:03, Fordy62 said:

I think anyone buying Scott for 7m is getting a complete steal. 

I think if he continues on the same trajectory in the next 12/18 months, he could become our record sale and it’ll be to one of the big boys. 

Indeed.....sell HNM (should we give Watford a call?)😀..

Sell Bentley (happy enough with Max "between the sticks")

Keep our Babber Scott as the "get out of jail" card (if you'll pardon the expression)....

Edited by Son of Fred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don’t claim to understand FFP, but is there an argument that a 3 year timeframe doesn’t allow for a long enough cycle of up and downs? Therefore the only way to be confident of complying, is to work towards the most conservative plausible scenario you can come up with? That might be sensible for sustainability for football in the FL, but would surely result in an even more ludicrous cliff event between PL and FL? That then leads to something more akin to rugby, which then leads to questions about ring fencing. Arguably already at ‘soft’ ring fencing given parachute payments. Feels to me that whilst lots of good intent in FFP, Football League need to think a bit harder about unintended consequences and how they influence the wider game, whilst also pulling their clubs back from the unsustainable position they’ve been in.
 

A difficult conundrum, but the sum of the powers that be, FA, PL, FL, government etc, need to recognise the extent of support for lower league clubs, which is very different to other countries. Global TV money may dampen this importance from a commercial perspective, but can’t ignore Sunderland getting >30k in tier 3, teams getting >5k in tier 5 etc. Should be a way to monetise that support into a sensible business model, whilst protecting the importance to supporters of their local club. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, The Swan and Cemetery said:

Don’t claim to understand FFP, but is there an argument that a 3 year timeframe doesn’t allow for a long enough cycle of up and downs? Therefore the only way to be confident of complying, is to work towards the most conservative plausible scenario you can come up with? That might be sensible for sustainability for football in the FL, but would surely result in an even more ludicrous cliff event between PL and FL? That then leads to something more akin to rugby, which then leads to questions about ring fencing. Arguably already at ‘soft’ ring fencing given parachute payments. Feels to me that whilst lots of good intent in FFP, Football League need to think a bit harder about unintended consequences and how they influence the wider game, whilst also pulling their clubs back from the unsustainable position they’ve been in.
 

Great post....

The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

Only because it doesn't warrant a new thread, and naming right was mentioned a few posts back, but...

There is some prime in stadium space available for a sponsor.

The top of the Dolman, roof bit that slopes towards the pitch.

 

Dolman-Stand.jpg

The back of the Lansdown is similar. It`s just a huge white space and every car coming down Rownham Hill would see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brentford have published their accounts up to 30 June 2021, so for their final season in the Champ before they gained access to the riches of the PL's TV money. Highlights below with my emphasis in bold. They are an interesting comparison given turnover is pretty similar to us, £15.3m for them, £16.6m for us, and are supposedly the example of how to be successful whilst also being a 'trading' club (although their system has notable differences to the way we do things).

https://www.brentfordfc.com/news/2022/january/brentford-fc-2021-annual-accounts/

Brentford FC has today published the annual results for the year ended 30 June 2021. These accounts show turnover increasing to a record high of £15.3m (2020: £13.9m). This has been driven by increases across EFL and FA revenues, other football revenues (including monies from live TV coverage) and commercial income. It is also despite a sharp reduction in ticketing income due to matches being played behind closed doors or in front of a significantly reduced capacity as a result of the pandemic.

The estimated negative financial impact of COVID-19 on the 2020/21 season is approximately £2.8m (2020: £1.0m). This figure is a net figure and primarily comprises lost matchday revenue, offset by a reduction in matchday operating costs and grant income.

The financial statements for the year under review show a group operating loss, before player trading, of £53.1m (2020: loss of £34.1m). The current year's loss arises following a season where virtually no matchday income was generated due to COVID-19 restrictions preventing supporter attendance at the vast majority of games. The current year's loss also includes one-off bonuses paid out to players and staff following our successful promotion to the Premier League in May 2021.

Our player trading drove a significant profit on the disposal of player registrations of £44.3m (2020: profit of £24.9m).  The principal contributors to this were the sale of Ollie Watkins [reportedly £34m] to Aston Villa and the sale of Saïd Benrahma [reportedly £23m plus initial loan fee of £4m] to West Ham United. These two transfers continue to provide evidence of the strong work done by the Club to recruit and develop talent.

The knock-on impact of this was that the loss before taxation was £8.5m (2020: loss of £9.1m) - a significant reduction on the operating loss. This loss before taxation would have been a profit of approximately £3.5m were it not for promotion-related payments totalling £12.0m.

Matthew Benham's total investment in the group on 30 June 2021, comprised of equity and loans, stood at £104.1m (2020: £103.0m). This sum includes £22.4m (2020: £21.3m) of secured loans specifically in relation to the Brentford Community Stadium project.

So, bonuses for promotion were about £12m. which means that had they not been promoted, and had not sold Watkins and Benrhama (plus others) their loss would have been about £41m - £3m more than ours! Basically they have balanced the books by selling players. Exactly what we do...except in the last couple of seasons we've not been able to achieve a couple of big sales.

They've reportedly only spent about 35m net on transfers this season (so far), so as they'll be earning an extra 100m this season just on TV revenue, plus the extra revenue for the return of fans and their new stadium, if they do come back down (unlikely this season) they are going to have the most monumentally large warchest and be so far away from failing P&S as to be able to offer mad wages fro the Champ. 

Edit: The usual excellent breakdown from Maguire on Twitter 

 

Edited by ExiledAjax
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article by Football365

https://www.football365.com/news/opinion-bristol-city-losses-pandemic-championship-opinion

Says we won't be the worst hit but also queries validity of our arguments in terms of trying to change FFP. Not read it in depth.

What I will say is that thusfar we are the worst affected and have made the biggest losses. 17 clubs at least still to release however!

Middlesbrough, Nottingham Forest and Stoke could be interesting. Cardiff too?

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

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Article by Football365

https://www.football365.com/news/opinion-bristol-city-losses-pandemic-championship-opinion

Says we won't be the worst hit but also queries validity of our arguments in terms of trying to change FFP. Not read it in depth.

What I will say is that thusfar we are the worst affected to date. 17 clubs at least still to release however!

 At Bristol City, the wages to turnover ratio for 2019/20 was 123%, actually below the midway point in that particular table. At the top were Reading, on 211%. We’d expect these figures to deteriorate as the accounts covering last season continue to be released.

We will ne nowhere near the worse, just went first. Will be 6-8 teams in a darker place I would predict. 

There will have to be some kind of COVID "right off" year.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, VT05763 said:

 At Bristol City, the wages to turnover ratio for 2019/20 was 123%, actually below the midway point in that particular table. At the top were Reading, on 211%. We’d expect these figures to deteriorate as the accounts covering last season continue to be released.

We will ne nowhere near the worse, just went first. Will be 6-8 teams in a darker place I would predict. 

There will have to be some kind of COVID "right off" year.

 

 

Worth remembering of course that if there are big player sales or Parachute Payments that cushions things significantly even if only as a one off.

Not in terms of wages/turnover which in itself is a distortion last year for all as turnover was hit but in terms of the losses.

As for Covid:

1) 2019/20 and 2020/21 added and halved. Which helps.

2) The key devil in the detail is, what constitutes losses directly attributable to Covid 19? SwissRamble says our losses over 2 years were £16m IIRC.

IF that was the case and given our usual allowable costs of £5m per season, then I'd make our FFP loss in that combined period £11m or thereabouts. Which is less scary.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VT05763 said:

 At Bristol City, the wages to turnover ratio for 2019/20 was 123%, actually below the midway point in that particular table. At the top were Reading, on 211%. We’d expect these figures to deteriorate as the accounts covering last season continue to be released.

We will ne nowhere near the worse, just went first. Will be 6-8 teams in a darker place I would predict. 

There will have to be some kind of COVID "right off" year.

 

 

And in 20/21 (including £1.6m of Government Grant income some of which I suspect will be repaid,) wages were 195% of Turnover.

Exclude the Government Grant and wages to Turnover were 212%.

  • Like 1
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...