Jump to content
IGNORED

City release accounts - Ouch!


Henry
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ralphindevon said:

I know nothing about this sort of thing but isn’t this, between Christmas and new year, an odd time to announce this?

Or is it done just before the transfer window on purpose?

Accounts were signed off last Monday.

I had mixed views on whether we’d announce pre-January window.

1. Manage fans expectations versus

2. Show your hand early when negotiating with clubs you want to buy from, I.e. we’ve got no money, versys

3. Show your hand early to clubs looking to pillage our players

Not sure how this will play out Ralph.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VT05763 said:

Many will be far worse.

Let’s see….not convinced by that.  Ours are down to a ridiculously high cost base.  There are a few that might be in the same boat, but FFP-wise many will be fine, because they have a cost base 40-60% of ours and it’s slightly easier to absorb.

Thats my guess anyway.  I’m not including Reading and Derby in that though.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

Ashton is undoubtedly the main antagonist in this piece, but my word the degree to which Johnson flies under the radar on here is quite remarkable. 

It seems everything that was good was Johnson, everything that was bad was Ashton. 

I don't think that's true at all really. Both of their legacies get an awful lot of critique on here, and rightly so. Ashton is obviously seen as the main villain but Johnson gets quite a lot of stick too.

Wait until Sunderland hit poor form - you can guarantee that thread about Sunderland fans' comments will be resurrected on page 1 of this forum again (quite possibly by your good self!)

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice that Mark Ashton isn’t listed as a director in the accounts even though he was during this accounting period. It’s normal practice to still list him in the accounts but with his resignation date in brackets (if occurred before accounts have been released). Presumably they didn’t want to disclose his remuneration in note 7, for us all to baffle at!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BLRed said:

Now we have the bottom line figure, would be good to know from those that are good at working things out like @Davefevs as to where we stand in the market and what we have to play with.

I assume based on this figure, we are solely reliant on loans or getting rid of players not in the bus before we can spend.

This situation is certainly testing our academy but in the long term, can only be a good thing towards being self sufficient whilst getting back to realising profit from said players when they become in demand.

Eff all.

Seriously though, I’ve only looked at the high-level numbers, we are ok FFP-wise until the end of this season.  Next season it gets hairy, so this window and the summer window are hugely constrained by shifting players off the wage bill.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Northern Red said:

Ouch. We knew it was coming but it's still an eye watering amount.

The best bit is that we'll still get at least half a dozen threads over the next month or so whining that we aren't spending any money.

100% agree. 

@ the Mods can we pin this thread to the top of the Forum so we can refer people to it over January?

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Accounts were signed off last Monday.

I had mixed views on whether we’d announce pre-January window.

1. Manage fans expectations versus

2. Show your hand early when negotiating with clubs you want to buy from, I.e. we’ve got no money, versys

3. Show your hand early to clubs looking to pillage our players

Not sure how this will play out Ralph.

Sl stated months ago when these accounts would come out, and IMHO has a lot to do with EFL discussions too. Not sure fan expectation is an issue, its clear to most we are totally skint and in deep . It is going to be 23/24 before we get any semblance of normality, and that means another huge drop in the wage bill for next season. As we used transfer sales to fund the wage bill, going to hard to maybe get a Kelly bonus but then see it already spect on existing liabilities. Going to be the same across the EFL, and makes PP clubs even stronger.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Eff all.

Seriously though, I’ve only looked at the high-level numbers, we are ok FFP-wise until the end of this season.  Next season it gets hairy, so this window and the summer window are hugely constrained by shifting players off the wage bill.

Wasn't there speculation (before Covid) that perhaps this season or maybe last we'd have been able to 'go for it' a bit FFP wise? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, O'Garlandinho said:

I notice that Mark Ashton isn’t listed as a director in the accounts even though he was during this accounting period. It’s normal practice to still list him in the accounts but with his resignation date in brackets (if occurred before accounts have been released). Presumably they didn’t want to disclose his remuneration in note 7, for us all to baffle at!

He was never a director of Bristol City Holdings Ltd, only Bristol City Football Club Ltd. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Moments of Pleasure said:

Perhaps the owner might take a moment to spell this out in plain English to his supporters to take a little heat off his manager? 

That is what I want….I don’t want to hear the reasons, I want to hear the impacts / constraints going forward. With no spin!

  • Like 10
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Won't seem to download on my phone and can look in full later but does anyone know if there are any unusual items buried in the cost base?

Big impairment in Player Registrations, that kinda thing.

Further, also bear in mind that the sacking of LJ, Mcallister and Holden all fell in 2020/21 reporting period. These are non recurring costs that shouldn't be repeated although Downing and Simpson were sacked this season? Perhaps a bit less though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kodjias Wrist said:

Geeze wasn't expecting it to be quite so bad. Reducing the wage bill is obviously very important over the next two windows. Whos contract do we have running down? Palmer ? Wells?

Hardly any one. O’Dowda probably the only one on decent money. And watch him get an extension…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Okay, a few reasons to be slightly optimistic.

The academy are starting to produce players who look fairly comfortable playing in the Championship and whilst there is no way we wouldn't have to listen to offers for them if someone comes calling, they have been developed by the club and will be on reasonably low wages.

The players who are here just for the coin are easily identified and should they get close to 1st team action, they'll be under no illusion that their effort is going to be under scrutiny, so they might choose to run that extra yard to avoid grief.

As supporters we have to accept that we are skint and we won't be spending money any time soon.

Who is responsible for these numbers? Anyone who feels obliged to wear a suit on a match day has to take some of the blame, and the further up the food chain you go, the more accountable they are.

I just hope that fans rally and let SL know how much him and his generosity is appreciated.

True enough, but I'd like to hear what the plan is to get out of this mess. I think most of us, regardless of wealth would look at this and say "this has to stop, we need to do something different".  I know some of this is due to factors beyond anyones control, but he must be fuming about this. Be honest with supporters and say what's changing and why. A bit of honesty goes a long way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Wasn't there speculation (before Covid) that perhaps this season or maybe last we'd have been able to 'go for it' a bit FFP wise? 

I always thought in theory that this season in isolation promotion or bust meant we could have gone for it a bit but real deep trouble if we had tried that and failed.

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

35 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

It is also probable that they needed to be filed as we are in discussions with the EFL about our transfer policy within FFP considerations. There is mention of those discussions in the accounts. Sounds like we are close to a soft embargo and have to file accounts and provide projections. 

⬇️⬇️⬇️

24 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Ouch. Otoh broadly in line with my expectations/fears.

Not read anything but the main article yet, certainly not read them in full.

@billywedlock mentioned something about future trading talks with the EFL. That sounds about right, we're in that zone clearly between upper and lower loss limits- future trading talks etc are whereby club and EFL talk, club submit what they forecast to be their Projected Accounts and FFP losses for the following couple of seasons. ie 2021/22 and 2022/23. Quite a few clubs will probably be in such talks with the EFL, the basic objective is that 3 year FFP losses are kept to no more than £39m at any given time.

Covered by Future Financial Information regs that I've mentioned on occasion.

I digress, FFP wise:

1) I think we're fine to 2020/21.

2) To 2021/22 as well.

3) As for the losses in 2019/20 and 2020/21, these are added together and halved.

4) A very quick scan of the press release suggests £14m in losses attributable to Covid? You can knock that off the losses.

5) I believe our typical FFP costs to be £4-5m per season. Obviously subtract those from the headline losses.

As for when we can spend with relative freedom again at this level? Barring big sales or benefitting from major sell on clauses, it would be IMO 2023/24.

My earlier tweet.  As you point out we have to do 3 year projections if you are over lower limit.

8 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Wasn't there speculation (before Covid) that perhaps this season or maybe last we'd have been able to 'go for it' a bit FFP wise? 

Yes, pretty much utilising the 18/19 profit.  That notion went out the window though with covid.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dolman Block B said:

Excatly that and yet many fans still bemoan the owner!!!

We would be gone without the Lansdown,s.

A striker could be on the cards if we get rid of Palmer, Dasilva, Vyner, Simpson, Wells but what are their total worth?

And who will want them?

Why would we be gone without him? Please explain.

A lot of the losses are down to his mistakes and bad football decisions as they are every year 

  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ralphindevon said:

I know nothing about this sort of thing but isn’t this, between Christmas and new year, an odd time to announce this?

Or is it done just before the transfer window on purpose?

I’ve noticed that Pearson has said in a number of interviews that, to manage expectations, City need to be open and transparent as to ‘where we are’. So releasing this now would be aligned to that sentiment. 

  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, O'Garlandinho said:

I notice that Mark Ashton isn’t listed as a director in the accounts even though he was during this accounting period. It’s normal practice to still list him in the accounts but with his resignation date in brackets (if occurred before accounts have been released). Presumably they didn’t want to disclose his remuneration in note 7, for us all to baffle at!

The accounts only list the directors of the holding company. Ashton was never a director of that company. For the same reason Gould isn't listed either. Nothing sinister.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sarumred said:

I would expect a drop in the wage bill for 2021/22 following the departure of the OOC players at the end of last season.

Also imperative the likes KP are off the payroll as soon as possible. 

Yes, anywhere between £5-7m I reckon cut off the wage bill.  Got to move out those players not playing - Palmer, Dasilva, Moore (on loan) and Wells.  Whether that be on loan or permanently, we must cut the wage bill / bloat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Sarumred said:

I would expect a drop in the wage bill for 2021/22 following the departure of the OOC players at the end of last season.

Also imperative the likes KP are off the payroll as soon as possible. 

Simpson, Cundy, King, O'Dowda, Martin (year option)

I expect Simpson and King to be let go. So saving a fair bit there I reckon.

I think Pearson said recently that O'Dowda will earn himself a new deal if he stays fit.

I actually think that might not matter as O'Dowda might himself choose to move on. Just a guess.

Cundy hopefully gets his chance and proves himself enough to earn a new deal.

Martin I reckon has his year option triggered. However much fans will hate it.

I imagine we will sell Kalas in the next 2 windows.

EDIT. Misread your post. Thought I read players contracts expiring this summer 🤦

Edited by JonDolman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, North London Red said:

The 6-7 weeks’ worth of season ticket sales for 2021-22 which were made before 31 May will only be recognised as P&L revenue in the accounts for the year ended 31 May 2022. None of it will be recognised in the P&L in the year to 31 May 2021.

The accounting entries for these sales in the 2021 accounts will be debit cash, credit deferred revenue (as Ole noted in a later post).

Then in the 2022 accounts the accounting entries will be debit deferred revenue, credit P&L revenue, to match the ticket revenue to the period which it relates to. 

Very happy to stand corrected!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carey 6 said:

Anyone know why staff costs rose by nearly £1m in one year? 

Surely can’t be player wages, you’d have thought that would’ve come down. 
 

ignore this - (Should’ve waited til I got to page 33 on the accounts) 

Page 33 of the accounts! You must be a glutton for punishment. The headline figure of £38m loss was enough for me. 

1 hour ago, Ian M said:

This is why I keep saying Ashton going is equivalent to the period when Pulis left us with an aging squad, on big money, on long contracts. It took us years of treading water at L1 level before we were able to challenge again. Pearson's task is to attempt to do that at Championship level. 3 years to get that season off the books (or turn one of the Academy lads into a £40m sale)

It could be worse than the Pulis disaster. We had an aging squad, on big money, on long contracts when City was relegated from Division 1 with Alan Dicks as manager. (Salaries were much smaller then, but City paid comparatively high wages).  I don’t think it will be administration and sinking to the bottom division now, but relegation to League One, either this season or next, is a distinct possibility. If Reading or Derby didn’t have a points deduction City would only be 5 points above Cardiff who would be in the third relegation place. Even if relegation is avoided, selling players such as Scott, Benarous and Semenyo in the near future seems to be inevitable. They will go for bargain fees because City are desperate for money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of worried voices and concerns, and I share them.

But let's hold off on the doom mongering until we have heard from an expert on the subject, someone beyond reproach who will doubtless have the inside track. I refer of course to the world's most successful IT engineer who spends his days fixing laptops in BS3 and voicing but verifiable fact.

Henbury Gas will be sure to have had someone in his shop who will have told him that SL is skint, the club is available to buy for 2 magic beans and a crunchie and that unless we sell 84 billion pounds worth of players by a week last Tuesday, Wally has an option to buy Ashton Gate for 2 hours rental on one of those e scooters.

  • Haha 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...