ExiledAjax

Must...not...mention...the...Regul...ah shit.

I've wondered whether he might go for a sale with what's known as an "earn-out" provision. This is a way of structuring the payment he receives as two lumps. One is paid upfront, and the other is "earned" based on the future performance of the business. It's normally used where an owner-manger wants to realise some of the wealth tied up in his company, but also bets that the company will grow, and he wants a slice of that as well. The snag is that the second future performance based payment is risky. In our case if we never got promoted then SL wouldn't get it, and so he'd end up having sold us for not very much. It also still generally requires you to relinquish full control of the business to the new owner, and as we're discussing, this seems to be something SL is against. Contractually tricky, but legally possible. Agree it would be expensive to properly structure the deal. Lawyers would be the only happy people. It should be possible though, although as I say, 99% of potential buyers would much prefer just taking the whole lot.

I mean in recent years he's basically put £13m - £15m in every year. He's also bankrolled a £45m redevelopment of a stadium, plus the HPC...so I don't think £50m would see much return. However if the stadium, sporting quarter and HPC are included I think a proper valuation is nearer £100m than £50m. To an investor what's the potential uplift? Well West Ham took investment recently that valued them at about £500m and as said, Bournemouth were at £120m in the autumn of last year. So if you're investing in City at a valuation of, well let's say £80m, then to get your 4-5x return you need to sell with us at something like £320 - £400m valuation. That probably means securing at least sporadic European football, plus a well-established presence in the Premier League, and the high profile (and highly paid) player contracts that come with that. You're probably targeting that happening by 2030. Is this likely? No. Is it cheap? No. Is it easy? No. PS> I'm deliberately not mentioning the likes of Liverpool, Man Utd and Chelsea as if we ever reach their levels of valuation (£4bn approx) then this whole conversation has moved to an entirely different room.

Exactly. In particular, if we are looking at US-based PE houses as the most likely investors. A PE house is ruthless. They will have a 5-10 year exit plan and will target a certain multiple of their investment upon sale/exit. Likely a 4-5x profit is expected. In another industry they would aim to achieve that by taking either a controlling stake of the shares - basically 75% in order to allow them to pass both ordinary and special resolutions unopposed - or they might take a minority stake in terms of the quantity of shares, but would have clauses that ensure they have a majority of directors, or they have all the voting shares, and Steve takes shares that only have an economic interest. Ultimately though the PE house would expect to take control of the business so that they can guide it and they can achieve that 4-5x on exit. If Steve digs his heels in and says "no I want day-to-day control" then that will be a dealbreaker for most PE houses. I have never been able to nail down whether the training centre is under one of the Bristol City Holdings companies. The answer will be on the Land Registry records, and I don't have access to that as it stands. But in the event of a sale yes you would expect the HPC to be part of the deal. A precise valuation is a finger in the air job really. Looking at recent similar clubs though you've got Derby who were a Championship club in name only and were in distress but effectively went for about £17m (@Mr Popodopolous is that correct?). Millwall are currently touting a £80m valuation I hear. Sheff Utd are valued at £80-90m by Kieran Maguire (https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/football/news/sheffield-united-takeover-abdullah-offer-25805657). Realistically it's anything between £50m and £100m I would say. Bournemouth were valued at £120m last month - higher division, but much worse facilities.

And I would add that it is a completely fair and reasonable misconception for a fan to hold. The way it is presented and marketed by the Club(s) and SL I am unsurprised that most fans who are not experts in corporate structures, companies house, and shareholdings think and believe that Bristol Sport owns everything. You do need to look beneath the surface to discover the truth, and that is another fault to be laid at SL's feet.

No they would not. Read my chart above to see that the football club is, in terms of ownership, entirely separate from the rugby, basketball, and Bristol Sport companies. Even the women's team could be split off and retained by SL if that was wanted. Both either could, or could not, be included in any sale. The legal structure means both are optional.

I heard two legs are bad and four legs are good.

Don't. There'd be too many "doing a Derby" and blaming the EFL for simply enforcing it's own rules.

I agree. If I'm an investor or buyer I want the stadium and everything. I don't want to buy a football club and then rent from the old owner. I'd be happy to be a landlord to the old owner's rugby club, but I want control of the main bricks and mortar asset.

Unbelievable.

Well the interview is well worth listening to anyway, and it was new to me.

Yep, although Marshall is the Secretary rather than a Director. But yeh, Maggie and Steve are the only persons with significant control, and the company is 100% owned through Pula.

Football Ramble interview with Neil Warnock has just come out. We get a mention or two and he really confirms that he both loves and hates us. First of all he mentions the time that he told our fans that when he dies he wants us to chant that "Warnock is a w****r" at his funeral. Apparently "Bristol City, yeh they got to me". Presumably all to do with the Palace ghost goal, Cardiff etc etc. All well documented. But then a little later on (about 30 minutes in) he's asked if there are any teams he wishes he could have managed - he says yes, Portsmouth, Ipswich, and Bristol City. Reckons we always get behind the team and says he'd have loved to manage us.

Surely all squid are damp?

I understand that the Sporting Quarter is being done under the company "Esteban Investments Ltd" rather than any Club company. That is the company listed as the one putting in the planning permission application. Esteban Investments Ltd is on my chart (furthest to the right), as another sister company of Bristol City Holdings Ltd and Bristol Sport Ltd. However it is not in any way owned by either of those. So any sale or investment of/in the football club or stadium doesn't directly involve that company or the development that it is doing. The stadium and sporting quarter are, I bleieve, on different titles at the land registry. Therefore, so long as SL was comfortable that he would have the correct access easements and contractual relationships with Bristol Sport or Bristol City football Club then as I understand things it doesn't affect it at all really. Alternatively yes they could include Esteban Investments or the Sporting Quarter as part of the sale - and yes that would increase the valuation again. It all depends on how much SL and any new owner/investor wants to control the entire site/package, or whether they are happy buying just the football club part and having an ongoing contractual relationship with the bits that SL retains.

The main decision that SL needs to make is whether he takes investment/sells Bristol City Football Club Ltd or Bristol City Holdings Ltd. The current structure is as below, and it really isn't that complex when compared to other company structures. As you can see, Bristol Sport Ltd is actually a sister company of Bristol City Holdings Ltd. Despite what many fans will tell you Bristol Sport does not own any part of Bristol City Football Club. There will be contractual agreements between the Club company and Bristol Sport, but that does not constitute ownership. Likewise the Rugby club owns no part of the football club or Ashton Gate. Basically, does SL want to keep hold of the stadium - owned by Ashton Gate Ltd., or does he want to sell the whole lot and take a clean break? I have no idea, but it would make a huge difference to both the potential valuation of the sale/investment and to the future stability of the club. I'd guess that the stadium would add £40-50m to any valuation(a guess of a figure). As fans we should want SL to take investment or sell the whole package, stadium company and club company. Doing this keeps the stadium packaged with the club and so provides any new owner with control of the three main assets that make up our club - membership of the EFL, player contracts (which are with Bristol City Football Club Ltd), and the stadium. That's what you buy, and that's where the value is. That means selling the Holding company, or more likely setting up a new company, and selling Bristol City Football Club Ltd and Ashton Gate Ltd to that NewCo. The women's club company would go with it as a subsidiary of Bristol City Football Club Ltd. Rugby would continue to be a tenant of Ashton Gate Ltd - and that should cause no issue if the new owner is honest and in good faith. Likewise the Club could easily continue to licence or rent things from Bristol Sport Ltd under its current contracts. In terms of structuring the deal the existence of Bristol Sport, and the relationship that the Football Club has with Bristol Sport and the Rugby Club should have very little negative impact on any new investor.

I wonder if they've already exhausted all other means of making their point? Presumably they've already written to the club, emailed Gould, contacted the SC&T to see if they can use that channel of communication, written to the club's lawyers, maybe delivered a petition or manifesto detailing the changes they'd like to see...or have they just gone straight to the march?

Initially no we'd be no better of FFP-wise. A new owner inherits the club's current FFP status, and SL already puts the maximum equity investment (when he does his annual debt/equity swap) in every year in order to keep the club afloat. However, if SL's attitude and motivation to continue doing that is failing, then a new shareholder could be needed in order to keep treading water. So short term it would do nothing, but long term (ie 2024/25/26) it could be what's needed. IMO a fresh approach to governance, board structure, and corporate structure are needed. That can be achieved either through a new investor or through a complete sale/takeover. Personally I would welcome a new investor coming on for something like a 20% stake. Fresh ideas and views but with SL retaining control. Allows us to test out that investors motives and modus operandi.

Despite my reticence to give this any oxygen, I believe it is this. Organised by an Instagram account with some 347 followers they list multiple vague and directionless complaints including: "We need change" "We want our club back" "Fans not customers" Finally the hashtag in the comment is #PearsonOut which very much suggests that ultimately it is completely to do with Pearson. In my opinion we are struggling in the league, in the balance book, and when that happens fans get strained. But we're a very, very long way from marching to "get our club back" - whatever that really means.

That Spurs game against Inter at the San Siro on 2010 when he just ran the show. Turned Maicon inside out and upside down, took one of Europe's top teams to pieces. That was the game. If I was a player and that game and performance were all I ever did, I'd retire happy.

Unbeaten in 3.

Go back and tell them to count you. Then go and tell the next steward. Then the next. Etc

Attendance: 99,000

Gone for the win. Full strength starting XI with a few young 'uns on the bench.

Presume you've given yourself a seat upgrade? Straight to a box if I were you.