Cidre Monita

15 minutes ago, Simon bristol said:

Havent seen it mentioned elsewhere, but nige has confirmed in his press conference that sam is on standby for the under 21s,, this is great news, and a real tribute to sams progress!! Hopefully he gets the call up!!

Well done Sam, fantastic news!! Will be a proud day seeing him run out in an England shirt. Fingers firmly crossed! 

1 hour ago, Kodjias Wrist said:

Remember there was a top flight before the prem? But I do agree after so many making it to the prem, it wouldn't surprise me to see teams like Preston, Millwall, Rovers to did it before us. Could add in Wrexham in all fairness with their backing.

One subtle difference with the aforementioned clubs, they actually want to get to the premier league, we don’t. I would add Bolton, Derby and Portsmouth to the list. How many more false dawns can us fans put up with? It would be interesting to see how many would get their season card money back now if they could (especially after the non-reinvestment of the Scott cash). It must be obvious to even the must optimistic of those amongst us that we will never make the PL under Lansdown. 

24 minutes ago, robinforlife2 said:

He's turning into Karl Oyston the second. #Lansdownout

Have to agree with you. Just read NP’s comments and he has been proper stabbed in the back. Contrary to popular opinion I don’t think SL has any intention of selling up. I think people need to realise how a billionaire’s brain works. SL will have zero sentiment about our squad being depleted and believe he’s just trying to claw back money he’s previously lost. It’s hard for us average Joes to get our heads around the unbridled greed these guys have and I’m glad SL’s now been exposed for what he is all about post-Scott sale. I think pound for pound even the Gas have shown more ambition than us. 
#Lansdownout

23 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

For me, the major thing is the lack of transparency and honesty about where we are. If Steve or Jon Lansdown, or the CEO, came out and said "we're trying to make the club sustainable and we're not going to spend money. We think our squad is good enough to finish mid-table and that's our expectation but we're not going to fund a promotion push" then, disappointing though it would be, I could respect the position.

What I can't respect is making noises about promotion being the expectation and constantly hinting at disappointment in the manager for not achieving perceived targets and leaving the manager alone to answer questions about the lack of spending. If we can't spend the Scott money for a good reason, fine, but the CEO should be fronting that decision and explaining it to the fans - not leaving the manager to take the flak. That's just shitty behaviour in any profession. 

Excellent summary and accurate depiction of the situation. 

20 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Hardly, he’s said clearly here that we won’t be signing anyone, so forget the “back me” bit.

More like fed up with answering questions that others are the club are clearly responsible for.

Chairman or CEO, take your pick.

Exactly this. It is blatantly unfair to ask Nige to explain to fans or the media the budget policy. He is right to say he cannot answer the question. It is not his job to, he does not set it. He has calmly said he is following the club guidelines given to him. 

This is for the CEO or Charman to explain the dramatic change in club policy. No issue with that change of policy, the club loses a lot of money, but they do need to explain it, not Nige. It is very disingenuous to put him in that position.  

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

@Psychopomp

Thanks for the informative post above.

If we take the two companies in the Holding Comp - BCFC and AG

• BCFC claims £16,648,738 turnover
• AG claims £17,456,032 turnover
• Total £34,473,160

But Holdings only claim £29,675,160.

What is the gap of £4,798,000?  Is that the “dual-counting”?  Or is that Bears revenue (£4,887,201) that can’t be attributed to Football “operations”?

It is very hard to understand with only summary accounts available. The football club income streams are quite clear, and you can see the same at other clubs, the tv, solidarity payments etc. Where it is less clear, is how the stadium co arrives at that turnover. There are ticket sales, hospitality, bars, weddings, concerts etc etc. The food and beverage/hospitality numbers will have grown substantially after the stadium rebuild, that would run into millions, with football and rugby, a rough guesstimate would be £7/8M based on the number of games/people and other clubs' numbers. To get to £17m though, would require something else. There are recharges between related parties, that is for sure, that is seen in both accounts, but there is no indication on what basis they are made. Internal cross charges as such. The rugby club will pay a rental to the stadium company. That will form some of the income. Does the football club pay an element of ground use to the stadium company? Without knowledge of how they operate the stadium between the sporting clubs, it is hard to say (and may explain the disparity) . Only that there are some grey areas that make the overall turnover less than black and white. The holding does benefit as such from the rugby rental and usage (and beer drinking- though a % back to them would be due ?), few other clubs have that operational income. So there are some areas where we have a turnover advantage. The non parachute payment clubs, like Preston, Swansea, Brum etc have a turnover in the 17 to 20 M area. 

Turnover is all well and good, but if the cost of achieving it is disproportionally high (efficiency) then you are not making the progress you desire or expected. 

4 minutes ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

Tony Bloom is what SL should have been.

Exactly. 

It seems confusing what is real income and internal cross-charging that inflates turnover of a holding company but impacts very ittle  the bottom line as the costs/income/cross charging are just moved around. It just makes the club look like it has a greater turnover but it still loses substantial money as a football club. 

The football club earns, and these are all slightly variable year to year the following, but from last accounts

Premier League solidarity income £5 M

Football League Pool £3.5 M

Season Ticket sales £ 3 M approx

Match day tickets £2.0 m

Broadcasting revenue £0.5M (rounded up)

Other commercial £ 1.0 M

Other football-related income £1.0 m

All in it is about £18M. Nowhere near one of the highest in the league, though certainly not the lowest. 

Then you have the wage bill, which City do not split between playing and non-playing like a few clubs do, which was up around £28M in 2021 and is somewhere now down to lower £20 M's. The playing wage bill is under £20M according to Sl on Radio B. But add the football club wage bill to that of the stadium company (another £6M), and ouch, it is huge, around £30M. Far higher than comparable clubs. Meaning that our cost base is far too high for the the combined businesses, and the actual money spent on the players who perform on the pitch , well it is far from the wage bill often quoted in the media.  

So it is easy to see where the financial holes are, and that is before you buy players, or now, sell them, to fill those £15M a year holes.

The holding company has the stadium company, and that charges for services, as with all internal cross charges, you can decide where you want the money to appear, and rugby is barely adding much to that turnover number, the concerts will create some new income streams though. So to go from £18m of clearly defined income, to the £28M quoted, well that is not rugby or pop concerts, which may cover £3 maybe 4 M. The rest is fugazi. Is it not the case that  If the stadium company sells a ticket, for example, it will count as turnover of the stadium company, they then take their fee for manging the event, and pass on the net  "sale" to the football club. The football club then count that net payment as  their turnover. So you inflate turnover of the combined group. Though the costs are still there, between the stadium and football club,  so it has no impact on the combined bottom line, it just inflates the turnover of the holding company. You are selling to yourself. 

BCFC has the challenge to increase turnover, the use of the holding company to manage the stadium (Ashton Gate Ltd) obscures those numbers when looking externally (though you can argue makes the stadium operation easier to manage for dual use)  but the pure football club is far from one of the highest turnover clubs in the league and the non playing cost base far too high. The club could also never fund through turnover the stadium development or the HPC. It simply does not generate that level of income. But it carries huge debt for them both. 

This is the harsh reality , and the disparity with the elite clubs today, where £400m income is seen more often very stark. A championship club makes no financial sense , and without the financial support of people like Sl, should really not exisit. Even after all of the wage bill reductions, we are as a business still paying out too much money, far too much. 

The EFL and FA really screwed up when the Prem league broke away. The horse bolted, and no one will ever repair or change that balance of income distribution that is getting worse and wider by the year. Add in the academy player farming, loan fees for clubs to pay to them to develop their players, the abuse of the loan market generally, the list goes on. Bottom line, Championship clubs make no financial sense and the league is broken with an absurd payment for falure for the relegated sides. So, Scott being sold and no attempt to replace or reinfoce at that time, is indeed ,questionable, but any Championship club needs to make £15m a year from player sales just to stand still. It cannot carry on like that. 

Though we seem to have gone cold turkey rather fast !

16 minutes ago, Taunton_BCFC said:

Get out of our club!!!!!

25 million in his pocket from selling our best player and no one else coming on  he’s lost interest and is taking us to league one 

Finally the blinkers are coming off of people! We all know we can’t carry on like this 4fs. Thanks for everything Steve, but you can’t hold the club back any longer. 

3 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

Oh duck off. We have just come out a Women's World Cup that showed there is equal interest in the game across the world, yet you still want to cling to your misogynistic little area where the ladies drink a small glass of wine and spend their lives in the kitchen. 

Shocking.

Did she put the kettle on at half-time? 

8 minutes ago, firstdivision said:

We've spent 14 of the last 16 seasons in the Championship, which compares very favourably with our history.

 From 1965-1981 we were in the top two divisions all the time.

Before that, you have to go back to the period before and after the First World War to find a better run than now. So basically, this is our best consistent spell in terms of which division we are in for over a hundred years. The things history teaches us, eh?

So you are happy with that? The likes of Luton, Brentford et al in the Prem and that sleepy little retirement home Bournemouth signing our best young players. I was saying to my mate that I actually prefer the old days in the early 80’s when Terry Cooper was in charge and we didn’t have a pot to p*** in. Who would have thought back then we still wouldn’t have made the promised land some 40 years later even with the involvement of a local billionaire. The things history teaches us, eh? 

17 minutes ago, TV Tom said:

You sound as chippy as a Rovers fan, are people not allowed to have a different opinion to you without your sarcastic comments?  

Haha do you ‘smell gas’ TVT?!  The standard go to lazy response to a well made argument that is difficult to argue with given the current situation. This is a forum so of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I was merely having an opinion on you opinion. 

1 minute ago, TV Tom said:

And you've got the manager you deserve......

First proper manager we’ve had for years and he’s been starved of funding. As I said in a previous post NP has kept his part of the bargain which SL has seemingly reneged on. It annoys me that NP will ultimately be made the scapegoat and a lot on here will applaud that ,frankly, I believe, through their own ignorance. Please understand that SL is the one constant in the historical and ongoing underachievement of our club. 

Thanks for your articulate response by the way. 

1 hour ago, TV Tom said:

What's this got to do with Lansdown ? this is NPs team, his players, his tactics yet he keeps on getting off relatively scot free after every poor performance (of which there has been so, so many during his tenure)    

What’s this got to do with Lansdown? Are you for real?!! With a couple more injuries we will be down to a 5-aside team and still no sign of the Scott cash being reinvested. Seriously mate you get the team/club you deserve….

19 minutes ago, frenchred said:

Can someone sensibly explain why we would need to increase the capacity of our ground when (a) we hardly ever sell out and (b) if we did reach the promised land, match day attendances are incidental to other monies incoming

Incidental? That is incorrect. Every club has to grow its income, more so with revised FFP regulations. There is a reason you have seen substantial new ground investments in the Prem, and still there are developments underway, such as Anfield and the new Everton ground. Man United are looking to rebuild Old Trafford, Leeds wants to rebuild Elland `road, Palace has advanced plans to expand dramatically Selhurst Park. The list goes on. Non media income is around 30% of overall income at the better Prem sides, and each club is seeking to grow it. Liverpool were quoting a target of £100M and growing for non media income. Hardly incidental. 

AG has sold out to home fans already this season. For a side that has performed at a very middling to poor level in the league for a number of years. AG would clearly be inadequate for a sustained Prem side. Current capcity is , with segregation under 26 k, with 22k for home fans. That would easily sell out when , ok when..., Bristol becomes the 53/54th side to get to the Prem. 

The origional Ashton Vale plans had a 32k base design with a ramp up to 40k. that would be clser to where a Prem league BCFC would be aiming. Totally bonkers that it never went ahead. 

AG is landlocked to an extent. 3 sides of the ground have limitations. The most restrictive being the Dolman, followed by the Atyeo ,you can rebuild it, but with minimal gains in capacity if you do not buy the (12-15?) houses behind it. Followed by the South stand, that has 4/5 houses in the corner that you would need to buy, to enable a double/triple tier stand. The Lansdown could have another tier added (but would require replanning the sporting quarter). It is still quite a small stand compared to many in the Prem (The Anfield road new stand, and main stand are huge)

With hindsight, now ownng the land where the sporting quarter is intended, the ground should have been moved . The overall plot size would easily enabe any size stadium you could desire. 

It is rather "little Bristol" when there is talk of "it is fine for what we need now". That thinking is exactly why we are where we are . There are 4 decades of fans who have never seen top flight football in Bristol, a few lifetimes for some. But the fanbase growth potential is clearly there. A whole new generation of fans, new fans. So  there at least needs to be a master plan to grow AG. Some future investors place great importance to current ground capacity and facilities, but also, very importantly, site potential for growth. 40k (actual/potential) is a minimum target number for many ( though certainly not all investors)

To discuss the current Prem grounds that are similar smaller to AG

Luton - What do you wnat to say?

Bournmouth - Plans to rebuild one day for a 20k stadium. It is not a city, population linited and many competing local clubs.

Fulham - Heavily land locked and planning constraints, stadium under devlopment with many complex issues. Aim is to have 29500 capacity

Brentford - New stadium, 17k significant competition from other London Prem sides

Burnley - Small town , similar to Cheltenham

Palace - Selhusrst Park to have new main stand, taking capacity from 26k to 34k

Nottingham F - Plans preogressing to take Capacity to 34k as phase 1

If we get to the Prem, only Luton, Bournmouth and Brentford will have a stadium smaller than AG with the current line up.  For the City of Bristol. The catchment area, the relative wealth. No history of success, true, but the other basics are there.

AG is a lovely ground. No doubts. But it is a Championship ground all the same and would appear too small for a Prem league Bristol City. You would think that City in the Prem would easily sell out all home seats as season tickets. Indeed, City with any scent of promotion would sell out every week. 

Unfortuately with grounds/stadium , these are not decisions that are taken overnight, and the impact is very much long term and can take years, even decades to realise. (or to realise your errors).

42 minutes ago, The hand of RO'D said:

Not writing it off but something feels unnervingly stagnant with the club at the moment.

You are right. Ignorant fans. 

26 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

An awful lot of assumptions and guesses here.  I was highly critical of our performance last Saturday, but for footballing reasons.  We’ve got a decent squad: it’s Pearson’s job to get them to deliver.

Assumptions and guesses? Really?! You say we have got a decent squad - 4th game in tomorrow and we have one available specialist centre back (Vyner) who may well be sold next week, one senior striker (Wells), whose best days are behind him, and what I consider to be a league 2 keeper with no serious back up. 
 

Academy players in 1st team squad:- 

* When I say academy players - obviously those promoted to the 1st team squad but on low wages to reflect this.

O’Leary/Wiles-Richards 

Vyner/Pring/Araoye/Knight-Lebel

Benarous/Scott (now gone)

Conway/Bell

I find it staggering that we have reached the wage limit with a squad of c24 players including 9 academy graduates. We are 3 league games in and already in crisis. God forbid Vyner goes before next Friday with no replacement. Make no mistake this is SL cutting the budget to the bone and seems hellbent on a further tightening of the purse strings. 
 

I really do fear for us tomorrow night…,

38 minutes ago, Superjack said:

I think that we are indeed short of quality in the GK department, but not necessarily because of the understudies. 

I have never rated Max O'Leary. But the argument always used to be that he never had a run in the team. Well, now he has. And I still don't rate him. I don't think that he is awful, but I still believe that he is a League One keeper at best. 

Both of the understudies are unknown to most. But at least there are two of them.

Agreed. Not sure what Nige sees in him tbh he is a liability and an accident waiting to happen. Why we didn’t go in for Jack Butland on a free I will never know…

16 minutes ago, ORANGE500 said:

Including the 4 already signed earlier that's 6 this transfer window you can't just keep on signing players unless you think there should be 70 players in the 1st team squad.

You are joking, right? Kudos for the most ridiculous response so far. 

Must admit I was looking forward to the Scott sale as it would subsequently highlight what SL’s true intentions are. Now it has all been laid bare - he had no intention of keeping to his part of the bargain after Nigel’s savage cost cutting exercise. As a previous poster said I thought there was a plan put in place post Scott sale which it looks like SL has reneged on. If ever a club needed needed a reboot with new ambitious ownership and investment it is us. Wake up City fans money is SL’s god and to hell with the glory. How much longer are you willing to put up with this?!! 

1 hour ago, archie andrews said:

Our head of whatever was on radio bristol this morning and said capacity is 27,500....

They are in for a shock then.

Very sorry and shocked to hear this, Lisa was always incredibly friendly, professional and passionate.

Our deepest condolences to her family and many friends. 

24 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Anyway suppose a more pertinent q is what is the capacity of the Atyeo and if you gave 2k to away fans, what level of segregation would be required and how many home fans could you squeeze in?

Based on past experiments, it loses over 1000/1500 seats, so you get 2k away fans, 1 k home fans. It is a rather bizarre situation. The most "seat-effective" solution in terms of selling, would be to give the whole stand to away fans, but as we saw against Man City, police advice for segregation means that 800 seats are lost, taking the Atyeo to 3600 capacity. So the real capacity at AG for football, with segregation,is the Man City game, 25700. It is not 27000. 

City is not alone, it seems that many stadiums are built with no provision for away fan positioning and segregation. 

Hardly a major concern for City in the Championship, as we have enough capcity for home fans with a team mid table. But it does highlight the issue of away fan amangement, and a stadium size caapcity issue if (we must dream) if one day there was sustained success. But the underlying comment remains, away fan mangement (tickets available, position in ground, cup game requirments) and our own singing section stuck in a corner (with/without safe standing) . It is a compex mix of commercial, safety, atmosphere , optimisation of the stadium etc. There is no perfect solution, maybe we have it already within the current stadium set up. No idea without more detail.

From a purely traditional sense (and selfish point of view) vocal fans behind the goal again would be a step forward. 

22 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

A good post but where we are getting 26.5k from? Was under the impression ground held 27k as a starting point and then work backwards from there.

Gould kept us in the loop quite well but people will have different views on this..it all feels a little rudderless on the exec side. A sense of drift.

Upper Lansdown would be nice but the kids area up there..directors Lower Lansdown hmm.

Fair point on the 1k from a financial perspective but to what extent does it give the opposition a major lift? Quite a good one IMO. Playing towards an end of your fairly noisy fans, across 3/4 of a stand, maybe slightly more. Mostly standing as a big group.

(Good luck getting them to sit).

Standing fans are on average I would suggest more likely to sing which in turn lifts their side and the two can feed off each other. If we got say 2 up first half hour, the equation would change drastically and their noise surely dissipates.

26500 is closer to the capacity, it seems to get rounded up.

Bristol Bears , no segregation, sold out with 26399 ( https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/record-crowd-set-bristol-bears-3428274 ) , Man City game sold out, with 800 seats not sold in the Atyeo, 25700 , game vs Preston this season, home area sold out, 1357 Preston tickets (out of 4400 in Atyeo) attendance 23330, suggesting agan 26373 would have been capacity.