BTRFTG

17 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Like I posted earlier…what we (City) lost was the opportunity to sell on players for anything like their pre-covid value (let’s not get into how much we paid in the first place!).  My view is much like yours - toughski shitski.  A strategy based on boom-time was gonna go pear-shaped at some point, covid just hurried it.  What is surprising is that the financial expert couldn’t see the flaw in that strategy.  Revenues plateauing at £30m with costs growing fast and reliance on transfer profit was as Nige says “bonkers”.

'Value' is subjective. I therefore don't follow how City 'lost' anything. Pre Covid City were free to sell players but didn't. Covid hasn't prevented City selling players, its only impacted what City (and perhaps others,) thought they might have been worth. Point being one can't lose something one never had in the first place.

Given the quality of Horse Racing this afternoon is so dire this thread's allowing me too much thinking time.

I'm confident accounts include insurance premiums (if paid,) though usually not any protected benefit. Which had me thinking. What is it clubs actually insure in respect of players? Are individual players insured and, if so, is that to the extent of their contract liability or does it also include a nominal value City think the player's worth to them or others?  Else, is there generic cover that pays out assuming 'x' number of players might have to be 'accounted out' during the period covered?

One assumes any insurance payout is accounted for as 'miscellaneous income'?

Is that how it works?

59 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I believe that revenue loss wise forgetting any optimistic claims about the transfer market that across 2019-20 and 2020-21, we could legitimately argue it cost us £15-16m.

I've read through the posts and have no idea under IFRS how one might legitimately argue that Covid cost clubs anything in lost transfer income? Transfer costs are what they are, fixed and capitalised in the accounts, as they should be. There's no ability to account for player 'value' or 'worth' in the accounts, if one could the numbers would be in intangible assets and subject to debate. Given clubs may defer amortization by extending current contracts why should they be given allowance for supposedly not being able to offload players? Seems to me that's  'cake and eat it'.

Accounts don't show fixed provision for future player/asset acquisition, if they did then the wholesale drop in player values might be impaired and revised to offset the position.

As with anything in life once you buy something its worthless until you can find somebody who'll pay to take it off your hands. Amortization says exactly that.

15 hours ago, Champfan45 said:

The fact that there were literally thousands of deaths means there was probably a few of them dying every single day. The fact that they must have seen this, and chose to continue doing it anyway speaks to a level of cruelty and greed that I can't comprehend. It's very easy for me to say, but if I were a footballer I would hope that I would not even consider participating. For me it's equivalent to the Holocaust, albeit on a smaller scale. Personally I won't be watching a minute of it.

You've a fair point but oh the irony of those FKWs & branded label addicts faux protesting construction deaths whilst the sweatshop generated clobber they wear is the cause of a far greater number of deaths and injuries across the globe. Will they give second thought when buying their next pair of daps or sportswear? The hell will they.

2 hours ago, The Constant Rabbit said:

 

 

Seretse Khama Ian Khama - look him up - was kinda a big guy in Botswana (may well be again)...

 

 

If he gets off the charges that see him hiding in South Africa, I'm sure he will be a fine business partner again.  And loves Football.

 

Hey, if you are going to cosy up with dodgy dictators, may as well make it tax deductible with a football tour.

 

Nothing to see here. Move along....

 

 

What, you've uncovered mass corruption in The Dark Continent?

Hold the front page....!

12 hours ago, The Constant Rabbit said:

No

Lansdown will keep the mill turning until the indoor concert / convention / basketball area is done, and then the feelers will go out again.

If we manage to become a top six side again, and show consistency then that's when SL is likely to pull the trigger IMHO

@Mr Popodopolous

If you want some fun - go check out SL and Botswana - ask why we went on tour - ask why the land that the Game reserve(s) sit on was specifically chosen. Start here: Mashatu Investment

Then ask - who in Botswana gained from it - and what role did they play in Botswanan Govt. Then, if you are really bored, cross over the heads of depts, to people on boards of various Pula / SL shelf companies involved with 'clean water' - you may find some names match.....

 

Lastly - mining in Botswana is easy - getting an exploration permit is not. Imagine if you were doing a humanitarian gesture by looking for drinking water and you just happened to find a vein of gemstones. Imagine.

Why all you'd need then is a sympathetic minister willing to change your exploration license. Who is football mad. Who also has some land going attached to a failing business. Imagine the odds on that ever happening. It's like saying the same fellow would get the contract to provide all the tourism / mining infrastructure too.

 

Nah, too crazy right? BCFC went to Botswana because..., umm, well....

 

Knock yourself out Pops, it will take a deepish dive, but you will find the answers.

As publicised at the time City went pre-season to Botswana because, er, SL had business links there. No secret.

What's the next revelation? City went to Portugal because SL has a villa there; Latvia because it has a strong financial services industry?

If you seriously think City playing a couple of meaningless knock-abouts opens doors in high places in corrupt regimes you're miles off the mark. I can, from bitter experience, inform the majority of those in power in African regimes don't want CoD et al. They want piles of greenback dollar bills, something SL does have in surplus.

4 hours ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

I`d love to know if there are any Allegros still on the road (not owned by collectors, just being used). You still see the odd Escort or Cortina about so I wonder if any of them are.

I doubt it though!

https://www.howmanyleft.co.uk/?q=austin+allegro

Only one Van Den Plas though. Just imagine if that was Red-Robbo's. 

11 minutes ago, Bedred31 said:

Budweiser, I agree, is not exactly real ale, but when it’s 32 degrees and you’ve traveled over desert by bus to get to the flippen ground, it would have gone down nicely, even at £12 for 500 mills. Good chap on the England Supporters Travel Club Facebook page has posted an exhaustive Doha drinking guide. I fly tomorrow. And on a strictly personal note, since this morning my growth is not a ‘tumour’ but a ‘cyst’, meaning that it’s not cancer and I’m apparently not going to die, although it seems that a chunk of my tongue may have to be chopped out. So if you’re at Gatwick’s South terminal around lunchtime tomorrow and you see a 50 something bloke lying on the carpet, laughing uncontrollably and swimming in Stella and his own urine, do say hello.

Best wishes for your trip and upcoming health appointments.

Last time I was in Doha there was no alcohol at all (it being Ramadan didn't help,) but with a fine range of juices and soft drinks on offer this heavy drinker didn't miss it one bit. 

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thanks. That makes some sense yes- read it on some set of accounts once I think, greenbelt vs brownfield that kinda thing as to fluctuations?

That's one common distinction given the political drivers (incentives) to use the latter rather than the former.

31 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

Was it just an urban myth that they could go faster in reverse than they could forwards?

Not when broken down, which was their usual operating state.

'The Committee' also decided the limited colour options - 'Harvest Gold' the colour of a recently congealed 'pavement pizza'. 

24 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

especially as land itself cannot lose value.

Sorry to disappoint but the value of land, as with any asset, is subjective and goes up and down. True that in this sceptred isle depreciation is rare owing to land being a fairly static resource, but land value isn't a measure if its existence per se rather of what one may do with it AND what one has to do to use it in the desired capacity that dictates its RLV. I frequently had to discount freehold land values based on greedy local authorities flexing their ever acquired rights to extract monies where once they didn't exist.

5 hours ago, BigAl&Toby said:

@chinapig my reference to Enron is a simple one. It’s not meant to imply fraud or anything close to that.

It’s a far simpler one. Accounts can present different pictures to different people. 

They may well be signed off or audited but it’s the questions that follow and the answers that are given that are really interesting - and illuminating.

Questions perhaps that no one wanted to ask. About a scenario that no one ever thought possible….

Why would you continue spending £1.50 to get £1 back? Why wouldn’t you learn from your past mistakes and do something to make sure they didn’t happen again?

Mind you I’ve been married and divorced 3 times, so what do I know?

 

As previous, you clearly don't understand how Enron arose and how differing accounting conventions in different jurisdictions allowed the 'scam' to perpetuate amongst those who only saw the emperor's new clothes. City's accounts are reported under one jurisdiction to one international accounting standard. Lansdown converts cash debt to equity, not matched equity to equity. The numbers are plain to see.

5 hours ago, BigAl&Toby said:

But you still haven’t answered me this. Is it beyond any degree of reasonableness that the scenario I suggest might, just might, be possible?

Answer is simple - Yes, wholly beyond reasonableness.

Using your analogy the value of assets listed in the acvounts is already overstated using the type of bespoke conventions that accounting permits but the real world doesn't. What's AG worth? Nowhere near as much as stated, reason being who other than our potless neighbours wants a football stadium, or any stadium for that matter,  in Bristol? Residual land value is nowhere near what folks imagine once clearance & CIL/ S106s kick in.

You talk of 'greenfields' but where they and what have they to do with City Holdings? Lansdown's personal assets aren't dependant upon City hence have nothing to do with him propping up the club.

So I again ask, specifically, what does Lansdown have to do to access your mythical 'cash cow' as I'm sure he'll be all ears?

1 hour ago, old_eastender said:

Getting back to football instead of politics. Hope Semenyo does really well for Ghana, then maybe a Prem club will come in with a £15m bid for him in January. If we have to lose somebody to be in shape for not failing FFP next season, then much rather it was Semenyo than Conway or Scott.

 

Likewise, I hope he scores for fun and gets shipped out for millions.

He won't though rather The Ghanaian Wolstenholme will oft be heard to say:

"Blasted no kɔɔ soro wɔ bar."
"Dragged no trɛw bio."

28 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

Yeah, but we all know what happens when you invite feedback. You get "Boaty, McBoat Face" 

Best not to put things in front of a group sometimes.

 

 

As one who once drove a 'committee designed' car (Austin Allegro) that had a rectangular steering wheel I concur you are 100% correct.

24 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The slight other bit that concerns me, as I've said elsewhere about the transfer add-back particularly.

Costs and Revenue. Profit is arguably neither and especially a non-recurring one. Profit on player sales requires two parties- a willing buyer and a willing seller. Then it comes to fee minus remaining book value...reportedly turning down £8m for Massengo from Watford won't have helped our case? Edit, a quick search says Sky claimed £8.3m.

Transfer profit or loss isn't revenue as such. At a push maybe you can argue a Loan fee but the definition is quite clear of Covid losses? It's a circle I am struggling to square.

Costs are fairly self explanatory. Testing, travel arrangements, cleaning etc.

Revenue is fairly self explanatory. Tickets, Season tickets, Matchday Income, Corporate Revenue, Commercial Revenue etc.

The fact that we and maybe some others used transfer profit to try and bridge the gap is on us and others who did likewise. It's not a revenue and it's not a cost- it's a profit to help offset (in FFP terms) the gap between the first 2.

It's by no means a cut and dry argument either way.

I've no issue should one wish to classify profit on transfers as revenue. I've every issue should one claim provision or impairment for lack of profit on transfers for ANY reason. For sure as hell no allowance should be made for Covid resetting the market.

Its akin muppets who bemoan the value of their homes is falling. Matters only to those stupid enough to borrow against over-hyped valuations and, ultimately, the taxman. My house is worth sweet FA as it's where I live. If its value declines why should I care as it makes zero difference to me and It'll be cheaper for my kids to buy homes of their own?

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

In truth you could say the same about many Championship clubs. Total money pit.

The scary thing for me is that our income rediceted to nearly record levels ie not far off 2018-19 and we still made a cash loss let alone the huge pre tax loss.

Scarier still was needing equity or cash during the profit year which contained £38m of profit on player sales and a record turnover of around £30m. Is the model flawed? Championship model I mean!

 

Broken basketcase and your first para is akin a doctor informing a patient they've terminal cancer then attempting to providing meaningless consolation by saying, "many others are in your position..."

Even the dipsticks who can't understand figures surely must be able to grasp City again lost over £28m last year. That every week of the year SL coughs up £480k such we may watch football.

The conundrum - the Premier ship's arguably sailed, so why bother trying to get there as if only for a season or so your still likely to end up massively out of pocket?

53 minutes ago, maxjak said:

Thankyou for explaining.........Am i correct   in thinking that although it seems a massive amount, that SL, as you mention, covers most of this?  So £91 mill is not as scary as it first appears?   

Its all Lansdown. All debt is underwritten by him or is money he's invested in the club. Although his its still a huge amount of money as although SL might be happy to continue to pay what the club has to be worth to meet FFP/P&S that doesn't mean anybody else would be prepared to pay as much. Beyond football his personal wealth will have taken a hit these past few years hence why there are always overtures for others to look to invest, not anybody has yet bitten. And yes it is scary, for should he decide 'no more' City would be up The Malago without a paddle overnight.

3 hours ago, BigAl&Toby said:

@BTRFTG time to reignite the debate now we have some upto date financials to ponder.

Let’s leave @Davefevsand @Mr Popodopolous to do so some serious analysis around FFP and who was signed and sold for what.

Let’s enjoy better facilities at AG - from Airblades to Pulled Pork.

Let’s continue to enjoy whatever else it is you fancy standing behind to justify your lemming-type view that Mr L has done good.

But ask yourself this. Who’s the constant in this shit show? Why stick at it? Because he can? Because he wants to make Bristol Proud? Because he’s a good egg? 

Or because the golden goose hasn’t quite yet squeezed out that Golden Egg - that takes me back - that little restaurant on the Triangle

I understand Enron very well. Not everything included within accounts is as obvious as it seems. And of course there’s a lot not included in accounts that, if illuminated, show a very different picture.

But hey. If you’re happy with how things are then who am I to suggest anything different.

The thing about deluded conspiracists is their wholesale lack of attachment to reality. 

So let's give you a chance to redeem yourself. Specifically, explain how SL will turn this hemorrhaging basketcase into your 'golden goose/cash cow'? When and by what means myst he act given the accounts, as audited by professional accountants, carry a heavy caveat as to the ongoing financial support SL MUST provide to keep City an ongoing concern. Accountants may know or care nothing about football, but accounts they live and breathe.

So go on, specifics, how and by what mechanism will alchemist Lansdown turn lead to gold?

Excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting for a reply.

3 hours ago, BigAl&Toby said:

@BTRFTG that’ll be me?

Yep. Even now he has his hands on her teats. Pulling hard. Very hard.

Look beyond the accounts young man. Look beyond Winterstoke Road. There be his ultimate cash cow…..

Ask yourself this old wise one. Who has been the absolute constant in this mess?

Why the **** would anyone with any common sense stick at it?

And yes. Lovely facilities now. I enjoyed using the Airblade. Football though? Absolutely the same old rubbish……

 

Paranoid as well as deluded then....

Personally, like any sensible City fan, I'd like to thank SL for stumping up £240m of his own money to keep City going. As for the 'airblade' I assume you skipped the sustainability section of the accounts given your own doesn't include such.

4 minutes ago, Banjo Island said:

the whole lot of them are a bunch of limpwrists

Larry Grayson wasn't a fan else his catchphrase would have been, "Shut That Tent Flap!" 

28 minutes ago, maxjak said:

I get all of this....but excuse my ignorance, what is - Creditors : Amounts falling due after more than one year (£91,803,147)  if someone can explain this aspect of our finances, I would be grateful?

Exactly as described.

Any long term loans, mortgages, debts but may also include shareholder capital that is to be repaid beyond 12 months.

In theory when you buy a share in a company at its 'issue price' that's what it's worth should it ever need to be repaid.  You often pay more than issue price and that's share premium (variable) and is at risk, as is share capital itself should the company go belly up. SL's regularly turned his 'loans' (have a repayment date and attract interest,) to 'share capital' (has no fixed repayment date and attracts dividends normally only if there's profit to pay them.) Gets City out of the P&S/FFP hole.

12 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

We're still losing £500k a week and total losses now stand at an eye-watering £198m.

 

And there are still those out there who talk of SL's 'Cash Cow'.

1 hour ago, Never to the dark side said:

for their away game on the same day(and nearly the same time) we play Rotheham.

Wish we could GET 773 City followers to Rotherham on the same day(and nearly the same time)

How are City supposed to control football authorities & rail employees hell bent on preventing fans reasonable access to matches?

4 hours ago, cityexile said:

. The real choice they faced at the time was either rip up their contracts, get nothing and save the club,

Your own facts and wholly incorrect.

For 'ripping up' their contracts (technically a mutually agreed annulment,) they received their registrations such they could earn their living elsewhere, a cash payout & promises of future benefits. In total, from City, they received about half of that owed under the balance of their very long contracts. They also signed for new clubs and continued plying their trade (unsuccessfully.) Far from 'nothing'.

You're correct though that had they not so done they would have received nothing, plus wouldn't have been able to sign for other clubs until the administrators had sold or released their registrations.

Dream my a**e.