Bristol City

[Keep the Faith]

Listening to the Radio 5 Live football in the red debate last night someone referenced Bristol City alongside Brimingham and West Brom as an example fo a well run club. I believe that they were referencing the other two as they were examples of clubs which had gone up and not spent over the odds to stay there but why were we included?

I'm genuinely interested to find out why people think we are referred to in such a way. It's far from the first time that this has happened. I don't really see what puts us above many other clubs at this level and the one below such as a Doncaster Rovers, Reading, Plymouth etc.

I have concerns that the significant losses we keep making are putting us in financial danger, do people who are referring to us in this way know something I don't or are they just not doing their research? Surely ours is currently an unsustainable business model? It seems that we are gambling on making it to the Prem in the not too distant future but what if it doesn't come off?

Also the Sheffield Wednesday chairman made a reference to clubs above them in the league who were paying wages they could not afford which disadvantaged teams such as his who, he claims, are only paying wages within their means. Someone later called the action of paying players beyond their means cheating.

This begs the question do you think that we are cheating by apparantly spending beyond our means given the losses we make? Would you rather be breaking even (or certainly closer to it) and be fighting relegation or even in the division below or in our current position?

I'd like to think that what has happened to Portsmouth, Palace, Southampton and countless others will not have been lost on the leadership of our club. People have made the statement that Steve Lansdown is too good a business man to let us go under. However, it seems that when successful businessman get into football they let go of their senses and with Steve being a fan is this not even more likely in our case?

I'm not trying to put Steve down and slag him off I just think that football needs to talk more openly about these issues otherwise there will be plenty more clubs (potentially us included) going to the wall.

[Gibbs]

How's it cheating? Everything off the pitch is primarily business (£££) and those with more spending power use it. Sheffield Wednesday do probably have the lowest wage bill in the league though (or at least there abouts) as opposed to us at the other end of the spectrum. Also the plans and developments of our new stadium might be a factor in us being mentioned .

[chipdawg]

The question is not about whether we're making a loss as such, its whether the debts we incur are sustainable. I know SL spoke last year about how our wage budget is too high at the minute, but the mere fact that he acknowledges it indicates to me that we won't fall into the traps that others have

Cardiff and Palace seem to have mortgaged their futures on achieving quick success (something Risdale has done at every club he's worked at, with no success- the man should be in prison not running football clubs) and its failed. That whole concept seems to be unravelling now; Portsmouth won the FA cup, made it into Europe and acheived consecutive top 10 finishes and yet are £70m in debt after selling £85m worth of players in the last 18 months. Even Hull are alledged to be in financial bother and they have a big, new stadium and haven't spent that wildly. I think the way clubs are run is changing- it has to- but it will probably be coming more into line with what SL does. Yes, we have operating losses, but the club itself is not being placed in debt against future earnings and no debts were incurred (a la Man Utd and Liverpool) in Steve aquiring the shares. I'm personally not in the least bit worried

[cinker]

Listening to the Radio 5 Live football in the red debate last night someone referenced Bristol City alongside Brimingham and West Brom as an example fo a well run club. I believe that they were referencing the other two as they were examples of clubs which had gone up and not spent over the odds to stay there but why were we included?

I'm genuinely interested to find out why people think we are referred to in such a way. It's far from the first time that this has happened. I don't really see what puts us above many other clubs at this level and the one below such as a Doncaster Rovers, Reading, Plymouth etc.

I have concerns that the significant losses we keep making are putting us in financial danger, do people who are referring to us in this way know something I don't or are they just not doing their research? Surely ours is currently an unsustainable business model? It seems that we are gambling on making it to the Prem in the not too distant future but what if it doesn't come off?

Also the Sheffield Wednesday chairman made a reference to clubs above them in the league who were paying wages they could not afford which disadvantaged teams such as his who, he claims, are only paying wages within their means. Someone later called the action of paying players beyond their means cheating.

This begs the question do you think that we are cheating by apparantly spending beyond our means given the losses we make? Would you rather be breaking even (or certainly closer to it) and be fighting relegation or even in the division below or in our current position?

I'd like to think that what has happened to Portsmouth, Palace, Southampton and countless others will not have been lost on the leadership of our club. People have made the statement that Steve Lansdown is too good a business man to let us go under. However, it seems that when successful businessman get into football they let go of their senses and with Steve being a fan is this not even more likely in our case?

I'm not trying to put Steve down and slag him off I just think that football needs to talk more openly about these issues otherwise there will be plenty more clubs (potentially us included) going to the wall.

Unlike other clubs SL has not gone wild on overpaying transfer fees. he has been cautious and we critize the likes of Aggy and others. In retrospect I agree we could have saved money by not getting Aggy in but eh, everything has a risk by not overspending and going for the quality. we do seem to have, I hope, a 5 year rolling plan e.g. stadium, positioning ourselves as a steady championship side to lower the risk and develop stability and robustness.

i don't have insight into SL's plan B if we start losing and season tickets go down. I do think there was a plan for us to be in play-off positions hence the investment in sno, hartley, etc. etc. i assume he has a plan B and will not go anymore into debt, so expect little signings in the summer unless we can sell current squad i.e. only buy if we can sell. City hasn't lost anything on Basso i.e. came from small club but has lost reasonable amount on say Trundle and others we cannot shift.

All in all, because of SL and Board there seems to be a balance between financials and risk.

[Robbored]

I'd like to think that what has happened to Portsmouth, Palace, Southampton and countless others will not have been lost on the leadership of our club. People have made the statement that Steve Lansdown is too good a business man to let us go under. However, it seems that when successful businessman get into football they let go of their senses and with Steve being a fan is this not even more likely in our case?

I cant remember exacty when Steve Lansdown took over as Chairman but it must be about 10 years ago, seven years of those in the lower divisions. I'm sure that if SL was going to 'let go of his senses' then he would have done it during those lower league days. In fact he tightened the belt even more after the Millenium play-off final. Many Chairmen would have be tempted to overspend the following season having come so close but not Steve Lansdown.

I have complete faith him to look after the financial side of the club. With him as Chairman, even without his personal fortune, the club would not be allowed to end up like Pompey. He's a very shrewd business man and not afraid to make the decisions that might be unpopular with the fans. I have a lot time for him and sleep easy at night knowing that he's in charge of the club I love.

[SC_Red]

I cant remember exacty when Steve Lansdown took over as Chairman but it must be about 10 years ago, seven years of those in the lower divisions. I'm sure that if SL was going to 'let go of his senses' then he would have done it during those lower league days. In fact he tightened the belt even more after the Millenium play-off final. Many Chairmen would have be tempted to overspend the following season having come so close but not Steve Lansdown.

I have complete faith him to look after the financial side of the club. With him as Chairman, even without his personal fortune, the club would not be allowed to end up like Pompey. He's a very shrewd business man and not afraid to make the decisions that might be unpopular with the fans. I have a lot time for him and sleep easy at night knowing that he's in charge of the club I love.

Lansdown became chairman in October 2002 according to the official website. So around 7.5 years ago 3 of which have been in the championship.

[Davros]

To cut a long story short our debts are in single figure millions and are offset against a valuble asset in ashton gate and wealthy chairman when you look at the likes of cardiff its double much more than this. That pillock Scott Davidson, and then Pulis bringing in crap players on long contracts nearly bancrupt the club thats why steve had to spend so long fixing stuff and is soo carfull not to put us back there.

[simon uk]

I have complete faith him to look after the financial side of the club. With him as Chairman, even without his personal fortune, the club would not be allowed to end up like Pompey. He's a very shrewd business man and not afraid to make the decisions that might be unpopular with the fans. I have a lot time for him and sleep easy at night knowing that he's in charge of the club I love.

[Martyn Hocking]

I cant remember exacty when Steve Lansdown took over as Chairman but it must be about 10 years ago, seven years of those in the lower divisions. I'm sure that if SL was going to 'let go of his senses' then he would have done it during those lower league days. In fact he tightened the belt even more after the Millenium play-off final. Many Chairmen would have be tempted to overspend the following season having come so close but not Steve Lansdown.

I have complete faith him to look after the financial side of the club. With him as Chairman, even without his personal fortune, the club would not be allowed to end up like Pompey. He's a very shrewd business man and not afraid to make the decisions that might be unpopular with the fans. I have a lot time for him and sleep easy at night knowing that he's in charge of the club I love.

Hear hear - Steve and his good lady wife are the most down-to-earth and sensible multi-millionaires you could wish to have steering your football club. No way are we going to end up in the Pompey/Palace zone.

City are being mentioned as a well-run club for many reasons:

* steady progress with lots of continuity at board and management level

* a well planned new stadium project timed beautifully to coincide with the World Cup bid project

* zero scandal/ tabloid garbage (if you ignore the EP) attached to the club

* no grandstanding glory hunters in positions of power (Jordan/Ridsdale/bloke at Posh/Briatore etc etc)

[cityhead]

Very reminiscent of the harry Dolman days, where stability and continuity were the buzz words, objective of progress but not at any cost, with everybody knowing who is the boss and being self made so very down to earth.

SL is not in it for the kudos, glory hunting, lifestyle etc as he has all that already. I believe he genuinely wants to use what he has achieved in life to be able to leave a legacy after his chairmanship that will last far beyong his lifetime for the betterment of the footbal club he loves.

For this reason I do not believe he would jeopardise the future of the club by gambling on promotion at any cost and would not sell to anybody who he felt would not have the best interests of BCFC in their heart.

I am thankful we can all sleep easy.

[Geoff65]

Ridsdale suggested that five Championship clubs are currently receiving Premier League parachute payments, thirteen are being subsidised by wealthy individual owners and six are attempting to be self-sufficient. He said those six clubs are Cardiff, Doncaster, Plymouth, Preston, S****horpe and Swansea.

[cityhead]

Just goes to show what a dodgy geezer he is - he can't even count. 3 Prem clubs get relegated each year and get two years parachute payments = 6

Cardiff a fine example of a well run club - my arse!

[BCFC_Dan]

Just goes to show what a dodgy geezer he is - he can't even count. 3 Prem clubs get relegated each year and get two years parachute payments = 6

Birmingham went straight back up after 1 season, so there are only 5 remaining: Newcastle, Middlesbrough, West Brom, Reading, Derby.

[chipdawg]

I don't think conning your fans into buying early season tickets to keep the wolf from the door for another couple of months is 'being self sufficient'. I'd call it 'Gambling a clubs future' personally

Even aside from the fact its Cardiff that he's ruining (which makes it somewhat better, but only a bit), the man is scum and i hope he soon leaves football once and for all

[Jon atyeo is my dad]

Okay guys not a clue what your all talking about can someone explain clearly how we able to sustain our losses I'm no good with the financal side dam it I can't even spell the word. If someone could state the facts in a unbiased way that would be great

[Esmond Million's Bung]

on final score last saturday, When talking of Portsmouth's plight Garth Crooks referenced I believe Northampton stating that their ground cost 20 million to build and then said that would only pay Portsmouth's wage bill for 10 months, i'm sorry that is ridiculous most of their squad will not be good enough for the championship, I have no sympathy what so ever for the club, When a club goes into administration it's the small business's who supply

the club that suffer, The overpaid chavs called players do they suffer pay cuts of course not, I do have sympathy for the fans of course and even more ridiculous when you look at the cesspit Fratton Park is.

Last night it was revealed that the combined total income for the Premier League clubs this year is 1.9 billion of that 1.2 billion is spent on wages, However the combined spend by clubs this season will be 3.9 billion. The money going to players and agents will eventually kill the game that's for sure.

[BCFC_Dan]

Okay guys not a clue what your all talking about can someone explain clearly how we able to sustain our losses I'm no good with the financal side dam it I can't even spell the word. If someone could state the facts in a unbiased way that would be great

As I understand it (and there are people here who understand the situation much better than me, so I stand to be corrected), the losses are sustained by interest-free loans to the club by Steve Lansdown and the other directors. Because they are interest free and to directors rather than outsiders these loans should be much safer than borrowing from a bank for instance.

However, these outstanding debts are also often converted into shares in a holding company which owns both the ground and the club (note here that the club does not own the ground itself). This has the effect of allowing the directors to protect themselves. In the event of a disaster they could recover at least some of their investment by selling off the ground.

This situation would be potentially risky if it weren't for the fact that the directors are honest, trustworthy people with the club's best interests at heart. They are investors who want to use their resources to build the club up but the club has to eventually stand on its own two feet. They're not just pouring their own money into a hole.

In short, it's bad that the club is making a loss, it's obviously not sustainable, but the folks in charge are smart and won't take any unnecessary risks, and as the debts are to them rather than outsiders we should be safe as long as they are financially secure.

[Slave to the rhythm]

That pillock Scott Davidson

I cannot allow that comment to pass without a response.

Scott Davidson basically saved this club from going under with the share issue in 1996. He then brought in John Ward who managed to achieve almost instant success. Granted, it unravelled a bit after that, but to call Scott a pillock is insulting. By the way, he sits in the posh seats in the Williams these days so if anybody is stupid enough to want to call him a pillock to his face, you know wher you can find him.

[Keep the Faith]

So am I right in thinking that as it stands there are a series of loans from the directors to the club. In return for these loans the directors are gradually taking a greater shareholding in the holding club. Therefore as the loans get bigger they hedge against this risk by increasing their holding of the clubs assets incase something goes wrong.

I guess this seems sensible but my question would be if their debt is being converted into shares isn't this only worth something if they are increasing their shareholding? If the directors already own all the shares then how is this a benfit to them?

I guess it also means that we have to turn the losses around before they reach the value of the assets but I suppose that would be the case if it was bank debt as well as if we ran out of asset to gurantee the loans we couldn't take out any more debt. I guess the new stadium will be worth more than the current one so this will help in that regard (although we will have to increse debt to pay for it).

It seems then that we are better run than sum because of the interest free aspect of our borrowing so our revenue is going against footballing expenses/tax etc. rather than finance costs.

Anyway as most have said Steve Lansdown is an excellent businessman and as long as he doesn't try to push too hard for the prem (which people don't seem to think he will) then we'll be ok.

I imagine that the whole plan would be blown out of the water if we were relegated and revenues dropped significantly so lets just prey that doesn't happen!

[HibbsyBCFC]

As I understand it (and there are people here who understand the situation much better than me, so I stand to be corrected), the losses are sustained by interest-free loans to the club by Steve Lansdown and the other directors. Because they are interest free and to directors rather than outsiders these loans should be much safer than borrowing from a bank for instance.

However, these outstanding debts are also often converted into shares in a holding company which owns both the ground and the club (note here that the club does not own the ground itself). This has the effect of allowing the directors to protect themselves. In the event of a disaster they could recover at least some of their investment by selling off the ground.

This situation would be potentially risky if it weren't for the fact that the directors are honest, trustworthy people with the club's best interests at heart. They are investors who want to use their resources to build the club up but the club has to eventually stand on its own two feet. They're not just pouring their own money into a hole.

In short, it's bad that the club is making a loss, it's obviously not sustainable, but the folks in charge are smart and won't take any unnecessary risks, and as the debts are to them rather than outsiders we should be safe as long as they are financially secure.

Pretty much spot on as I see it. The key point being:

* The loses we make are being covered by Lansdown by way of Directors loans, so our only debt it to our owner.

* Our owner happens to be a prudent, local businessman with a genuine love for Bristol City and the City of Bristol.

* At any time SL could convert the debt to equity. This means that we would be debt free and that SL would recoup his money from dividends and capital gains from the business. Should this be the case then "repayments" back to SL are based on profits and therefore there is no threat of bankruptcy (just as Abramovich has done at Chelski).

* Finally we are a Private Ltd Co (LTD) not a PLC, therefore our shares are not available in the open market, so not any old Tom Dick or Harry can suddenly start buying an interest in our club. I laughed when Man U fans used to sing "Utd not for sale" in protest of the Glaziers takeover... not sure they understood that because they were a PLC they were effectively up for sale every minute that trading on the Stock Exchange was open.

[St. Aldhelms Red]

I may be way off the mark here( and i apologize if i am) but im sure i read that the loans from SL, were not interest free, but infact were ABOVE the bank interest rate. After all, he has to make some profit surely. Also read somewhere that are accumulated debts are £17m. Now, if thats the case, and, with GJ wasting a lot of that money on poor strikers ( wether it be transfers or wages) we might well be in the shit!

[SC_Red]

I may be way off the mark here( and i apologize if i am) but im sure i read that the loans from SL, were not interest free, but infact were ABOVE the bank interest rate. After all, he has to make some profit surely. Also read somewhere that are accumulated debts are £17m. Now, if thats the case, and, with GJ wasting a lot of that money on poor strikers ( wether it be transfers or wages) we might well be in the shit!

Above BASE rate. Not above the rate you could get from a bank if any bank was mental enough to loan you that sort of money.

[cityhead]

Birmingham went straight back up after 1 season, so there are only 5 remaining: Newcastle, Middlesbrough, West Brom, Reading, Derby.

Sorry about that - should've checked my facts, and after posting thought perhaps one of the previous seasons teams may have gone down to league 1, so sort of already knew I was probably wrong.

Even so, still think the guy is total ars*hole and just glad I don't support Baardiff as would be seriously worried!

[St. Aldhelms Red]

Above BASE rate. Not above the rate you could get from a bank if any bank was mental enough to loan you that sort of money.

Ah cheers! So not interest free like some have said then?

[SC_Red]

Ah cheers! So not interest free like some have said then?

no. I think it cost's him enough without handing out freebies.

[St. Aldhelms Red]

no. I think it cost's him enough without handing out freebies.

Without a doubt. I wasnt knocking him, just pointing out to some that the loans are not interest free.

[Jon atyeo is my dad]

Thanks to dan and hibbsy bcfc makes alot more sense

[SC_Red]

Without a doubt. I wasnt knocking him, just pointing out to some that the loans are not interest free.

Yeah I appreciate that. Apologies if it sounded like I was having a pop.

[chinapig]

I've posted this before. As Usual Ridsdale is being economical with the truth:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/feb/24/peter-ridsdale-cardiff-city-finances

[Davros]

I cannot allow that comment to pass without a response.

Scott Davidson basically saved this club from going under with the share issue in 1996. He then brought in John Ward who managed to achieve almost instant success. Granted, it unravelled a bit after that, but to call Scott a pillock is insulting. By the way, he sits in the posh seats in the Williams these days so if anybody is stupid enough to want to call him a pillock to his face, you know wher you can find him.

Thats very rose tinited, he spent a silly amount of money as we got promoted, apointed benny and unermined JW (gashead that he was still got us up) we then got the senses knocked out of us with a silly diamond formation and every fan knew it wasnt the players lack of effort it was the Chairmans meddling that cost us. Hense he resigned and saddled us with a lot of debt, even though he did cancel some of it later on. Ever since John Laycock stood down as chariman Steve has been doing the job and brilliently if I may say so

So I'm sorry the share issue never saved us it was fassionable at the time as a way of raising money for clubs.