Nibor Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Am I being a little naieve here? On the official site (near the bottom) it says we had a turnover of £11.9million but staff costs of £15.9million - to me that's a negative difference of £4million, so where's the £11million loss come from? The other costs, we have more expenditure than "just" staff costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaverface Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 The other costs, we have more expenditure than "just" staff costs. So why don't they just say outgoings??!! All very confusing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foghornred Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 This shows that we are not one of the big spenders but we do not earn enough to pay for them,how lucky we are to have a great owner/chief shareholder/chairman in STEVE LANSDOWN lets all hope that he does not loss interest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claverham_Red Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Am I being a little naieve here? On the official site (near the bottom) it says we had a turnover of £11.9million but staff costs of £15.9million - to me that's a negative difference of £4million, so where's the £11million loss come from? New stadium costs, legal fees, stadium and training ground maintenance, marketing, insurance, bills, agent fees? Any more? Policing costs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZepperin Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 The board only had 4 people on it last year that's grown about 8 this year so the money we is going to grow you plum they are not going to do it for free as they all haven't got steve's wealth As far as I can work out, the people who joined the board are all executive directors and draw a wage at the club already, which is not included in the directors' emoluments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZepperin Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 So why don't they just say outgoings??!! They have to abide by the official accounting jargon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 The football world need to realise the days of ever increasing wages and ever increasing ticket/catering prices are over the gravy train has derailed (the board gravy train also has to end also).The board earn, i believe in the region of £120,000 each per annum, for what exactly I`m not sure. In any business with an 8 figure turnover and over a hundred employees you would normally find directors earning £100-200k a year plus bonuses and share options and the like. People get paid at the going market rate according to the scope of responsibility for their role, it's not really remarkable. Minus £21m total debts and this year's loss of £11.5m are harsh facts, not iffs or buts. Only my opinion, but i don't think that even with a new stadium we will ever be as an attractive a proposition to a super-rich buyers as Chelsea or Man City - big City clubs in football mad areas and both with tradition, a name and a huge fan base. If the Sultan of Brunei discovers a liking for Natch or the Wurzels then you might well be right. Up to that point, we should all include a line about Steve's health and wealth in our nighly prayers. I don't think selling (to an ever more mega rich owner) is on the cards, the idea of the stadium is to put the club on a footing where it can compete for and sustain Premier League football. It would need 5+ years in the Prem to look attractive as a buy IMO. Could you (or anyone else) explain how this fits in with FFP? AFAIK, FFP means owners cannot bankroll ever increasing losses- that is a key reason for it. I'm pretty sure the turnover to wages ratio required for clubs at this level is less than 100% of turnover- I'd have thought 70% and even that's pushing it a bit... Take for example FFP at League One=60-%, League Two=55%. IMO the agreement won't be 70%, it will be near 100% or above to start with and implementation and any reduction will be phased. The financial situation in the Championship is very different to the other leagues due to parachute payments, TV money and overspill from the Prem. Most clubs aren't in a position to quickly reduce wage spending, it takes time. Why would club chairman set themselves a goal they can't hit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 So why don't they just say outgoings??!! All very confusing I guess because the people writing the article tailor it for what they think most people are interested in which is often the wage bill. The full group accounts are there for view too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Steve Lansdown knows what he is doing! Only which we could be luckier but it will come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 As far as I can work out, the people who joined the board are all executive directors and draw a wage at the club already, which is not included in the directors' emoluments. Jon lansdown Kevin smith off the top of my head were not employed by the club until June this year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 I seriously doubt Lansdown would write off our debt to him.Why would he be charging interest on the debt if he was considering writing it off? Charging interest on a loan at a few percent above the base rate is fairly normal practise, after all he could be earning on that money if it were invested elsewhere. He won't "write off" debt, he has in the past used the debt to increase his shareholding through loan stock that converted into normal shares. This seems to be a secured loan so he hasn't done that at this time. I don't know enough about how these things work but I guess this strengthens his position for if he seeks investors for the stadium project, it would mean he would be able to give up less shareholding I think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZepperin Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Jon lansdown Kevin smith off the top of my head were not employed by the club until June this year Is there a Kevin Smith on the board? Jon Lansdown presumably draws a salary, which is not reflected in the directors' emoluments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Is there a Kevin Smith on the board? Jon Lansdown presumably draws a salary, which is not reflected in the directors' emoluments. He's commercial director of the Ashton Gate Ltd subsidiary so would not be included in the figure for the holding company. There are six directors of the holding company: Chairman: Colin Sexstone Vice-chairman: Keith Dawe Group Chief Executive: Guy Price Executive Director: Doug Harman Executive Director: Jon Lansdown Finance Director: Martin Mulligan I doubt Keith Dawe draws a salary and it seems clear from the accounts nor does Martin Mulligan (paid for services instead). I thought emoluments included salary though? And the statement "No directors were remunerated by the company in the current or prior year" is confusing to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardiffBlackLabel Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 Shouldn't be allowed. I'd close the club down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derkow Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 He's commercial director of the Ashton Gate Ltd subsidiary so would not be included in the figure for the holding company. There are six directors of the holding company: Chairman: Colin Sexstone Vice-chairman: Keith Dawe Group Chief Executive: Guy Price Executive Director: Doug Harman Executive Director: Jon Lansdown Finance Director: Martin Mulligan I doubt Keith Dawe draws a salary and it seems clear from the accounts nor does Martin Mulligan (paid for services instead). I thought emoluments included salary though? And the statement "No directors were remunerated by the company in the current or prior year" is confusing to me... Everything those directors received, including salary, will be under that emoluments amount Guy was only appointed a director after 31 May, and Jon/Martin were only directors since March, so expect it to be higher next year. Total directors emoluments in 08 and 09 were around £250k so not sure why last year was lower, but as you say they don't seem unreasonable to me The point about them not being remunerated by the company is just a technicality as they are paid by one of the subsidiary companies and not the holding company Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 Shouldn't be allowed. I'd close the club down. If we fail to pay creditors you'll have a point. Can't see that happening though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 Everything those directors received, including salary, will be under that emoluments amount Guy was only appointed a director after 31 May, and Jon/Martin were only directors since March, so expect it to be higher next year. Total directors emoluments in 08 and 09 were around £250k so not sure why last year was lower, but as you say they don't seem unreasonable to me The point about them not being remunerated by the company is just a technicality as they are paid by one of the subsidiary companies and not the holding company Ah that makes sense, I hadn't thought of the timing aspect. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SecretSam Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 So exactly what is the make up of this £11M+ loss? I see that the new stadium delays cost £2.5M, but what was the rest? Our wage bill is clearly too high, although with the likes of Macca, Carey, James and (in all probability) Maynard going this will reduce, although one assumes we'll have to sign a new keeper in the summer. Regarding the stadium, how does the new stadium stack up? What is the additional income over staying at AG (which makes about 50p a week, I admit) - is there a business case or something showing how it all stacks up? How is the cost of the new stadium to be financed? SL + Sainsbury's??? And to what extent have we considered redeveloping AG (although it's not a great site, TBH - too landlocked) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tales From The Front Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 Cant we stay at ashton gate? Well no really and the reason is in note 2 of the accounts concernign turnover. By far the single biggest source of income was £3,042,660 stadium revenue, and this at the delapidated Ashton Gate, imagine this was at the state of the art Ashton Vale??? The poeple that are ploughing the money into to make this club (its not a business...yet) operate have consitently stated that non-matchday revenue needs to be increased, surely this illustrates how important this is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 Well no really and the reason is in note 2 of the accounts concernign turnover. By far the single biggest source of income was £3,042,660 stadium revenue, and this at the delapidated Ashton Gate, imagine this was at the state of the art Ashton Vale??? The poeple that are ploughing the money into to make this club (its not a business...yet) operate have consitently stated that non-matchday revenue needs to be increased, surely this illustrates how important this is. I'd rather we stayed at Ashton gate and played in league one forever more.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tales From The Front Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 I'd rather we stayed at Ashton gate and played in league one forever more.... [/quote ah...raise your expectations, just think of the Derbies we could have in the Screw Fix or whatever its called these Days.....Manor Farm on a Tuesday Night, Manor Farm on a Tuesday night!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 Stuff dreams are made of! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chivs Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 Everything those directors received, including salary, will be under that emoluments amount Guy was only appointed a director after 31 May, and Jon/Martin were only directors since March, so expect it to be higher next year. Total directors emoluments in 08 and 09 were around £250k so not sure why last year was lower, but as you say they don't seem unreasonable to me The point about them not being remunerated by the company is just a technicality as they are paid by one of the subsidiary companies and not the holding company So you're saying that the Directors of the holding company are legally responsible for the holding companies decisions but are paid by a subsidiary? I guess they are hired to the holding company for a nominal fee. In essence, lies, dammed lies and more dammed lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.