spudski Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Apologies if I am way off of the mark with this, but, surely the only person who can be blamed for this financial mess is Steve Lansdown? He is the one that signs off the cheques. He signs the managers. He knows when players contracts are expiring but chooses to let them run down. Nicky Maynard and Brett Pittman are 2 very recent examples of players that could have retained their value at the very least. Steve Coppell was a complete disaster and he was the one who wanted to sign David James on a stupid wage. He sign’s off season ticket prices and match day prices, so, sorry Steve, nobody can be blamed for this apart from you. You’re the person who runs this “business”. Maybe this is a very simplistic view, and I will apologise if I am way off….. If I am way off, I would like to be educated on how we've managed to rack up this debt. p.s, I like Steve Lansdown and I am very grateful for what he has done for us. Exactly what i said in an earlier post. However... I don't know if this is the case here. But if you have more than one business, you can offset the losses of one business against another for tax reasons. Not saying that's the case here, but it would be understandable if it were the case... which isn't so bad. As has been said before... SL has said if he left, he wouldn't leave us in debt. The problem now is the new regulations. Hense all the money trying to be made from corperate and sponsership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Exactly what i said in an earlier post. However... I don't know if this is the case here. But if you have more than one business, you can offset the losses of one business against another for tax reasons. Not saying that's the case here, but it would be understandable if it were the case... which isn't so bad. As has been said before... SL has said if he left, he wouldn't leave us in debt. The problem now is the new regulations. Hense all the money trying to be made from corperate and sponsership. If he is going to pay the debt anyway, can't he just sponsor the kit or the stadium for say £35m? Haven't varoius premier league club done this? And chelsea have dodged something by sponsoring that F1 Car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheshire_red Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Because we buy crap players for lots of money, pay them huge wages and then sell them for nothing. Holloway is a total moron granted, but you can't deny the fact he won promotion with rejects and cast offs, paid them little in conparison and gave them all 1 year contracts and won promotion. I wish someone would do that for us. Half the job is done, were full of cast offs and rejects!!!! Actually that is the reason Holloway walked, it is his Chairman who insists on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 well, we definitely don't need the new stadium then............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 If he is going to pay the debt anyway, can't he just sponsor the kit or the stadium for say £35m? Haven't varoius premier league club done this? And chelsea have dodged something by sponsoring that F1 Car. i'm sure he'll find a way. He's a good businessman... you don't get that rich by not knowing loopholes or way's around things. However you can be sure, that this 'loss' will be used as an incentive to make everyone think we have to have a new stadium to survive. Time will tell... Regardless of the new stadium, we still have to survive this year in the Championship. From the OP's link, the comment by the board that it isn't an option to be relegated, could prove interesting. How much more money will SL pour into the club this season to keep us up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 The timetable for implementation As with UEFA's Financial Fair Play regulations, The Football League will phase in its Financial Fair Play framework for Championship clubs. This is outlined below. Season 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 onwards Acceptable deviation £4 m £4 m £3 m £3 m £2 m Shareholder equity investment £8 m £6 m £5 m £3 m £3 m Total Permitted Allowances £12 m £10 m £8 m £6 m £5 m The first reporting period will be the current season (2011/12) - with the first set of accounts due to be submitted on 1st December 2012. Sanctions Failure to stay within the defined limits will lead to the imposition of sanctions. However, there will be no sanctions implemented during the first two seasons (2012/13 and 2013/14) in order to give clubs a sensible period of transition. From the 2014/15 season, sanctions will be introduced that will differ depending on whether the club ultimately remained in the Championship, was promoted to the Premier League or was relegated to League 1. i. Sanctions for clubs remaining in the Championship Clubs that fail to comply with the Financial Fair Play regulations (from December 1st 2014) will be subject to a transfer embargo. This embargo will come in to force ahead of the subsequent transfer window beginning on January 1, 2015. The embargo will remain in place until the club is able to lodge financial information that demonstrates that it meets the Financial Fair Play regulations (either for the previous reporting period or a future reporting period). Thought the above would be of interest. Our loss for this year of over £14 million is already failing to comply with the FFP regs, which state losses should be no more than £12 million. Luckily no sanctions until 2014/2015 so if we're still in the Championship our losses would have to more than half to £6 million. So either a drastic rise in revenue needed or massive wage bill reduction. If we are relegated the situation is even worse. There is a cap of 60% expenditure on wages on your turnover. Our turnover is approx £11 million?? That means potentially reducing the wage bill from £18 million to approx £6.5 million in a couple of years. That's the cold, reality we face... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralphindevon Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 I do remember reading our wage bill was almost exactly double Swansea's in the season they got promoted to the Prem. I don't know why the outcome of both teams ended so differently, I know luck has a lot to do with it but something seems to have gone horribly wrong somewhere along the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralphindevon Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Thought the above would be of interest. Our loss for this year of over £14 million is already failing to comply with the FFP regs, which state losses should be no more than £12 million. Luckily no sanctions until 2014/2015 so if we're still in the Championship our losses would have to more than half to £6 million. So either a drastic rise in revenue needed or massive wage bill reduction. If we are relegated the situation is even worse. There is a cap of 60% expenditure on wages on your turnover. Our turnover is approx £11 million?? That means potentially reducing the wage bill from £18 million to approx £6.5 million in a couple of years. That's the cold, reality we face... As far as the relegation situation goes, do you know if there is any leeway given to relegated clubs? It would be a bit harsh on clubs to be expected to cut their cloth to L1 regulaions in one short summer break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo88 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Well I'm no accountant but, having looked at the published accounts, it seems to me that our 'benefactor' Mr S Lansdown is not being entirely altruistic in his support of the club. He has made a secured loan of some £35m to the group (Bristol City Holdings Ltd) which is also accruing interest at 2% more than the current base rate at Barclays. While this interest is not currently payable (currently standing at £1.8m), it becomes due when the loan is paid off. This, apparently, is due within 5 years(?!) So, effectively, Lansdown is risking very little then? The money he has 'invested' is in fact a secured loan, secured on freehold properties, plant, machinery, etc., etc. For me, there appears to be a conflict of interests here, and perhaps partially explains why the group is 'allowed' to make losses every year? Every time the group (or more accurately, the club) make a loss, they go cap in hand to the 'big man' and he extends the loan to bankroll new money (the loan was £23.6m last year so he has already extended it by around £12m in the past year!). For those that are worried that Lansdown might walk away - he can't afford to - because the group is only worth around £12m (tangible+intangible assets) and thus he would lose money if he did so (of course, the club would die if he did!), but he has to protect his 'investment'. If he walked away, he would need to ensure the group could pay back his secured loan plus interest. As long as he keeps the club afloat, he protects his investment. Now perhaps all rich benefactors of football clubs invest in their clubs in this way (certainly from a tax viewpoint), but surely truly altruistic benfactors would simply donate money, rather than secure it as a loan? (Can you imagine Abramovich holding Chelsea to ransom with all the millions he has put into the club?) In summary, all the bleeding hearts who place Lansdown on a pedestal for all the 'investment' he has made in keeping the club afloat, should look at HOW he has financed the club and realise that it is he who has led the club into this level of debt, and it is he to whom the club owes the majority of it. As I said, I'm no accountant and perhaps someone more qualified can explain the Accounts in more simple terms, but that is how it looks to me. Some very good points, but I’m not too sure of the logic on some of them. You say Steve Lansdown is risking very little as the money invested is a loan, secured on freehold properties, plant, machinery, etc., etc. The only assets City have got, are the ground valued at £20m and the players, valued at not much. (If the club went bust their values would plummet in the same way as at Portsmouth). As he’s owed £35m and all he would get back is just over £20m in a worst case scenario, so he’s looking at a loss. Another point made is he can’t afford to walk away as he’s got to protect his money. This is true up to a point but what if he has to keep putting in money year after year? Again, a worst case scenario is there is no new ground; City can’t afford to re-develop Ashton gate; City are in division 1 with low gates; losses keep coming. As a businessman he might decide it’s foolish to throw good money after bad and cut his losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfOfWestStreet Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 We don't bring in enough revenue from gates. POTD fans ain't interested (who blames them) Never any money spinning cup run of note, like ever Top dollar wages for dogs mess players Thousands pissed away on a stadium we can't build and would never fill Huge losses on players with 0 resale value on any signings, in fact we've been paying them to leave! Too much money on unnecessary policing and stewarding/ bone head bouncers Bloody shambles, if SL was not here we'd be in admin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 We don't bring in enough revenue from gates. POTD fans ain't interested (who blames them) Never any money spinning cup run of note, like ever Top dollar wages for dogs mess players Thousands pissed away on a stadium we can't build and would never fill Huge losses on players with 0 resale value on any signings, in fact we've been paying them to leave! Too much money on unnecessary policing and stewarding/ bone head bouncers Bloody shambles, if SL was not here we'd be in admin we wouldnt exist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Red Hat Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Aren't those figures % of turnover. So don't really help unless you know each clubs turnover. That's how I see it. It doesn't mean we are the best payers, it could just mean we have more people to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 As far as the relegation situation goes, do you know if there is any leeway given to relegated clubs? It would be a bit harsh on clubs to be expected to cut their cloth to L1 regulaions in one short summer break. I don't think there is any leeway. iii. Sanctions for clubs relegated to League 1 Clubs relegated to League 1 will not be entitled to any payout derived from the Fair Play Tax and will be required to comply with the FFP rules in operation in that division. http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/FLExplainedDetail/0,,10794~2748246,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardiffBlackLabel Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Can you all accept now that the reckless and unsustainable way that your club has been run is no different to Cardiff City in the last few years. All football clubs need to stop paying out wages they can't afford. Simple as. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Red Hat Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Some very good points, but I’m not too sure of the logic on some of them. You say Steve Lansdown is risking very little as the money invested is a loan, secured on freehold properties, plant, machinery, etc., etc. The only assets City have got, are the ground valued at £20m and the players, valued at not much. (If the club went bust their values would plummet in the same way as at Portsmouth). As he’s owed £35m and all he would get back is just over £20m in a worst case scenario, so he’s looking at a loss. Another point made is he can’t afford to walk away as he’s got to protect his money. This is true up to a point but what if he has to keep putting in money year after year? Again, a worst case scenario is there is no new ground; City can’t afford to re-develop Ashton gate; City are in division 1 with low gates; losses keep coming. As a businessman he might decide it’s foolish to throw good money after bad and cut his losses. We go out of business, along with the gas who have already gone out of business, new club formed say FC Bristol, debt free, climb leagues, one team in Bristol that an enthused local populace come and watch, hey presto premier league football, well supported and sustainable. Cracked it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimplyRed Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Some very good points, but I’m not too sure of the logic on some of them. You say Steve Lansdown is risking very little as the money invested is a loan, secured on freehold properties, plant, machinery, etc., etc. The only assets City have got, are the ground valued at £20m and the players, valued at not much. (If the club went bust their values would plummet in the same way as at Portsmouth). As he’s owed £35m and all he would get back is just over £20m in a worst case scenario, so he’s looking at a loss. Another point made is he can’t afford to walk away as he’s got to protect his money. This is true up to a point but what if he has to keep putting in money year after year? Again, a worst case scenario is there is no new ground; City can’t afford to re-develop Ashton gate; City are in division 1 with low gates; losses keep coming. As a businessman he might decide it’s foolish to throw good money after bad and cut his losses. Hmmm... something doesn't add up if you think the ground is worth £20m - according to the Report, TOTAL assets are much less than £20m (more like £12m). The ground is owned by Ashton Gate Ltd, part of the Bristol City Holdings Ltd Group and so should be included in the report. Because he is owed more than the club is worth, he MUST keep the club afloat if he is to stand any chance of getting his money back. If he walked away he would kill the club and still be over £20m out of pocket - I don't think he would ever consider that from both a business viewpoint and a personal viewpoint. However, it really would be altruistic of him if he walked away and waived the debt to enable the club to continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 I am not that surprised at the losses, we have a big squad. However I AM surprised at the jump in wagebill, given we had 20 pts from 20 games this time last year, logic dictates that we should be higher up the League given the wage bill rose to £18.6m surely?? Look at the size of our squad. We were going to trim the the squad in the summer Del said it was too big yet we still have a huge squad of very average players on very good money. This gets right to the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Can you all accept now that the reckless and unsustainable way that your club has been run is no different to Cardiff City in the last few years. All football clubs need to stop paying out wages they can't afford. Simple as. Massive difference, we have not ended up in the high court facing a winding up order, on how many occasions?, failing to pay their players on time, but always being allowed to sign more handsomely paid players, with nobody at the club to underwrite your debts, we will not bend over and take it up the Gary and lose the soul of our club. Stop being such a hypocrite and trying to push your obvious guilt on to us, Cardiff got away with it big style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 One of the three highest earners - Damion Stewart. What great value for money that deal was. You could say the same about Anderson, Morris, Wilson M, Wilson D, Briggs - what a waste. Davies and Baldock can't get a start whilst James Wilson, considered good enough to start key games in last years relegation struggle isn't trusted and is lower down the pecking order than Nyatanga and a host of loanees. At least he is young enough to get better with experience. We don't know about Anderson as he's barely had a chance, same with M.Wilson to an extent, CL experience yet can't get on the pitch often in a struggling Championship side. Always thought Morris too old, Briggs short term, James Wilson should get a crack imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manon Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 We go out of business, along with the gas who have already gone out of business, new club formed say FC Bristol, debt free, climb leagues, one team in Bristol that an enthused local populace come and watch, hey presto premier league football, well supported and sustainable. Cracked it! Somebody shoot that man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 about 3 football clubs in the ccountry are debt free and run at a proffit, its not us its football as a whole This is absolutely true. Football is in the main a loss making industry, FFP will knacker a lot of clubs chances of appearing in Europe here and abroad, intrigued to see how the football landscape will look in a decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted December 5, 2012 Admin Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 There have been many views written this morning about the announcement of the last financial years trading. Looking through the accounts, these are things that stood out more to me.... (All info is 2012 compared to 2011) Staffing costs have increased by £2,760,586 Going from 146 (31 players / 115 others) to 158 (34 players / 124 others) – clear to see why the cuts earlier in the year were made ! Season ticket revenue has dropped by £426,129 It states that £430,954 were paid to our directors. The highest individual payment being £139,421 These directors are listed as: K. Dawe (Chairman), D Harman (Managing Director), J Lansdown (CEO). It also list the following who left the board: M Mulligan (Finance Director – Resigned 16/05/12), C Sexstone (Chairman – Resigned 31/05/12), G Price (Company Director – Resigned 01/09/12). Transfer fees we received was £411,250 in 2011, compared to £1m in 2012-12-05 But it mentions a secured loan of £23.6m in 2011, and £35.2m in 2012, see SimplyRed’s post #89 One thing that confuses me, I always thought accounts ran to the financial year ?? Can’t understand why the directors that left are listed as that is the 2012/13 financial year Maybe someone ITK can advise me on that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pondlife Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 So will bristol rugby be down the gate next season as it would save 100k for SL, this is what he has been paying the rovers for the last 3 seasons with no bar receipts. I guess it would be somewhere to start clawing back some of his money!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin101 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 I'm sorry; I'm confused. So in order to survive with an annual loss of 14 million we MUST do everything we can to stay in the championship. But, if we didn't do 'everything we can' to stay in the championship, we wouldn't have an annual loss of 14 million? So, actually, we're signing overpaid, desperate signings and loans in order to finance...overpaid, desperate signings and loans? If we were in League One, we wouldn't have an annual loss of 14million because we wouldn't be overspending trying to compensate our 14 million annual loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threshersleftboot Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Well they (Jon Lansdown and Guy Price) are considerably more inexperienced than Steve, so I would guess not. Keith Dawe has the most experience but often gives off an air of not really being too involved in decisive matters. We also now have a 'player recruitment analyst' Pete Smith who to my knowledge has no previous experience 'in football' as it were. Gives off an air of not really being too involved in decisive matters,is a very polite way of saying he does f---k all. Am i right in thinking that after next season having a wealthy backer is not going to be much of an advavtage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 There have been many views written this morning about the announcement of the last financial years trading. Looking through the accounts, these are things that stood out more to me.... (All info is 2012 compared to 2011) Staffing costs have increased by £2,760,586 Going from 146 (31 players / 115 others) to 158 (34 players / 124 others) – clear to see why the cuts earlier in the year were made ! Season ticket revenue has dropped by £426,129 It states that £430,954 were paid to our directors. The highest individual payment being £139,421 These directors are listed as: K. Dawe (Chairman), D Harman (Managing Director), J Lansdown (CEO). It also list the following who left the board: M Mulligan (Finance Director – Resigned 16/05/12), C Sexstone (Chairman – Resigned 31/05/12), G Price (Company Director – Resigned 01/09/12). Transfer fees we received was £411,250 in 2011, compared to £1m in 2012-12-05 But it mentions a secured loan of £23.6m in 2011, and £35.2m in 2012, see SimplyRed’s post #89 One thing that confuses me, I always thought accounts ran to the financial year ?? Can’t understand why the directors that left are listed as that is the 2012/13 financial year Maybe someone ITK can advise me on that ? its a report up until may 2012, so thats basically the 2011/2012 season, so thats why its included, We won't see the impact of our cost saving until this time next year, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellRedPhil Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Why are people surprised with this? I know, what did people think the accounts were going to say?! It was obvious we'd be up on last years already ludicrous losses and I'm not surprised by the leap at all. £2274.09 the average weekly wage of all the clubs 158 players and staff. This was the first thing that struck me when reading the accounts. When you consider that will include staff that will not command a sizeable wage it begs the question, what is the average wage for our main squad of 25 or so?! A truly harrowing thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Red Hat Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Somebody shoot that man. You think this wont happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted December 5, 2012 Admin Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 We also now have a 'player recruitment analyst' Pete Smith who to my knowledge has no previous experience 'in football' as it were. Not "The" Pete Smith who posts on here, who started off as the orginal City Cat ? Just remembered who he used to travel on CATS with years ago, "Adam Baker". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Not "The" Pete Smith who posts on here, who started off as the orginal City Cat ? Just remembered who he used to travel on CATS with years ago, "Adam Baker". That's the one, also very good friends with Jon Lansdown... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.