Jump to content
IGNORED

More Bad News Financial Debt

Super

By Super
in Football Chat

Recommended Posts

Ashton1

Ashton1

Posted
Posted

I might have missed this somewhere, but is it really a problem (at present)

Our saviour has a fortune in the region of £880M.

He loves this club with a passion, and indeed his son is now on the board. It is widely documented that he is only allowed in the UK for so many days of the year, hence this happened ! Look who bank rolls Chelsea, or man City. Do they nash and whail about a debt that is sorted every year ?

Every year SL buys more worthless shares in the club to keep us running. While he continues to do this, no issue.

However, it is accepted the club has to break even. It is obvious that with a turn over, income of 11.9 mil, in the future you can only spend 60% of that in wages ? I think a shock is coming to footballers pretty soon, as NO clubs will be able to pay the £15K per week in the lower leagues. And as for us, sorry, we are small fish in this league. Look at Sheff Wednesday with gates of 20K plus most weeks ? How can we compete with them for spending power soon, or Derby, Or Forest and so on. Fact is League One is approaching and we MIGHT be able to build a team.

The new ground is so important. Reading for example. I used to watch City at Elm Road, when they had gates of aroung 5K. Now look at that new stadium and what it has done for them. And Brighton, and so on.

Do not flap about the debt, as long as it is serviced, and it is, no problem. Just thank you Mr Lansdown

Bang on!! Keep the faith, the total debt is 41m of which 35m is owed to our chairman that is in no rush to get it back, as said he is business man and am sure wants a return at some point, but I'm sure he is looking at the wealth a successful team in a new stadium will attack

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Timbo7

Timbo7

Posted
Posted

Hasn't Lansdown said he is happy for someone else to come in and bankroll the club etc if they wanted to come forward?

I don't see many coming forward...

THIS IS PRECISELY THE PROBLEM!

Although Bristol City like the vast majority of football clubs has never been (and will probably never be) a sound business proposition when annual losses were less that £2M/year it was always probable that a wealthy supporter (or a consortium of mildly wealthy supporters) would be prepared to step up if and when required (and frequently when they were not required) to keep the business afloat, financial performance over the last four seasons has made us entirely dependent on one man. This cannot be a healthy place to be - see Portsmouth, Crystal Palace etc.

I agree that debt is not in itself a problem providing it can be serviced - annual losses in excess of 130% of turnover plainly are. We lost £40,000 per day last year and achieved only 49 points!

Whilst Stephen Lansdown's assurances are welcome and he really cannot say or do any more - no-one is ever likely to give advance warning of a change of heart or sadly their own demise.

Regardless of FFP or anything else - a tangible and realistic plan for reducing this eye-watering annual deficit is essential if there is to be a club for our children to support (and suffer).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Admin
phantom

phantom

Posted
  • Admin
Posted

Anyone else think it makes more sense now more then ever to move the Rugby club down to the gate from next season? At least then the stadium will be used at least once a week. At least the club then will make money on drinks and food beverages. just a thought.

Wouldn't the money paid to use the ground go to Ashton Gate Ltd ?

Surely gate receipts would go to the rugby club ?

Drinks etc would go to the various franchises that pay to use the ground ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bcfcnick

bcfcnick

Posted
Posted

I think the issue that will frustrate SL is that with spending so much on recruitment and wages the Club isn't in the league position that his investment warrants. Some managers out perform their budget but DM has grossly under-performed if the league table positoon equated to budget.

SL will have had a hand in appointing the managers and whilst there is always an element of luck involved there is a bit of a trend. SL is clearly a decent man and perhaps that has impacted on the type of managers he has selected who aside from GJ seem to lack that 'edge' that many successful managers such as the likes Warnock or Di Canio have. There was a suggestion that SL favoured Mark Robins in the last round and his efforts at Coventry don't seem to suggest he would have been an inspirational appointment either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Timbo7

Timbo7

Posted
Posted

Is Ashton Vale the answer?

Ashton Vale was conceived in 2007 on a rising tide of optimism - big crowds, winning team, promotion to the Promised Land considered realistic by many, Lehman Brothers still in business and City losing "only" £2M/year. It was easy to believe that the new stadium would generate substantial additional income through football alone (more seats and executive boxes) - at least enough to reverse the annual loss into a surplus. The icing on the cake was the opportunity to earn significant non-football revenues, the 2018 World Cup and relief from the temporary loss of capacity at Ashton Gate whilst alternative redevelopment was carried out. Consequently the lack of detail was overlooked.

Since then:

  1. capex estimates have increased from £40M-£50M to £90M;
  2. development has been delayed;
  3. availability of debt finance has been severely curtailed (if relevant);
  4. demand for ancillary facilities (hotel, retail, conference) has dwindled in response to the global financial crisis;
  5. the team has faded;
  6. crowds have reduced; and
  7. annual losses have increased seven-fold.

Whilst none of these developments are necessarily fatal to the case for Ashton Vale (i.e. it may still be the best available option/opportunity) it required a giant leap of faith to reach the conclusion that the project still has the potential to answer all of Bristol City's financial problems. I find it hard to understand why my refusal to believe Ashton Vale is seven times more economically attractive than it was ever promised to be amounts to a lack of faith or worse make me a NIMBY or a moron.

In the absence of any details, my expectation for the commercial / funding proposal would (in very simplistic terms) be:

  1. special purpose company established to build, own and operate the Ashton Vale development;
  2. where possible non-football revenues are secured in advance (e.g. agreement to lease hotel) and these are used as security for debt finance in order to reduce risk capital burden on investors;
  3. Bristol City contributes the capital secured through the sale of Ashton Gate to Sainsburys and in exchange is granted a licence to play at the new stadium on preferential terms (e.g. nominal rent, retention of ticket and executive box sales, matchday catering revenues etc.);
  4. Bristol Rugby Club granted similar license on equivalent terms to those currently operative at the Mem;
  5. Non-football revenue used by the special purpose company to service debt and (potentially) to pay some return to investors

Of course the actual deal for Bristol City may be better or worse than this but absent any assurances on the point I think it is dangerous to assume non-football revenues will be available to the club when £90M has been invested from external sources. This model would put Bristol City in a position not dissimilar to Coventry (failing) and Swansea (succeeding) who both play in modern grounds owned by third parties.

Some additional points which may or may not be relevant:

  1. the new North End Stand at Molineux accommodates 7,000 and cost £18M - this suggests a reasonable capex estimate for the proposed Ashton Gate redevelopment would be £50M - substantially less than Ashton Vale but losing the Ashton Gate sale revenue and much of the non-football earning potential;
  2. planning consent for alternative commercial (or residential) development at Ashton Vale would be unlikely to be forthcoming - special case for development on greenbelt based on need for stadium / no alternative suitable sites;
  3. although I have not studied the plans, it seems to me that the non-football revenue potential for Ashton Vale may to some extent be dependent on overturning the partial TVG registration - I believe SL has said as much

As I have previously said - I have no problem accepting that increased capacity (and even exec boxes) is vital for a sustainable future in (or close to) the Premier League BUT it simply cannot even assist in delivering this dream unless numerous other matters are addressed first. Comparison between Swansea and Coventry is a perfect illustration - the Liberty Stadium has undoubtedly played a significant part but we should not underestimate the achievements of the club and the various managers it has appointed from K Jacket onwards which are in stark contrast with all that has happened here in the last decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Timbo7

Timbo7

Posted
Posted

I can't believe that people think these sort of loses are expectable, and i don't care about the position any other club are in, football has to start living within it's means and stop being reliant on the whim of one man

Absolutely

Much of the financial problem affecting football beyond the Premier League is a product of club's willingness to spend beyond their means on players' wages - this has gone on for years (if it was not always the case) to the extent that the entire market is distorted (players move from one club which can't afford their demands on to the next). Perhaps FFP is the beginning of a solution but as these accounts plainly demonstrate Bristol City is a prime culprit - we have shown more willingness than most over the last four seasons to pay more (approaching 3x more!) than we can afford - in these circumstances it is hard to claim it is not our fault that the market is the way it is.

In the light of these reported losses I find it hard to stomach that both the club and its spokesman cite FFP as a threat rather than the underlying unsustainable loss. Come on Bristol City - signal your commitment to achieving FFP targets and more - give us something to support you for and something to be proud of in the future - let's be part of the solution, even if that means some hard times ahead. Some times it is better to travel in anticipation than it is to arrive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Timbo7

Timbo7

Posted
Posted

Can anyone find the breakdown of the £5.9m other operating costs in the accounts.

AG is a tired stadium and needs regular maintenance, would just like to know how much it costs.

BCAGFC

That is a very good question which I cannot answer. It is clear from the accounts that the figure includes every cost which is not staff, depreciation or interest. It therefore presumably includes training facilities, advertising, policing business rates, energy and sewerage etc. - perhaps worth asking for a break-down tonight or from Dave?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frome Valley

Frome Valley

Posted
Posted

Frome Valley - I thought the club had been fairly consistent in saying that the new stadium will bring much needed off field revenue in? We will clearly not benefit from all the associated development (drive thru restaurant, hotel etc) but facilities contained within the stadium should be making money for the club. I am sure this has been explicitly said somewhere.

I did meet Colin Sexstone face to face, but he was not specific regarding how the stadium will be funded.

I have read nothing to confirm that City will not be tenants, and will take their share of non matchday revenue created. People have perceptions about this project that may not be true

In short the people on here who are vociferoulsy in favour cannot evidence base their reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Monkeh

Monkeh

Posted
Posted

I did meet Colin Sexstone face to face, but he was not specific regarding how the stadium will be funded.

I have read nothing to confirm that City will not be tenants, and will take their share of non matchday revenue created. People have perceptions about this project that may not be true

In short the people on here who are vociferoulsy in favour cannot evidence base their reasoning.

20 million paid for by the sale of Ashton Gate,

40 million from Steve Lansdown

Local investment and sponsership makes up the rest

I think we get a 3 million grant from the football league too,

The ground will be owned by Ashton Vale Holdings ltd I expect like the gate is owned by Aston gate Holdings ltd not the club,

thats commen practice these days

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CodeRed

CodeRed

Posted
Posted

20 million paid for by the sale of Ashton Gate,

40 million from Steve Lansdown

Local investment and sponsership makes up the rest

I think we get a 3 million grant from the football league too,

The ground will be owned by Ashton Vale Holdings ltd I expect like the gate is owned by Aston gate Holdings ltd not the club,

thats commen practice these days

40 million from Steve Lansdown

thats just guesswork by you - isn't it? I have never seen that anywhere (and it's Ashton Gate Ltd)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BCAGFC

BCAGFC

Posted
Posted

40 million from Steve Lansdown

thats just guesswork by you - isn't it? I have never seen that anywhere (and it's Ashton Gate Ltd)

Have a look at SLs Wiki page, even has a referal to the article.

It was quoted in the national press in April 2009, it was even mentioned that the 47.2m is to go towards BCFCs new stadium......probably another secured loan......but you never know.

BCAGFC

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jordan Tansley

Jordan Tansley

Posted
Posted

I did meet Colin Sexstone face to face, but he was not specific regarding how the stadium will be funded.

I have read nothing to confirm that City will not be tenants, and will take their share of non matchday revenue created. People have perceptions about this project that may not be true

In short the people on here who are vociferoulsy in favour cannot evidence base their reasoning.

In short the people who are actively against cannot evidence base their reasoning, either.

The lack of factual information is, I agree, a problem. It would be nice to know the details so that 'blind faith' or 'scaremongering' accusations couldn't be levied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted

In short the people who are actively against cannot evidence base their reasoning, either.

The lack of factual information is, I agree, a problem. It would be nice to know the details so that 'blind faith' or 'scaremongering' accusations couldn't be levied.

Actually fully agree! Until - if ever - the facts are out, we'll never know wtf is going on. I just hope they know what their doing - but recently that doesn't look the case!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Actually fully agree! Until - if ever - the facts are out, we'll never know wtf is going on. I just hope they know what their doing - but recently that doesn't look the case!

Many "towed the line" because thats what they were told to do; without knowing what the club would get from it and for what cost, to them and us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...