Never to the dark side Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 At the AGM approx 130 - 150 attendees On the top table in running order Archie Gooch, DW, ?,SL,?,?,JL,and CS I'll post a few comments on friday if any one is interested. Cos its been a long day,I'm tired and I'm off to bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taz Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 Cos its been a long day,I'm tired and I'm off to bed. That's not good enough, I want to know now :Cheeky22: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elhombrecito Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 C'mon John, you put the word Review in the title then give us a paultry 5 lines? Not very nice is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NATCHER Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 On the top table in running order Archie Gooch, DW, ?,SL,?,?,JL,and CS Unfortunately the three ?'s do not include any Russian Billionaires. Two silent auditors from Ernst and Young LLP and an equally silent director Kieth Dawe (Tottenham Fan.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 If you were there Natcher - why don`t you give a brief run-down of the AGM as John has gone to bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 If you were there Natcher - why don`t you give a brief run-down of the AGM as John has gone to bed. I know it's the 'official verdict', but here you are Robbored... AGM Review - bcfc.co.uk Cheers, Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedUn Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 I know it's the 'official verdict', but here you are Robbored... AGM Review - bcfc.co.uk Any chance of the presentation (presumably .ppt) being converted to go online Adam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 Any chance of the presentation (presumably .ppt) being converted to go online Adam? It's Powerpoint, yes Mick. However, without Steve's words surrounding the .ppt document it would be hard to get to the main points of what is being put across. I have it all on DV tape though, but maybe too long for World. Will see what I can do. Though will have to wait as i'm off, on the way to Blackpool, tomorrow. Remind me - just drop me an e-mail - on Sunday/Monday sometime. Cheers, Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NATCHER Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 O.K. Here go's. After all six resolutions were carried with no breath of opposition Steve Lansdown gave a presentation of how the club has "progressed" off the field. Using our brief visit to Division One as a start. Funny that, wasn't all this board there when the so say "mistakes" were made. He says "we" are still looking to redevelope Ashton Gate. Only £5,000 has been spent on our share in South Glos. Arenas. All revenue generated by City in any new stadium would go solely to City. Any stadium would not be ready untill 2008/10. ...and he closed by liking City to Concorde. "Everyone who thought of Bristol would think of Bristol City. Anyway he spoke well and recieved warm applause. Questions:- East End. Lansdown believes it's Bristolians trait to be "reticent" that leads to the lack of atmosphere. Sexstone says Ashton Gate is known as "noisey on the circuit" according to other clubs directors. Severnside. Ownership, amongst a great number of other issues, still to be decided. Personally I feel it feels more likely than a redevloped Ashton Gate. City have applied for planning permission for "executive boxes" above the seating between The Williams and Ateyo Stands. Also Ashton Gate is still mortgaged. Rosenior. Only time Steve Lansdown lost his composure. Under questioning about the affair he refused to elaborate on any "late" offer, saying something like "I'll say something I regret." The facts on the deal are- £55,000. £25,000 already received, £25,000 after a unstated number of appearances, and £5,000 after a Under 21 cap, with a paltry 20 % sell on fee. Performances. A comment of "dismal" from the floor was called "over critical" by Mr. Wilson. He also said that Butler had lost form but his response had been "first class" and would be back. Clist was described as a good footballer who always wanted to go forward and therefore difficult to play in a "four"but there was still a chance. Someone said we had missed Murrays' pace and called for a paid replacement. Mr.Wilson replied that everyone was looking for the same but it was hard to come by but cited both Millers' and Wilkshires' quickness of mind, also there were youngsters in the reserves and below with that pace but it was hard to judge when to blood them. The Acadamy. A shareholder asked if this was really the way forward, and both Steve Lansdown and John Laycock strongly argued it's case, the latter having "put in over £1 million of his own money." Then we knew it was time to go when the annual rallying call by Dave Fear was called for by The Chairman. Sorry John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taz Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 Cheers Natcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Never to the dark side Posted November 28, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2003 Just to say thanks to Natcher for the review It will save me doing it this afternoon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedUn Posted November 28, 2003 Report Share Posted November 28, 2003 It's Powerpoint, yes Mick. However, without Steve's words surrounding the .ppt document it would be hard to get to the main points of what is being put across. I have it all on DV tape though, but maybe too long for World. There is a 'Save as HTML' option in PowerPoint and if there's nothing in the notes section for each slide we can make our own words up Anyway, I think you should have Sunday off after a night in Blackpool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BTR_FTG Posted November 28, 2003 Report Share Posted November 28, 2003 Natcher, Can you please clarify: "Only £5,000 has been spent on our share in South Glos. Arenas." Is that what Steve said City paid for the share or the amount they've so far invested in the scheme? I'm interested as he confirmed to me the one third share in the company cost a nominal quid. BTR FTG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedUn Posted November 28, 2003 Report Share Posted November 28, 2003 The Acadamy (sic). A shareholder asked if this was really the way forward, and both Steve Lansdown and John Laycock strongly argued it's case, the latter having "put in over £1 million of his own money." Of the £10.5m cumulative loss over the last six years, I reckon the net loss on transfers involving senior players is ~£4.0m (incl estimated agent/signing fees), whereas academy costs offset by dealings in players recruited in their teens is ~£2.0m. The other ~£4.5m would mainly comprise wages, with all those senior players taking the lion's share compared to the wages of the younger lads, say in a similar 2:1 ratio ... so senior imports cost ~£7.0m; home-grown cost ~£3.5m. Now look at the current squad and see that it comprises 17 home grown and 8 imported players ... ... so the respective per head costs come out at 200k for home-grown lads and 875k for imports ... ... for his 750k per annum, given a choice of the academy and (nearly) another, say, Carl Hutchings I know what I'd rather have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham b Posted November 28, 2003 Report Share Posted November 28, 2003 Of the £10.5m cumulative loss over the last six years, I reckon the net loss on transfers involving senior players is ~£4.0m (incl estimated agent/signing fees), whereas academy costs offset by dealings in players recruited in their teens is ~£2.0m. The other ~£4.5m would mainly comprise wages, with all those senior players taking the lion's share compared to the wages of the younger lads, say in a similar 2:1 ratio ... so senior imports cost ~£7.0m; home-grown cost ~£3.5m. Now look at the current squad and see that it comprises 17 home grown and 8 imported players ... ... so the respective per head costs come out at 200k for home-grown lads and 875k for imports ... ... for his 750k per annum, given a choice of the academy and (nearly) another, say, Carl Hutchings I know what I'd rather have. Whereas I might agree with the general concept of the message, I fear your calculations are somewhat flawed. Initially you are tending to confuse expenditure and loss (the other £4.5m etc) in attempting to account for the overall loss in an overly simplified manner. Secondly you base your final calculation on the ratio at present in terms of home grown and imports. As this is not a static figure your final ratio is subject to question when counted over the six year period. Graham B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NATCHER Posted November 28, 2003 Report Share Posted November 28, 2003 Natcher, Can you please clarify: "Only £5,000 has been spent on our share in South Glos. Arenas." Is that what Steve said City paid for the share or the amount they've so far invested in the scheme? I'm interested as he confirmed to me the one third share in the company cost a nominal quid. BTR FTG It was the cost, toward the scheme so far, as an equal third party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BTR_FTG Posted November 28, 2003 Report Share Posted November 28, 2003 Thanks Natcher.. BTR FTG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedUn Posted November 28, 2003 Report Share Posted November 28, 2003 Graham B: Whereas I might agree with the general concept of the message, I fear your calculations are somewhat flawed. That's because online footy club forums lend themselves far better to general concepts than expositions of detailed calculations. I look forward to comparing my reckonings with a simple overview of your own calculations. The simple message is that imported journeymen have proved far more expensive to BCFC than the prudent investment in the academy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham b Posted November 28, 2003 Report Share Posted November 28, 2003 That's because online footy club forums lend themselves far better to general concepts than expositions of detailed calculations. ..... and that is exactly the reason why I felt the need to respond. By placing questionable assumed figures alongside your argument you are giving a false veneer of "exposition of detailed calculation" ...... and then basing your final analysis on an erroneous usage of data can only serve to weaken the message. I would not argue that by looking at the accounts over the last six years would indicate that the money invested in the Academy has had a better return than that spent in the transfer market. To me that is a comment on the way the club was mismanaged in the 1998-2001 era. The question now is with the crash of the transfer market and the continuing under achievement of the u19's is the Academy good value. The answer to that may be more difficult. However with the new investment in the St George City Academy there is no way that the Club is going to withdraw its continued Academy support. I do beleive however that the Club should be looking closely at its results from its investment by questioning closely the reasons why the u19's have for two years now had the worst results of the Academy's in the country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdF Posted November 28, 2003 Report Share Posted November 28, 2003 To save Adam a job post-Blackpool, Steve's AGM presentation is available to view on World now. See the TV News - Interviews and Features section. Regards Ed Furniss Media Editor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NATCHER Posted November 29, 2003 Report Share Posted November 29, 2003 It was claimed by John Laycock that The Academy "washes it's own face". I guess what the not so eloquent ex chairman meant, was the £750,000 per annum academy, is self funding. Now weather the sizeable investment would be there for the first team if there was no academy, I for one, would doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.