Finances 21/22

[Fordy62]

https://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/city-announce-202122-accounts/?fbclid=IwAR0H2QzhmwpwevgZW3dtK2OI0PNct2G273ABwPNmP7Kzbm-_8uWpUk9xHoY&fs=e&s=cl
 

@Davefevs

@Mr Popodopolous

 

hurry up and make sense of it for me!

[Mr Popodopolous]

Fantastic!!

One of the earlier to release...I take back some of my past queries about why so long etc.

[Henry]

@Davefevs @Mr Popodopolous right now.

[Davefevs]

Just now, Henry said:

@Davefevs @Mr Popodopolous right now.

Finished

[ExiledAjax]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Fantastic!!

One of the earlier to release...I take back some of my past queries about why so long etc.

I'm so happy for you.

Enjoy your evening.

Edited November 17, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[Fordy62]

96k/week slashed from wages. 

Just goes to show how much fun LJ and MA had. 

[Bristol Rob]

1 minute ago, Fordy62 said:

96k/week slashed from wages. 

Just goes to show how much fun LJ and MA had. 

That just sounds like a very fast dial up modem.

[petehinton]

As per comments over the last few weeks, I encourage anyone to look at this and genuinely think another manager would be like a coiled spring waiting to take this job if Pearson was to leave

[lenred]

Just now, petehinton said:

As per comments over the last few weeks, I encourage anyone to look at this and genuinely think another manager would be like a coiled spring waiting to take this job if Pearson was to leave

Facts like this don’t matter to these people unfortunately!

[Fordy62]

3 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

That just sounds like a very fast dial up modem.

I prefer to think of it as 5x Nahki Wells. 

[Bristol Rob]

Just now, petehinton said:

As per comments over the last few weeks, I encourage anyone to look at this and genuinely think another manager would be like a coiled spring waiting to take this job if Pearson was to leave

If you were an out of work manager, you'd jump at the chance to manage pretty much any side, unless it was too many grades higher or lower than the role you'd recently been sacked from! 

They all know they'll get sacked at some point and as long as they get paid every month, I don't much imagine any/many of them will say, 'Well, I'd take it but those losses you've recorded me prevent me from doing so!' 

[Bristol Rob]

Just now, Fordy62 said:

I prefer to think of it as 5x Nahki Wells. 

In my head, I sang that to the tune of 12 days of Christmas.

So thanks for that. That'll be stuck in my head for the rest of the evening. 

[ExiledAjax]

Good announcement article as well. Easy to understand and highlights the main points.

I understand that a finance specific interview with Richard Gould will be published this week in order to further explain to those fans who are not currently wallpapering their house with copies of our accounts.

[Harry]

FFP-wise, I think this is the situation:

Usually it’s a 3 year period, but with covid, they are allowing a 4 year period, with the 19/20 and 20/21 period placed together and averaged. 
 

So for 18/19 we made a profit of £11m

For 19/20 we lost £10m

For 20/21 we lost £38.4m

Average for those 2 is therefore £24.2 loss

21/22 we lost £28.5m

So for the 3 year average, we are at a total loss of £28.5 + £24.2 - £11 = £41.7

So that’s £41.7m losses against a limit of £39m, which obviously puts us over, but we don’t yet know how much we are allowed to deduct from this for the covid losses being allowed. 
As long as this is more than £2.7m then we are inside the FFP. 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Harry

[Red Army 75]

Such a shame we are losing Richard Gould . Huge loss to the club.

[petehinton]

3 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

If you were an out of work manager, you'd jump at the chance to manage pretty much any side, unless it was too many grades higher or lower than the role you'd recently been sacked from! 

They all know they'll get sacked at some point and as long as they get paid every month, I don't much imagine any/many of them will say, 'Well, I'd take it but those losses you've recorded me prevent me from doing so!' 

It’s more people who really thought Dyche/Wilder/Edwards would’ve answered the job offer with “oh yes, I’d love to take this job with a mediocre squad and absolutely no money, not even for loans. Count me in”

[View from the Dolman]

2 minutes ago, Harry said:

FFP-wise, I think this is the situation:

Usually it’s a 3 year period, but with covid, they are allowing a 4 year period, with the 19/20 and 20/21 period placed together and averaged. 
 

So for 18/19 we made a profit of £11m

For 19/20 we lost £10m

For 20/21 we lost £38.4m

Average for those 2 is therefore £24.2 loss

21/22 we lost £28.5m

So for the 3 year average, we are at a total loss of £28.5 + £24.2 - £11 = £41.7

So that’s £41.7m losses against a limit of £39m, which obviously puts us over, but we don’t yet know how much we are allowed to deduct from this for the covid losses being allowed. 
As long as this is more than £2.7m then we are inside the FFP. 

There's also the standard excludables - academy and women's teams etc

[Bristol Rob]

2 minutes ago, petehinton said:

It’s more people who really thought Dyche/Wilder/Edwards would’ve answered the job offer with “oh yes, I’d love to take this job with a mediocre squad and absolutely no money, not even for loans. Count me in”

With the exception of Dyche, I'm sure none of the others would turn down the salary. Given the circumstances of the club are well known and all you can do is 'not fail' rather than achieve anything to be see as success. 

[daored]

9 minutes ago, petehinton said:

As per comments over the last few weeks, I encourage anyone to look at this and genuinely think another manager would be like a coiled spring waiting to take this job if Pearson was to leave

And also when people make stupid comments about his recruitment and question the players he’s brought in, mostly free transfers and a lot of untried players at this level 

[Bris Red]

6 minutes ago, petehinton said:

It’s more people who really thought Dyche/Wilder/Edwards would’ve answered the job offer with “oh yes, I’d love to take this job with a mediocre squad and absolutely no money, not even for loans. Count me in”

I even heard Scott Parker’s name bandied about on here the other week. Absolutely comical that people think these managers would even entertain the position here given the constraints.

As i have said previously the time to of given LJ and MA the boot was at the end of the 17/18 season. We were asset rich and our stock generally as a club was high. We would have had the pick of many many managers at that time and i genuinely think we could have been propelled into the play-offs or gone up automatically in 18/19 or 19/20 if the right person had been chosen.

All hypothetical now but again the buck stops with the owners - SL’s blind faith and dithering is what has got us in this situation.

Edited November 17, 2022 by Bris Red

[chinapig]

1 minute ago, Bristol Rob said:

With the exception of Dyche, I'm sure none of the others would turn down the salary. Given the circumstances of the club are well known and all you can do is 'not fail' rather than achieve anything to be see as success. 

Wilder left Boro because Gibson wouldn't give him any more money to spend. He's unlikely to be desperate for a salary so we can probably discount him for the foreseeable future.

[Harry]

11 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

There's also the standard excludables - academy and women's teams etc

Of course. But those are the base figures as far as I can tell. 
I think it means we’re ok this year, as they’re expecting the covid adjustment to bring us below the £39m. 
 

However, as I mentioned last year, the problem comes next year. 
 

Next year the 2018/19 profit of £11m comes off. 
So right now the basic figures are £24.2 + £28.5m = £52.7m. 
As a basic figure, to get us below the £39m next season, the accounts for 22/23 would need to post a profit of £13.7m (less whatever covid adjustment they allow). 

So that’s a swing from a £28.4m loss to a £13.7m profit required in the next year. 
Which basically means we need to sell and sell big. 
 

Or we get promoted and the problem goes away

Edited November 17, 2022 by Harry

[Rob k]

Things are going to get a whole lot worse before they get better arnt they - that’s Scott and Semenyo 100% gone in Jan or the summer.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

12 minutes ago, Harry said:

Of course. But those are the base figures as far as I can tell. 
I think it means we’re ok this year, as they’re expecting the covid adjustment to bring us below the £39m. 
 

However, as I mentioned last year, the problem comes next year. 
 

Next year the 2018/19 profit of £11m comes off. 
So right now the basic figures are £24.2 + £28.5m = £52.7m. 
As a basic figure, to get us below the £39m next season, the accounts for 22/23 would need to post a profit of £13.7m (less whatever covid adjustment they allow). 

So that’s a swing from a £28.4m loss to a £13.7m profit required in the next year. 
Which basically means we need to sell and sell big. 
 

Or we get promoted and the problem goes away

More like a £20m improvement to a £5m loss at the very least, when exclusions are accounted for.

[Mr Popodopolous]

We are fine to 2021-22 even before any Covid add-backs.

Encouraging to see turnover recover so well!! Back up to £29m so soon, credit to all concerned- the commercial side has surged back well! 

The wage bill, well talk of this falling by 1/3- fanciful! Guess it could have been referring to overall football and amortisation costs as a collective maybe. Not checked in full. £5m is okay but not in the ballpark that people were referring to.

NO FFP penalties! Obvious to 2021-22...possibly our Depreciation has risen too which subtracts from our FFP losses too- I made our typical costs £5m per year.

Means as I thought, an improvement of £17-18m maybe needed for this season but the big unknown is just how much have we been allowed to add-back in addition to the £5m x 2 and £2.5-m baseline.

6 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

More like a £20m improvement to a £5m loss at the very least, when exclusions are accounted for.

I made it £17-18m but you may be right!

Averaged £24m pre tax loss - £5m x 2 for Covid costs and same again for FFP allowances.

T-2 -£14m.

£28.5m- £5-6m - £2.5m

T -1 -£20-21m

T...we require a loss not exceeding £4-5m in FFP terms, allowables seem to be £5-6m per year...maybe £17-19m.

Edited November 17, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[WolfOfWestStreet]

20 minutes ago, daored said:

And also when people make stupid comments about his recruitment and question the players he’s brought in, mostly free transfers and a lot of untried players at this level 

This is all true but he could coach them better. An argument for another time though.

Obviously we have no money to spaff on playing staff and we are still operating with huge losses. Any ambitions outside of just remaining in this league need to be seriously tempered, however just "remaining" in the championship is not sustainable without the yearly bailout by SL.

The club probably needs to start looking at alternate investment if the club is to progress. 

[Davefevs]

29 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

If you were an out of work manager, you'd jump at the chance to manage pretty much any side, unless it was too many grades higher or lower than the role you'd recently been sacked from! 

They all know they'll get sacked at some point and as long as they get paid every month, I don't much imagine any/many of them will say, 'Well, I'd take it but those losses you've recorded me prevent me from doing so!' 

It’s not the financials themselves Rob, it’s the impact of them on the manager.  The main one being, minimal / little scope to change (improve) the playing squad, therefore relying on Academy to pad out the first team.  The other impact is cannot trade, because to move on a player like Kalas is likely to cost us.  That’s because of the market now versus when we bought during boom-time!

 

I haven’t read, just plugged the numbers into my spreadsheet, and using the standard EFL Covid allowances and FFP allowances (I haven’t looked at these in detail), I have us:

• cycle to May 2022 - fully compliant (well inside the £39m)
• guesstimate to end of May 2023 - about £6m over - and I guess that’s where the add-backs will come in

The “other costs” figure continues to rise - almost £16m, we have to improve the ratio of every £1 increase in income cant cost so much.

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

It’s not the financials themselves Rob, it’s the impact of them on the manager.  The main one being, minimal / little scope to change (improve) the playing squad, therefore relying on Academy to pad out the first team.  The other impact is cannot trade, because to move on a player like Kalas is likely to cost us.  That’s because of the market now versus when we bought during boom-time!

 

I haven’t read, just plugged the numbers into my spreadsheet, and using the standard EFL Covid allowances and FFP allowances (I haven’t looked at these in detail), I have us:

• cycle to May 2022 - fully compliant (well inside the £39m)
• guesstimate to end of May 2023 - about £6m over - and I guess that’s where the add-backs will come in

The “other costs” figure continues to rise - almost £16m, we have to improve the ratio of every £1 increase in income cant cost so much.

Only £6m over- have we really improved/are we really set to improve our position by £11-12m in a year?

Edited November 17, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Dynamite Red]

39 minutes ago, petehinton said:

It’s more people who really thought Dyche/Wilder/Edwards would’ve answered the job offer with “oh yes, I’d love to take this job with a mediocre squad and absolutely no money, not even for loans. Count me in”

You forgot Scott Parker. Unfortunately some fans have no concept of reality. 

Edit: @Bris Red beat me to it.

Edited November 17, 2022 by Dynamite Red

[Davefevs]

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

We are fine to 2021-22 even before any Covid add-backs.

Encouraging to see turnover recover so well!! Back up to £29m so soon, credit to all concerned- the commercial side has surged back well! 

£4m better than my estimates.  But costs are still much higher!

The wage bill, well talk of this falling by 1/3- fanciful! Guess it could have been referring to overall football and amortisation costs as a collective maybe. Not checked in full. £5m is okay but not in the ballpark that people were referring to.

it was clarified many times by me that the playing wage bill will have reduced significantly.  We are playing 7 less “players” but 140 more non-players.  Let’s wait for the BCFC accounts before making too many conclusions!

NO FFP penalties! Obvious to 2021-22...possibly our Depreciation has risen too which subtracts from our FFP losses too- I made our tyypical costs £5m per year.

spotted increased Depn. All helps.

Means as I thought, an improvement of £17-18m maybe needed for this season but the big unknown is just how much have we been allowed to add-back in addition to the £5m x 2 and £2.5-m baseline.

I made it £17-18m but you may be right!