£22m loss 22/23 season

[CyderInACan]

 

[CyderInACan]

Bristol City Holdings Accounts 2022/23

 

23 December 2023 

Bristol City Holdings Limited made a pre-tax loss of £22.2m during the 2022/23 season.

The results for the 13-month period ending June 30th 2023 compared favourably to a pre-tax loss of £28.5m for the 2021/22 financial year ending May 31st 2022.

The reduction in loss occurred despite lengthening the reporting period by one month, a decision which was taken to better align with the financial reporting dates adhered to by the English Football League and the wider Bristol Sport Group.

The transfer market showed clear signs of returning to its pre-Covid levels and the sale of Antoine Semenyo was the primary factor in the profit on disposal of players’ contracts rising to £9.5m. Although Alex Scott was sold for a significant sum of money, this transaction occurred in August 2023 and therefore does not fall into the figures for the 2022/23 season. 

Total revenue earned from ticketing amounted to £6.3m as the 2022/23 season saw an increase in average league attendances to 20,573. In addition to the rising league attendances, the total ticketing income was boosted by a sell-out tie in the Emirates FA Cup Fifth Round against Manchester City.

Staffing costs increased due to a like-for-like rise in the playing budget, and the enhanced number of non-matchday events resulted in greater levels of permanent and casual staff being required.

City Finance Director and Chief Operating Officer Tom Rawcliffe said: “A loss of £22.2m is not insignificant but it does continue our recent trend of reducing losses each season. A recovering transfer market is a cause for optimism and the strong and growing levels of support we receive from our loyal fanbase is something we remain ever thankful for.

“Despite the upturn in financial performance, there is still a large amount of work to do to reduce the levels of losses we incur. On a positive note, we have worked closely with the EFL over the course of both the 21/22 and 22/23 seasons and we are no longer in a position where the threat of EFL sanctions for failing to comply with financial regulations is a realistic proposition.”

During the year 22,500,000 ordinary shares were allotted for an aggregate consideration of £22,500,000 by way of a debt-to-equity swap, which is reflected in the Bristol City Football Club Limited accounts.

Rawcliffe added: “The financial support provided by the Lansdown family is substantial and vital to our ability to compete both on and off the pitch. We are extremely grateful for their ownership and continued backing.”

KEY POINTS FROM BRISTOL CITY HOLDINGS LIMITED*

• Pre-tax loss = £22.2m (2022 – £28.5m)

• Staff costs = £36.0m (2022 – £30.3m)

• Profit on disposal of players = £9.5m (2022 – £1.3m)

• Ticket revenue = £6.3m (2022 – £5.2m)

• Net liabilities = £31.7m (2022 – £32.1m)

*Bristol City Holdings Limited incorporates Bristol City Football Club Limited and Ashton Gate Limited

[GrahamC]

I thought the chairman didn’t know when the accounts were coming out?

Two days after he was asked, clearly.

Doesn’t include the Scott sale.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Ooof that's worse than I thought. 

My thinking was £15m, £18m tops..

[George Rs]

Thats down what £140,000 a week from last year? Without the Scott sale. I don’t know all too much about football finances but they seem to be doing a good job reducing losses year on year!  

[CyderInACan]

I’m sure @Mr Popodopolous @Davefevs @ExiledAjax can provide more context 

Edited December 23, 2023 by CyderInACan

[Mr Popodopolous]

Staff costs and I guess lots of costs will include a 13th month but how much is the football side and how much is the events side.

Glad to hear that FFP no longer any issue at all, nor should it be either.

[George Rs]

Question, in the summary it says there was a large rise (£6m) in staff costs partly due to more non footballing events happening at the stadium meaning more staff both permanent and temporary had to be brought on. Doesn’t Lansdown own the stadium? Why are non football related costs of it being accounted for in BCFC accounts? 
 

Someone please explain for me. 

Edited December 23, 2023 by George Rs

[ExiledAjax]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Ooof that's worse than I thought. 

My thinking was £15m, £18m tops..

I mean...not to be a "told you so".

Thanks @CyderInACan for posting. I'll have a read.

[GrahamC]

I am not the financial expert others on here clearly are, but presumably some of this cost was incurred around us settling up the contracts of Martin, Klose & possibly Bentley? I assume we just paid Baker monthly whilst he was absent up until his contract expired, too.

Certainly no one on a senior wage is left now who doesn’t at the very least contribute.

Expect a significant cull of the first & second year professionals next summer but the likes of Idehen, Kadji, Pearson & their like won’t be on much.

[W-S-M Seagull]

3 minutes ago, George Rs said:

Question, in the summary it says there was a large rise (£6m) in staff costs partly due to more non footballing events happening at the stadium meaning more staff both permanent and temporary had to be brought on. Doesn’t Lansdown own the stadium? Why are non football related costs of it being accounted for in BCFC accounts? 
 

Someone please explain for me. 

Because it's the accounts of both Bristol City and Ashton Gate combined. 

Ultimately Lansdown owns it all. But Ashton Gate is included in Bristol City Holdings. 

[BlowerBCFC]

3 minutes ago, George Rs said:

Question, in the summary it says there was a large rise (£6m) in staff costs partly due to more non footballing events happening at the stadium meaning more staff both permanent and temporary had to be brought on. Doesn’t Lansdown own the stadium? Why are non football related costs of it being accounted for in BCFC accounts? 
 

Someone please explain for me. 

Football club owns the stadium which all event income and staff will be included in.

Therefore would be included in the group accounts for the football club which are the ones being shown.

The companies that make up the stadium and the actual football side of it will have separate accounts filed online which will break down those costs into stadium and football side wages separately 

[W-S-M Seagull]

10 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

I thought the chairman didn’t know when the accounts were coming out?

Two days after he was asked, clearly.

Doesn’t include the Scott sale.

Because he's either very incompetent or he's very snakey. 

You'd expect the chairman to know that the accounts are going to be published in just two days. These things don't happen over night. 

[ExiledAjax]

I mean... there's a typo on page one so this could be a tough read.

[Harry]

Do we know what the playing staff costs were? 
Would be very interested to see how much this was cut by??? 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, BlowerBCFC said:

Football club owns the stadium which all event income and staff will be included in.

Therefore would be included in the group accounts for the football club which are the ones being shown.

The companies that make up the stadium and the actual football side of it will have separate accounts filed online which will break down those costs into stadium and football side wages separately 

Exactly.

This will become pertinent with the new regulations that are coming down the track..our Consolidated wage bill, will just round up and down for simplicity in 2021-22, was £30m but the club one was £23m.

It is the latter that will be the relevant Wage to Turnover figure when these come in (along with Player Amortisation, Impairment and Agents Fees).

[Bristol Rob]

As nest-eggs go, it isn't the most impressive.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Harry said:

Do we know what the playing staff costs were? 
Would be very interested to see how much this was cut by??? 

We won't be able to get a full handle until the AGL and Bristol City club individual accounts are out, but often it is 75-80% of the total wage bill.

Complicated by the 13 month v 12 month issue.

[View from the Dolman]

3 minutes ago, Harry said:

Do we know what the playing staff costs were? 
Would be very interested to see how much this was cut by??? 

The accounts for Bristol City Football Club Ltd will give an idea of this when they're filed at Companies House. 

These group accounts make it somewhat difficult - an increase in wage bill but also an additional 200 employees. 

[Super]

Ouch! Jon won't be getting a new crayon set for Xmas.

[One Team]

Looking forward to reading @Davefevs assessment!

[Mr Popodopolous]

The interest payable has also risen by about a million, most of it owed to Group Undertakings but a bit of that will be down to 13 months v 12 again.

[ExiledAjax]

29 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

I thought the chairman didn’t know when the accounts were coming out?

Two days after he was asked, clearly.

Doesn’t include the Scott sale.

They were signed off on 14 December. Surely his co-director had told him that he'd signed off the accounts? Presumably Jon was present in the board meeting that approved them?

After a quick skim of these Group accounts the headline for me is that all of the improvement from -£28m to -22m is down to Bournemouth paying us £9.5m for Semenyo.

The increased revenue is almost entirely balanced out by the increased staffing costs. They've employed nearly twice as many food and beverage workers as in 2021/22. Big increase.

Excluding player trading the group actually made a slightly bigger relative loss.

Also, as ever, Lansdown injected enough cash to cover the loss. 

16 minutes ago, Harry said:

Do we know what the playing staff costs were? 
Would be very interested to see how much this was cut by??? 

As others have said, the football club accounts will have the detail.

But the group accounts say we had 76 playing staff in 22/23 versus 90 in 21/22.

Edited December 23, 2023 by ExiledAjax

[Kid in the Riot]

A loss of that scale, given it included the sale of Antoine too, certainly suggests we are still spending a lot on player wages/fees. 

Maybe it is a top 10 budget (or thereabouts) afterall. 

[GrahamC]

7 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

A loss of that scale, given it included the sale of Antoine too, certainly suggests we are still spending a lot on player wages/fees. 

Maybe it is a top 10 budget (or thereabouts) afterall. 

Doesn’t the fact that we appear to have doubled the number of employees in the hospitality part suggest this might be a significant factor?

No way is our current squad on a top 10 budget, there are 5 parachute payment sides, then West Brom, Stoke, Cardiff, Boro, Sunderland, Birmingham, even last nights opponents Hull spent big this summer, so did Coventry- just can’t see it.

Edited December 23, 2023 by GrahamC

[Kid in the Riot]

6 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Doesn’t the fact that we appear to have doubled the number of employees in the hospitality part suggest this might be a significant factor?

Compared to the wages of footballers?! Wouldn't have thought so.

Many will be low-paid jobs and surely the majority are also part-time?

[George Rs]

18 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

They were signed off on 14 December. Surely his co-director had told him that he'd signed off the accounts? Presumably Jon was present in the board meeting that approved them?

After a quick skim of these Group accounts the headline for me is that all of the improvement from -£28m to -22m is down to Bournemouth paying us £9.5m for Semenyo.

The increased revenue is almost entirely balanced out by the increased staffing costs. They've employed nearly twice as many food and beverage workers as in 2021/22. Big increase.

Excluding player trading the group actually made a slightly bigger relative loss.

Also, as ever, Lansdown injected enough cash to cover the loss. 

As others have said, the football club accounts will have the detail.

But the group accounts say we had 76 playing staff in 22/23 versus 90 in 21/22.

Does that suggest we got the 9.5m upfront? 
 

Would make a lot of sense as I thought he’d go a for a couple million more but if it was paid largely upfront that would’ve changed things.

[1960maaan]

27 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

We won't be able to get a full handle until the AGL and Bristol City club individual accounts are out, but often it is 75-80% of the total wage bill.

Complicated by the 13 month v 12 month issue.

 

18 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The interest payable has also risen by about a million, most of it owed to Group Undertakings but a bit of that will be down to 13 months v 12 again.

I know nothing of these accounts but I have a question. 
How does the 13 month accounts work ? 
I assume the new accounts will be same time next year, so back to a 12 month period , so in effect you have an extra month debt as there wasn't an 11 month year to follow. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, 1960maaan said:

 

I know nothing of these accounts but I have a question. 
How does the 13 month accounts work ? 
I assume the new accounts will be same time next year, so back to a 12 month period , so in effect you have an extra month debt as there wasn't an 11 month year to follow. 

Essentially we moved the Reporting Period by a month to the end of June rather than as it was before the end of May.

Say there were £12m of costs in a typical area in a typical season. Extra month means £13m.

The subsequent year, all things being equal it will be back to £12m.

That is a worked example not necessarily reflective of these.

[RedM]

Next year's accounts isn't going to look too great are they with all the hiring and firing we have done. Pearson alone got a huge payout. Obviously we have saved on wages and any bonuses, but he certainly walked away set up for life.