£22m loss 22/23 season

[RUSSEL85]

56 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

It`s why accountants make more in a week than we do in a year!

As a qualified accountant, I can tell you I really wish that was the case  

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Staffing up 248, mainly in food and beverage, but also stadium ops.  Could be events related.

The way I (skim) read is that it's all events related. £4m extra income/revenue but £6m extra in staff costs.

I'll be honest I ******* hate them for releasing these today. I've got 5 days of drinking and eating planned and dissecting our accounts was NOT part of the plan.

Christmas *******.

[Bristol Rob]

Does this set of accounts cover a year where there wasn't any summer music thing at the stadium?

(Appreciate that is more than likely a fixed-price stadium rental, rather than a share of revenue, but that could change in the next set if this was a year without anything).

And didn't the pitch get replaced as well, that's another chunk of change.

[Davefevs]

32 minutes ago, Midlands Robin said:

Cheers Mr P.

That makes more sense.

It does then beg the question about where Bristol Sport sit in this arrangement? Every time I've seen fan complaints raised about food,stock in the club shop,ticket booking fees etc the response from the City side is that it sits with Bristol Sport and needs to be taken up with them.

Sometimes it feels like we're chasing our tails.

As a service provider:

 

need to divorce Bristol Sport Ltd from “Bristol Sport” the “brand”.

23 minutes ago, East End Old Boy said:

Interesting, as Mark Kelly and/or Gavin Marshall said the stadium was ultimately owned by Pula Sports at the Senior Reds lunch last month?

Everything is owned by Pula (Steve and Maggie):

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/05450440/persons-with-significant-control

5 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

The way I (skim) read is that it's all events related. £4m extra income/revenue but £6m extra in staff costs.

I'll be honest I ******* hate them for releasing these today. I've got 5 days of drinking and eating planned and dissecting our accounts was NOT part of the plan.

Christmas *******.

Just taking the wages £30m last year, 13/12ths is £32.5m…there’s your £2.5m differences!  Very simplistic way of looking at it!

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Does this set of accounts cover a year where there wasn't any summer music thing at the stadium?

(Appreciate that is more than likely a fixed-price stadium rental, rather than a share of revenue, but that could change in the next set if this was a year without anything).

And didn't the pitch get replaced as well, that's another chunk of change.

I don’t remember the gigs, but you’re looking at gigs between 1st June 2022 and 30th June 2023.

I have no spreadsheet for gigs!

[Davefevs]

Anyone know how to create a pdf out of the accounts instead of that horrible “reader” they’ve published them using?  Ta.

Companies House will have a pdf version once submitted and scanned, but I want to scribble notes now!!!

[BCFC Rich]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I have no spreadsheet for gigs!

This might be the most shocking news OTIB has ever heard!!!! 

[REDOXO]

13 minutes ago, BCFC Rich said:

This might be the most shocking news OTIB has ever heard!!!! 

The illusion is shattered!

[Barrs Court Red]

So is the stadium making a loss? And I guess if yes, is it a bigger loss than pre-rebuild? 
 

My assumption is that it’s not and never will be a yes/no to either question due to the tangled web of corporate financing.  
 

With ticket sales in excess of £6m that still only equates to £115k p/w which isn’t a large sum by any stretch to spend on wages and the club has to get more out of its asset - if the asset is loss making that’s a huge problem, given we’ve had 20 years of chasing a sustainable model and the rebuild was supposed to be a huge part of solving that puzzle. 

[ExiledAjax]

52 minutes ago, East End Old Boy said:

Interesting, as Mark Kelly and/or Gavin Marshall said the stadium was ultimately owned by Pula Sports at the Senior Reds lunch last month?

Pula Sports is owned by Steve and Maggie. @Davefevs has a diagram that shows it.

[Mr Popodopolous]

28 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Anyone know how to create a pdf out of the accounts instead of that horrible “reader” they’ve published them using?  Ta.

Companies House will have a pdf version once submitted and scanned, but I want to scribble notes now!!!

I'm glad you mentioned that Dave- that format..gaah.

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, Barrs Court Red said:

So is the stadium making a loss? And I guess if yes, is it a bigger loss than pre-rebuild? 
 

My assumption is that it’s not and never will be a yes/no to either question due to the tangled web of corporate financing.  
 

With ticket sales in excess of £6m that still only equates to £115k p/w which isn’t a large sum by any stretch to spend on wages and the club has to get more out of its asset - if the asset is loss making that’s a huge problem, given we’ve had 20 years of chasing a sustainable model and the rebuild was supposed to be a huge part of solving that puzzle. 

Depends what we define as a loss I suppose, Cash Lose or Profit and Loss Loss.

We are getting more hence the £36m turnover, some of that will be due to 13 months instead of 12 of revenue but the club accounts will show just the club stuff, the AGL will show the commercial side and the overwhelming bulk will be under BCFC Holdings with perhaps some rugby specific items.

As to the sustainable model, I query how possible it is at our level. Maybe if you're Rotherham but they more often than not yoyo up and then down again.

The impending planned Regulation change to replace FFP of 70% of Football Wages, player amortisation, Impairment and Agents Fees to match turnover should help, if it goes hand in hand with a proper TV redistribution we are getting somewhere.

[Davefevs]

16 minutes ago, Barrs Court Red said:

So is the stadium making a loss? And I guess if yes, is it a bigger loss than pre-rebuild? 
 

My assumption is that it’s not and never will be a yes/no to either question due to the tangled web of corporate financing.  
 

With ticket sales in excess of £6m that still only equates to £115k p/w which isn’t a large sum by any stretch to spend on wages and the club has to get more out of its asset - if the asset is loss making that’s a huge problem, given we’ve had 20 years of chasing a sustainable model and the rebuild was supposed to be a huge part of solving that puzzle. 

I guess the stadium company makes a loss because it pays the interest on the loans to SL and has to cover the depreciation on the stadium too.  Football doing similar on the training ground.

Interest - £2.9m

Depreciation - £3.5m

15 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Pula Sports is owned by Steve and Maggie. @Davefevs has a diagram that shows it.

@ExiledAjax has a better one!

[fgrsimon]

43 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I don’t remember the gigs, but you’re looking at gigs between 1st June 2022 and 30th June 2023.

I have no spreadsheet for gigs!

Killers and Elton John in 2022

Only Arctic Monkeys in 2023

Not sure if all of these were in the 13 month period?

I think none in 2020 or 2021 due to Covid

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, fgrsimon said:

Killers and Elton John in 2022

Only Arctic Monkeys in 2023

Not sure if all of these were in the 13 month period?

I think none in 2020 or 2021 due to Covid

Killers - May 2022 so in 21-22’s acounts

Reg Dwight - 2 gigs in June 2022 so Watford helping us in the latest accounts.

Plus Monkeys this set of accounts too.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

That interest payable is creeping up and one to watch!

I raised a query or 2 about the secured Loan in 2021 maybe or 2022, a while ago anyway..it is massively more than offset by the equity conversions in terms of a net contribution but it is creeping up a bit.

Edited December 23, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[W-S-M Seagull]

2 hours ago, Ghost Rider said:

To be fair, SL is worth 2.2 billion. 22 million is literally 1% of his net worth, so I don’t think he’ll be losing too much sleep over it. 

He'd also be hoping to claw that back when he sells the club. 

[fgrsimon]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Killers - May 2022 so in 21-22’s acounts

Reg Dwight - 2 gigs in June 2022 so Watford helping us in the latest accounts.

Plus Monkeys this set of accounts too.

 

So 3 gigs in these accounts vs 1 in 21-22 presumably accounts for some of the increased staff costs?

[Sleepy1968]

3 hours ago, petehinton said:

No wonder they were so miserable last night then

Steve needs to go to Specsavers to get his glasses adjusted - that left arm is not fitting properly.

[George Rs]

Can someone explain how this sits with the rest of the sides in the division, obviously as a business a championship football club is rarely going to be profitable but how much of a loss do we make compared with those around us? 

[Natchfever]

2 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

LJ was being paid around £600k pa so I'd always assumed NP was on more than that... 

Blimey different level so i'm with you.

[Mr Popodopolous]

19 minutes ago, George Rs said:

Can someone explain how this sits with the rest of the sides in the division, obviously as a business a championship football club is rarely going to be profitable but how much of a loss do we make compared with those around us? 

Hard to say because so few have released accounts yet!

If we are comparing to the 2022-23 season.

Birmingham posted a pre tax loss of £24-25m, as per the HK accounts for that season.

13 month accounts inflates our losses a bit.

Norwich posted a pre tax loss and this is Norwich, self sustaining or have been, ably assisted by yoyoing.

£27.2m.

Blackburn is a little bit difficult as their parent runs April 1st to March 31st but north of £20m I believe.

Edited December 23, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[redkev]

Ffs for a council estate working class arsehole who loves a few natches before watching my team 

is a £22m loss good or bad , all I am interested in is will it stop stevie boy investing in the squad in January ?

[Mr Popodopolous]

In so far as a £22m loss could be deemed a good thing, yes we are trending in the right direction yes we can invest, FFP is no longer a problem! 

(Can't invest without limits but we do have some freedom at last yes).

[Merrick's Marvels]

24 minutes ago, redkev said:

Ffs for a council estate working class arsehole who loves a few natches before watching my team 

is a £22m loss good or bad , all I am interested in is will it stop stevie boy investing in the squad in January ?

No.

Because when has it ever?

[Davefevs]

55 minutes ago, fgrsimon said:

So 3 gigs in these accounts vs 1 in 21-22 presumably accounts for some of the increased staff costs?

Yes, that’s how I see it.

I’m interested to see the separate BCFC and AG accounts to see how liberally they are using the term “playing budget”!!!

26 minutes ago, redkev said:

Ffs for a council estate working class arsehole who loves a few natches before watching my team 

is a £22m loss good or bad , all I am interested in is will it stop stevie boy investing in the squad in January ?

In some respects, he’s already said via Phil Alexander that he doesn’t want to cover £22m a season.  And both Gavin Marshall (ITV interview) and JL (Fans Forum) talked about the Akex Scott money being taken up over a number of windows, so along with the losses, I don’t think he will be investing much (define “much”?)!

Manning seemed to be playing down January a bit in Thursday press interview too.

[Chairman Mao]

Diabolical figures. No chance any spending in janaury I'm afraid.

[Harry]

Forgive me if this is a stupid question. 
Are these accounts (Bristol City Holdings Ltd) the ones which are reported under FFP. Or is it the Bristol City FC accounts, which are not yet released, which are used for FFP? 
 

Edited December 23, 2023 by Harry

[East End Old Boy]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

Pula Sports is owned by Steve and Maggie. @Davefevs has a diagram that shows it.

Yep, which is what I previously stated!

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Harry said:

Forgive me if this is a stupid question. 
Are these accounts (Bristol City Holdings Ltd) the ones which are reported under FFP. Or is it the Bristol City FC accounts, which are not yet released, which are used for FFP? 
 

To the best of my knowledge.

Bristol City Holdings ones are used for FFP but it becomes complex moving forward with the new regs..

...In so far as the football wages, player amortisation and Agents Fees need to not exceed 70% of turnover but the turnover is the Holdings not the club in isolation.

There is also something about transfer profits or transfer instalments counting in income but that area I don't know enough on.

[ExiledAjax]

6 minutes ago, East End Old Boy said:

Yep, which is what I previously stated!

I have been at the pub. I am sorry if I misunderstood.

[RedM]

3 hours ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Why on earth would it do that?

As I said I think he was treated poorly, but he was an expensive option too and ultimately I don't know if we were actually getting the best value out of him, or was likely too in the future if it was true about him not being at the club much.

I think he was probably a victim of his own success. He was brought in to cut costs and did that, but as I said he himself was a financial cost, wages and other stuff I cannot disclose. Once his job was done, finance wise he was surplus to our needs and a cheaper option was sought. Saying that though we had to buy up the contract of Manning which was not much in comparison to Pearson but was a cost all the same. 

As I said what Pearson walked away with was life-changing for most 'normal' people.

[redkev]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Yes, that’s how I see it.

I’m interested to see the separate BCFC and AG accounts to see how liberally they are using the term “playing budget”!!!

In some respects, he’s already said via Phil Alexander that he doesn’t want to cover £22m a season.  And both Gavin Marshall (ITV interview) and JL (Fans Forum) talked about the Akex Scott money being taken up over a number of windows, so along with the losses, I don’t think he will be investing much (define “much”?)!

Manning seemed to be playing down January a bit in Thursday press interview too.

Tbh with the squad we have we’re not going anywhere , nothing against the players we have or manager we have had a few great results recently but we are still a big step away from the top 6 

we deffo need 2/3 quality signings to make the next step up the frustrating thing is there is a decent base there to build on 

come on Stevie boy take a punt 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, redkev said:

Tbh with the squad we have we’re not going anywhere , nothing against the players we have or manager we have had a few great results recently but we are still a big step away from the top 6 

we deffo need 2/3 quality signings to make the next step up the frustrating thing is there is a decent base there to build on 

come on Stevie boy take a punt 

Fully fit we could have a tilt at 6th, perhaps be in the mix but yes we do need that extra something.

[redkev]

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Fully fit we could have a tilt at 6th, perhaps be in the mix but yes we do need that extra something.

I know it’s hypothetical now but a certain mr Alex Scott with a fully fit squad I’m sure would have been enough to make that top 6

[RobArnold10]

7 hours ago, RedM said:

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.

I suspect that’s not how it’ll work. 
 

He was out of contract in the summer, so even if we paid him in lieu that would be up to and including our (new) year end. So assuming there was no additional payout (which unless contracted we wouldn’t have been obliged to do)  then it’s no additional cost in the accounts.

 

Similarly, if he had another year after that, even if we’d paid him, you would accrue the cost across the length of the contract. So similarly with Nathan Baker, it’s not a one off cost, but the monthly wage would be recognised accordingly.
 

short answer? It’s not always about the cash. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

One bit I've not really looked at, any Provisions by us?

In the case of wages, it can bring forward obligations a bit like Impairment- not really much use if contracts expire the year of the Provision but can assist if 2-3 years down the line.

[petehinton]

51 minutes ago, RedM said:

As I said I think he was treated poorly, but he was an expensive option too and ultimately I don't know if we were actually getting the best value out of him, or was likely too in the future if it was true about him not being at the club much.

I think he was probably a victim of his own success. He was brought in to cut costs and did that, but as I said he himself was a financial cost, wages and other stuff I cannot disclose. Once his job was done, finance wise he was surplus to our needs and a cheaper option was sought. Saying that though we had to buy up the contract of Manning which was not much in comparison to Pearson but was a cost all the same. 

As I said what Pearson walked away with was life-changing for most 'normal' people.

I think near enough any L1/Champ manager gets life changing money to be sacked these days, such is the modern world. 
 

Believe we were still paying LJ on a weekly basis until the end of his initially agreed contract before getting sacked, even when he took the Sunderland job and was in employment again. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, petehinton said:

I think near enough any L1/Champ manager gets life changing money to be sacked these days, such is the modern world. 
 

Believe we were still paying LJ on a weekly basis until the end of his initially agreed contract before getting sacked, even when he took the Sunderland job and was in employment again. 

Agree on the first point. Plymouth or Rotherham maybe not but most yeah.

That bit sounds intriguing, surely as soon as a job taken the payment should stop or is it perhaps some agreement to make up the difference between old wage and Sunderland one?

[petehinton]

34 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Agree on the first point. Plymouth or Rotherham maybe not but most yeah.

That bit sounds intriguing, surely as soon as a job taken the payment should stop or is it perhaps some agreement to make up the difference between old wage and Sunderland one?

The latter, yeah. I think it’s rare, but there’s definitely cases of it. 

[Harry]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

To the best of my knowledge.

Bristol City Holdings ones are used for FFP but it becomes complex moving forward with the new regs..

...In so far as the football wages, player amortisation and Agents Fees need to not exceed 70% of turnover but the turnover is the Holdings not the club in isolation.

There is also something about transfer profits or transfer instalments counting in income but that area I don't know enough on.

So if this £22.2 loss is added to the £28.5m loss last year, that makes £50m over the last 2 years. 
 

What was the previous year? Isn’t £39m the allowable loss over a rolling 3 year period, therefore we’d have had to have made an £11m profit the year before. 
 

Did we? I don’t think we did. 
 

Can someone explain it to me like I’m a 6 year old - how come we haven’t busted FFP when we’ve lost £50m over 2 years and didn’t make an £11m profit the year before? 

Edited December 23, 2023 by Harry

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, Harry said:

So if this £22.2 loss is added to the £28.5m loss last year, that makes £50m over the last 2 years. 
 

What was the previous year? Isn’t £39m the allowable loss over a rolling 3 year period, therefore we’d have had to have made an £11m profit the year before. 
 

Did we? I don’t think we did. 
 

Can someone explain it to me like I’m a 6 year old - how come we haven’t busted FFP when we’ve lost £50m over 2 years and didn’t make an £11m profit the year before? 

In fairness it's complex and opaque!

There is the Allowables (Community, Academy, Women's, Depreciation etc) I estimate £7m in 2019-20 and the same again in 2020-21! £7m in each season.

£7m in 2021-22 and due to 13 months and a Loss on Disposal of Tangible Assets I make it £8m last season.

There was the Covid years for which some additional allowables wwre given. At a baseline £5m in 2019-20, same again in 2020-21 and then 2021-22 £2.5m. That's for Championship clubs.

The other Covid adjustment for all clubs was to add 2019-20 and 2020-21 and halve.

£24m, £28.5m and £22m.

Minus as a starting point say £22m and £7.5m.

Our actual Covid losses were quite significant in terms of baseline revenue falls..£18m in those 2 years..minimum.

My main view is the sale of Semenyo saved us.

*There were suggestions that we leant on transfer market related losses but some of my calculations excluding these had us just within- but maybe we needed a small amount of that in the 2 main Covid years to push us over the line.

[Davefevs]

34 minutes ago, Harry said:

So if this £22.2 loss is added to the £28.5m loss last year, that makes £50m over the last 2 years. 
 

What was the previous year? Isn’t £39m the allowable loss over a rolling 3 year period, therefore we’d have had to have made an £11m profit the year before. 
 

Did we? I don’t think we did. 
 

Can someone explain it to me like I’m a 6 year old - how come we haven’t busted FFP when we’ve lost £50m over 2 years and didn’t make an £11m profit the year before? 

 

Tinky Winky is revenue

Lala is wages

Po is Amortisation

Dipsy is Other Costs

 

equals P&L

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 

Tinky Winky is revenue

Lala is wages

Po is Amortisation

Dipsy is Other Costs

 

equals P&L

Far better put than me!

[The Constant Rabbit]

7 hours ago, Davefevs said:

 

Staffing up 248, mainly in food and beverage, but also stadium ops.  Could be events related.

 

 

Dave - surely then increased revenues should show up from the 'events' if staff costs are included?

 

Any idea what we get from a concert?

 

Flat 'hire fee' and all concession sales

24% of total

 

Or does it vary?

Thanks

[Mr Popodopolous]

45 minutes ago, The Constant Rabbit said:

Dave - surely then increased revenues should show up from the 'events' if staff costs are included?

 

Any idea what we get from a concert?

 

Flat 'hire fee' and all concession sales

24% of total

 

Or does it vary?

Thanks

Not Dave but there is quite a rise in the Commercial side so perhaps it does.

Other bits I'll leave to others but the rise is quite solid..for both revenue and cost base!

Mostly the AGL accounts when out should reflect this but there is often a sight mismatch, Commercial Revenue v AGL revenue certainly.

Costs I haven't fully compared.

Edited December 24, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

To have a stab at the other point.

Flat fees and concessions on site ie in-house plus any fees for non in-house Concessions on the exterior.

Whereas the latter would keep their revenue, but we would get a fee.

Could be wrong but that feels possible.

[W-S-M Seagull]

6 hours ago, RobArnold10 said:

I suspect that’s not how it’ll work. 
 

He was out of contract in the summer, so even if we paid him in lieu that would be up to and including our (new) year end. So assuming there was no additional payout (which unless contracted we wouldn’t have been obliged to do)  then it’s no additional cost in the accounts.

 

Similarly, if he had another year after that, even if we’d paid him, you would accrue the cost across the length of the contract. So similarly with Nathan Baker, it’s not a one off cost, but the monthly wage would be recognised accordingly.
 

short answer? It’s not always about the cash. 

Tbf none of us know the terms of his contract. 

People just talking as if contracts are standard. Get sacked, pay up remainder of the contract.

There is no standard contract in football. Every contract is unique. I've heard of some bizarre clauses in players contracts for example. 

For all we know in Pearsons contract it could include a clause whereby if he's sacked he'll recieve the remainder of his contract plus 100 million and a yacht and Steve Lansdown has to come round every morning and make him a coffee. 

What I'm saying is its not out of the question that he's recieved an extra amount beyond what people may think. 

It's also highly probable that whilst Manning has a 3.5 year contract. We probably have clauses whereby if we wanted to sack him, he wouldn't recieve the full amount. 

For example there could be a clause that if we finish 20th or below and wanted to sack him then we'd only pay him 12 months wages. 

I'm just making things up now but I'm trying to show that contracts can be whatever both parties want to agree to. 

[RedM]

8 hours ago, RobArnold10 said:

I suspect that’s not how it’ll work. 
 

He was out of contract in the summer, so even if we paid him in lieu that would be up to and including our (new) year end. So assuming there was no additional payout (which unless contracted we wouldn’t have been obliged to do)  then it’s no additional cost in the accounts.

 

Similarly, if he had another year after that, even if we’d paid him, you would accrue the cost across the length of the contract. So similarly with Nathan Baker, it’s not a one off cost, but the monthly wage would be recognised accordingly.
 

short answer? It’s not always about the cash. 

Fair point, that's why I'm not an accountant or anything remotely related to business

[ExiledAjax]

@East End Old Boy here's a diagram of the company structure.

The company - Bristol City Holdings - that has published accounts is circled in black.

I have added some grey arrows to show the flow of information from the other 3 up into Bristol City Holdings.

 

Ignore BCFC Limited as it doesn't do anything.

[aa_bcfc]

17 hours ago, Ghost Rider said:

Do grown adults actually find this “crayon” jibe funny? That said, some people actually find Mrs Browns Boys funny, so I suppose that answers my own question. 

I don’t find it funny at all. In fact I find it rude, embarrassing and totally disrespectful to Jon and the Lansdown family. IMO If they stopped funding the debt we’d be screwed. 

[exAtyeoMax]

So did the club wait until AS was sold before they fired Nige? I mean, if it was such a massive payout they didn’t want it to appear on the previous year’s accounts?

[Sir Geoff]

8 hours ago, The Constant Rabbit said:

Dave - surely then increased revenues should show up from the 'events' if staff costs are included?

 

Any idea what we get from a concert?

 

Flat 'hire fee' and all concession sales

24% of total

 

Or does it vary?

Thanks

Concert promoters pay a flat fee to hire a stadium. A venue the size of Ashton Gate would be circa £300 /500 k.

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

Concert promoters pay a flat fee to hire a stadium. A venue the size of Ashton Gate would be circa £300 /500 k.

Thanks SG.

I’m guessing we also make money from the concessions too, e.g. each stall pays a fee to be there for the gig?

@The Constant Rabbit I think @Mr Popodopolous answered your question on previous page.

[ralphindevon]

17 hours ago, RedM said:

You will have to trust me on this, or not I don't mind. I was surprised by the figure and if it was only for 6mths as you say it was a lot of money we were paying for his services. I didn't think it was right how he was sacked and didn't like how it was done but what he was paid tainted my view somewhat. I certainly won't worry about him financially, but as he is struggling with poor health I bet he would give most of it up if he could improve that in an instant.

Would Nige have been given a fee for keeping quiet and not spilling the beans on what it’s like being Bristol City manager and working for the Lansdowns? 

[headhunter]

19 hours ago, George Rs said:

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.

The full value of the sale, like for any business, is taken credit for in the year the transaction takes place. If the fee is paid in instalments each one is offset against the balance owing at the end of each financial period.

The full Scott fee of £25M will be in the accounts for 23/24. It is irrelevant that they may be paying in instalments of £6.25M over four years. That said the £25M could be a "total" sum with elements triggered by certain events, for example, let's say the base fee was £18M but £4M on achieving 40 appearances and £3M when he reaches 80 appearances then in those circumstances £4M would be triggered some time in 24/25 and therefore in that years accounts and similarly £3M in 25/26.

Highly likely if Scott performs he won't be at Bournemouth in 25/26 so highly likely that years accounts would have the balance of the original fee [assuming he hadn't got to 80 appearances] plus any sell-on clause.

@Davefevs will correct me if any of these assumptions are incorrect

[AppyDAZE]

20 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

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

More like a dead chick in the nest.

[Gol]

Keiran Maguire has reviewed the accounts some interesting stuff @Davefevs @Mr Popodopolous @ExiledAjax

 

 

[petehinton]

The last line…

Edited December 24, 2023 by petehinton

[Sir Geoff]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Thanks SG.

I’m guessing we also make money from the concessions too, e.g. each stall pays a fee to be there for the gig?

@The Constant Rabbit I think @Mr Popodopolous answered your question on previous page.

Yes, I was going to question this. Didn't Stan have John or someone similar on OSIB a few years back who said they sold 30,000 pints in an hour at a gig that summer.

[ExiledAjax]

9 minutes ago, petehinton said:

The last line…

But this is wages at Holdings level. It's not just player wages. Unless he's caveated this or qualified it? 

I think when we see the accounts for Bristol City Football Club Limited - then we can get a better idea of the wages we pay our professional footballers, which is presumably what we mean when we talk about our budget.

Accounts for Ashton Gate Limited will also be illuminating. I think from Holdings accounts it looks like income from AG events is up by about £4.5m, but staff costs are up as well by about £6m...which seems not great. I'm not certain on this but btw. I also need to read the staff recharge bits in more detail - basically that is where someone employed by, say, Bristol Sport does work for BCFC, and Bristol Sport charges their salary to BCFC for that work. That's mentioned later in the notes.

The rest of his analysis is fair, although you need to bear in mind that income is also for a 13 months period as well as outgoings.

Seriously I'm not doing a detailed look at this until 28th Dec. 

Again, it's bloody rude to release these on 23 Dec!

[Sir Geoff]

18 minutes ago, petehinton said:

The last line…

Yes that last line haha. Top ten budget, should be doing better (than11th).

Always wondered what the Baroness looked like. 

[petehinton]

 

[RedM]

1 hour ago, ralphindevon said:

Would Nige have been given a fee for keeping quiet and not spilling the beans on what it’s like being Bristol City manager and working for the Lansdowns? 

Not that I know of, but like others have said anything is possible.

[old_eastender]

4 hours ago, aa_bcfc said:

I don’t find it funny at all. In fact I find it rude, embarrassing and totally disrespectful to Jon and the Lansdown family. IMO If they stopped funding the debt we’d be screwed. 

I found the spoof video of JL very funny, but agree with you we'd be screwed without SLs funding - however bad his footballing decisions have been!

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

But this is wages at Holdings level. It's not just player wages. Unless he's caveated this or qualified it? 

Plus discussion on here tends to conflate wages paid for the period of the accounts and the wage budget for the current period. The latter seems likely to be lower than the former.

 

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

I've always separated out SL and JL in some ways.

SL has at least left some strong off pitch infrastructure and yes has made major errors but does keep us solvent.

JL is however just in the role he is owing to who SL is. He is a significant downgrade on the bulk of evidence so far. SL is far from perfect but JL is worse.

I think some of the current strategy is to align us to the anticipated new Financial regs. 70% turnover plus inbound transfer instalments or transfer profits for football wages, player amortisation and impairment plus agents fees.

Still a tad light squad wise though.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

But this is wages at Holdings level. It's not just player wages. Unless he's caveated this or qualified it? 

I think when we see the accounts for Bristol City Football Club Limited - then we can get a better idea of the wages we pay our professional footballers, which is presumably what we mean when we talk about our budget.

Accounts for Ashton Gate Limited will also be illuminating. I think from Holdings accounts it looks like income from AG events is up by about £4.5m, but staff costs are up as well by about £6m...which seems not great. I'm not certain on this but btw. I also need to read the staff recharge bits in more detail - basically that is where someone employed by, say, Bristol Sport does work for BCFC, and Bristol Sport charges their salary to BCFC for that work. That's mentioned later in the notes.

The rest of his analysis is fair, although you need to bear in mind that income is also for a 13 months period as well as outgoings.

Seriously I'm not doing a detailed look at this until 28th Dec. 

Again, it's bloody rude to release these on 23 Dec!

I think what Kieran does, his rule of thumb here is to divide the wage by the number of Football Staff/Players.

If I was to hazard a guess the football club wage side would be £25-26m, whether that would be inclusive of 12 or 13 months, I've yet to try and extrapolate properly, as yiu say the timing of the release is terrible.

In 2021-22 It was between 75-80% the club to Holdings ratio.

Edited December 24, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, headhunter said:

The full value of the sale, like for any business, is taken credit for in the year the transaction takes place. If the fee is paid in instalments each one is offset against the balance owing at the end of each financial period.

The full Scott fee of £25M will be in the accounts for 23/24. It is irrelevant that they may be paying in instalments of £6.25M over four years. That said the £25M could be a "total" sum with elements triggered by certain events, for example, let's say the base fee was £18M but £4M on achieving 40 appearances and £3M when he reaches 80 appearances then in those circumstances £4M would be triggered some time in 24/25 and therefore in that years accounts and similarly £3M in 25/26.

Highly likely if Scott performs he won't be at Bournemouth in 25/26 so highly likely that years accounts would have the balance of the original fee [assuming he hadn't got to 80 appearances] plus any sell-on clause.

@Davefevs will correct me if any of these assumptions are incorrect

I’m not sure about the bit in bold, all the rest I agree with - but weren’t you an accountant in a former life.

In your example, this would be my take.:

£18m in 23-24’s accounts

£4m (40 apps) in 24-25’s accounts

sold in 25-26 before reaching 80 apps - £0 in 25-26’s accounts (unless that clause is carried into his new club - unlikely)

sold for £58m (20% of £40m) - £8m in 25-26’s accounts

2 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

But this is wages at Holdings level. It's not just player wages. Unless he's caveated this or qualified it? 

I think when we see the accounts for Bristol City Football Club Limited - then we can get a better idea of the wages we pay our professional footballers, which is presumably what we mean when we talk about our budget.

Accounts for Ashton Gate Limited will also be illuminating. I think from Holdings accounts it looks like income from AG events is up by about £4.5m, but staff costs are up as well by about £6m...which seems not great. I'm not certain on this but btw. I also need to read the staff recharge bits in more detail - basically that is where someone employed by, say, Bristol Sport does work for BCFC, and Bristol Sport charges their salary to BCFC for that work. That's mentioned later in the notes.

The rest of his analysis is fair, although you need to bear in mind that income is also for a 13 months period as well as outgoings.

Seriously I'm not doing a detailed look at this until 28th Dec. 

Again, it's bloody rude to release these on 23 Dec!

Yep, need to wait for the City FC Ltd accounts.

Those total staff costs are 13 months too.

£35.951m over 13 months would be £33.186m over 12 months (crude) is a £2.765m additional cost in this years accounts.  That brings the context of £22m losses down to under £20m.  I know you know that

25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think what Kieran does, his rule of thumb here is to divide the wage by the number of Football Staff/Players.

If I was to hazard a guess the football club wage side would be £25-26m, whether that would be inclusive of 12 or 13 months, I've yet to try and extrapolate properly, as yiu say the timing of the release is terrible.

In 2021-22 It was between 75-80% the club to Holdings ratio.

He does.  I asked him once how he did it, and he had a formula for doing it.  It probably works better for club accounts that aren’t complicated by holdings / stadium accounts.

[Hxj]

Gosh - Christmas pub trips celebrations and looking at Bristol City Holdings Ltd accounts - as others have said not a good combination!

A few initial comments.

1. Comparing 13 month accounting periods and 12 month accounting periods can be entirely unproductive for a lot of stuff as balances fluctuate wildly.  This is particularly true where the additional month is one where there is no 'football income', yet annual/end of contract bonuses tend to be paid.  The implication is that two years of such wage payments are included in these accounts.

2. Increased debtors in relation to player transfers of £6 million (note 16 page 37) implies a significant deferral of the cash from Semenyo.

3. Commercial income of £19.5 million is very impressive.  All of which feeds into the FFP figure.

4. As regards increased staff numbers, these are averages across the whole accounting period.  So 365 people working for one day at a concert increases your average staff numbers by 1 a year.  The increase implies that Ashton Gate Ltd has moved from the original 'property only' rent to a 'property, plus services' model which should produce higher returns.

5. This looks like the last year of significant amortisation charges.