£22m loss 22/23 season

[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.