£22m loss 22/23 season

[RollsRoyce]

15 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

 

Often thought the only way of getting rid of parachute payments is to have standard relegation clauses, this would should suggest that it is / could become the norm 

Would love the championship to be on a equal footing, its the thing I dislike most about football, cant think of another such rigged competition 

They already have this. In the early days the PP were to soften the blow on contracts that could not be reduced. Today, it is seen as a way to super boost the chances of promotion back to the Prem.  The statistics prove that it is very hard to break into the PP cycle with financial fair play. I still think it is dubious that the competition does not allow any owner to match the payments made to the PP clubs. It is unfair competition. 

[Maesknoll Red]

4 hours ago, RollsRoyce said:

They already have this. In the early days the PP were to soften the blow on contracts that could not be reduced. Today, it is seen as a way to super boost the chances of promotion back to the Prem.  The statistics prove that it is very hard to break into the PP cycle with financial fair play. I still think it is dubious that the competition does not allow any owner to match the payments made to the PP clubs. It is unfair competition. 

Absolutely an owner of a non PP club should be able to fund (if he can and wants to) the same amount as the highest PP.  It’s an absolute nonsense that clubs who have failed get such high rewards.

[CyderInACan]

And here’s the Bears figures :

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just had a brief look through.

There is a page and certain notes missing.. accident or design.

Note 16 and Page 32 pertaining to the Creditors. The Cash Flow statement doesn't make a huge amount of sense.

Edited December 30, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Notes 14, 15...19.

Odd. Maybe it is Note 18 that is missing, but doesn't seem very well constructed. Cash Flow statements aren't mandatory of course- there is one but it feels like it is missing something.

On the plus side the user format is friendlier than the Bristol City Holdings site.

Edited December 30, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Anyway they likely will need another injection by SL this season but a few million tops.

The missing notes and pages make it hard to get a full picture.

Edited December 30, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

22 hours ago, Maesknoll Red said:

Absolutely an owner of a non PP club should be able to fund (if he can and wants to) the same amount as the highest PP.  It’s an absolute nonsense that clubs who have failed get such high rewards.

On one level I agree.

On another level I think the better solution is basically slashing the gap between Parachutes and Solidarity by pooling the two, thereby enhancing both competitive balance and financial stability.

There are definite trade-offs between the 2. The current status quo is horrible and disgraceful however.

Edited December 30, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

In the simplest terms:

Parachute Plus Solidarity.

Then split evenly by the divisional weighting for the current EFL deal adding it to that. Gap of £35-40m whatever, eradicated.

[Maesknoll Red]

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

In the simplest terms:

Parachute Plus Solidarity.

Then split evenly by the divisional weighting for the current EFL deal adding it to that. Gap of £35-40m whatever, eradicated.

Something needs to be done, it’s definitely caused my interest in us being in the Championship to wain, it’s like letting Max Verstappen race the RB19 in F2.

[ExiledAjax]

22 hours ago, Maesknoll Red said:

Absolutely an owner of a non PP club should be able to fund (if he can and wants to) the same amount as the highest PP.  It’s an absolute nonsense that clubs who have failed get such high rewards.

I understand your thinking here but personally I think this would a) push the anti-competitive element of the pyramid elsewhere (maybe down to L1, maybe somewhere in the middle of the Champ), b) make Championship clubs even more dependent on sugar daddy owners, and c) further inflate wages and transfer fees paid by Champ clubs.

I just don't think the answer to money ruining football is "more money".

PPs are ultimately a mechanism for the PL to try and ensure it's a 23 team league spread across two divisions. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

There is also an issue with the £22m extra in Upper Loss Limit for each season spent in the PL, which can mean £22m or even £44m plus Parachute v Solidarity.

Some sort of merging and divisional weighting of Solidarity and Parachute cash combined with the new incoming 70% Wage and amortisation cap could resolve a lot of issues overnight if those 2 happened in tandem.*

*The issue is it isn't happening in tandem, only a partial solution and a suggestion to give PL sides an 85% limit on relegation.

[Maesknoll Red]

9 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I understand your thinking here but personally I think this would a) push the anti-competitive element of the pyramid elsewhere (maybe down to L1, maybe somewhere in the middle of the Champ), b) make Championship clubs even more dependent on sugar daddy owners, and c) further inflate wages and transfer fees paid by Champ clubs.

I just don't think the answer to money ruining football is "more money".

PPs are ultimately a mechanism for the PL to try and ensure it's a 23 team league spread across two divisions. 

Yes, it was probably an ill thought out post, borne of frustration at the ridiculous situation, why do the rest of the clubs just sit back and take it, there must be something to be done and yes, I agree, reducing costs or sharing the pot is the way forward, not clubs incurring more debt and running unsustainably with surely at some point in the future an implosion or huge financial disaster.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

Yes, it was probably an ill thought out post, borne of frustration at the ridiculous situation, why do the rest of the clubs just sit back and take it, there must be something to be done and yes, I agree, reducing costs or sharing the pot is the way forward, not clubs incurring more debt and running unsustainably with surely at some point in the future an implosion or huge financial disaster.

Completely agree with this.

I think a problem is, although Championship clubs need to form a majority to pass EFL regs, the Lower Leagues do need that couple of million in Solidarity filtering down. Talking League One and Two, as a proportion this really can be vital to them, Championship clubs in a lot of cases have some very wealthy owners but the whole thing is neither wholly competitive or mainly sustainable.

[ExiledAjax]

22 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

Yes, it was probably an ill thought out post, borne of frustration at the ridiculous situation, why do the rest of the clubs just sit back and take it, there must be something to be done and yes, I agree, reducing costs or sharing the pot is the way forward, not clubs incurring more debt and running unsustainably with surely at some point in the future an implosion or huge financial disaster.

No no, I wasn't trying to attack you. 

But my belief is that whatever the "solution" is, we really need to try and anticipate the unforeseen knock-on butterfly effects. 

PPs have to be dealt with somehow, there probably is no perfect solution, but it needs such careful thought.

[Mr Popodopolous]

It genuinely is quite amateur, where is the proof reading of the rugby accounts before release. I'll point out 2 or 3 basic errors or inconsistencies.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Become is one word!!

Note 12 isn't labelled as it should be. It's also on its side.

Page 32 appears to be missing, as is Note 18 which is listed.

Edited December 31, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

[robinforlife2]

On 23/12/2023 at 17:26, Davefevs said:

Yep, I have no idea what Nige’s termination clauses were.  We can’t just assume he just gets paid up his remaining term of his contract.

Although that wouldn't have been huge even if it was, given he only had 8 months left. 250K maybe ?

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, robinforlife2 said:

Although that wouldn't have been huge even if it was, given he only had 8 months left. 250K maybe ?

I’ve no idea, but if LJ was on £600k (allegedly) come the end, I can only imagine Nige was in at least that.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Had a really quick look, not much chance for more yet.

Adjusting wage bill of the club for 13 months, basically.

It was up about £0.41m on a like for like basis and I anticipate a wage bill fall of a few to several million on the football side..still on course for that mooted 70% rule.

Ashton Gate accounts for a good chunk of the rise in income..but costs likewise. Again 13/12 but more events can mean more costs but the non wage costs shooting up by that ratio, a Stadium company making a loss on a frequent basis seems unusual.

AGL and Bristol City for income never fully neatly align in Bristol City Holdings however.

Edited January 12 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Probably having looked again the Ground Rent and Service Charge is a key part..would cancel out at the Consolidated (non-trading company) level.

[ExiledAjax]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

It was up about £0.41m on a like for like basis and I anticipate a wage bill fall of a few to several million on the football side..still on course for that mooted 70% rule.

I think the slightly higher playing wage bill can be accounted for by the fact that this 13 month period captures two Junes. June being the month that most of the loyalty payments and other bonuses get paid to the players. This could comfortably amount to enough to create that discrepancy.

It looks as though we've kept a broadly stable monthly wage bill of approximately £2m over the past couple of seasons (inclusive of bonuses). 

I think it's clear that we're a long way from being "sustainable" financially. 

We have basically one major outgoing - player wages, and the income from player sales, tickets, and AG needs to cover that and ideally exceed it. 

Really, to be truly "sustainable" I think you need to be able to operate independently of player trading. And we are nowhere near that. 

AG makes a loss. That's not good enough. That means that at consolidated Holdings level the club is actually subsidising the stadium. Player sales are keeping the lights on. 

I still think, from the vantage point we have today, that we will post a modest but significant profit next season. The money from Semenyo has got us clear for 2022/23 and with a return to a 12 month period, and the money from Scott's sale, we should do ok.

Tuesday's sell out will really help, as would a win and a further sell out at home in the 4th round. These big home games are worth hundreds of thousands of pounds and if we're on the bubble between profit and loss they could be the tipping factor.

Ps. I think there's an analysis piece to do on directors remuneration and staff. All the companies have a highest paid director recieving c.£200k p/a, but there's significant overlap in directorships. I assume JL doesn't draw a salary from any of them. It also looks like Marshall gets paid by Holdings rather than BS as BS's accounts state that it has zero staff. That's odd. Zero staff in a trading and commercial company? 

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

AG makes a loss. That's not good enough. That means that at consolidated Holdings level the club is actually subsidising the stadium. Player sales are keeping the lights on. 

I think that that is incredibly harsh.

Football stadiums are white elephants at the best of times.  You can't use their biggest asset, the open space and stands, for anything other than sport for most of the year, and if you are lucky a handful of concerts in the summer.

Against that background the ground cost the club about £50k for FFP purposes, or £150k accounting loss excluding depreciation.  There will be many, many clubs deeply envious of being able to run a stadium like Ashton Gate at that cost.

Edited January 12 by Hxj

[Mr Popodopolous]

Stoke City Property, Cardiff City Stadium could be two comparables- there aren't many all told, shell companies aside for the sale and leaseback purposes.

Edited January 12 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

I suppose my slight critique would be, AGL run along more Business Oriented lines than a football club.

Therefore it should be breaking even..in cash terms it's probably fine given Amortisation and Depreciation are non-cash items and the Interest payments don't help either.

[ExiledAjax]

12 minutes ago, Hxj said:

I think that that is incredibly harsh.

Football stadiums are white elephants at the best of times.  You can't use their biggest asset, the open space and stands, for anything other than sport for most of the year, and if you are lucky a handful of concerts in the summer.

Against that background the ground cost the club about £50k for FFP purposes, or £150k accounting loss excluding depreciation.  There will be many, many clubs deeply envious of being able to run a stadium like Ashton Gate at that cost.

I am just coming at it from the perspective of being "sustainable". Within the scope of creating a club that's "sustainable", ie able to live without a sugar daddy writing off millions of pounds of loans ever year, it's not good enough.

If one doesn't think that's achievable or really desirable then I agree, it's fine to have AG losing a bit of cash.

But ultimately, if AG doesn't contribute, then the only other major income stream we have is player sales. Which means we will continue to sell players like Semenyo and Scott in order to keep the accounts on an even keel.

Again that is fine if that fits within the definition of "sustainable".

[Davefevs]

Summary of Holdings and the underlying companies:

Together with a check / sum.  As we know they don’t add up due to I guess internal “transfer pricing”?

[Hxj]

5 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

I am just coming at it from the perspective of being "sustainable". Within the scope of creating a club that's "sustainable", ie able to live without a sugar daddy writing off millions of pounds of loans ever year, it's not good enough.

I've always fully understood your view on these matters.  Personally I would have pointed out that the rent paid by the football club to Ashton Gate Ltd also needs to be considered, giving a significantly higher real loss, but as you didn't I'm happy to ignore the issue.  

But I don't believe that a long term championship club can ever be sustainable under the current rules.  The mere fact that you are allowed to overspend by £39 million over three years simply blows sustainability out of the window.

What is clear from any comparable analysis is that the club do very well in the 'other non-football income which qualifies for FFP' box.  By way of comparison the total 2022 income for Nottingham Forest was £30 million who were sold out every single week at home.

[42nite]

On 30/12/2023 at 18:03, CyderInACan said:

And here’s the Bears figures :

 

 

 

Blimey, looks like the Dolman is finally starting to sink!

I always thought those foundations were a bit dodgy.

[W-S-M Seagull]

14 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Player sales are keeping the lights on. 

Are they?