£22m loss 22/23 season

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Are they? 

The very next paragraph says that AG Ltd "remains dependent on the support of Pula Sport Ltd".

We also know that a large chunk of AG's turnover is in the form of payments from BCFC Ltd and revenue generated by the games played there. BCFC Ltd can only make those payments, and can only exist and fulfill matches and therefore generate revenue, because it a) sells players and b) takes cash from Lansdown (via Pula and BCFC Holdings).

I'm happy to say that, the set up does work, the set up does keep us operational and within FFP, and there's a decent argument that investment in the academy and young players that are then sold for £££ is fair enough. But, we saw in COVID, that this is fragile and relies upon the rest of the football eco-system to be willing to spend those £££ on our players.

Are you not slightly concerned that AG Ltd can increase it's turnover by £5m but then also see it's losses increase? Yes 13 months v 12 etc but that's surely not ideal.

[W-S-M Seagull]

21 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

The very next paragraph says that AG Ltd "remains dependent on the support of Pula Sport Ltd".

We also know that a large chunk of AG's turnover is in the form of payments from BCFC Ltd and revenue generated by the games played there. BCFC Ltd can only make those payments, and can only exist and fulfill matches and therefore generate revenue, because it a) sells players and b) takes cash from Lansdown (via Pula and BCFC Holdings).

I'm happy to say that, the set up does work, the set up does keep us operational and within FFP, and there's a decent argument that investment in the academy and young players that are then sold for £££ is fair enough. But, we saw in COVID, that this is fragile and relies upon the rest of the football eco-system to be willing to spend those £££ on our players.

Are you not slightly concerned that AG Ltd can increase it's turnover by £5m but then also see it's losses increase? Yes 13 months v 12 etc but that's surely not ideal.

Come on mate, thats not how you were originally framing it was you? If you was then you'd have also said the Bears are keeping the lights on. 

I'm not concerned at all. Its paper losses. Its trading day to day with its own cash flow. Whilst I have many issues with Lansdown, one complaint I don't have is the accounting side of things as that's where he excels. I'm not accounting expert but even I can see that there has been some accounting creativity to benefit us. 

[Kid in the Riot]

9 hours ago, Hxj said:

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.

Yes, we are "best in class" in fact, once you discount parachute clubs.

Credit to the Lansdowns for that, and the likes of Mark Kelly and Martin Griffiths. 

It gets talked about a lot/ridiculed but it does give us a good platform to provide a "top 10 budget". It should ensure that we are a stable club at this level.

[BlowerBCFC]

That last paragraph in going concern is basically saying that Pula Sport won’t demand the repayment of the loan anytime soon. The £72m that is in long term borrowings. Standard going concern paragraph where the company has mass borrowings from a related company. Interestingly the loan has had its terms changed from 3% above base rate to 3% fixed so that interest charge should be less next year as would have been 8.5% with the interest rises

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Yes, we are "best in class" in fact, once you discount parachute clubs.

Credit to the Lansdowns for that, and the likes of Mark Kelly and Martin Griffiths. 

It gets talked about a lot/ridiculed but it does give us a good platform to provide a "top 10 budget". It should ensure that we are a stable club at this level.

I will give them credit for this all told.

The top 10 budget seems suspect but maybe looking at this..whether we have a top 10 wage bill is a different issue but then I guess that depends how much we spend over and above the baseline.

[Mr Popodopolous]

What I will also say is, that we appear to be strongly prepared for the new rules if they drop next season at this level. Many clubs can't say the same...

Revenue- total

Football wages, Player Amortisation and Agents Fees..must not exceed 70% of this. We are aligned whether for £39m P&S or this system I believe.

It may or may not include Profit on Disposal of Players or inbound Player Transfer Instalment Cash Flow in terms of revenue too. Point is even if Point A only we're aligned to both.

Edited January 13 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

What I will also say is, that we appear to be strongly prepared for the new rules if they drop next season at this level. Many clubs can't say the same...

Revenue- total

Football wages, Player Amortisation and Agents Fees..must not exceed 70% of this. We are aligned whether for £39m P&S or this system I believe.

It may or may not include Profit on Disposal of Players or inbound Player Transfer Instalment Cash Flow in terms of revenue too. Point is even if Point A only we're aligned to both.

Do you think they’ll go to 70% in year 1?

(we will be fine though, as you say)

[wendyredredrobin]

On 23/12/2023 at 15:03, 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.

How can that be?  I thought NP only had 6 months left on his contract, so not sure if that amounts to a massive payout unless some other skullduggery was afoot.

Not sure which year the money we received or are to receive for Semenyo and Scott might appear as I guess instalments, addons and sell on clauses  were probably involved.

[Mr Popodopolous]

45 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Do you think they’ll go to 70% in year 1?

(we will be fine though, as you say)

80%, maybe.

Following the UEFA schedule anyway. Hard to say and tbh without something definitive we are all guessing a bit as I assume we won't see a change until the EFL PL TV debate is resolved.

[ExiledAjax]

3 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Come on mate, thats not how you were originally framing it was you? If you was then you'd have also said the Bears are keeping the lights on. 

I'm not concerned at all. Its paper losses. Its trading day to day with its own cash flow. Whilst I have many issues with Lansdown, one complaint I don't have is the accounting side of things as that's where he excels. I'm not accounting expert but even I can see that there has been some accounting creativity to benefit us. 

Isn't it implicit that if I say player sales help to keep the lights on then that has to be indirect? AG doesn't sell players.

Yes the Bears do help to keep the lights on.

Yes the accounting is good, yes the stadium does well compared to others. But it still makes a loss, costs are still high, and improvement is still needed if this club is ever going to be "sustainable". Without player sales this club is losing an unsustainable amount of money, and would fail FFP by a long way.

I understand that we are ok within the current rules and regulations. That may be enough. I think we can aspire to more than that, and I thought that was what is meant by "sustainable". I do however understand that to get there we will need to see bigger changes across the sport as a whole. Those changes are coming.

3 hours ago, BlowerBCFC said:

That last paragraph in going concern is basically saying that Pula Sport won’t demand the repayment of the loan anytime soon. The £72m that is in long term borrowings. Standard going concern paragraph where the company has mass borrowings from a related company. Interestingly the loan has had its terms changed from 3% above base rate to 3% fixed so that interest charge should be less next year as would have been 8.5% with the interest rises

Correct, but that still means that AG Ltd is dependent upon the grace of Pula. Whether Pula helps it with cash injections (via Holdings), or with grace on loans it's neither here nor there.

[RedM]

54 minutes ago, wendyredredrobin said:

How can that be?  I thought NP only had 6 months left on his contract, so not sure if that amounts to a massive payout unless some other skullduggery was afoot.

Not sure which year the money we received or are to receive for Semenyo and Scott might appear as I guess instalments, addons and sell on clauses  were probably involved.

The figure I know about, and is genuine certainly looks massive to me.

Obviously in the world of football where they talk in these sums as the norm it might not be, but I'd certainly be happy with earning that much money a year, or even better getting the push and getting it anyway. 

[22A]

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

When did clubs start losing millions? Sixty years ago 1962/63 season (which included THAT Winter with  just two games in Jan and Feb) City's loss was £25,000. The following season this had dropped to "just" £3,860.

 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, wendyredredrobin said:

How can that be?  I thought NP only had 6 months left on his contract, so not sure if that amounts to a massive payout unless some other skullduggery was afoot.

Not sure which year the money we received or are to receive for Semenyo and Scott might appear as I guess instalments, addons and sell on clauses  were probably involved.

Semenyo’s already appeared in the recently announced accounts, hence almost all of the transfer profit of £9.5m seen  Scott’s £20m (plus any add-ons should he hit any this season) will be in next years.

You don’t have to worry about whether it was instalments or not…unless you have Cashflow concerns, which aren’t really an issue for us with how SL funds us.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I forgot to add, @headhunter may be able to tell all.

Gavin Marshall is meant to be appearing on your Podcast isn't he, to discuss the financial picture. Any word as to when?

[W-S-M Seagull]

4 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I forgot to add, @headhunter may be able to tell all.

Gavin Marshall is meant to be appearing on your Podcast isn't he, to discuss the financial picture. Any word as to when?

I was wondering about this the other day too. 

As communication is now so fantastic, I'm sure it won't be long till he's on. 

[phantom]

19 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I forgot to add, @headhunter may be able to tell all.

Gavin Marshall is meant to be appearing on your Podcast isn't he, to discuss the financial picture. Any word as to when?

The SC&T sub committee has a very useful and informative meeting with Tom Rawcliffe recently about finances and how the money we spend goes into the club etc (minutes currently being written up before sharing)

It may be worth liaising with him instead?

From personal experience he is more than willing to meet with people and work to assist in any way that he can

[W-S-M Seagull]

9 hours ago, phantom said:

The SC&T sub committee has a very useful and informative meeting with Tom Rawcliffe recently about finances and how the money we spend goes into the club etc (minutes currently being written up before sharing)

It may be worth liaising with him instead?

From personal experience he is more than willing to meet with people and work to assist in any way that he can

I'm sure @headhunter would happily have him on the pod and we'd all be interested to hear what he's got to say. 

[Monkeh]

On 13/01/2024 at 13:06, 22A said:

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

When did clubs start losing millions? Sixty years ago 1962/63 season (which included THAT Winter with  just two games in Jan and Feb) City's loss was £25,000. The following season this had dropped to "just" £3,860.

 

Below average players weren't paid millions of pounds a season in 1963, wasn't there a wage cap then until Jimmy Hill managed to put an end to it

[Mr Popodopolous]

Robins Foundation Accounts are out.

The charitable expenditure is a relevant number for FFP. £1.86m in the season just gone.

[Davefevs]

36 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Robins Foundation Accounts are out.

The charitable expenditure is a relevant number for FFP. £1.86m in the season just gone.

Out of interest, why?

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Out of interest, why?

I know we're clear of FFP anyway, just was under the impression that was how Charitable Expenditure exemption was measured for it.

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I know we're clear of FFP anyway, just was under the impression that was how Charitable Expenditure exemption was measured for it.

Only guessing, but charitable donations made by AG Ltd and BCFC Ltd can be exempt….not the revenues of Robins Foundations, which come from all manner of sources I guess.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Only guessing, but charitable donations made by AG Ltd and BCFC Ltd can be exempt….not the revenues of Robins Foundations, which come from all manner of sources I guess.

I was thinking this specific bit.

The Expenditure on Charitable Activities, the rest or the below? Nope.

Restricted v Unrestricted, not really my area of expertise.

[Davefevs]

15 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I was thinking this specific bit.

The Expenditure on Charitable Activities, the rest or the below? Nope.

Restricted v Unrestricted, not really my area of expertise.

I think you need to be looking at the City and Stadium accounts for their charitable donations…which I don’t believe are shown (ie wrapped up in other costs)…not BCRF’s accounts.  But not my bag either.

[Hxj]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Only guessing, but charitable donations made by AG Ltd and BCFC Ltd can be exempt

Correct - expenses incurred by the Holdings group for community activities are not FFP costs - expenses can be in cash or kind (dedicated member of staff etc).  The Robins Foundation is irrelevant in that calculation.

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Restricted v Unrestricted, not really my area of expertise.

For a charity Restricted Funds are those that can only be used for specific purposes, such as a bequest to pay for specific costs such as food for the community.  Unrestricted funds can be used for any purpose.

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Correct - expenses incurred by the Holdings group for community activities are not FFP costs - expenses can be in cash or kind (dedicated member of staff etc).  The Robins Foundation is irrelevant in that calculation.

For a charity Restricted Funds are those that can only be used for specific purposes, such as a bequest to pay for specific costs such as food for the community.  Unrestricted funds can be used for any purpose.

Thanks, so we subtract restricted fund for one.

I would've thought that the Charity Trust Community Expenditure would be the Club figure.  Assuming it's lower than £1.5-1.8m then?

[Hxj]

11 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thanks, so we subtract restricted fund for one.

I would've thought that the Charity Trust Community Expenditure would be the Club figure.  Assuming it's lower than £1.5-1.8m then?

No you can't do that.  The club could receive funds for a 'restricted purpose' and pass those on those funds.

All we know for sure is that Bristol Sport, in the widest possible sense use The Robins Foundation to undertake some community charitable activity.  It could be that other community charitable activities are carried on in the club, and some community activities which don't qualify for charitable status but qualify under FFP rules for community expenditure are carried out directly by the club.