The Lansdowns - What Do People Actually Want

[Davefevs]

35 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

Sorry when you say ours, not sure you talk for all fans or even the majority. Lots attend both Bears and city games, or are able to look past a few negatives for the bigger picture.

Funny you should mention tiers of management, as that is exactly what has just been streamlined, due to the overlap. (Not saying we have it right yet)

Concerts, rugby and any other functions produce revenue at the stadium which is fed back into the stadium company and therefore help us, otherwise the stadium would only be used, once every 2 weeks for part of the year, although you still have all the same running and staffing costs 

Maybe that's why you are so confused if you are thinking about cricket or running tracks.

Agree re the benefits of multi-use, but if it was just Football - you wouldn’t have the same staffing costs.  You’d need less staff or at least less “FTE”.  It might be less efficient, but you wouldn’t need the same!

Also, what we are aren’t necessarily seeing is the efficiency of the multi-use model, the cost of providing is too high, ie we aren’t making enough from it.  There is too much cost being cross-charged through the various businesses in the overall group.  I’ve heard it’s become a bit jobsworth, and also a lack of accountability as some management are silo’d in their thinking.

[Mr Popodopolous]

A good side provided SL is fine with topping up cash flow is let's take the £35-36m as a bit of a benchmark.

Football Wages

Player Amortisation and Impairment

Agents Fees

£24.5m the Upper aggregated limit allowed there or £25.2m if the higher end.

Perhaps the Profit on Disposal take a it to £45m.

£31.5m.

If that's included in revenue.

Can't even be bothered to test it if inbound Instalments are the ones included as income.

[sh1t_ref_again]

18 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Agree re the benefits of multi-use, but if it was just Football - you wouldn’t have the same staffing costs.  You’d need less staff or at least less “FTE”.  It might be less efficient, but you wouldn’t need the same!

Also, what we are aren’t necessarily seeing is the efficiency of the multi-use model, the cost of providing is too high, ie we aren’t making enough from it.  There is too much cost being cross-charged through the various businesses in the overall group.  I’ve heard it’s become a bit jobsworth, and also a lack of accountability as some management are silo’d in their thinking.

Fair point, but I guess without breaking down all the figures and seeing what is generated vs additional cost then we don't know. 

The principle is sound and if not producing results, needs looking at why

As I said bar some minor issues I do not see the big problem with Bristol Sport 

Edited December 25, 2023 by sh1t_ref_again
Missed text

[Mr Popodopolous]

Now let's do a worked example of 2021-22 as we have the consolidated and individual club accounts:

*=Category unsure on but let's see.

Group Revenue

£29,675,160

Plus

Other Operating Income

£327,072

Plus

*Profit on Disposal of Players

£1,261,092

Plus

*Interest Receivable

£17,908

*Total Relevant Income

£31,281,232

Said Football Wages and player Amortisation, Impairment and Agents Fees shouldn't exceed..

£21,896,862.40

[Capman]

31 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Just elements of the running of the club, honestly think SL has come to the end of the line and as for JL and Tinnion..

..Marshall and Rawcliffe.

Choppy structure, thinly spread yet too many cooks.

I agree with the observation about a choppy structure and too many cooks. I would be really interested to know how the budget (if any) for the January transfer window is being set for example.  I wonder if the ambition for premier league football is going to be crowded out in the thoughts of some decision makers by the need of the board to be seen to invest in the squad, the new manager and JL’s comments about a ‘top six squad’. One priority might well drive very different decisions to the other. There can be a big difference between the short term need to be popular and building something which delivers long term excellence. 

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

Fair point, but I guess without breaking down all the figures and seeing what is generated vs additional cost then we don't know. 

The principle is sound and if not producing results, needs looking at why

As I said bar some minor issues I do not see the big problem with Bristol Sport 

You can do that for previous years, as I have done!

If I was to be rude, I’d say the reason inefficiency (not producing results) hasn’t been looked at, is primarily down to the focus of this whole thread!!!!

I see nothing hugely wrong with the BS concept, but I see lots of issues with the execution of it.  And don’t forget all the sports under the umbrella are loss making, despite being in their respective top flights - whereas city have the potential to be profit making if they make it there. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Now let's do a worked example of 2021-22 as we have the consolidated and individual club accounts:

*=Category unsure on but let's see.

Group Revenue

£29,675,160

Plus

Other Operating Income

£327,072

Plus

*Profit on Disposal of Players

£1,261,092

Plus

*Interest Receivable

£17,908

*Total Relevant Income

£31,281,232

Said Football Wages and player Amortisation, Impairment and Agents Fees shouldn't exceed..

£21,896,862.40

For context for that season the figures were:

Football Wages

£23,807,941

Player Amortisation

£7,438,301

Player Impairment

£1,005,128

Somewhere between £32.2-33.3m.

[Davefevs]

10 minutes ago, Capman said:

I agree with the observation about a choppy structure and too many cooks. I would be really interested to know how the budget (if any) for the January transfer window is being set for example.  I wonder if the ambition for premier league football is going to be crowded out in the thoughts of some decision makers by the need of the board to be seen to invest in the squad, the new manager and JL’s comments about a ‘top six squad’. One priority might well drive very different decisions to the other. There can be a big difference between the short term need to be popular and building something which delivers long term excellence. 

The budget will be determined by SL and how big a loss he wants to fund. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The budget will be determined by SL and how big a loss he wants to fund. 

Wonder how much headroom we have now to this season?

My initial guess was in the £15-20m range given the Scott sale, in theory we could go quite big SL permitting.. 

[sh1t_ref_again]

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

You can do that for previous years, as I have done!

If I was to be rude, I’d say the reason inefficiency (not producing results) hasn’t been looked at, is primarily down to the focus of this whole thread!!!!

I see nothing hugely wrong with the BS concept, but I see lots of issues with the execution of it.  And don’t forget all the sports under the umbrella are loss making, despite being in their respective top flights - whereas city have the potential to be profit making if they make it there. 

My understanding, correct me if wrong, the Bears are loss making, but there figures will not include the revenue made at the stadium on match days so would need to be able to separate out to see the true picture 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

My understanding, correct me if wrong, the Bears are loss making, but there figures will not include the revenue made at the stadium on match days so would need to be able to separate out to see the true picture 

The Profit and Loss and crucially from an owner input angle, Cash Flow for Bristol Rugby.

[Mr Popodopolous]

The Rugby wide Salary cap perhaps keeps a bit of a lid on it but the 2023 accounts when out will reveal more.

As will the individual components ie Bristol City FC, Ladies, Ashton Gate Limited etc.

[sh1t_ref_again]

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The Rugby wide Salary cap perhaps keeps a bit of a lid on it but the 2023 accounts when out will reveal more.

As will the individual components ie Bristol City FC, Ladies, Ashton Gate Limited etc.

The point I was asking Dave was, Rugby is showing a loss at Bristol Rugby Ltd, but all the revenue generated at the stadium during games goes to Ashton Gate accounts, so not straight forward to see the actual liability of the Rugby club

Or at least that was my take on it?

[Mr Popodopolous]

17 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

The point I was asking Dave was, Rugby is showing a loss at Bristol Rugby Ltd, but all the revenue generated at the stadium during games goes to Ashton Gate accounts, so not straight forward to see the actual liability of the Rugby club

Or at least that was my take on it?

Would seem odd given that Bristol Bears and Bristol Rugby Ltd are not under that part of the Group Structure.

Bristol City Holdings (Non Trading)

Bristol City FC                 AGL

Bristol City Women

BCFC Limited 

Bit of a tangled web..if you want to reconcile AGL, Rugby, Club, Bristol City Holdings for 2022 be my guest! 

Edited December 25, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Nope it's included it seems!

In the Rugby accounts, would be pretty weird if it wasn't.

[Davefevs]

42 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Wonder how much headroom we have now to this season?

My initial guess was in the £15-20m range given the Scott sale, in theory we could go quite big SL permitting.. 

no idea, my simple take is we won’t be using it all.

41 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

My understanding, correct me if wrong, the Bears are loss making, but there figures will not include the revenue made at the stadium on match days so would need to be able to separate out to see the true picture 

24 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

The point I was asking Dave was, Rugby is showing a loss at Bristol Rugby Ltd, but all the revenue generated at the stadium during games goes to Ashton Gate accounts, so not straight forward to see the actual liability of the Rugby club

Or at least that was my take on it?

Lots of cross-charging.  Those revenues come with costs!

@Mr Popodopolous beat me to it.

Edited December 25, 2023 by Davefevs

[luke_bristol]

On 24/12/2023 at 18:33, JoeAman08 said:

 
 

 NP not done anything notable in almost 10 years when he got here.

Did fine at Watford despite his ridiculous sacking (sound familiar?). 

[Mr Popodopolous]

15 minutes ago, luke_bristol said:

Did fine at Watford despite his ridiculous sacking (sound familiar?). 

NP seems not to get the luck in football.

Wonder why, minimum of 2 ridiculous sackings, in football reasons at Leicester that's 3.

Yet smarmy tossers like Parker, Martin seem to rise, get plum jobs.

[robin_unreliant]

14 hours ago, Sir Geoff said:

If you compound it.

Otherwise 1%of 20 billion is the 20 million he puts In each season. It really is just pocket money to him.

Plus, anyone with £2bn can easily earn 5% per annum interest, which is £100m so spending £20m on city is only a bit of the interest, let alone the capital.

[Mr Popodopolous]

SL net worth isn't estimated at £20bn, I'd be interested in where people are getting their figures from.

All the equity that he converts is money that we don't owe him. It can be part of a purchase price but it isn't mandatory.

SL could stop charging interest I guess, could change the terms of the loan..

[Mr Popodopolous]

What we make of this, I'll let others unpick..noticed it a couple of years  back.

[ashton_fan]

37 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

NP seems not to get the luck in football.

Wonder why, minimum of 2 ridiculous sackings, in football reasons at Leicester that's 3.

Yet smarmy tossers like Parker, Martin seem to rise, get plum jobs.

NP tends to fall out with the owners at some stage in nearly all the jobs he's had. His time at City was the second longest he'd survived anywhere (other than his second stint at Leicester) which suggests our owners had more patience than most of the others.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, ashton_fan said:

NP tends to fall out with the owners at some stage in nearly all the jobs he's had. His time at City was the second longest he'd survived anywhere (other than his second stint at Leicester) which suggests our owners had more patience than most of the others.

That's one way of looking at it..

Another is that the sleek prosper in the modern game even if tactically or technically inferior..

A bit vague but NP is one of the good guys, yet quite a lot of good guys don't prosper so well in football it seems.

Parker or Martin v Pearson? Pearson any day from a Football and an integrity perspective..if Gould was here NP would also be I also believe.

[JoeAman08]

2 hours ago, luke_bristol said:

Did fine at Watford despite his ridiculous sacking (sound familiar?). 

His sacking at Watford was much harsher than here. Still they probably get relegated regardless. 

 

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

NP seems not to get the luck in football.

Wonder why, minimum of 2 ridiculous sackings, in football reasons at Leicester that's 3.

Yet smarmy tossers like Parker, Martin seem to rise, get plum jobs.

Maybe it speaks to his ability to get on with people in power positions. Just a guess btw but that old style manager died out in the early 2010s imo. Owners don’t want to sink money into a club and have some former player calling all the shots. For me he wasn’t adaptable. Couldn’t adapt to anything in the modern game and it is why the decision was made to let him go, rightly imo just wrong time. Should have let him go in the summer but maybe no one suitable available

[Davefevs]

14 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

For me he wasn’t adaptable. Couldn’t adapt to anything in the modern game and it is why the decision was made to let him go

In what way?

He was far from being the “dinosaur” - the term some people use.

Very up to date with modern methods.

The reason he was let go was (paraphrased) - he rubbed the owners up the wrong way with his home truths and  they felt his illness gave them a get out clause.

What makes you think it was his adaptability (lack of) that was the reason?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Yes, the lack of adaptability thing I don't get.

The side was evolving and saw 3 or 4 different iterations in his time here- we had to go back to the drawing board a bit post Scott...

Base line 4-4-2 but occasionally 4-3-3 in his earliest days. Confidence was on the floor and the squad had come to the end of the road in many cases.

4-4-1-1...solid. Pring on the left pushed high, Scott as a '1' often behind the striker.

The back 3 phases. Varied CBs ranging from Baker, Kalas and Cundy at times, to Atkinson at others..this was part 1.

Part 2 saw Naismith step in, while new dimension. Cundy gone, Baker sadly retired, Kalas injuries for worse.and worse

Atkinson stepped up moreso, Vyner suddenly stepped up verbatim! So much so he went from out the door to Players Player of the Season.

Scott increasingly became prominent perhaps in this time.

Sadly we lost Semenyo, rather out of necessity but all the same lose him we did. He was useful in a back 3 and he was rather useful on the left in a 4-3-3 which brings me to Phase 4..

The 4-3-3. Possession and control was steadily improving too albeit this was both dependent on the ranking of the opposition and home or away. However it was improving.

Evolution aplenty and in a Parallel universe somewhere we are playing a 4-3-3 with Scott and Naismith both fully fit at the heart of our CM 3..Knight being Knight, we are formidable!

[the1stknowle]

Does this whole chat assume they got the decision that basically started this chat wrong - the appointment of Liam Manning?

If that turns out to an inspired choice from a football point of view, does that change this thread? Because, seems to me, if that goes well then it is a ruthless (ie not cosy jobs for the boys, lacking ambition etc) decision made in consultation with a football person (Tins) which seems to be what a lot of people on this thread want from the Lansdowns. 
 

For my part, I just don’t see that things are as bad as people make out regularly on here. SL shouldn’t have given the club to a son that had not earned that job. And, to the same point, I get peoples issues with the ‘it’s my club’ line. But the infrastructure, the Academy are obviously miles better than when he took over and the club has consistently excellent attendances. We are definitely better set up for success. So struggle to quite see reasons for vitriol. We are in a pretty good place. 
 

 

[Davefevs]

47 minutes ago, the1stknowle said:

Does this whole chat assume they got the decision that basically started this chat wrong - the appointment of Liam Manning?

If that turns out to an inspired choice from a football point of view, does that change this thread? Because, seems to me, if that goes well then it is a ruthless (ie not cosy jobs for the boys, lacking ambition etc) decision made in consultation with a football person (Tins) which seems to be what a lot of people on this thread want from the Lansdowns. 
 

For my part, I just don’t see that things are as bad as people make out regularly on here. SL shouldn’t have given the club to a son that had not earned that job. And, to the same point, I get peoples issues with the ‘it’s my club’ line. But the infrastructure, the Academy are obviously miles better than when he took over and the club has consistently excellent attendances. We are definitely better set up for success. So struggle to quite see reasons for vitriol. We are in a pretty good place. 
 

 

It’s a good question to pose.

As a simplistic response, if LM took this squad and got us into the playoffs, then you’d probably have to say “yes”.

But it won’t ever be simple.

Big we start signing players like Scott Twine for £2.8m then the goalposts have been moved in it being a like for like comparison, especially when Nige was told there is no budget.  That’s the thing that grates more than anything this season for me.  I didn’t expect us to be spending a good chunk of the Scott money, but I felt the squad could’ve given it a good push / kicked-on with another Jason Knight / Rob Dickie profile signing or two.

You could also argue that getting Ross McCrorie and Rob Atkinson back might be like two new signings also, and had Nige kept us chugging around where we are now, he might’ve benefitted from them too.

+++++++

I don’t think anyone is really suggesting things are bad, in fact most are suggesting what a terrific position the football side is in for LM to take over.  And that terrific position is mainly down to the work Nige and Richard undertook.  What many are suggesting is that the new structure lacks the expertise it had, are worried as a result and didn’t like the way they dealt with moving to this structure.

[Phileas Fogg]

What is interesting is from seeing which way people have interacted with the first few posts - it does seem to be the more considered/thoughtful posters who are ‘Lansdown-sceptic’.

I think that is a good summary of this entire discussion - if you consider the overall context and nuance, you’d probably be Lansdown-sceptic. If you are simply happy to go to games, enjoy the new stadium and not give it much thought - you’d probably think they’re great. 

[Midlands Robin]

Adding to what Fev's has said above, we can't forget that the board decision (JL I presue with SL's backing) was to block any further transfer spending for Nige because they basically didn't want him at the helm anymore. The General told the Captain that he still needed to take the objective but that he was holding the tanks in reserve so that when this Captain failed a new Captain could have another go with more tanks.

The gamble taken by JL was to damage the clubs prospects this season with a view to (in his opinion) improving the long term future. That's a hell of a bloody risk to take with our club.

What if their new man was an absolute disaster? What if we end up in a relegation battle? (I really don't think we will by the way).

Linking it back to the original quesiton. We've lost 50 million pounds in two years. We're probably losing the total value of the club every two or three years. That is on the ownership and the board. We can't keep going on like that. We are currently in a position where the only way to stop the financial rot is to get to the Premiership. Could we ever sustain a long term Premier league stay? That's what it would take to bring financial sustainability to the club.