£1.97 Million Loss For Last Season

[Red Cloud]

SL just said on the Radio!

[Tunley Legend]

Given the sale of Lita for £1m against that type of loss and offset the ridiculously high wages paid to Bridges and Stewart and the fact that gates and merchandising sales are dwindling we look as though we will be making a similar loss this season as well. How long can it go on?

[Guest bristolbred]

Given the sale of Lita for £1m against that type of loss and offset the ridiculously high wages paid to Bridges and Stewart and the fact that gates and merchandising sales are dwindling we look as though we will be making a similar loss this season as well. How long can it go on?

For as long as SL and CS allow it!!

[Red Cloud]

& still they get slagged off! - can you believe it?

[SimplyRed]

& still they get slagged off! - can you believe it?

...perhaps because they are the ones who are guiding the club?...

Who else can you blame for a loss-making business but the chairman and his CEO?

[Guest ashtonyate]

...perhaps because they are the ones who are guiding the club?...

Who else can you blame for a loss-making business but the chairman and his CEO?

This is what I have been banging on about and thats why the academy must go

[Dollymarie]

Given the sale of Lita for £1m against that type of loss and offset the ridiculously high wages paid to Bridges and Stewart

Ah but that figure was only up to the 31st of May, and Leroy wasnt sold until after that, so it cant take that into account yet.

Leroy will be in the next figure announced.

[Guest ashtonyate]

Ah but that figure was only up to the 31st of May, and Leroy wasnt sold until after that, so it cant take that into account yet.

Leroy will be in the next figure announced.

No and johnson had not been appointed so next year the lose will probley be 3 million after we got some more players in.

[robins72]

Basically if are going to recoup any of the money lost we need a good cup run. That starts with beating Notts County next Saturday and then the next team on 3rd December. We need a giant killing win in the 3rd round with live sky coverage to get the crowds back. On our performances of late I am not filled with much optomism.

[StapleHillPhil]

Ah but that figure was only up to the 31st of May, and Leroy wasnt sold until after that, so it cant take that into account yet.

Leroy will be in the next figure announced.

As will the wages of Stewart & Bridges. As things stand our loss next year will be another £1m+ and suddenly our liabilities are greater than our assets.

[Nibor]

I'd be interested to know how much of that £1.97m is a cash trading loss.

Don't losses often include depreciation of assetts? And don't football clubs count players under contract as assetts which depreciate the closer the contract comes to expiry?

Nibor

[Milo]

Don't losses often include depreciation of assetts? And don't football clubs count players under contract as assetts which depreciate the closer the contract comes to expiry?

Nibor

Yes, but that simply reflects reality in the post-Bosman era. We bought a £250,000 asset in Luke Wilkshire two and a half years ago and if he doesn't sign a new contract or sign for another club by the end of his contract he's an asset that walks out the door with no value.

What the accounts don't reflect is promising young talent with an ever-increasing market value (such as Skuse and Cotterill for example).

[Guest REDCIDERARMY]

There trying everything to get us up and out of debt,open the Eastend thats a extra man and a atmosphere back in the ground its a start and a positive thing to do,for players and the club

[Nibor]

Yes, but that simply reflects reality in the post-Bosman era. We bought a £250,000 asset in Luke Wilkshire two and a half years ago and if he doesn't sign a new contract or sign for another club by the end of his contract he's an asset that walks out the door with no value.

I thought the assett was valued at the amount to pay on the contract rather than the transfer fee? Could be wrong though.

The player depreciation thing is slightly misleading though because if a player's contract expires we're no longer paying them. The assett (such as it is) costs us it's own value while it depreciates which is effectively a double loss. I'd prefer they just counted them as a normal business did employees since it would make the figures more easily understandable.

I do find a loss that is made up of a significant amount of depreciation less worrying though so I hope this one is - because if we are really spending £2m more than record season ticket sales are getting us in revenue then I think we're heading for a big problem at the end of this FY.

What the accounts don't reflect is promising young talent with an ever-increasing market value (such as Skuse and Cotterill for example).

Would be a real shame to have to realise that value.

Nibor

[RedTauntonian]

The club will keep on losing money like this untill we get out of this league, maybe we could start recouping the money by taking it off the players consistantly don't perform? We'd be a million quid up by xmas!

[red panda]

Given the sale of Lita for £1m against that type of loss and offset the ridiculously high wages paid to Bridges and Stewart and the fact that gates and merchandising sales are dwindling we look as though we will be making a similar loss this season as well. How long can it go on?

...perhaps because they are the ones who are guiding the club?...

Who else can you blame for a loss-making business but the chairman and his CEO?

This is what I have been banging on about and thats why the academy must go

Two simple words: That's football*

Show me a list of clubs that consistently make a profit - I think you'll find it's very short indeed, especially in the lower divisions.

*Please don't bother trying to argue that this is really three words - find something better to do

[SimplyRed]

Two simple words: That's football*

Of course it is... but if someone starts a thread about losses made by the club, people are going to respond with their opinion.

[Gerry Gows' Tash]

I'd be interested to know how much of that £1.97m is a cash trading loss.

Don't losses often include depreciation of assetts? And don't football clubs count players under contract as assetts which depreciate the closer the contract comes to expiry?

Nibor

They do depreciate players. I learned this on an accounting course, and it was confirmed on ask Steve L.

Football clubs are one of the very few organiasations which depreciate people - the other possibly being the female modelling industry - most organisations only depreciate fixed assets like buildings, machinery, vehicles etc.

A simple example

Player Cost £4M

Length of contract 4 years

Depreciation = £1M per year

So by the end of the contract player is worth nil. This does make accounting sense especially after the Bosman ruling.

I think people are confusing the figure slightly. The £1.97M is an operating loss (basically income less expenditure) the chief driver of income would be ticket sales and the chief expenditure would be staff costs. None of which takes into account the value of fixed assets on the balance sheet - the most of significant of which would be the Gate.

[Milo]

I think people are confusing the figure slightly. The £1.97M is an operating loss (basically income less expenditure) the chief driver of income would be ticket sales and the chief expenditure would be staff costs. None of which takes into account the value of fixed assets on the balance sheet - the most of significant of which would be the Gate.

Nor the liabilities which stand at £8.5M based on last year's debts + this year's loss. This exceeds the last stated value of the assets (the ground). I'm interested to know whether value has been created through the decision to have the Stadium as a separate 'profit centre' as stated by SL in his Twentyman interview.

We're talking about getting new players in January but I don't know where the money will come from. With the Club appearing to be technically insolvent, GJ will surely need to sell before we can buy again

[old spot]

Can anyone find out how much interest we (the club) paid out on loans (money owed, not players from other clubs) in this period?

I would be interested to know who we owe money to and how the repayments are set. If the board are covering these losses with yet more loans, surely the interest payments are going to get out of control soon, unless the boards loans are interest free!! I know it was revealed that the sags directors were paid interest on their loans when their fans investigated the books recently!

This debt has to be dealt with sooner rather than later, and not just with the hope that things will improve on the pitch and bristolians will suddenly start turning up at the GATE in their masses and spend spend spend on club merchandise!! Debt has a habit of snowballing out of control, and directors loaning more and more money will not solve the problem!!!

[wookey]

"The club will keep on losing money like this until we get out of this league."

Any Club in any League will lose money if it is not run wisely and properly.

This Club has presumably been run properly; but wisely?

[NickJ]

Can anyone find out how much interest we (the club) paid out on loans (money owed, not players from other clubs) in this period?

I would be interested to know who we owe money to and how the repayments are set. If the board are covering these losses with yet more loans, surely the interest payments are going to get out of control soon, unless the boards loans are interest free!! I know it was revealed that the sags directors were paid interest on their loans when their fans investigated the books recently!

This debt has to be dealt with sooner rather than later, and not just with the hope that things will improve on the pitch and bristolians will suddenly start turning up at the GATE in their masses and spend spend spend on club merchandise!! Debt has a habit of snowballing out of control, and directors loaning more and more money will not solve the problem!!!

At 31 May 2005 Bristol City Holdings Limited had the following loans:

Repayable within one year

Bank overdraft £2,685k

Debenture loan stock repayable 2006 £585k - interest payable at Bank Base Rate + 2%

Repayable after more than one year

Debenture loan stock repayable 2006 £885k - interest payable at Bank Base Rate + 2%

Debenture loan stock repayable 2006/07 £950k - interest payable at Bank Base Rate + 3%

- The bank overdraft is in theory repayable within one year, though in reality the facility will be renewed, provided the bank is happy that they have sufficient security.

- The debenture loan stock 2006/07 is secured on the assets (ie the ground), and is owed to the directors (£350k Lansdown, £350k Laycock, £150k Dawe, £100k Gooch).

- I don't know who the debenture loan stock 2006 is owed to, but again it is secured on the assets.

In the year ended 31 May 2005 interest was paid as follows:

Bank overdraft 130,244

Debenture loan stock 172,999

Total 303,243

In addition the company had the following £1 share capital issued:

S Lansdown 1,054,634

K Dawe 1,054,634

A Gooch 582,387

J Laycock 532,110

Other 344,536

Total 3,568,301

But in addition to that, the "share premium" was £4,012,382 - this means that although there were shares with a nominal value of £3,568,301 in existence, the shareholders had collectively paid an additional £4,012,382 to the club for those shares. I don't know the split between for example the premium paid by Lansdown, etc and the other shareholders. However, I do know that my 2 £1 "fans shares" cost £10 each. Over the years, the club has issued various shares to the fans, usuually at a substantial premium, so I would guess that the premium paid by the directors for their shares is proportionately less.

Your point regarding the loans, in particular the loans owed to the directors, is a good one.

- For a start, their loan stock is pretty risk free - I would be very happy to lend to the club at BR+ 3% if it were secured on the ground.

- It is all very well directors loaning the club money, but the problem is, the custodians of those loans, ie the directors, are the same people who have ultimately not achieved the goals envisaged when making these loans. We have a colossal wage bill compared with other clubs in this division, so the directors have made loans to the club, which has been spent with nothing to show for it, but they will still expect to see their loans repaid, having made a nice interest return in the meantime. Then again, it should be remembered that the directors do not receive any remuneration for their time.

- It shouldnt be forgotten that the directors also have invested share capital into the club, on which they receive no interest/dividends and are very unlikely to do so, and they will only be able to see a return of this share capital if someone is willing and able to buy it from them (and don't forget Lansdown has said he would only sell in any case to somebody able to commit more than he can for the benefit of the club, and we have to take that at face value, so that considerably narrows the potential of would-be acquirors of Lansdowns shares).

- In the case of Lansdown for example, I would guess that his share capital of £1,054,634 actually cost him around £2m, give or take £500k, so that is his his real investment in the club.

- The annual report confirms that the directors (of which don't forget there are currently only 2, Lansdown and Dawe), have undertaken to subscribe for additional shares and/or loan stock should the need arise.

Finally, wages:

- In the year ended 31 May 2005 the wage bill was £4,201,473, including employers NI and pension contributions.

- There were 28 players, and 48 other staff (management, admin, ground staff etc), a total of 76.

- If you allow an average wage of say £25k for the "other staff" (which may or may not include Tinnion as probably the highest paid, I don't know if he was classed as a player or management, but would also include junior and part-time office staff), that is a total of approx £1,200,000 for their wages.

- That leaves approx £3,000,000 for the wages of the 28 players - over £100k each.

- Given that includes young lads just out of the academy earning I would suspect (and hope) no more than £30/40/50k pa, that means there are a lot of 3rd division players doing very nicely thankyou. I don't begrudge them it, they are hardly likely to say "no thanks", but I think that sort of analysis demonstrates why we are in the current financial mess.

- The sale of Lita, Coles, and Doherty will come into the current year, but so will the financial comitments to Stewart; season ticket sales are down, out of 2 out of 3 cups so far, struggling in the league. It certainly wont show much if any improvement this year.

[Milo]

Can anyone find out how much interest we (the club) paid out on loans (money owed, not players from other clubs) in this period?

I would be interested to know who we owe money to and how the repayments are set. If the board are covering these losses with yet more loans, surely the interest payments are going to get out of control soon, unless the boards loans are interest free!! I know it was revealed that the sags directors were paid interest on their loans when their fans investigated the books recently!

This debt has to be dealt with sooner rather than later, and not just with the hope that things will improve on the pitch and bristolians will suddenly start turning up at the GATE in their masses and spend spend spend on club merchandise!! Debt has a habit of snowballing out of control, and directors loaning more and more money will not solve the problem!!!

[Edit: Just spotted NickJ's post which has the current story - I suggest you read his post rather than mine which is, as stated, "yesterday's news"!]

Those of us involved with the working group of the Supporters Trust have not yet had a chance to look at the accounts just published but we plan to as soon as possible. Based on the last set of accounts (for the year ending 31/5/2004) the Club's directors' loans were accruing interest at a rate of around 7% a year* (interest free loans are effectively a gift of the interest that could otherwise be received and there are few businessmen that would be willing to show this generosity).

This meant that interest payments for the loan stock, bank loans and overdraft totalled £237,370 for that period.

Put another way, assuming an average ticket price for a league match over that period of £20, over 500 supporters at every home match were simply paying the interest.

If you add a further £2M of debt due to this year's loss the interest payments alone could be a major albatross for us. But as stated above, I've not seen this year's accounts and debt restructuring could well have taken place. As soon as we've analysed them and are confident with our analysis and conclusions we will share our thoughts.

*Part of the loan stock was paying interest at 2% above Bank of England base rate and the other part was at 3% above base.

[Milo]

At 31 May 2005 Bristol City Holdings Limited ...

<snip>

It certainly wont show much if any improvement this year.

Nick,

that's an excellent piece of analysis there, thank you for posting it up.

The total amount of loans is £5.1M on the figures you've given but there are presumably other liabilities that will give us a total debt figure in excess of this?

What percentage of turnover is the wage bill?

The issue of the wage bill is the one where I too have most concerns and not only because it has demonstrated itself with hindsight to be a flawed strategy. With our gates we should have one of the division's highest turnovers and therefore we should have one of the highest wage bills. However, it feels like we keep ratcheting up the turnover so that we can pay higher wages. The ratcheting up has meant that many traditional fans are starting to feel alienated as they can't afford the ticket price and a significant number of us are feeling that we are not getting value for money with ticket prices, shirt prices, credit card charges etc.

I'd personally like to see us budget for a much lower turnover (and therefore lower wage bill) in order to sweat out this debt and so that we can start to offer football matches and merchandise at a price that we all recognise as value for money.

[the prefect]

If you add a further £2M of debt due to this year's loss the interest payments alone could be a major albatross for us. But as stated above, I've not seen this year's accounts and debt restructuring could well have taken place. As soon as we've analysed them and are confident with our analysis and conclusions we will share our thoughts.

It should be pointed out that losses don't equate to debt. If the club has lost £2m, that's a decrease in sharholders funds and has nothing to do with debt. An element of that loss will be depreciation which is a non-cash item which therefore increases the loss without expending any cash.

Before I go too much further, I haven't seen the club's accounts. I have closely followed the accounts of Coventry City Football Club over the last six years or so. If the directors at Bristol City are willing to subscribe to shares to help fund the losses then that's a blessing.

Perhaps of more interest is where the board have placed their loans. Details were posted from Bristol City Holdings Ltd however, fans should do a search at Companies House for Bristol City Football Club Ltd. to fully understand the financial structure of the business.

[NickJ]

Nick,

that's an excellent piece of analysis there, thank you for posting it up.

The total amount of loans is £5.1M on the figures you've given but there are presumably other liabilities that will give us a total debt figure in excess of this?

What percentage of turnover is the wage bill?

The issue of the wage bill is the one where I too have most concerns and not only because it has demonstrated itself with hindsight to be a flawed strategy. With our gates we should have one of the division's highest turnovers and therefore we should have one of the highest wage bills. However, it feels like we keep ratcheting up the turnover so that we can pay higher wages. The ratcheting up has meant that many traditional fans are starting to feel alienated as they can't afford the ticket price and a significant number of us are feeling that we are not getting value for money with ticket prices, shirt prices, credit card charges etc.

I'd personally like to see us budget for a much lower turnover (and therefore lower wage bill) in order to sweat out this debt and so that we can start to offer football matches and merchandise at a price that we all recognise as value for money.

Milo, thanks for the compliment.

There are other liabilities, the group balance sheet looks like this:

£'000

Fixed assets

Intangible (players contracts) 460

Tangible (mainly the ground) 7,868

8,328

Current assets

Stocks 65

Debtors 223

Bank 3

291

Creditors repayable within one year

Bank 2,865

Loan stock 2006 586

Transfer fees 52

Players contracts 89

Trade creditors 196

VAT, PAYE 337

Accruals and deferred income 2,338

6,283

**NET CURRENT LIABILITIE######* 5,992

Creditors repayable after one year

Loan stock 2006 886

Loan stock 2006/07 950

1,836

Reserves 500

Capital & reserves

Share capital 3,568

Share premium 4,012

Revaluation reserve 6,174

P&L accumulated losses (13,253)

Shareholders funds 500

- So the only reason we are not insolvent is due to the revaluation of the ground, carried out in 1995. I suspect that a further loss this year will see, in addition to some equity/loan injection, a further revlaution. The ground is the only thing that keeps us afloat in terms of lending from the bank.

- I don't know what the deferred income of £2,338,000 relates to, but its such a significant figure I would like to find out.

Here's the Group P&L:

Turnover - main activities 3,367

Turnover - other 1,950

5,317

Staff costs 4,201

Amortisation of player contracts 305

Depreciation 221

Other costs 2,414

7,141

Operating loss (1,824)

Profit on disposal of players contracts 158

Loss before interest (1,666)

Net interest payable (302)

Loss for the year (1,968)

I agree with your comments re the wage bill. Four years ago, it was almost £5m, and there were 38/40 players, so its come down, but still too much. What worries me is that with a squad of 30 plus some promising youngsters, GJ, and some on this forum, are actually advocating bringing in more on loan.

And thats where we start to get to the nub of the matter. We don't need 30 players, just 18 or so decent ones, with a reserve team containing some decent players coming through and/or as back up.

But to have a smaller squad, you need a manager capable of identifying the wheat from the chaff. And its a long time since we had that. If I were Lansdown, that would be my strategy. He's sort of on that road, but I think he has at times been deviated from it.

We are on bit of downward spiral here. The time will come, at the present rate, when we will be unable to service the debt. When that time comes, which will be when the loan providers can see that the liabilities are dangerously close to the value of the main asset, the ground, I do not like to think of the consequences.

EDIT: Sorry, its difficult to get the formatting right, so some of the figures look a bit jumbled, hope you can make sense of it.

[Milo]

It should be pointed out that losses don't equate to debt. If the club has lost £2m, that's a decrease in sharholders funds and has nothing to do with debt. An element of that loss will be depreciation which is a non-cash item which therefore increases the loss without expending any cash.

Before I go too much further, I haven't seen the club's accounts. I have closely followed the accounts of Coventry City Football Club over the last six years or so. If the directors at Bristol City are willing to subscribe to shares to help fund the losses then that's a blessing.

Perhaps of more interest is where the board have placed their loans. Details were posted from Bristol City Holdings Ltd however, fans should do a search at Companies House for Bristol City Football Club Ltd. to fully understand the financial structure of the business.

Thanks for your comments. As a Financial Adviser rather than an accountant I have to confess to only having a working knowledge of accounts rather than an expert knowledge such as NickJ and a couple of accountants involved with the Supporters Trust, but in simple terms, I understood that a £2M loss would increase your liabilities (or reduce your assets) by £2M. As more or less all our assets are the ground, it inevitably leads to increased liabilities. So while a £2M loss won't necessarily be £2M cash spent, the balance sheet ends up £2M worse off which is broadly backed up by NickJ's subsequent figures.

I agree that we should all be reassured by the directors buying equity rather than loans (which they did in the previous accounting period). It demonstrates commitment as well as saving in interest payments.

As I understand it, the structured debt is in Holdings which owns the Football Club outright. We have looked at the Football Club's accounts in the previous accounting period and felt that Holdings was the company to pay attention to. Have your experiences with Coventry highlighted any particular issues surrounding the relationship between the Football Club's accounts and the Holding company (assuming there is a holding company at Coventry) that we should be watchful for?

[martnewts]

Chances are that part of the accruals and deferred income represents season ticket sales prior to 31/5/05 as that income relates to the following accounting period but the level of over £2 million suggests that say 5 or 6000 season ticket holders had renewed prior to the year end in addittion fees such as the auditors fees and other costs relating to the year not yet invoiced would be included in the accruals.

[NickJ]

Chances are that part of the accruals and deferred income represents season ticket sales prior to 31/5/05 as that income relates to the following accounting period but the level of over £2 million suggests that say 5 or 6000 season ticket holders had renewed prior to the year end in addittion fees such as the auditors fees and other costs relating to the year not yet invoiced would be included in the accruals.

Good point, course it is, me being stupid.

Just had a look at the old news at 31 May, season ticket sales had just gone through 6,000, so at an average of say £250-£300, that's £1.5m- £1.8m, plus some have bought 2/3 year tickets, plus there will be some other income received in advance (Rod Stewart and Neil Diamond concerts?). The accruals element will be relatively small, but that accounts for most of it.

[Guest ashtonyate]

At 31 May 2005 Bristol City Holdings Limited had the following loans:

Repayable within one year

Bank overdraft £2,685k

Debenture loan stock repayable 2006 £585k - interest payable at Bank Base Rate + 2%

Repayable after more than one year

Debenture loan stock repayable 2006 £885k - interest payable at Bank Base Rate + 2%

Debenture loan stock repayable 2006/07 £950k - interest payable at Bank Base Rate + 3%

- The bank overdraft is in theory repayable within one year, though in reality the facility will be renewed, provided the bank is happy that they have sufficient security.

- The debenture loan stock 2006/07 is secured on the assets (ie the ground), and is owed to the directors (£350k Lansdown, £350k Laycock, £150k Dawe, £100k Gooch).

- I don't know who the debenture loan stock 2006 is owed to, but again it is secured on the assets.

In the year ended 31 May 2005 interest was paid as follows:

Bank overdraft 130,244

Debenture loan stock 172,999

Total 303,243

In addition the company had the following £1 share capital issued:

S Lansdown 1,054,634

K Dawe 1,054,634

A Gooch 582,387

J Laycock 532,110

Other 344,536

Total 3,568,301

But in addition to that, the "share premium" was £4,012,382 - this means that although there were shares with a nominal value of £3,568,301 in existence, the shareholders had collectively paid an additional £4,012,382 to the club for those shares. I don't know the split between for example the premium paid by Lansdown, etc and the other shareholders. However, I do know that my 2 £1 "fans shares" cost £10 each. Over the years, the club has issued various shares to the fans, usuually at a substantial premium, so I would guess that the premium paid by the directors for their shares is proportionately less.

Your point regarding the loans, in particular the loans owed to the directors, is a good one.

- For a start, their loan stock is pretty risk free - I would be very happy to lend to the club at BR+ 3% if it were secured on the ground.

- It is all very well directors loaning the club money, but the problem is, the custodians of those loans, ie the directors, are the same people who have ultimately not achieved the goals envisaged when making these loans. We have a colossal wage bill compared with other clubs in this division, so the directors have made loans to the club, which has been spent with nothing to show for it, but they will still expect to see their loans repaid, having made a nice interest return in the meantime. Then again, it should be remembered that the directors do not receive any remuneration for their time.

- It shouldnt be forgotten that the directors also have invested share capital into the club, on which they receive no interest/dividends and are very unlikely to do so, and they will only be able to see a return of this share capital if someone is willing and able to buy it from them (and don't forget Lansdown has said he would only sell in any case to somebody able to commit more than he can for the benefit of the club, and we have to take that at face value, so that considerably narrows the potential of would-be acquirors of Lansdowns shares).

- In the case of Lansdown for example, I would guess that his share capital of £1,054,634 actually cost him around £2m, give or take £500k, so that is his his real investment in the club.

- The annual report confirms that the directors (of which don't forget there are currently only 2, Lansdown and Dawe), have undertaken to subscribe for additional shares and/or loan stock should the need arise.

Finally, wages:

- In the year ended 31 May 2005 the wage bill was £4,201,473, including employers NI and pension contributions.

- There were 28 players, and 48 other staff (management, admin, ground staff etc), a total of 76.

- If you allow an average wage of say £25k for the "other staff" (which may or may not include Tinnion as probably the highest paid, I don't know if he was classed as a player or management, but would also include junior and part-time office staff), that is a total of approx £1,200,000 for their wages.

- That leaves approx £3,000,000 for the wages of the 28 players - over £100k each.

- Given that includes young lads just out of the academy earning I would suspect (and hope) no more than £30/40/50k pa, that means there are a lot of 3rd division players doing very nicely thankyou. I don't begrudge them it, they are hardly likely to say "no thanks", but I think that sort of analysis demonstrates why we are in the current financial mess.

- The sale of Lita, Coles, and Doherty will come into the current year, but so will the financial comitments to Stewart; season ticket sales are down, out of 2 out of 3 cups so far, struggling in the league. It certainly wont show much if any improvement this year.

Does the figures tell how much the academy is costing the club to run???