So If Port Vale Can Do It In 3 Years.....

[Barrs Court Red]

.....Why havn't our present hierachy come close yet?

Today has seen the release of Vale's annual figures and for the first time since the club was down in administration (and surely years before that too!) Vale have announced a profit Chairman Bill Bratt and the Valiants 2001 steering group have worked majorly hard for the club since the fans based consortium took the reigns in 2003.

Sales of Dave Hibbert, Sam Collins and Billy Paynter plus installments from the Steve Brooker sale the year before and cash generated from the FA Cup run last season which eventually saw Vale gain a big pay day at Villa Park in the 4th Round have added to the cost cutting measures by Martin Foyle to bring costs down have seen us make a £352,000 profit plus aided by the 250k investment by now majority shareholder pop superstar Robbie Williams has also aided this.

With the money from Chris Birchall's sale to Coventry plus this seasons brilliant Carling Cup run which saw another massive payoff with the trip to Spurs last week generating over 200k in gate money and with the Vale home attendences up above break even so far along with a possible FA Cup run still on the cards with a fairly good 2nd round draw then next years should see another profit. Two new board members are currently awaiting to join up adding another 100k too

With the way footballs going Vale are one of the clubs that have been through the mire and come out with a new approach the club being run to make a profit like a business and with a lot of clubs still spending money they maybe cant afford and being in debts growing all the time Vale may well be in one of the strongest financial positions in a few years time with the big spenders facing the trouble Vale, Oldham and Rotherham have gone through in recent seasons.

I find it concerning that we have had the cuts, the player sales and previosuly huge pay days from play offs and LDV, yet lost £1 million plus this year.

I think the Port Vale example really puts our efforts off the pitch into perspective, especially considering we have bigger gates than they do.

Thoughts?

[grifty]

.....Why havn't our present hierachy come close yet?

I find it concerning that we have had the cuts, the player sales and previosuly huge pay days from play offs and LDV, yet lost £1 million plus this year.

I think the Port Vale example really puts our efforts off the pitch into perspective, especially considering we have bigger gates than they do.

Thoughts?

Well it's written there about cup runs, and investment of about 400k+ which we have not had. Our wage bill is significantly higher than Port Vale, and I expect there's some other funny payments we make too.

Obviously with £1mil from Leroy and £2 mil for Cotts I'd thought we'd make an easy profit

[EmersonsKev]

Cotts transfer money isn't included within the accounts for last year, that money will be on next years accounts.

[Barrs Court Red]

You miss the point

Cotts isn't the only player sale in the last few years, far from it.

[StapleHillPhil]

You miss the point

Cotts isn't the only player sale in the last few years, far from it.

With a vast number of players sold, pop concerts that we're told are profitable, boxing, corporate hospitality, etc, etc, there is no reason why we should have reported the £1.17m loss. Just where did we spend our cash in those twelve months?

[Tom Fleuriot]

With a vast number of players sold, pop concerts that we're told are profitable, boxing, corporate hospitality, etc, etc, there is no reason why we should have reported the £1.17m loss. Just where did we spend our cash in those twelve months?

It is a bit weird, and I'd like to see whether we made a profit or loss in the season we made the playoff final and LDV final, although I imagine our wages were considerably higher that season.

Maybe loans go in as minus figures? If so, the difference between a £400k investment and a £400k loan is of course £800k. So add that to the lack of a cup run in two years (Vale had one last season), and that may explain it.

But I'm not an accountant.

[Antman]

.....Why havn't our present hierachy come close yet?

I find it concerning that we have had the cuts, the player sales and previosuly huge pay days from play offs and LDV, yet lost £1 million plus this year.

I think the Port Vale example really puts our efforts off the pitch into perspective, especially considering we have bigger gates than they do.

Thoughts?

It all points to the sadly inferior board management at Ashton gate.

There have been so many contradictions in the last few seasons. when you stop and recall whats been spun to the fans, the reasons for cutting player wages, selling expensive players, sorting out the dressing room (giving away players) economy appointments, development/non-development etc etc.

No the truth is we are making a mess of it.

Take the concerts at AG - am I dreaming or did Sexmonkey not say way back that the Rod Stewart Concert would pull in half a million? - The Ronan Keating fiasco aside, the other concerts seemed well attended - certainly the price of the Who tickets and the 20,000. who were there must have brought in some money.

Where is all that revenue? alternatively if they are not making money - why on gods green earth are we holding them? even assuming they make a £250K profit, thats 4 concerts that should have earned BCFC £1 million.

We've probably done better than some other clubs in realising 3 million for 2 players, but as Moomin says, lets not forget Matt Hill, Danny Coles, Millar, Goldbourne, .

I am not suggesting underhand dealings - what I am saying is that inept management is costing us dear.

Go back 3-4 seasons to the statements made by Lansdown about cost cutting. He said then that the steps he was taking would sort us out (by about now) He hasn't.

Look at our squad. apart from the obvious, we have weeded out a lot of the purported 'big earners', so where does this leave us if we still make £1 million -£2 million losses each year?

no, sorry folks but in my mind there's something rotten in the state of Denmark.

[Chivs]

With a vast number of players sold, pop concerts that we're told are profitable, boxing, corporate hospitality, etc, etc, there is no reason why we should have reported the £1.17m loss. Just where did we spend our cash in those twelve months?

I don't know the details but isn't the boxing and pop concerts managed by Ashton Gate Stadium Ltd (or summat like that) so their profits won't count towards BCFC Ltd.

[Tom Fleuriot]

I don't know the details but isn't the boxing and pop concerts managed by Ashton Gate Stadium Ltd (or summat like that) so their profits won't count towards BCFC Ltd.

I believe I'm correct in saying that the loss belongs to BCFC Ltd, not just the club.

[RedTop]

And Port Vale are in the bottom half of the table. I'm no financial guru but I'll hazard a guess that their wage bill is far lower, which is largely due to the higher demand for success from City supporters, who expect us to sign players of a quality that command higher wages. How often do we see fans on here stamping their feet that we've not made enough big money signings and urging SteveL to "stick his hands in his pockets" or "dig deep" to bring in new players? There were all sorts of threads on here recently calling for the same thing in the coming January transfer window. And of course that money ultimately ends up in the negative column on the balance sheet. First with the cost of signing a player and then with the additional salary demanded by the incoming player.

My biggest criticism of SteveL is that he has not been tough enough in resisting fan pressure to pay transfer fees etc. I've argued for a while now that our transfer budget should be zero. But you'll find I'm in a minority of...oooh...about one on that - including with SteveL and Keith Dawe, unfortunately!

At an underachieving club with large support for the division we are in and huge expectations of promotion, it is almost impossible to balance the books unless the chairman is willing to make himself more unpopular by resisting unrelenting pressure from supporters to spend more on the team, because until success arrives fans who see money as the cure-all solution (which, of course, it is not - as we ourselves have proved in the past) demand more cash is thrown at the problem.

Until fans stop equating a board's ambition with its willingness to throw money around, we can look forward to more of the same. Otherwise we won't have a club our kids can support 20 years from now.

[Port Said Red]

It is interesting that people are criticising Mr Lansdown of not being able to run a this business when he is clearly a very successful business man in his own right outside of football.

Although there are certain special circumstances in football (and Red Top alludes to them in his post) the inference seems to be that it iswilful mismanagement, i.e. he could do better if he really wanted to.

As he is only the latest in long line of chairmen that have struggled to turn this lumbering titanic around I suggest it is perhaps a harder task than many on here would have us believe.

It is also worth considering that, pursuing the course he is on (the figures are improving slowly) and factoring in the sale of DC that we may be discussing the profit we have made this time next year. No doubt the tone of the discussion then will be "why do we have money sitting in the bank, when we could spend it on player X?"

[Tunley Legend]

It is interesting that people are criticising Mr Lansdown of not being able to run a this business when he is clearly a very successful business man in his own right outside of football.

Although there are certain special circumstances in football (and Red Top alludes to them in his post) the inference seems to be that it iswilful mismanagement, i.e. he could do better if he really wanted to.

As he is only the latest in long line of chairmen that have struggled to turn this lumbering titanic around I suggest it is perhaps a harder task than many on here would have us believe.

It is also worth considering that, pursuing the course he is on (the figures are improving slowly) and factoring in the sale of DC that we may be discussing the profit we have made this time next year. No doubt the tone of the discussion then will be "why do we have money sitting in the bank, when we could spend it on player X?"

The last statement is incorrect anyway (I'm sure you realise that yourself) because all making a profit will actually do is reduce the debt. To break even and show a positive balance sheet we will need either years of modest/reasonable profits or a couple of bumper seasons where we make £3m+ profit.

[Antman]

but I'll hazard a guess that their wage bill is far lower, which is largely due to the higher demand for success from City supporters, who expect us to sign players of a quality that command higher wages. How often do we see fans on here stamping their feet that we've not made enough big money signings and urging SteveL to "stick his hands in his pockets" or "dig deep" to bring in new players? There were all sorts of threads on here recently calling for the same thing in the coming January transfer window. And of course that money ultimately ends up in the negative column on the balance sheet. First with the cost of signing a player and then with the additional salary demanded by the incoming player.

My biggest criticism of SteveL is that he has not been tough enough in resisting fan pressure to pay transfer fees etc. I've argued for a while now that our transfer budget should be zero. But you'll find I'm in a minority of...oooh...about one on that - including with SteveL and Keith Dawe, unfortunately!

At an underachieving club with large support for the division we are in and huge expectations of promotion, it is almost impossible to balance the books unless the chairman is willing to make himself more unpopular by resisting unrelenting pressure from supporters to spend more on the team, because until success arrives fans who see money as the cure-all solution (which, of course, it is not - as we ourselves have proved in the past) demand more cash is thrown at the problem.

Until fans stop equating a board's ambition with its willingness to throw money around, we can look forward to more of the same. Otherwise we won't have a club our kids can support 20 years from now.

Of course if we take the route of spending more, we're on a potntial hiding to nothing.

The thing is we HAVEN'T signed any big name / big money players and with a squad of fairly average journeymen we're still making the sort of loss I would equate with having spent much bigger.

As for our transfer budget, do we know what has been spent? it's nigh on impossible to sift transfer fees from the signing on fees and the 'payments' made to players/agents/etc. even with a no transfer fee policy we still need a kitty.

I don't equate success with a willingness to throw cash around - far from it. I equate success with a combination of quality football managed on a realistic budget, one that matches the acheivable potential of Bristol City. We aren't doing that. We are neither spending nor saving, just running year on year at a frankly crippling loss. (for those that say - 'ahh it's not that bad SL has it under control' just read the accounts.)

We are in a no mans land at BCFC, and I fear SL has neither the balls to go for it (which I don't think will work anyway as some of his key decisions on management and on agreeing to player signings have been flaky to say the least) and he lacks the ability to truly nail down the management of the club as a whole to run efficiently.

It is interesting that people are criticising Mr Lansdown of not being able to run a this business when he is clearly a very successful business man in his own right outside of football.

Although there are certain special circumstances in football (and Red Top alludes to them in his post) the inference seems to be that it iswilful mismanagement, i.e. he could do better if he really wanted to.

As he is only the latest in long line of chairmen that have struggled to turn this lumbering titanic around I suggest it is perhaps a harder task than many on here would have us believe.

I wouldn't for a minute suggest it was willful mismanagement, but some decisions cry out as being inept

(appointing Brian Tinnion!!!)

I made the point before that Hargreaves Lansdown have made their name (and a very succesful one at that) pursauding people to part with their money by way of investing. yet SL cannot do the same at AG.

I don't think BCFC is particularly different to a lot of football clubs, and you are right to say that running a football club does pose very unique buisness issues. But the bottom line is they are not insurmountable.

or if they are we are doomed.

perhaps it is time for a change, as what we are doing right now ain't working.

[Fodbarmyarmy]

If you want to be like Port Vale and spend every season mid table and have a half finished stand for three years as well as players who teams in the same division can walk in and take from you then yeah we could also be in the Black...like Port Vale

[Barrs Court Red]

It is a bit weird, and I'd like to see whether we made a profit or loss in the season we made the playoff final and LDV final,

A loss

And Port Vale are in the bottom half of the table. and?

I'm no financial guru but I'll hazard a guess that their wage bill is far lower, which is largely due to the higher demand for success from City supporters, Lets miss out the fact that we have higher gates than them, and also bring in more non matchday revenue than they do eh!

who expect us to sign players of a quality that command higher wages. See above

How often do we see fans on here stamping their feet that we've not made enough big money signings and urging SteveL to "stick his hands in his pockets" or "dig deep" to bring in new players? There were all sorts of threads on here recently calling for the same thing in the coming January transfer window. And of course that money ultimately ends up in the negative column on the balance sheet. First with the cost of signing a player and then with the additional salary demanded by the incoming player.

So are you saying, and infact condoning a policy of running a club through fans comments on a forum?

My biggest criticism of SteveL is that he has not been tough enough in resisting fan pressure to pay transfer fees etc. I've argued for a while now that our transfer budget should be zero. But you'll find I'm in a minority of...oooh...about one on that - including with SteveL and Keith Dawe, unfortunately! I very much dount that, even if your ego prevents you from seeing it.

At an underachieving club with large support for the division we are in and huge expectations of promotion, it is almost impossible to balance the books unless the chairman is willing to make himself more unpopular by resisting unrelenting pressure from supporters to spend more on the team, because until success arrives fans who see money as the cure-all solution (which, of course, it is not - as we ourselves have proved in the past) demand more cash is thrown at the problem.Impossible to balance the books? Port Vale have done it, and belive me their fans are just as hungry

Until fans stop equating a board's ambition with its willingness to throw money around, we can look forward to more of the same. Otherwise we won't have a club our kids can support 20 years from now.

Theatic tripe. I would of thought fans would much prefere a financial posistion that is tenable. The only questions of the boards ambition is when they sell our players, not for not buying them (apart from the odd moron like Red Robin, but then you have to make allowence for such types. They certainly are unrepresentative of City fans, or are you saying the odd comment does represent the fan base in this case, yet 1000+ on the East End do not?

If you want to be like Port Vale and spend every season mid table and have a half finished stand for three years as well as players who teams in the same division can walk in and take from you then yeah we could also be in the Black...like Port Vale

Look at clubs that have gone up, before commenting on what makes a club go up. You might come close to making a valid point then. You keep that head buried in the sand my son.

[RedTop]

It is interesting that people are criticising Mr Lansdown of not being able to run a this business when he is clearly a very successful business man in his own right outside of football.

Although there are certain special circumstances in football (and Red Top alludes to them in his post) the inference seems to be that it iswilful mismanagement, i.e. he could do better if he really wanted to.

As he is only the latest in long line of chairmen that have struggled to turn this lumbering titanic around I suggest it is perhaps a harder task than many on here would have us believe.

It is also worth considering that, pursuing the course he is on (the figures are improving slowly) and factoring in the sale of DC that we may be discussing the profit we have made this time next year. No doubt the tone of the discussion then will be "why do we have money sitting in the bank, when we could spend it on player X?"

Hornbeamread, you make some interesting points.

Clearly SteveL is a talented businessman capable of managing a profiitable company. To suggest otherwise is, as you point out, wrong and misses the point.

In an odd way, perhaps the phrase you use - "wilful mismanagement" - is in one sense not far off the mark, though. Clearly something happens at Ashton Gate, and indeed most football clubs, that goes beyond normal business practice. In business, the aim is clear: to provide a product or service that is competitive in order to make a profit for the shareholders or owners. So success is judged by the bottom line. If you produce a good product but lose money year after year selling it, you have failed. In football, this search for profit is in constant tension with a second measurement of success - namely the club's achievement on the pitch. If you produce a good product but lose money year after year, people are all too ready to look the other way. Crucially, though, A balance has to be struck and we are not yet striking it.

When I refer back to the phrase "wilful mismanagement", what I actually mean is that this is something surely most chairmen at most clubs over many years could be accused of. Perhaps SteveL has succumbed too often to pressure from those fans for whom the second measurement of success is the only one they use and which throws the clubout of balance. Any attempt to rein in spending is inevitably met with calls to loosen the purse strings and accusations - which can be hurtful to anyone investing their time, money and emotional effort in trying to bring success - that the board lacks ambition.

SteveL has said for a number of years that his intention is to run the club more along the lines of a business. This, in my view, has to be the case. When I say that perhaps the term "wilful mismanagement" is not as far away from reality as you might think, what I actually mean is that on occasions he has not been tough enough following through with his aim and, it could be argued, has succumbed to the temptation to spend too much money pursuing on-the-field success. Partly, perhaps, because of the pressure from 'ordinary fans' and partly, I guess, because he is also a fan and badly wants to enjoy the glory we all crave. So he has, in a sense, wilfully spent more than I think would have been justified with his purely business management hat on. Wilful, then, with the best of intentions but not the best of results.

I think that this is changing, though. As we have seen, he has brought in a manager who has a history of achieving success through attributes other than a cheque book. He has also been able to cash in some of those talented youngsters who wanted to go, effectively helping to bankroll the continuation of the Academy and the first team. Those coming in have not cost us a fortune (as the likes of Peacock, Miller etc did), yet because of the way the club is being run the quality of the players being brought in has not, in my judgement, fallen. It is not a million years since this club was breaking even. It is possible again, and hopefully SteveL is now pursuing a course of rigorous financial discipline which will restore the club to an even keel. He wants to build a club that does not have to rely on constant loans etc from directors for its own survival, and that HAS to be the way forward.

There are fans out there who want success at any cost. But when you realise that cost might actually be the existence of the club in the long term, you realise it is one not worth paying. I'd rather my grandkids get the chance to watch City in League One than never get to see them at all, and I'm sure that when all fans actually think about it, they want the same.

Clearly SteveL has the business acumen to make that happen. But the more understanding we as fans can be in terms of being realistic in balancing up on-the-field success and the financial cost of pursuing it, and be more grown-up in our outlook rather than throwing our dollies out of the pram by blindly and blithely demanding promotion "come what may", the greater breathing space we give our chairman to actually use his business acumen for the good of our club rather than feeling he has to appease fans with another signing.

January will be a test of whether that will happen. But no prizes for guessing whether we can expect threads on here demanding that he digs deep into the £2m we made from selling Cotterill, speculate to accumulate etc.

SteveL needs no lessons in business theory from us. What he does need is some space to use it.

[Port Said Red]

I was agreeing with your assessment and the phrase about mismanagement was aimed more at those who make statements along the lines of "where has the money for x gone?" or suggestions that he is somehow taking money out of the club when he has a personal fortune far larger than the total assets of the club (probably).

I too believe that things are changing and that the reason it is happening slower is because of that willingness to buy players over the last 4/5 years. I also believe that if he had adopted a complete "no buy" policy, then we would either completely down and out, or the clamour for his departure would have been so great that he would be gone by now.

I can understand some of the fans wanting that "instant success" that some chairman offer, especially after our years in the wilderness, but I for one would hate to see the kind of "boom and bust" process happen again like in the early 80's.

Others point to the small clubs that make progress under austere regimes (ColU, Scunny etc), but seem to forget that the expectations are far lower, not only from the fans, but from the employees (players etc). SL seems to be trying to get the club to view itself as a smaller club, with the hope that this will reduce expectations. Unfortunately you only have to walk into the stadium to be aswayed from that view.

I could understand the criticism more if Lansdown had spent the last 5 years fighting off takeover bids, but that has not happened. The only real suggestion of money came from that Michael Knighton type, who claimed to be able to get money but admitted to not having any significant sums himself.

[RedTop]

I also believe that if he had adopted a complete "no buy" policy, then we would either completely down and out, or the clamour for his departure would have been so great that he would be gone by now.

I disagree with your first point here - it would have been the case pre-Bosman, but things have now changed and GJ has shown that in the modern player market he can pick up talent for little or nothing in terms of transfer fees (though there's still the cost of paying the player, of course).

But you smack the nail very firmly on the head with your second point. Surely one of the reasons SteveL has felt compelled to spend more than has proven wise in terms of transfer fees and wages is precisely this pressure. Maybe our club would be in better shape without it.

We are currently dealing with a situation where the club is coming under almost unprecedented pressure to spend money (the figure £4,500 a game has been widely quoted) on opening up the East End. SteveL has already come in for some pretty nasty criticism for refusing to give in. Would that money be better spent on the wages for a decent new player, or in helping balance the books and keep the club afloat? Maybe, but the pressure he is coming under only adds to the chances that he will feel obliged to mis-spend the club's money appeasing some vocal fans.

The club has to be run more like a business. We know SteveL can do that. He has a track record in doing it. Unfotunately, football crowds have a track record in doing their level best to prevent their chairmen from doing it! They want instant gratification. We need to be wiser than this, as you have suggested, and see the big picture.

But what are the chances of that, realistically?

[BCAGFC]

Last season the actual football side of BCFC made a loss due to poor performance on the pitch etc ( the year before it more or less broke even) but what I cannot understand is how the football ground itself (Ashton Gate Stadium Ltd) makes losses of over £1m per year EVERY year (what do they actually spend the money on?), there is definately something wrong there and the expenditure for AGS Ltd is the problem not the playing side.

BCAGFC