BTRFTG

Fulham's owners have injected £508m (loans and stock) to cover debt & losses. Makes City look like paupers. Now remind, what's worrying you?

The hotel and hospitality sector is in dire straits and owing to supply chain issues next year is forecast to worsen. You may wish to invest in it, I wouldn't. Retail likewise. The Government has removed commercial Use Case Consents for good reason, the commercial property sector has so much spare capacity rents, in all but specialist and select locations, are through the floor. My local and once very prestigious mall is 1/3 empty and to keep footfall up (so as the Landlords don't have to compensate the 3 large tenants who underpin the complex,) they've opened endless pop-up and cheap-jack stores such it now has the allure of Symes Avenue. Entertainment income from sports stadia unless as in The States (multi-purpose and indoors,) is limited. AG might have 5-6 days a year, all throughout the summer, sub 20k capacity. If City turned £20 profit on each paying punter you're looking at £2m. Not to be sniffed at but nowhere near justifies the cost of building a stadium. The ONLY reason to buy City is the prospect of Premier income.

Probably true but we need to forget about parachute payments. They exist for a reason and clubs who benefit from them have earned them. That City haven't and are by far the biggest club who should have done, well, that's entirely our fault. There is still scope, just, to play the system via loanees plus a decent scouting network but again in those areas City are and have been Non-League.

Exactly the type of ambition the contracts they were offered should have been. If they're not anticipating relegation why would they be bothered?Players will certainly have looked to include promotion uplifts. There's nothing unambitious about: Your basic weekly salary is 'X': Each week, dependant upon the club holding your registration, your remuneration shall be: For League 1 'X'; For The Championship '7X'; For The Premier '25X'. Players look to incorporate unilateral relegation clauses to their benefit, properly run clubs now counter likewise.

Whilst turnover would fall from FL (mostly TV) monies post relegation it doesn't follow that it would 'cost' City an equivalent amount on the balance sheet. With Wages the largest liability should there be commensurate provision within contracts for them to fall (say by a third,) that's nearly £10m already. Should some of the crap, high earners voluntarily depart, potentially further savings. Perchance we started being competitive and entertaining at the top of L1 crowds might hold up if not increase, beer and shirt sales might boom. Chances are turnover would be lower but so, too, would liabilities.

Appreciate these things aren't easy to compare given the way in which companies are structured, but in the above example the figures used in the 'wages to turnover' chart in City's case are for the Holding Company, not the Football Club. Not sure how other clubs in the table stack up in that respect? As the Holding Company turns over an additional £11m to the football club but with hardly any additional staff costs, that's why the overspend on wages reduces from an actual 173% to the reported 123% when the Holding Company is included. In the case of bonus payments for the promoted sides clearly these will fall due during the promotion season whilst the additional turnover to fund them arises in the following period. For that reason in the last decade Wigan's wages have ranged between £45m and £12m as they wobble between the divisions. In City's case we moved from just over £6m to £32m yet never got anywhere near the playoffs, let alone promotion.

Depends how you look at it. Swiss Ramble's figures highlight raw numbers and that 4 of the clubs above us include bonus payments, some have extended accounting periods. Others below may have outsourced some operational costs that then do not fall as wages. There's also an option to look at wages in respect of overall turnover. In City's case and for the last published period (with nearly £700k in directors remuneration,) employee costs were coppers under £28m, that against a turnover of £16.2m. For every £1 earned City paid out in wages alone £1.73. I'd be amazed if that wasn't top 6 in The Championship.

Bristol City Football Club IS a company. You assume Pearson to be an 'employee' (if not of a company then of whom,) though is he? I've no idea of how the services 'fronted' by Pearson are delivered and without such knowledge all else is speculation.

That's not why he came to us. As he himself described he came on loan to keep us up and get a chance to display his talents. Job done he signed on the basis we'd be a stepping stone to greater things and that as soon as a decent offer came for him he'd be off. We and he agreed that. We were lucky to get him when we did.

We may well get relegated (though I think we'll just survive,) but our predicament falls squarely at the feet of those mentioned. To discuss our failings without reference to them is meaningless. Lansdown fault extends only as far as it's his money that's been flushed down the pan. He shouldn't have listened to Johnson & Ashton and should have better questioned their motives, but it is they and they alone who've brought this club low.

Not often I'd find fault in Ole's reports but I think in this one there are several glaring errors. Quite how Vyner might be described as 'impressive' I'm unable to fathom. Again last night he was a complete defensive liability. I'll forgive him his lack of positional awareness (he's never had any,) but what I can't forgive him is his utter spinelessness in combat. He did ( with Bakinson) nothing to prevent the build up for their first, their second he was brushed aside like an irritant fly, their third he couldn't even be bothered to pick up his man. Several times last night he, along with Martin, and presumably in fear of potential neurological dangers downstream, showed zero inclination to desire to attempt to head the ball. He's nowhere near good enough for this or even the league below. Bakinson, too, deserves nowhere near the amount of praise given. Clearly he's a bloke with many 'imaginary friends'. He spent all night marking one of them (how else might one explain his positioning,) compounded by passing to several others. Soft as talc he's clearly an advocate for non-violent confrontation. In short, he's a midfield loser. Always was, always will be. To suggest he's good offensively, well most are in that amount of space and with the time afforded. There's a reason good players rarely have that luxury. Martin rated 1, though I've no idea what for. I've little problem he's no pace, I've every problem the static lump can't get his studs off the turf, plus for a bloke his size I've never seen a less combative powder puff of a forward fraudster. He's sub Paul Williams in my book. Martin largely avoids the flak because we've Wells on the books. Save for one or two movements out wide Wells was anonymous last night, his first touch ever woeful. And before folks start the, '...it's not his position...we don't play his game'...' we did Saturday. There he was gifted 3 gilt edged chances and he squandered each and every one. I'm no fan of Flappy but he and James can't keep doing the work of 10 men, ditto Kalas. Tanner will be OK but needs protecting. Bentley again shows he's a decent shot stopper (at which he's well practiced,) and pretty much crap at every other aspect of keeping. Dasilva, like KP should never have been purchased. They showed on loan they weren't good enough to get us into the playoffs. Now on contract they've sod all to play for. Going through the motions, badly at that....

No. He'd still have the same 'carousel of crap' from which to choose.

Ah, couldn't find anything, could you?

If you bothered to read what I'd written (clearly you haven't,) you'd have noted it seems to me a clear case of catachresis. Barton didn't carefully select his words. You can witness him struggling to think of something to say, hence his pause, then he comes up with 'holocaust' quickly realising it's doesn't fit his sentence structure, that it's meaningless, then progresses to expound using other, meaningful and appropriate terms. I, too, guess Barton wouldn't know a holocaust if he saw one, but neither do I think he referenced an act of genocide. Rather his 'crime' was to use the wrong word, out of context. Now had he used the term 'shoah' things would have gotten complex....

Care to explain how and where I've demonstrated (your perceived) anti-Semitism? But as you've again reiterated an untruth about Barton, ( go on, reference exactly where he conflated genocide,) you have demonstrated the problem with modern society? A society in which people are utterly incapable of informing and articulating their own thoughts, or perchance are afraid so to do, thus present as intellectual sheep. And all because an inarticulate thug used an inappropriate word. Butterflies and wheels ...

Partly agree, but it goes to the root of what one chooses to perceive, not what's actually said. It's Meta Vs Para language. Barton's particular choice of word made no sense. You can see him struggling to think of something to say, he plucks the word 'holocaust' from somewhere but contextually it's meaningless. He might have said 'hologram' but a player can't have one of those either. Reading these posts it's now fact Barton said: "The Holocaust;" matters not he didn't.

Good point. The imagined event being Barton conflating a footballer's performance with The Holocaust, not the fact that atrocity existed.

Yawn, save he didn't do that..... But what's the truth when all that matters is political posing?

Thanks for telling me who or what I am. I'll simply leave it by saying the modern state of Israel is, de facto, based on Zionist Revisionism, hence my point about revisionists. But that's the point. Change history and, well, who knows what one might become?

Well, that's cleared things up.....

Strange that as the times I've been there, certainly post the end of war peace treaty, Jordan (along with Egypt) have been Israel's staunchest ally in the Arabic world. Probably because economic and security protections their treaties provide are of mutual benefit in a volatile region. You'd also struggle to gain the impression woman are second class citizens in Jordan, though like their male counterparts if you're a migrant worker you're not rated that highly. Sharia Law has aspects not seen in this country since the 18th century but it's impacts aren't widespread in a daily context.

You posed a question which I answered. An answer which is neither sad or unfortunate. Pretty much all the Jewish comment I've seen incorrectly references what they believe Barton said not that he said. In the case of the woeful Abrahams he posted his comment under a clip of the original interview. He proclaims himself a reporter (sic) yet somehow misquotes Barton saying something the video proves was never said. Like Barton I imagine this was an honest mistake by an ignorant person. I don't see Abrahams' head being called for though.

I'd agree that editing the video was a woeful mistake by The Gas media team, they should have left it up in its full glory so as reinforce the tongue-tied thug was speaking garbage, not referencing an event imagined by many. Say as little as possible but only ever apologise for something you've actually done, not something others imagine you might have done. To do the latter either is admission of wrong doing, else stoking the fire by highlighting to those who can't recognise their arse from elbow that it's they who taken the wrong end of the stick. That never goes down well.

It isn't, but as Barton never suggested it did why is he accused of so doing?

Do you include the Jewish people who have expressed their extreme offence at his use of the term in your list of 'sensitive revisionists'? For sure I do. The Jewish Nation has revised history for centuries and continue so to do till today. Why else might they experience such hostility?