City release accounts - Ouch!

[exAtyeoMax]

9 minutes ago, NcnsBcfc said:

Gould strikes me as a CEO who is going to be pushed to the front by a number of clubs to collectively argue on their behalf alongside City.

He is articulate, thoughtful; and comes across as a man with experience who perhaps the EFL will feel they can negotiate with?

Some of the CEO's at other clubs come across as either second hand car dealers, or nothing more than nepotistic appointments by Foreign owners.

To me, he has gravitas and will earn respect because of his calm demeanour. As you say, he's not an Ashton…

[spudski]

Regardless of the damage done by Covid, our strategy as a club is going to be constantly under pressure.

It's reliant on finding players who are under value, or from lower league's to develop, then sell on at a profit. All whilst trying to develop youngsters in the Academy to good Championship players...again to utilise and then sell if good profit can be made.

It's very much one step forward, two steps back. 

It's dependent on great recruitment, coaching, and ultimately good business acumen in the transfer market.

I can't see how we could ever get promoted, unless everything clicked in one season, in this division.

To lose money like we do yearly, regardless of covid is not sustainable unless continually bailed out.

[RedRoss]

He's right about the EFL recognising the decimation of the transfer market due to the pandemic. As trading is a huge part of clubs trying to balance the books. That being said taking responsibility for our own actions we were reckless with the fees we paid (even in hindsight) for average players. 8 million on Kalas, 3.5 on Palmer, Wells ect. With the huge increases to wages for such players also madness. I'm sort of glad for this as it means we are completely reevaluating our transfer policy. Not buying over expensive Chelsea cast offs and buying lower league up and comers for considerably less.

[And Its Smith]

We nEeD tO sIgN a sTrIkEr LaNsDoWn oUT

[Monkeh]

14 minutes ago, spudski said:

Regardless of the damage done by Covid, our strategy as a club is going to be constantly under pressure.

It's reliant on finding players who are under value, or from lower league's to develop, then sell on at a profit. All whilst trying to develop youngsters in the Academy to good Championship players...again to utilise and then sell if good profit can be made.

It's very much one step forward, two steps back. 

It's dependent on great recruitment, coaching, and ultimately good business acumen in the transfer market.

I can't see how we could ever get promoted, unless everything clicked in one season, in this division.

To lose money like we do yearly, regardless of covid is not sustainable unless continually bailed out.

It's the same strategy used by brentford

[RedRoss]

5 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

It's the same strategy used by brentford

Its not, they bought good players.

[And Its Smith]

4 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

It's the same strategy used by brentford

It’s really not. They don’t have an academy and identified a lot of rather obscure overseas players through data.  We have seemingly stopped looking overseas and are going to be trusting the academy strategy now for a lot of our players 

[spudski]

8 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

It's the same strategy used by brentford

I can understand why you think that, but when you look closer to us, it's different.

 

[Monkeh]

23 minutes ago, spudski said:

I can understand why you think that, but when you look closer to us, it's different.

 

No its the same, but poorly implemented

[spudski]

13 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

No its the same, but poorly implemented

Brentford have a system that works for them...our system is flawed imo. However...in saying that, I can't see any other way at the moment. Needs new regulations by EFL put in place. It's practically impossible to run a club profitable as it is.

[Davefevs]

56 minutes ago, spudski said:

Regardless of the damage done by Covid, our strategy as a club is going to be constantly under pressure.

It's reliant on finding players who are under value, or from lower league's to develop, then sell on at a profit. All whilst trying to develop youngsters in the Academy to good Championship players...again to utilise and then sell if good profit can be made.

It's very much one step forward, two steps back. 

It's dependent on great recruitment, coaching, and ultimately good business acumen in the transfer market.

I can't see how we could ever get promoted, unless everything clicked in one season, in this division.

To lose money like we do yearly, regardless of covid is not sustainable unless continually bailed out.

I don’t think it has to be a one season click.  You can build momentum.

42 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

It's the same strategy used by brentford

The “brilliant” recruitment part is, but…

35 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

It’s really not. They don’t have an academy and identified a lot of rather obscure overseas players through data.  We have seemingly stopped looking overseas and are going to be trusting the academy strategy now for a lot of our players 

Yep, that’s a big difference, they run a B Team model, most teams run an Academy model.

Although Brentford are data-heavy, the common myth is that they uncover these obscure players through data.  In fact a large proportion of these are spotted by scouts, they have a vast scouting network.  They then feed them into the data-machine.  Thomas Frank is a big proponent of using the “eye-test” first and “data” to confirm the eye-test.

As for City, we moved away from from the lower league gem and academy model / strategy over time, and although you could see the arguments for looking at those young PL academy players (Dasilva and Palmer) the cost to get them onboard in the first place was cost-heavy, especially when you add in a 6 month loan to the costs.  That impacted future profit margins, made to look even worse through a covid hit financial climate.  Having had them on loan, they should’ve been “sure things”.  The fact that Palmer most definitely hasn’t been and Dasilva’s injuries are making him look a bad deal too.

So back to Spud’s post, we have to improve recruitment and academy, including recruitment into Academy (not necessarily poaching, just getting players in at a young enough age).

When you see Tomas Kalas is costing os £3.25m p.a. - that’s more than 10% of our best year’s revenues, it’s time to realise we carried away.

Back to Brentford (again), they built that momentum, gradually building up to a playoff season, then a promotion.  They might’ve had to bite the bullet had they failed last season, they’d started to get a bit cost-heavy too, but they still had saleable assets, even in a collapsed market, because their players were wanted by PL teams.

 

[Red Billy]

I would imagine RG stating that we may accept a points deduction is to underpin the value of our players in the transfer market. It takes away the intent of clubs to make low offers feeling we will accept them due to our situation.  It allows us the room to hold our nerve for higher offers but there is no mistake in we will sell if those high offers are made. 

[spudski]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I don’t think it has to be a one season click.  You can build momentum.

The “brilliant” recruitment part is, but…

Yep, that’s a big difference, they run a B Team model, most teams run an Academy model.

Although Brentford are data-heavy, the common myth is that they uncover these obscure players through data.  In fact a large proportion of these are spotted by scouts, they have a vast scouting network.  They then feed them into the data-machine.  Thomas Frank is a big proponent of using the “eye-test” first and “data” to confirm the eye-test.

As for City, we moved away from from the lower league gem and academy model / strategy over time, and although you could see the arguments for looking at those young PL academy players (Dasilva and Palmer) the cost to get them onboard in the first place was cost-heavy, especially when you add in a 6 month loan to the costs.  That impacted future profit margins, made to look even worse through a covid hit financial climate.  Having had them on loan, they should’ve been “sure things”.  The fact that Palmer most definitely hasn’t been and Dasilva’s injuries are making him look a bad deal too.

So back to Spud’s post, we have to improve recruitment and academy, including recruitment into Academy (not necessarily poaching, just getting players in at a young enough age).

When you see Tomas Kalas is costing os £3.25m p.a. - that’s more than 10% of our best year’s revenues, it’s time to realise we carried away.

Back to Brentford (again), they built that momentum, gradually building up to a playoff season, then a promotion.  They might’ve had to bite the bullet had they failed last season, they’d started to get a bit cost-heavy too, but they still had saleable assets, even in a collapsed market, because their players were wanted by PL teams.

 

I agree you build momentum, but that only works if you recruit, sell and replace with like or better.

Our policy has been a scatter gun approach. Buying players seen as undervalued, with the intent to improve them, and perhaps sell at profit eventually.

You still have to buy players that fit a system in the pitch for it to work on and off the field.

If players don't suit our ' style' they lose value both on and off the pitch.

Whilst a player maybe technically good or have other qualities, if he's underperforming in a team that doesn't suit him, his value drops. Granted ..you can had individuals that shine, and still stand out...but if you start to look bang average like DaSilva, Palmer and Wells, your value decreases, especially if on good wages. All three are good players in their own right...but not right for us, if you get my drift.

Recruitment has to be done with a plan...not just as individuals 

 

[chinapig]

Steve is still getting off lightly here imo. He adopted a strategy that was based on assuming that the transfer market would continue to inflate, or at least not deflate, in our favour. I wouldn't expect to have tell someone of his expertise that markets can go down as well as up!

In doing that he allowed the wage bill to escalate out of control and did not ensure there was some resilience in our finances.

Ashton is a shyster and deserves the stick he gets but the the fact is he was Steve's pet shyster.

I and others better qualified have said this many times before but I'm not holding my breath waiting for anyone to challenge Steve on it.

[pongo88]

26 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Steve is still getting off lightly here imo. He adopted a strategy that was based on assuming that the transfer market would continue to inflate, or at least not deflate, in our favour. I wouldn't expect to have tell someone of his expertise that markets can go down as well as up!

In doing that he allowed the wage bill to escalate out of control and did not ensure there was some resilience in our finances.

Ashton is a shyster and deserves the stick he gets but the the fact is he was Steve's pet shyster.

I and others better qualified have said this many times before but I'm not holding my breath waiting for anyone to challenge Steve on it.

Your second sentence is absolutely correct but crazy. Steve L came from a financial investment background and the phrase quoted with any investment is "Past performance is no guarantee of future results".  For some reason he seemed to leave all common and business sense behind him when he took over at BCFC 

[DirtySanchez]

22 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

And finally we have a set up and manager willing to play youth and academy products. We need to get behind that, for better and for worse, because that is our future as a non PP club. 

 

I agree - youth is the way forward, gone are the spending days. Let's get behind this. NP obviously knew about the situation when he agreed to be manager. The three year plan may turn into a 5-10 year plan. It's great to see the youth team players coming through and taking their chance. As NP says, mistakes on the way but let's get behind the team.

[Banjo Red]

With all this in mind surely some of our players will be sold if values are met to help balance the books. It just shows and I know it's opening old wounds Lansdown Sr took his eye off the prize and here we are it isn't just a squad rebuild its the ethos of the club too.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just to seen the headline quote by Gould. Dunno the context or if there was a wider range but that's a big shift and actually it usually comes with embargoes, soft embargoes, business plans etc

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

I agree you build momentum, but that only works if you recruit, sell and replace with like or better.

Our policy has been a scatter gun approach. Buying players seen as undervalued, with the intent to improve them, and perhaps sell at profit eventually.

You still have to buy players that fit a system in the pitch for it to work on and off the field.

If players don't suit our ' style' they lose value both on and off the pitch.

Whilst a player maybe technically good or have other qualities, if he's underperforming in a team that doesn't suit him, his value drops. Granted ..you can had individuals that shine, and still stand out...but if you start to look bang average like DaSilva, Palmer and Wells, your value decreases, especially if on good wages. All three are good players in their own right...but not right for us, if you get my drift.

Recruitment has to be done with a plan...not just as individuals 

 

Yep, as per my earlier post, you’ve got to have great recruitment….and that’s more than data!

53 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

I cannot think many will have sympathy with us. We never followed a true policy of developing youth or signing players to develop. Yes we hit a few strong ones, but the signings in the last year or so of Ashton and LJ was a motley crew of OAP's . We made idiotic signings and paid idiotic wages, even in the context of pre Covid. 

But that is the past, and we look to the future. And finally we have a set up and manager willing to play youth and academy products. We need to get behind that, for better and for worse, because that is our future as a non PP club. 

 

Time to dig out this again!  How we deviated!!!  7 1/2 years ago.

 

Nige has said similar things to Keith.

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 hours ago, NcnsBcfc said:

I don't see us as being alone in the FFP  situation of course.

We are the only club in the Championship to have released 2021 accounts, and I reckon a number of clubs results will be worse than ours.

With the 2019 results keeping us within guidelines for this season, there will be Championship clubs that don't have that luxury, and will fail the FFP for this season, and will of course be of more immediate concern for the EFL.

Moving forward the situation has to change of course. How can the Championship, L1 & L2 have different systems? And of course, how competitive can the Championship be under FFP with the PPs that a number of clubs are getting for 3 years. It's all getting a bit farcical now.

I can see a situation where the EFL when confronted by the 20/21 figures, just concede that the clubs shouldn't be penalised due to "Act of God"; and are given a free pass. The system then has to change to some form of Salary cap for all three leagues that is consistent across the board. They then have to figure out how to strip out these PP's out of the Salary Cap situation, to allow the Championship once again to be a competitive division. 

Not going to be an easy one for them to manage, that's for sure.

Reading have already been penalised on results to 2021 albeit an agreed decision, Derby were penalised for 3 periods, the last of which included a 3 years to 2021 albeit with the principles of reset seemingly after breach 1.

EFL can't just then turn around and throw it out of window although I do see your point. About 4 or 5 clubs us included have released accounts.

Three who surprise me, Nottingham Forest seem to be always on the cusp- some big value in Brennan Johnson of course. Middlesbrough had the 2019 profit, lower than us but they could be taking one hell of a gamble if they don't go up, albeit selling Djed Spence for £10m as has been mooted helps.

Stoke I have to wonder. £30m they put through as 'Covid Player Impairment' surely you can't just wave that through! They also seem to be in no hurry to release their 2021 accounts (see also Everton in PL, also close to their limits).

[Mr Popodopolous]

Surely like all clubs will benefit from Covid allowances such as a) Ticketing b) Verifiable events we have had to cancel or refund c) More day to day corporate revenue.

Plus the averaging out of 2019/20 and 2020/21 ie addition and halve.

[ExiledAjax]

This is from the recent Fan Led Review: The Chart below shows for 2019/20 the wages of Championship clubs as a percentage of turnover. The axis is set at UEFA’s recommended maximum ratio of 70%. Only one club was below that level, and it was in receipt of parachute payments. Sixteen were spending more just on wages than they received in revenue. Seven were above 150%.

The accounts coming in the next few weeks, with drastically reduced income set against the kind of expenditure shown above...it's going to be ugly.

Edited January 12, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[Mr Popodopolous]

How ironic would it be if we were the first club in a years time say to actually get hit with an in season breach deduction??

Rules have allowed for this since, unsure if 2016/17 or 2018/19 but a number of years.

There have been some big money sales during Covid. Armstrong, Benrahma, Bellingham, Eze, Watkins spring to mind.

Collins at Stoke was 8 figures IIRC? Swift if he goes might be for reasonable cash.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I don't see how corporate revenue can be excluded from the excluded calculations. The transfer market claims are of course much sketchier but if any club loses out as a concert has to be cancelled due to Covid well. Didn't Swiss Ramble estimate a revenue hit of up to £18m for us in total?

It said that the wage bill only fell by £6m in the article? That's a step forward but it changes the dial a bit??

Simpson, Cundy, King, O'Dowda, Martin ooc next summer. How many should we hope to retain?

Edited January 12, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Merrick's Marvels]

The sooner someone makes a mega offer for Lloyd Kelly the better. That sell-on clause might buy us some time.

Any other straws we can clutch at?

Can't imagine anyone paying Brighton more for Webster than they paid us, so that's a dead end, not that they're looking to sell.

If Burnley get relegated, someone might make an offer for Brownhill - but, in the current market, more than they paid us?

Ayling went to Leeds for a pittance, so there might be potential there, assuming we have a clause. Would probably require Leeds relegation to prompt offers though, so unlikely. 

Perhaps Magnússon has turned into a world-beater at Moscow or Eliasson at Nimes? We're getting desperate now, aren't we. The cupboard is bare. 

Which surely means a fire sale of what we currently have. Personally, I'd try to keep the talented young ones we're paying peanuts (if at all possible but seems doubtful) and tell anyone who's earning £20K per week, give or take, they're surplus to requirements - some good players will leave but that doesn't mean other good ones, ooc or free signings, won't be available for much less wage. In any event, there's some short term pain on the way, hopefully for long term gain.

What a mess - poor decisions at executive level are the bane of BCFC's life. It's what we do.   

Good luck, Nige. At least we have a steady hand on the tiller.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Merrick's Marvels

[Harry]

I think there are a number of angles that are being portrayed in Gould’s message. 
 

1) A message to the fans. Putting our fanbase into the realistic position of not expecting much activity incoming. 
2) A wider message to the governors re FFP and it’s ridiculously skewed parachute payment system. 
3) A message to other clubs that we won’t be robbed of our best players and intend to hold firm. 
4) And this is the one which I’ve been mentioning for a while now. The internal battle at the club between finance vs success.
As I’ve alluded to before, once a big offer comes in for one of our players, do the club say “sell, we need to balance the books” or does Pearson say “if you want success, you can’t keep selling my best players”. 
This is the battle that will rage currently. Pearson is a ‘big league’ manager and he will want to keep his ‘big league’ players. He wants to rebuild this club and he will want success. He will tell SL in no uncertain terms that he needs to keep his best players in order to achieve. The comment from Gould is perhaps the first inkling that Pearson is currently winning that battle. 

[Davefevs]

20 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

The sooner someone makes a mega offer for Lloyd Kelly the better. That sell-on clause might buy us some time.

Any other straws we can clutch at?

Can't imagine anyone paying Brighton more for Webster than they paid us, so that's a dead end, not that they're looking to sell.

If Burnley get relegated, someone might make an offer for Brownhill - but, in the current market, more than they paid us?

Ayling went to Leeds for a pittance, so there might be potential there, assuming we have a clause. Would probably require Leeds relegation to prompt offers though, so unlikely. 

Perhaps Magnússon has turned into a world-beater at Moscow or Eliasson at Nimes? We're getting desperate now, aren't we. The cupboard is bare. 

Which surely means a fire sale of what we currently have. Personally, I'd try to keep the talented young ones we're paying peanuts and tell anyone who's earning £20K per week, give or take, they're surplus to requirements - some good players will leave but that doesn't mean other good ones, ooc or free signings, won't be available for much less wage. In any event, there's some short term pain on the way, hopefully for long term gain.

What a mess - poor decisions at executive level are the bane of BCFC's life. It's what we do.   

Good luck, Nige. At least we have a steady hand on the tiller.

I think it’s way too soon to be worrying about fire sales.

There are other avenues to explore first.

As @Mr Popodopolousstates, we have several players OOC in the summer.

31 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Simpson, Cundy, King, O'Dowda, Martin ooc next summer. How many should we hope to retain?

That’s probably £35-40k p.w.  That’s £1.75-£2.0m p.a. saved by not renewing them.

Also, you either extend Kalas and Massengo, and smooth out their amortisation (and decrease Kalas’s wage)…or if they don’t sign, you flog.

By my calculations, a combination of either of these two methods brings us back within FFP…we aren’t much over end of next season as it stands anyway.

[BTRFTG]

5 hours ago, NcnsBcfc said:

Slightly taken out of context on a hypothetical situation there Gregor.

But heh ho, lets get those clickbait headlines going.

As a freelance he has to 'create' stories to sell, though with his track record God only knows who'd buy them?

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, pongo88 said:

Your second sentence is absolutely correct but crazy. Steve L came from a financial investment background and the phrase quoted with any investment is "Past performance is no guarantee of future results".  For some reason he seemed to leave all common and business sense behind him when he took over at BCFC 

It is crazy but it's of a kind with the mindset that led to the 2008 crash. Part of which is the belief that asset values will always increase. Even if that is true in the long term, as Keynes replied "In the long term we are all dead".

It's essentially a hubris that leads rich and successful people to believe they must always be right because they are rich and successful. Masters of the Universe and all that.

That's in part why Steve is so prickly about criticism from fans imo: "How dare you paupers criticise me, look how much money I have"

He needs somebody to whisper memento mori in his ear. I'm up for the job.

[Mr Popodopolous]

A Kelly sell on clause would be really handy right now. My gut feeling is that Bournemouth would leave it to the summer or next season in the event of staying down, they of course cheated FFP under the old regs but since coming down they've been quite willing to sell and cut back thusfar. Their Post Balance Sheet Events in 2020 accounts suggested a £51m profit on player disposal last season so they will trade!

Think @Davefevs mentioned it a while back.

Had we sold Kelly in 2019/20 as opposed to 2018/19, it was literally a couple of weeks from the end of our Reporting Period then we wouldn't have made a profit in 2018/19 but it would have pushed the Kelly profit on disposal into 2019/20. Same deal, same club just 2-3 weeks on- big difference! Probably would have moved £10-15m into this new starting point albeit averaged across 2019/20, 2020/21 due to the effect of Covid as with losses.

Would Moore be of interest to Hearts on a more long term basis? Maybe- they look likely to lose Souttar after all.

Palmer there has been speculation about.

I think DaSilva is still a good player with time of time on his side but if he needed to go due to finances so be it.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[NcnsBcfc]

48 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

A Kelly sell on clause would be really handy right now. My gut feeling is that Bournemouth would leave it to the summer or next season in the event of staying down, they of course cheated FFP under the old regs but since coming down they've been quite willing to sell and cut back thusfar. Their Post Balance Sheet Events in 2020 accounts suggested a £51m profit on player disposal last season so they will trade!

Think @Davefevs mentioned it a while back.

Had we sold Kelly in 2019/20 as opposed to 2018/19, it was literally a couple of weeks from the end of our Reporting Period then we wouldn't have made a profit in 2018/19 but it would have pushed the Kelly profit on disposal into 2019/20. Same deal, same club just 2-3 weeks on- big difference! Probably would have moved £10-15m into this new starting point albeit averaged across 2019/20, 2020/21 due to the effect of Covid as with losses.

Would Moore be of interest to Hearts on a more long term basis? Maybe- they look likely to lose Souttar after all.

Palmer there has been speculation about.

I think DaSilva is still a good player with time of time on his side but if he needed to go due to finances so be it.

I wonder if someone got a bonus for turning over the first profit in 20 years ?.

I think it was about £10m, so this fee is the difference between a loss or profit for that set of results of course

[BTRFTG]

If Gould really believes that attributed to him in The Evil, rather than it being a strategic communication ploy, then City truly are screwed.

First up, City haven't lost nor will they lose anywhere near the sum quoted as a result of Covid. Last reporting period the virus cost City somewhere between £8-9m (lost income minus reduced operating costs.) Add in City's historic operating losses and you're bang on the money. That loss is in the same quantum as the liability incurred in signing 'Kaki' Wells and however poor he is few would argue he alone caused City to breach (the meaningless) FFP.

Secondly, whilst all fans know City are a selling club from where the hell did this 'player trading policy' appear? Hidden behind one of the numerous pillars? What actually does the policy say as I've never heard City say they've signed a player in an attempt to flip him later on at a profit?

But let's run with Gould's 'policy'. As CEO he'll know from 'policy' leads 'process' from which leads 'procedure'. At minimum I'd have thought the 'process' to take the form of a rolling review, probably 3-4 year cycle, in which players are categorized as to actions to be taken. One assumes categories to be of the form 'Required Sale' (both short & mid term,) 'Retain Key', 'Retain Runaround', 'End of Career' and 'Offload at First Chance'. Now the blindest Pew would have spotted pre Covid that City's quality player cupboard was Mother Hubbard. Assuming there are folks at the club who understand football they'd also appreciate City's squad are top-heavy in the latter two categories and do not be fooled into thinking 'End of Career' excludes some not long out of nappies. As for procedure: take the case of CoD. Footballing waste of space, zero end product, given ten chances too many. So when he got ideas above his station, made clear he was off to pastures bigger and brighter than AG, the appropriate procedure would have been for the CEO to have informed him: "There's the door, use it." And when the market clearly demonstrated the worth of CoD's talent (sic) the procedure was not to feel sorry for his crocodile tears by offering him a new contract. In recent times City have landed more CoDs than Grimsby Docks.

More plausible than Gould's raw deflections are conspiracist arguments that Lansdown has had enough and is manoeuvering a route out. Perchance Championship clubs collectively will seek to play their 'get out of jail' cards allowing owners to offload the folly of their 'investments'.

 

[GrahamC]

57 minutes ago, chinapig said:

It is crazy but it's of a kind with the mindset that led to the 2008 crash. Part of which is the belief that asset values will always increase. Even if that is true in the long term, as Keynes replied "In the long term we are all dead".

It's essentially a hubris that leads rich and successful people to believe they must always be right because they are rich and successful. Masters of the Universe and all that.

That's in part why Steve is so prickly about criticism from fans imo: "How dare you paupers criticise me, look how much money I have"

He needs somebody to whisper memento mori in his ear. I'm up for the job.

Can I just say that the mention of John Maynard Keynes on here has made my day.

Definitely raised the calibre of debate.

[Eddie Hitler]

5 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Can I just say that the mention of John Maynard Keynes on here has made my day.

Definitely raised the calibre of debate.

I thought the reference to the Roman Triumph even better!

https://classicalwisdom.com/culture/memento-mori-in-the-ancient-world/#:~:text=Memento mori is a Latin,found in many ancient civilizations.&text=Highly successful generals were awarded,in honor of their victories.

 

Great post @chinapig

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting thread on the West Ham forum of all places citing our examples- and seemingly many clubs outside the PL want FFP to be scrapped or similar. OP says he was speaking to a BCFC Board member!

https://www.kumb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=182307

The Telegraph article- behind the paywall- that someone on there kindly posted.

Quote

Bristol City have expressed fears of being forced into a points deduction as the transfer market collapse has made it impossible to offset financial fair play losses.

Middlesbrough and Stoke are also expected to face severe scrutiny as the Football League enters the next 12 months of its three year "Profit and Sustainability" cycle.

Under the ownership of billionaire Stephen Lansdown, the West Country club has long been perceived as one of the most financially stable regimes below the Premier League.

However, Richard Gould, the club's chief executive, described to Telegraph Sport how the Covid-inflicted collapse in transfer values in the second tier has cost the club £30 milllion alone.

The executive has now taken the unprecedented step of warning they could be left with no choice but to take a points deduction next season unless the league fast-tracks reform.

EFL executives are exploring allowances for Covid-losses, but City are among a host of clubs concerned that the increased wiggle room will only cover matchday losses. For most clubs at City's level, a matchday-only saving might allow only around £5m on top of the current £39m upper-loss threshold for losses.

City and a host of rivals in the league now appear increasingly likely to back a salary-cap system broadly along the lines that were introduced in League One and League Two.

"We've got this big bow wave about to hit us next year on Profit and Sustainability," said Gould. "We can see it coming and it's only been brought about because the transfer market has crashed. Otherwise the business plan, which albeit required quite a lot of investment from the owner, was relatively sound. But now this big bow wave is coming, we know that we're probably going to breach it next year unless we sell a lot of our best players. And we don't want to sell a lot of our best players."

Bristol City are in ongoing talks with the EFL about their plight, and Gould accepts that the club could end up in a position next season where "maybe we'll just take the points".

Long-term reforms to the current system appear inevitable. The league and its Championship members are considering following the path taken by Uefa in exploring new rules to focus on the high levels of spending on wages and transfers rather than profit lines.

However, those reforms could come too late for City and rivals as unprecedented numbers of clubs prepare for the prospect of falling foul of the rules over the next year. In November, Reading were deducted six points, with a further six-point deduction suspended until the end of the 2022-23 season, over a loss of £57.8m.

There is no risk of City going into administration like Derby, who were deducted 21 points in total this season. However, calculations first uncovered by Liverpool University football finance expert Kieran Maguire revealed the eye-watering costs for a club which has never benefited from Premier League parachute payments.

City have lost £412,000 a week, every week, for the last 10 years from day-to-day trading, Maguire found. Overall, in the latest annual finances, City's revenue was down 39 per cent to £16.7m but wages had increased six per cent to £35.3m. Day-to-day losses increased by a quarter to £44m, with owner investment up to £214m.

Assessing the dire situation facing clubs, Gould warned that owners would get very frustrated if they managed to weather this storm and then suddenly find themselves foul of rules "that weren't designed for Covid issues".

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2022/01/12/bristol-city-facing-points-deduction-transfer-market-collapse/

I don't think you can pull the system out mid stream- any reform IMO should kick in come 2024/25 at the earliest- two clubs this season have albeit via agreed settlements received deductions, Sheffield Wednesday last year and Birmingham 2 years before.

On a side note, if the EFL are only including gate receipts and matchday losses as FFP related then surely a) Rather a lot of sides will get deductions at one level or another and b) PL and EFL rules are basically the same- will this also apply to the PL? Everton are fairly close, Aston Villa up until 2021 still include 2 seasons of EFL loss limits- if in PL case you only include matchday revenue and there were also TV rebates up there, you might have some PL sides fall foul no?? I would also say it's fair if an owner pays staff instead of furloughing to add that back although that would have to be scrutinised very closely.

If Aston Villa's FFP losses exceed £72m to 2021 then they should be punished accordingly. If it's only matchday revenue, TV rebates and possibly furlough losses that can be excluded then that's quite likely they are over no?

Edited January 12, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Eddie Hitler]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

OP says he was speaking to a BCFC Board member!

 

Probably Mark Ashton making things up again like his buying Oxford and inventing the hovercraft.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Stoke- *******. Not only are they claiming the £30m Impairment due to Covid in 2019/20, seen it suggested on their forum that maybe they would seek approval for the remaining £20m or however much it was left of Book Value to be written down last season.

One quick estimate suggests that IF accepted that typical amortisation charge falls from £30m in 2019/20 to £5-6m last season. Although probably different in reality with differing contract lengths.

Now the Collins sale will have helped and I can also see value to be had injury permitting in Bursik, Souttar and Campbell but if that £30m approved then...

Edited January 12, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[BTRFTG]

12 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting thread on the West Ham forum of all places citing our examples- and seemingly many clubs outside the PL want FFP to be scrapped or similar. OP says he was speaking to a BCFC Board member!

https://www.kumb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=182307

The Telegraph article- behind the paywall- that someone on there kindly posted.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2022/01/12/bristol-city-facing-points-deduction-transfer-market-collapse/

I don't think you can pull the system out mid stream- any reform IMO should kick in come 2024/25 at the earliest- two clubs this season have albeit via agreed settlements received deductions, Sheffield Wednesday last year and Birmingham 2 years before.

On a side note, if the EFL are only including gate receipts and matchday losses as FFP related then surely a) Rather a lot of sides will get deductions at one level or another and b) PL and EFL rules are basically the same- will this also apply to the PL? Everton are fairly close, Aston Villa up until 2021 still include 2 seasons of EFL loss limits- if in PL case you only include matchday revenue and there were also TV rebates up there, you might have some PL sides fall foul no?? I would also say it's fair if an owner pays staff instead of furloughing to add that back although that would have to be scrutinised very closely.

If Aston Villa's FFP losses exceed £72m to 2021 then they should be punished accordingly. If it's only matchday revenue, TV rebates and possibly furlough losses that can be excluded then that's quite likely they are over no?

As has been demonstrated over and over FFP has nothing to do with attempting to bring sanity to football's failed finances and EVERYTHING to do with it being a protectionist cartel by a dozen or so of Europe's biggest clubs to ensure they may never be displaced within that hierarchy.

[Davefevs]

44 minutes ago, NcnsBcfc said:

I wonder if someone got a bonus for turning over the first profit in 20 years ?.

I think it was about £10m, so this fee is the difference between a loss or profit for that set of results of course

£15m + add-ons (circa £6m) is the figure I have, which was enough to turn a loss into a profit…and definitely some willy-waving regarding that.

The other argument was Bournemouth were aware of Liverpool’s interest and wanted the deal done, hence paid a bit more and did it early, to stop Liverpool stealing him.  Possibly mindful of him going to Euro u21s in June and more clubs being interested too.

[The Bard]

6 hours ago, NcnsBcfc said:

Gould strikes me as a CEO who is going to be pushed to the front by a number of clubs to collectively argue on their behalf alongside City.

He is articulate, thoughtful; and comes across as a man with experience who perhaps the EFL will feel they can negotiate with?

Some of the CEO's at other clubs come across as either second hand car dealers, or nothing more than nepotistic appointments by Foreign owners.

Add to that our owner's experience of dealing with a Salary cap in Rugby (this will really come to the fore very soon).

We can't really talk about nepotistic appointments when you consider who the Chairman is.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

40 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

As has been demonstrated over and over FFP has nothing to do with attempting to bring sanity to football's failed finances and EVERYTHING to do with it being a protectionist cartel by a dozen or so of Europe's biggest clubs to ensure they may never be displaced within that hierarchy.

That may well be the case, there are arguments either way IMO.

My basic point in this instance though is will the PL apply what are effectively the same regulations to their club in the same way that the EFL do? Everton either are up against or close to FFP, were they in the EFL they certainly wouldn't be signing players as they have this January!!

[BTRFTG]

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

That may well be the case, there are arguments either way IMO.

My basic point in this instance though is will the PL apply what are effectively the same regulations to their club in the same way that the EFL do? Everton either are up against or close to FFP, were they in the EFL they certainly wouldn't be signing players as they have this January!!

Has FFP caused clubs to moderate their spending? No.

For those with private, deep pockets does loan to stock conversion make a wholesale mockery of FFP's measures? Sure as hell it does.

In which case why does FFP exist?

[NcnsBcfc]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting thread on the West Ham forum of all places citing our examples- and seemingly many clubs outside the PL want FFP to be scrapped or similar. OP says he was speaking to a BCFC Board member!

https://www.kumb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=182307

The Telegraph article- behind the paywall- that someone on there kindly posted.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2022/01/12/bristol-city-facing-points-deduction-transfer-market-collapse/

I don't think you can pull the system out mid stream- any reform IMO should kick in come 2024/25 at the earliest- two clubs this season have albeit via agreed settlements received deductions, Sheffield Wednesday last year and Birmingham 2 years before.

On a side note, if the EFL are only including gate receipts and matchday losses as FFP related then surely a) Rather a lot of sides will get deductions at one level or another and b) PL and EFL rules are basically the same- will this also apply to the PL? Everton are fairly close, Aston Villa up until 2021 still include 2 seasons of EFL loss limits- if in PL case you only include matchday revenue and there were also TV rebates up there, you might have some PL sides fall foul no?? I would also say it's fair if an owner pays staff instead of furloughing to add that back although that would have to be scrutinised very closely.

If Aston Villa's FFP losses exceed £72m to 2021 then they should be punished accordingly. If it's only matchday revenue, TV rebates and possibly furlough losses that can be excluded then that's quite likely they are over no?

Hmm.. How many Board Members do we actually have?

Given that the person that has apparently "Spoken to our Board Member" last night.; but waited until the RG interview has come out to post all about his meeting with the "Board Member"; it seems somewhat coincidental that every detail of that meeting seems to be identical to comments made by RG in his interview. 

Yep, seems legit.....

Edited January 12, 2022 by NcnsBcfc

[chinapig]

10 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Has FFP caused clubs to moderate their spending? No.

For those with private, deep pockets does loan to stock conversion make a wholesale mockery of FFP's measures? Sure as hell it does.

In which case why does FFP exist?

Pedantically, it's P&S. But since almost nobody is profitable and/or sustainable your point stands.

[ExiledAjax]

9 minutes ago, NcnsBcfc said:

Hmm.. How many Board Members do we actually have?

Given that the person that has apparently "Spoken to our Board Member" last night.; but waited until the RG interview has come out to post all about his meeting with the "Board Member"; it seems somewhat coincidental that every detail of that meeting seems to be identical to comments made by RG in his interview. 

Yep, seems legit.....

Depends which board you're talking about. 

Bristol City Holdings Limited - the company that published our consolidated group accounts - that has two directors, Doug Harman and Jon Lansdown.

It's subsidiary is Bristol City Football Club Limited which has 4 directors - Richard Gould, Gavin Marshall, Doug Harman and Jon Lansdown.

Edited January 12, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[NcnsBcfc]

14 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Depends which board you're talking about. 

Bristol City Holdings Limited - the company that published our consolidated group accounts - that has two directors, Doug Harman and Jon Lansdown.

It's subsidiary is Bristol City Football Club Limited which has 4 directors - Richard Gould, Gavin Marshall, Doug Harman and Jon Lansdown.

Well I think we can rule Jon out 

Unless it's a strip design competition he was also talking to him about.

Edited January 12, 2022 by NcnsBcfc

[Mr Popodopolous]

50 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Has FFP caused clubs to moderate their spending? No.

For those with private, deep pockets does loan to stock conversion make a wholesale mockery of FFP's measures? Sure as hell it does.

In which case why does FFP exist?

Arguments for and against here too IMO. I'd say that at Championship level there has been SOME moderation of spending, look at 2017/18 e.g.- mix of Pandemic and Covid has bitten hard- average transfer fees are down but this trend was beginning before Covid.

UEFA's figures in 2019 or 2020, stated that there was a collective loss across European football top flights in 2009 and a collective profit in 2019- ie the 2018/19 vs 2008/09 season- FFP may have played a part. The Championship is and has been a shocking League in terms of financial control for some time now.

Again it depends. For UEFA e.g. the 3 year FFP loss is- prior to Covid clearly- stated at 30m euros ie 30m accounting loss plus youth, community etc. However without the equity this falls to 5m euros plus the youth, community etc in a 3 year period- equity injections designed to take it from lower to upper limits. Whereas in the Championship it's £5m per year ie £15m per 3 year cycle without equity, rising to £39m with- and the PL is where it really runs away with itself, £5m per year or £15m in 3 year cycle if no equity but equity can take it up to £105m in 3 years or £35m in one...the UEFA one isn't actually that irresponsible in terms of the gap between equity and non equity. If you recall too, the one at our level and PL until this summer allowed 'sales' of fixed assets to related parties or whoever to bump up the spending- this distorts matters further, whereas the UEFA one never did.

If we're talking about pure solvency, then all clubs having through their own endeavours to break even on a cash basis seems the best bet to me. Probably needs some work but it's cash losses and cash flow- or lack of- that kills a business ultimately.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, NcnsBcfc said:

Hmm.. How many Board Members do we actually have?

Given that the person that has apparently "Spoken to our Board Member" last night.; but waited until the RG interview has come out to post all about his meeting with the "Board Member"; it seems somewhat coincidental that every detail of that meeting seems to be identical to comments made by RG in his interview. 

Yep, seems legit.....

The Telegraph reporter and James Piercy were at the same discussion with RG.

[The Bard]

20 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The Telegraph reporter and James Piercy were at the same discussion with RG.

I wonder if James Piercy is a West Ham fan?

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 minutes ago, The Bard said:

I wonder if James Piercy is a West Ham fan?

https://twitter.com/search?q=%40piercy360 "west ham"&src=typed_query&f=live

2 + 2=5 I expect but. Or just general sports reporting?

Probably just a pretend ITK on their forum citing the article? Yes I'll go with that.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[BTRFTG]

39 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The Telegraph reporter and James Piercy were at the same discussion with RG.

Whisper quietly but such is the squeeze on newspapers these days there are many official and unofficial tie-ups, with journos squatting at desks in each other's offices sharing info. DT & Reach (Mirror, Evil et al) started a sports collaboration for football prior to Russia 2018.

[Davefevs]

39 minutes ago, The Bard said:

I wonder if James Piercy is a West Ham fan?

I thought he was a Pompey fan.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Another thought occurred to me about Gould's comments.

He was softening us up for (necessary) player sales and cut backs- tough decisions, because the alternative would be a points deduction and business plan etc.

I don't think we're in firesale territory certainly, but cuts, restraint and yes some sales and savings on one hand while trying to extract revenue from all angles on the other- a theme of this and perhaps next season. Maybe even 2023/24.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

My view is that City are under no real threat from FFP failures.

The clear out worked well last summer and there are clearly others who might need to do a 'Weimann' or move on this summer. although the offers elsewhere will clearly be diminishing.

The article strikes me as a 'position piece', let's get our accounts out early and then apply the pressure where needed.  'We are considered to be a sensibly run club, we are in difficulty in these times, watch the carnage behind us.'

[Kodjias Wrist]

3 minutes ago, Hxj said:

My view is that City are under no real threat from FFP failures.

The clear out worked well last summer and there are clearly others who might need to do a 'Weimann' or move on this summer. although the offers elsewhere will clearly be diminishing.

The article strikes me as a 'position piece', let's get our accounts out early and then apply the pressure where needed.  'We are considered to be a sensibly run club, we are in difficulty in these times, watch the carnage behind us.'

Sorry if this seems lazy for asking but without trawling through the thread, what income roughly do we need next season to avoid a fine or points deduction? 

[Hxj]

3 minutes ago, Kodjias Wrist said:

Sorry if this seems lazy for asking but without trawling through the thread, what income roughly do we need next season to avoid a fine or points deduction? 

2021/22 is fine.

2022/23 is the problem year.  Various estimates exist, mine is a pre-tax accounting loss of around £20 million might squeak us through the test.

[Davefevs]

11 minutes ago, Hxj said:

2021/22 is fine.

2022/23 is the problem year.  Various estimates exist, mine is a pre-tax accounting loss of around £20 million might squeak us through the test.

My estimates, based on assumptions re Income and Costs (inc assumptions on wages and amortisation) is that we are just over £40m, so only a smidge over the £39m for the cycle ending END of next season.

It shouldn’t take much to sort that, and then it becomes a question of how we trade to improve the squad.

I will continue to refine the wages and amortisation profiles as players come and go, more likely go!

[ChippenhamRed]

Very late to this conversation so apologies if I’m going over old ground. But I’m really surprised to hear that the situation could get anywhere near a points deduction.

My impression since our last relegation in 2013 is that Lansdown and the club has generally tried to operate within its means,  to at least some extent. That’s not to say profitable, of course. We haven’t spent extravagantly in the transfer market and have generally taken a pragmatic approach to player sales - losing players we would rather have kept from a footballing point of view, but made financial sense to sell. Many criticisms have been thrown at Lansdown, but financial recklessness isn’t normally one of them.

Obviously Covid has had a massive impact on our finances and, while acknowledging generally that football outside the Prem lives on the edge financially, I’m not sure many clubs could reasonably be expected to financially plan to cope with such an unprecedented event. So is it Covid that’s predominantly to blame for our woes - and if so, should clubs be given some leniency with regard to FFP in light of the pandemic?

Hesitate to post this as I’m acutely aware it might be rather naive, but I simply don’t have the in-depth knowledge or understanding of our financial operations that others do. But I just don’t perceive us as financially reckless in the same way as other clubs, so I don’t quite understand how we’ve ended up here.

[Hxj]

25 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

My estimates, based on assumptions re Income and Costs (inc assumptions on wages and amortisation) is that we are just over £40m

I think that we are all in the same ball park - I'd like to think that there was room now for another Atkinson and a Tanner this year.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Hxj

[Kodjias Wrist]

25 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

My estimates, based on assumptions re Income and Costs (inc assumptions on wages and amortisation) is that we are just over £40m, so only a smidge over the £39m for the cycle ending END of next season.

It shouldn’t take much to sort that, and then it becomes a question of how we trade to improve the squad.

I will continue to refine the wages and amortisation profiles as players come and go, more likely go!

So this includes the wage reduction we already have then included in your forecast? 

[WarksRobin]

5 hours ago, GrahamC said:

Can I just say that the mention of John Maynard Keynes on here has made my day.

Definitely raised the calibre of debate.

Keynes and He-Man in one post. What a guy.

[DT The Optimist]

11 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

 

Hesitate to post this as I’m acutely aware it might be rather naive, but I simply don’t have the in-depth knowledge or understanding of our financial operations that others do. But I just don’t perceive us as financially reckless in the same way as other clubs, so I don’t quite understand how we’ve ended up here.

This is what a forums for !  I have also read numerous  pages on this thread and none the wiser really, all I know after digesting these comments from those ITK are that we are in danger of a points deduction as has been confirmed by RG. 

Me, I take the view the club will not risk a point's deduction and the threat of a return to league One that would go with that, and will do what is necessary to avoid that outcome. 

[Davefevs]

23 minutes ago, Kodjias Wrist said:

So this includes the wage reduction we already have then included in your forecast? 

Yep, all manner of things included.

7 minutes ago, DT The Optimist said:

This is what a forums for !  I have also read numerous  pages on this thread and none the wiser really, all I know after digesting these comments from those ITK are that we are in danger of a points deduction as has been confirmed by RG. 

Me, I take the view the club will not risk a point's deduction and the threat of a return to league One that would go with that, and will do what is necessary to avoid that outcome. 

I think what a good few of us are saying is that we will be ok, and that RG is being smart in what he messages and how he messages it.  As per @ChippenhamRed’s post, I honestly can’t see SL breaking the rules, hence the big decisions made in the summer re Diedhiou, Paterson etc, and the lowering of wages for Weimann’s d Baker for example.  If I’m right we impaired Adam Nagy’s residual value into last years accounts, rather than this season, where we could take advantage of the covid allowances / combined seasons. SL and his Chief Financial Officer are switched on re finances….SL might not make good football appointments but he knows his way around the ledgers.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Yep, all manner of things included.

I think what a good few of us are saying is that we will be ok, and that RG is being smart in what he messages and how he messages it.  As per @ChippenhamRed’s post, I honestly can’t see SL breaking the rules, hence the big decisions made in the summer re Diedhiou, Paterson etc, and the lowering of wages for Weimann’s d Baker for example.  If I’m right we impaired Adam Nagy’s residual value into last years accounts, rather than this season, where we could take advantage of the covid allowances / combined seasons. SL and his Chief Financial Officer are switched on re finances….SL might not make good football appointments but he knows his way around the ledgers.

We impaired the remainder of Nagy I believe, agreed- although @Hxj did wonder if it might be a bit of Williams fee owing to the injury.

Although it went through the P&L as opposed to say Stoke claiming that £30m of amortisation should go to Covid- Stoke that year also had a further £12-13m of Impairment go through P&L- the impact of that will be halved too by going through P&L during the Covid year in our case.

[Partridge is a robin]

Anything know if theres any truth in this story?

[ExiledAjax]

27 minutes ago, Redwood Robin said:

Anything know if theres any truth in this story?

As in are we facing a points deduction?

No.

Not this season.

Probably not next season.

It's being discussed at length on the accounts thread.

https://www.otib.co.uk/index.php?/topic/215215-city-release-accounts-ouch/page/24/#comments

Edited January 13, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[Fiale]

I wouldn't think so, the club have been cutting their cloth. With the release of so many players last season, moving on higher earners or offering reduced terms. We have made no significant signings and are using academy players to plug gaps... It might be close, but think the club have this under control.

[SydneyCity]

Having just read the article, I think this may be a tactical interview to push for short and long term amendments/reforms.

City didn’t need to release their accounts before any other club, or give this interview, but they did. Early and “honest” seems to be a calculated strategy.

[Bristol Rob]

6 hours ago, Redwood Robin said:

Anything know if theres any truth in this story?

No.

Nige is more of a House The Fraser man.

[westonred]

What still annoys me is why MA didnt sell Diedhiou 18 months ago when he was still a saleable asset. It was obvious at the time that Fam wasn't going to sign a new deal and run his contract down.  Maybe we could have got £1m for him but MA said that he was more value to us on the pitch rather than being sold. Well although £1m is peanuts in football terms these days, that money might have come in very handy.