£22m loss 22/23 season

[Davefevs]

Thanks @Hxj, very informative (as ever)

Re that £6m!!!  I’d picked up on that too….

Re Semenyo, transfer profit £9.5m (total), guesswork that most of that is Antoine (£9m).  There is a likelihood that the difference (£0.5m) is made up of transfer profit on Ruben McAllister, Ryley Towler and a small amount of sell-on for Sammy Szmodics.

The small impairment might be Dan Bentley and / or Kane Wilson?

So if Antoine was £9.0m, that would possibly mean £4.5m up front for Antoine (transfer fees received in year £4.94m), and £4.5m left to pay….yet as you say almost £6m debtors.

What is the £1.5m gap?

Further add-ons from Webster, or Brownhill, or Kelly?  Something else?  If that £6 is Antoine then the transfer profit seems wrong.

I’m in need of educating

[Hxj]

40 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

So if Antoine was £9.0m, that would possibly mean £4.5m up front for Antoine (transfer fees received in year £4.94m), and £4.5m left to pay….yet as you say almost £6m debtors.

What is the £1.5m gap?

I get to the numbers with Semenyo going for £9 million, with three equal payments, which is not unusual.  Bentley going for £1 million or so upfront payment.

The balance is the £500k receipt from previous add-ons (Note 26 para 2, page 42.)

The problem (as ever) is that 'transfer cash received' is not the same as 'transfer profit' and cannot be directly reconciled from the information available.

I suspect that the £140k is the loss on Wilson.

I doubt that Towler, McAllister and Szmodics were material.

Edited December 24, 2023 by Hxj

[Davefevs]

23 minutes ago, Hxj said:

I get to the numbers with Semenyo going for £9 million, with three equal payments, which is not unusual.  Bentley going for £1 million or so upfront payment.

The balance is the £500k receipt from previous add-ons (Note 26 para 2, page 42.)

The problem (as ever) is that 'transfer cash received' is not the same as 'transfer profit' and cannot be directly reconciled from the information available.

I suspect that the £140k is the loss on Wilson.

I doubt that Towler, McAllister and Szmodics were material.

Ta, Bentley for £1m would make more sense than the nominal £50k that was banded about.  Never felt comfortable with that amount.

I will digest then update the good old excel…festive fun.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I made an early prediction for BCFC Holdings in 2023-24 of a pre tax profit of £5-10m following the Scott sale. Subject to Jan 2024 activity of course.

That was before the cost of the change of manager, coaching staff and indeed if there is one, cost of replacing Alexander.

Maybe a few million lower given these results and subsequent events, £3-5m subject of course to January 2024 activity.

[Hxj]

32 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

£3-5m subject of course to January 2024 activity.

I'd get to a much less generous figure.

Loss per 2023 accounts - £22.2m

Deduct Transfer Profit - £9.5m

Add Intangible w/o w/d - £7m

Add 2x End of year - £4m

Deduct 2 x Concert - £2m

Net Loss                   £22.7

12/13ths Loss            £21m

Add AS sale             £20m

Deduct Intangible     £2m

Deduct End of year  £1m

Add Concert             £2m

Net Loss                   £2m

Salary saving - net of cost of NP's team leaving?

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, Hxj said:

I'd get to a much less generous figure.

Loss per 2023 accounts - £22.2m

Deduct Transfer Profit - £9.5m

Add Intangible w/o w/d - £7m

Add 2x End of year - £4m

Deduct 2 x Concert - £2m

Net Loss                   £22.7

12/13ths Loss            £21m

Add AS sale             £20m

Deduct Intangible     £2m

Deduct End of year  £1m

Add Concert             £2m

Net Loss                   £2m

Salary saving - net of cost of NP's team leaving?

 

 

Wow so we may make a loss even with the sale of Scott??

I have had the Scott sale down as closer to £25m than £20m so we may diverge slightly there.

My workings are far less detailed but I reckoned wage bill down £9m once factoring in falls and 12 v 13 months, amortisation down about £3m and transfer profit up £11-16m.

Income down maybe £1m.

[Hxj]

32 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I have had the Scott sale down as closer to £25m than £20m so we may diverge slightly there.

The accounts for 2022/23 refer to a figure of £19m for the net transfer sales after the end of the year (note 26 para 1, page 42).  I would be surprised if we had spent more than a net £2m ignoring Scott.

[Davefevs]

42 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The accounts for 2022/23 refer to a figure of £19m for the net transfer sales after the end of the year (note 26 para 1, page 42).  I would be surprised if we had spent more than a net £2m ignoring Scott.

We spent £4.417m in 2022-23 (extended year)

• K.Wilson
• E.Clark
• A.Mehmeti
• H.Cornick

Sykes and Naismith free, so they definitely don’t add up to £4.417m, so assuming the following early summer 2023 deals with fees are included:

• R.Dickie - £0.700m
• R.McCrorie - £1.250m

So that leaves the following for the make up of that £18.990m “net”:

• A.Scott - £20.000m fee IN
• H.Massengo - £0.500m fee IN
• J.Knight - £1.750m fee OUT

Does that kinda make sense / add-up???

(***all fees guesstimates)

[RollsRoyce]

11 hours ago, aa_bcfc said:

I don’t find it funny at all. In fact I find it rude, embarrassing and totally disrespectful to Jon and the Lansdown family. IMO If they stopped funding the debt we’d be screwed. 

If they stopped funding the debt, they would be screwed. You need to study the accounts. You are miles off. 

BCFC would be far from screwed if the club defaults, in fact putting the club into admin or bankruptcy would elicit a new owner very quickly. 

[Davefevs]

14 minutes ago, RollsRoyce said:

If they stopped funding the debt, they would be screwed. You need to study the accounts. You are miles off. 

BCFC would be far from screwed if the club defaults, in fact putting the club into admin or bankruptcy would elicit a new owner very quickly. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

It could elicit an owner quickly but it could also be a bad bad scenario..would depend on the complexity, range of debt etc.

Instant-12 and would we need to begin selling for cash flow..depends on the security of the creditors in respect of priority etc.

[RollsRoyce]

9 hours ago, petehinton said:

The last line…

His analysis is flawed, as from the accounts, it is impossible to accurately analyse where the money is being between playing/non playing/stadium etc.  spent.  His quote of weekly wage, if intended for the playing side, is inaccurate. The title player costs is incorrect. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

17 minutes ago, RollsRoyce said:

His analysis is flawed, as from the accounts, it is impossible to accurately analyse where the money is being between playing/non playing/stadium etc.  spent.  His quote of weekly wage, if intended for the playing side, is inaccurate. The title player costs is incorrect. 

Good rule of thumb is often 75-80% of wages on the football side but by no means always.

Agree though, on this point Kieran may have jumped the gun a bit.

[Mr Popodopolous]

From a purely P&S perspective not that that is will be a big factor given the likely change of regs.

In a typical year I estimate that our cost base shouldn't exceed our income by £20m. Inclusive of interest.

£13m loss plus £7m in Allowables.

The 13 month accounts, plus the loss on Disposal of Tangible Assets, the allowables probably rise to £8m.

The fact we are losing £22.2m despite and inclusive of the Semenyo profit of £9m isn't great!

I mean we are clear of any issues but that cost base seems to have crept back up a bit again??

[Mr Popodopolous]

I'll caveat it a bit too.

If there was a big one off cost in there ie an Impairment, Provision for Onerous contracts or something else well that would make sense to put it into that season but there really wasn't.

[Hxj]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Does that kinda make sense / add-up???

Looks about right- but are you missing some spreadsheets and data? Again???

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Does that kinda make sense / add-up???

Looks about right- but are you missing some spreadsheets and data? Again???

[Mr Popodopolous]

I'll stick to the accounts bit. Loans from Pula etc.

There is or has been a change from the last year or 2, for the better in some ways.

Spot the difference.. 

[Davefevs]

Swiss Ramble’s view is that the extra month amounted to £5.3m of extra cost and therefore losses.

This decision was taken “to better align with the financial reporting dates adhered to by the English Football League and the wider Bristol Sport Group”.

In financial terms, there was little impact on revenue, as there were no matches played in June, but the change resulted in an additional month of expenses.

On a simple pro-rate basis, this would mean that costs were around £5.3m higher in the reported accounts. Excluding this timing impact would give an underlying loss of £16.9m, i.e. £11.6m lower than the prior year.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Davefevs

[sh1t_ref_again]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Swiss Ramble’s view is that the extra month amounted to £5.3m of extra cost and therefore losses.

This decision was taken “to better align with the financial reporting dates adhered to by the English Football League and the wider Bristol Sport Group”.

In financial terms, there was little impact on revenue, as there were no matches played in June, but the change resulted in an additional month of expenses.

On a simple pro-rate basis, this would mean that costs were around £5.3m higher in the reported accounts. Excluding this timing impact would give an underlying loss of £16.9m, i.e. £11.6m lower than the prior year.

That's a massive reduction in losses, then I guess with Scott sale in the following year we should be in a very healthy position

[Jerseybean]

https://footballeconomyv2.blogspot.com/2023/12/bristol-city-rely-on-benefactor-owner.html
 

[Davefevs]

40 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

That's a massive reduction in losses, then I guess with Scott sale in the following year we should be in a very healthy position

It brings it down to around my £18m guesstimate.

Thats not to say I was right, because actually revenues were higher than my preduction as were costs, so they balanced each other out!

The Scott sale has decreased the need for SL to fund and ignore FFP for a while.

[Davefevs]

39 minutes ago, Jerseybean said:

https://footballeconomyv2.blogspot.com/2023/12/bristol-city-rely-on-benefactor-owner.html
 

Bit naughty, they’ve ripped off Swiss Ramble’s paid-for pages.

[James54De]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Swiss Ramble’s view is that the extra month amounted to £5.3m of extra cost and therefore losses.

This decision was taken “to better align with the financial reporting dates adhered to by the English Football League and the wider Bristol Sport Group”.

In financial terms, there was little impact on revenue, as there were no matches played in June, but the change resulted in an additional month of expenses.

On a simple pro-rate basis, this would mean that costs were around £5.3m higher in the reported accounts. Excluding this timing impact would give an underlying loss of £16.9m, i.e. £11.6m lower than the prior year.

Panic, somewhat, over? 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Still doesn't fully explain the wages though, been trying to do some extrapolations but the football wages may have rose a little even 12 months on 12 months but yeah wages and amortisation will look notably healthier in these accounts for 2023-24.

My intiial prediction post the Scott sale was a £5-10m pre tax profit this season albeit that woukd depend on the fee- noises were that it was £25m, may have been £20m based on the Post Balance Sheet events.

[Davefevs]

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Still doesn't fully explain the wages though, been trying to do some extrapolations but the football wages may have rose a little even 12 months on 12 months but yeah wages and amortisation will look notably healthier in these accounts for 2023-24.

My intiial prediction post the Scott sale was a £5-10m pre tax profit this season albeit that woukd depend on the fee- noises were that it was £25m, may have been £20m based on the Post Balance Sheet events.

See @Hxj’s post earlier in this thread, where he mentions that by extending the period from 1/6-31/5 to 1/6-30/6, we incurred two lots of end of season / end of contract bonus payments.  So it’s not just a straight 13/12ths of the wage cist, but 13/12ths of the wages and two lots of bonuses.

Nor will 23/24 mean no bonuses to even it out, there will always be one 30/6 in our reporting period (unless we change it again).

[Mr Popodopolous]

18 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

See @Hxj’s post earlier in this thread, where he mentions that by extending the period from 1/6-31/5 to 1/6-30/6, we incurred two lots of end of season / end of contract bonus payments.  So it’s not just a straight 13/12ths of the wage cist, but 13/12ths of the wages and two lots of bonuses.

Nor will 23/24 mean no bonuses to even it out, there will always be one 30/6 in our reporting period (unless we change it again).

Thanks Dave, will go back and re-read it.

The 13th month bonus I keep forgetting about. Should look better without doubt in 2023-24 either way.

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Still doesn't fully explain the wages though, been trying to do some extrapolations but the football wages may have rose a little even 12 months on 12 months but yeah wages and amortisation will look notably healthier in these accounts for 2023-24.

My intiial prediction post the Scott sale was a £5-10m pre tax profit this season albeit that woukd depend on the fee- noises were that it was £25m, may have been £20m based on the Post Balance Sheet events.

One thing I've always wondered is, if a player signs a contract on let's say 10k a week, does it stay at 10k a week for the duration of the contract? Or does it rise with inflation? 

I'm no expert but what impact has inflation had on these set of accounts? 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, W-S-M Seagull said:

One thing I've always wondered is, if a player signs a contract on let's say 10k a week, does it stay at 10k a week for the duration of the contract? Or does it rise with inflation? 

I'm no expert but what impact has inflation had on these set of accounts? 

Depends on the term of the contract. Generally that wouldn't be the norm hut there is nothing to stop clubs and players agreeing what they want really.

I don't see e.g. why some sort of deferred consideration couldn't be a factor...£10k per week in Year 1, £15k per week in Year 2 and abject to clauses and targets rising to £17-18k thereafter..as finances improve, as bigger losses drop off.

As for inflation it's more likely to impact upon energy costs, other general running costs..although minimum wage rising would also have a small impact in scheme of things ie matchday staff or whoever.

Shouldn't impact football wages unless some sort of bespoke clause though.

[Major Isewater]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Bit naughty, they’ve ripped off Swiss Ramble’s paid-for pages.

Is Swiss Ramble like Swiss Tony? 

[Davefevs]

40 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Depends on the term of the contract. Generally that wouldn't be the norm hut there is nothing to stop clubs and players agreeing what they want really.

I don't see e.g. why some sort of deferred consideration couldn't be a factor...£10k per week in Year 1, £15k per week in Year 2 and abject to clauses and targets rising to £17-18k thereafter..as finances improve, as bigger losses drop off.

As for inflation it's more likely to impact upon energy costs, other general running costs..although minimum wage rising would also have a small impact in scheme of things ie matchday staff or whoever.

Shouldn't impact football wages unless some sort of bespoke clause though.

Indeed.  Or younger players might have £x pw for first 10 apps, rising to £y after that, etc.

28 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

Is Swiss Ramble like Swiss Tony? 

Swiss Ramble is like making love to a beautiful speadsheet

[ExiledAjax]

55 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

One thing I've always wondered is, if a player signs a contract on let's say 10k a week, does it stay at 10k a week for the duration of the contract? Or does it rise with inflation? 

I'm no expert but what impact has inflation had on these set of accounts? 

Contracts I've seen have automatic pay rises per season, in addition to an increase on promotion or decrease on relegation.

So assuming a 3 year contract signed with a Championship team in summer 2023 you see something like the following for the basic wage.

Season 2023/24:

Championship - £10k per week.

Season 24/25

League 1 - £5.5k

Champ - £10.5k

PL - £50k

Season 25/26

League 1 - £6k

Champ - £11k

PL - £55k

Just example figures but it's done like this rather than have an annual pay review or a % rise per year, whether tied to inflation or not.

Edited December 29, 2023 by ExiledAjax

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Contracts I've seen have automatic pay rises per season, in addition to an increase on promotion or decrease on relegation.

So assuming a 3 year contract signed with a Championship team in summer 2013 you see something like the following for the basic wage.

Season 2023/24:

Championship - £10k per week.

Season 24/25

League 1 - £5.5k

Champ - £10.5k

PL - £50k

Season 25/26

League 1 - £6k

Champ - £11k

PL - £55k

Just example figures but it's done like this rather than have an annual pay review or a % rise per year, whether tied to inflation or not.

Graduated pay rises basically.

Definitely could use it to advantage if both parties agree to frontload and backload certain rises for budgetary purposes.. 

No rule against it unlike the amortisation fiddle that Derby did.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Graduated pay rises basically.

Definitely could use it to advantage if both parties agree to frontload and backload certain rises for budgetary purposes.. 

No rule against it unlike the amortisation fiddle that Derby did.

Plus a whole heap of bonuses - loyalty, international appearances, starting XI, sub appearance, unused sub, goal (can be per goal or milestone based), milestone appearance bonuses, basically anything that can be negotiated.

You see the same thing in manager contracts as well.

It's really not rocket science and is similar to many industries. The one quirk in football is relegation and promotion and building that into pay structures.

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Plus a whole heap of bonuses - loyalty, international appearances, starting XI, sub appearance, unused sub, goal (can be per goal or milestone based), milestone appearance bonuses, basically anything that can be negotiated.

You see the same thing in manager contracts as well.

It's really not rocket science and is similar to many industries. The one quirk in football is relegation and promotion and building that into pay structures.

Agreed.

Relegation let's say between the PL and Championship. Probably a downward swing between 25-50% range, anything in between. May also be player by player a bit.

Promotion the other way is interesting, obviously we have seen some huge Promotion Bonuses in recent times...£15m, £20m perhaps even North of that at some clubs.

Beyond that, some basic wage rises built in would seem the norm or expected anyway. 10-20% maybe? (Again PL, Championship my emphasis).

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Agreed.

Relegation let's say between the PL and Championship. Probably a downward swing between 25-50% range, anything in between. May also be player by player a bit.

Promotion the other way is interesting, obviously we have seen some huge Promotion Bonuses in recent times...£15m, £20m perhaps even North of that at some clubs.

Beyond that, some basic wage rises built in would seem the norm or expected anyway. 10-20% maybe? (Again PL, Championship my emphasis).

I guess there can be promotion bonuses from the agreed bonus pot agreed at the start of the season, as well as promotion wage increase???

[sh1t_ref_again]

26 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Contracts I've seen have automatic pay rises per season, in addition to an increase on promotion or decrease on relegation.

So assuming a 3 year contract signed with a Championship team in summer 2023 you see something like the following for the basic wage.

Season 2023/24:

Championship - £10k per week.

Season 24/25

League 1 - £5.5k

Champ - £10.5k

PL - £50k

Season 25/26

League 1 - £6k

Champ - £11k

PL - £55k

Just example figures but it's done like this rather than have an annual pay review or a % rise per year, whether tied to inflation or not.

 

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Agreed.

Relegation let's say between the PL and Championship. Probably a downward swing between 25-50% range, anything in between. May also be player by player a bit.

Promotion the other way is interesting, obviously we have seen some huge Promotion Bonuses in recent times...£15m, £20m perhaps even North of that at some clubs.

Beyond that, some basic wage rises built in would seem the norm or expected anyway. 10-20% maybe? (Again PL, Championship my emphasis).

Often thought the only way of getting rid of parachute payments is to have standard relegation clauses, this would should suggest that it is / could become the norm 

Would love the championship to be on a equal footing, its the thing I dislike most about football, cant think of another such rigged competition 

[Mr Popodopolous]

14 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

 

Often thought the only way of getting rid of parachute payments is to have standard relegation clauses, this would should suggest that it is / could become the norm 

Would love the championship to be on a equal footing, its the thing I dislike most about football, cant think of another such rigged competition 

Already have relegation clauses at most clubs..unsure about the elite.

[Mr Popodopolous]

However yes these relegation clauses need to be higher than they are, or alternatively you could ring fence some of the Parachute cash for general solvency not Profit and Loss, maybe the difference between Parachute v Championship Solidarity.

Could use it to pay off higher earners or pooling Championship and Solidarity cash and paying by EFL divisional weighting combined with say 35-50% cuts on relegation could drastically resolve a host of issues.

[RollsRoyce]

15 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

 

Often thought the only way of getting rid of parachute payments is to have standard relegation clauses, this would should suggest that it is / could become the norm 

Would love the championship to be on a equal footing, its the thing I dislike most about football, cant think of another such rigged competition 

They already have this. In the early days the PP were to soften the blow on contracts that could not be reduced. Today, it is seen as a way to super boost the chances of promotion back to the Prem.  The statistics prove that it is very hard to break into the PP cycle with financial fair play. I still think it is dubious that the competition does not allow any owner to match the payments made to the PP clubs. It is unfair competition. 

[Maesknoll Red]

4 hours ago, RollsRoyce said:

They already have this. In the early days the PP were to soften the blow on contracts that could not be reduced. Today, it is seen as a way to super boost the chances of promotion back to the Prem.  The statistics prove that it is very hard to break into the PP cycle with financial fair play. I still think it is dubious that the competition does not allow any owner to match the payments made to the PP clubs. It is unfair competition. 

Absolutely an owner of a non PP club should be able to fund (if he can and wants to) the same amount as the highest PP.  It’s an absolute nonsense that clubs who have failed get such high rewards.

[CyderInACan]

And here’s the Bears figures :

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just had a brief look through.

There is a page and certain notes missing.. accident or design.

Note 16 and Page 32 pertaining to the Creditors. The Cash Flow statement doesn't make a huge amount of sense.

Edited December 30, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Notes 14, 15...19.

Odd. Maybe it is Note 18 that is missing, but doesn't seem very well constructed. Cash Flow statements aren't mandatory of course- there is one but it feels like it is missing something.

On the plus side the user format is friendlier than the Bristol City Holdings site.

Edited December 30, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Anyway they likely will need another injection by SL this season but a few million tops.

The missing notes and pages make it hard to get a full picture.

Edited December 30, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

22 hours ago, Maesknoll Red said:

Absolutely an owner of a non PP club should be able to fund (if he can and wants to) the same amount as the highest PP.  It’s an absolute nonsense that clubs who have failed get such high rewards.

On one level I agree.

On another level I think the better solution is basically slashing the gap between Parachutes and Solidarity by pooling the two, thereby enhancing both competitive balance and financial stability.

There are definite trade-offs between the 2. The current status quo is horrible and disgraceful however.

Edited December 30, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

In the simplest terms:

Parachute Plus Solidarity.

Then split evenly by the divisional weighting for the current EFL deal adding it to that. Gap of £35-40m whatever, eradicated.

[Maesknoll Red]

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

In the simplest terms:

Parachute Plus Solidarity.

Then split evenly by the divisional weighting for the current EFL deal adding it to that. Gap of £35-40m whatever, eradicated.

Something needs to be done, it’s definitely caused my interest in us being in the Championship to wain, it’s like letting Max Verstappen race the RB19 in F2.

[ExiledAjax]

22 hours ago, Maesknoll Red said:

Absolutely an owner of a non PP club should be able to fund (if he can and wants to) the same amount as the highest PP.  It’s an absolute nonsense that clubs who have failed get such high rewards.

I understand your thinking here but personally I think this would a) push the anti-competitive element of the pyramid elsewhere (maybe down to L1, maybe somewhere in the middle of the Champ), b) make Championship clubs even more dependent on sugar daddy owners, and c) further inflate wages and transfer fees paid by Champ clubs.

I just don't think the answer to money ruining football is "more money".

PPs are ultimately a mechanism for the PL to try and ensure it's a 23 team league spread across two divisions. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

There is also an issue with the £22m extra in Upper Loss Limit for each season spent in the PL, which can mean £22m or even £44m plus Parachute v Solidarity.

Some sort of merging and divisional weighting of Solidarity and Parachute cash combined with the new incoming 70% Wage and amortisation cap could resolve a lot of issues overnight if those 2 happened in tandem.*

*The issue is it isn't happening in tandem, only a partial solution and a suggestion to give PL sides an 85% limit on relegation.

[Maesknoll Red]

9 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I understand your thinking here but personally I think this would a) push the anti-competitive element of the pyramid elsewhere (maybe down to L1, maybe somewhere in the middle of the Champ), b) make Championship clubs even more dependent on sugar daddy owners, and c) further inflate wages and transfer fees paid by Champ clubs.

I just don't think the answer to money ruining football is "more money".

PPs are ultimately a mechanism for the PL to try and ensure it's a 23 team league spread across two divisions. 

Yes, it was probably an ill thought out post, borne of frustration at the ridiculous situation, why do the rest of the clubs just sit back and take it, there must be something to be done and yes, I agree, reducing costs or sharing the pot is the way forward, not clubs incurring more debt and running unsustainably with surely at some point in the future an implosion or huge financial disaster.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

Yes, it was probably an ill thought out post, borne of frustration at the ridiculous situation, why do the rest of the clubs just sit back and take it, there must be something to be done and yes, I agree, reducing costs or sharing the pot is the way forward, not clubs incurring more debt and running unsustainably with surely at some point in the future an implosion or huge financial disaster.

Completely agree with this.

I think a problem is, although Championship clubs need to form a majority to pass EFL regs, the Lower Leagues do need that couple of million in Solidarity filtering down. Talking League One and Two, as a proportion this really can be vital to them, Championship clubs in a lot of cases have some very wealthy owners but the whole thing is neither wholly competitive or mainly sustainable.

[ExiledAjax]

22 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

Yes, it was probably an ill thought out post, borne of frustration at the ridiculous situation, why do the rest of the clubs just sit back and take it, there must be something to be done and yes, I agree, reducing costs or sharing the pot is the way forward, not clubs incurring more debt and running unsustainably with surely at some point in the future an implosion or huge financial disaster.

No no, I wasn't trying to attack you. 

But my belief is that whatever the "solution" is, we really need to try and anticipate the unforeseen knock-on butterfly effects. 

PPs have to be dealt with somehow, there probably is no perfect solution, but it needs such careful thought.

[Mr Popodopolous]

It genuinely is quite amateur, where is the proof reading of the rugby accounts before release. I'll point out 2 or 3 basic errors or inconsistencies.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Become is one word!!

Note 12 isn't labelled as it should be. It's also on its side.

Page 32 appears to be missing, as is Note 18 which is listed.

Edited December 31, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

[robinforlife2]

On 23/12/2023 at 17:26, Davefevs said:

Yep, I have no idea what Nige’s termination clauses were.  We can’t just assume he just gets paid up his remaining term of his contract.

Although that wouldn't have been huge even if it was, given he only had 8 months left. 250K maybe ?

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, robinforlife2 said:

Although that wouldn't have been huge even if it was, given he only had 8 months left. 250K maybe ?

I’ve no idea, but if LJ was on £600k (allegedly) come the end, I can only imagine Nige was in at least that.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Had a really quick look, not much chance for more yet.

Adjusting wage bill of the club for 13 months, basically.

It was up about £0.41m on a like for like basis and I anticipate a wage bill fall of a few to several million on the football side..still on course for that mooted 70% rule.

Ashton Gate accounts for a good chunk of the rise in income..but costs likewise. Again 13/12 but more events can mean more costs but the non wage costs shooting up by that ratio, a Stadium company making a loss on a frequent basis seems unusual.

AGL and Bristol City for income never fully neatly align in Bristol City Holdings however.

Edited January 12 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Probably having looked again the Ground Rent and Service Charge is a key part..would cancel out at the Consolidated (non-trading company) level.

[ExiledAjax]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

It was up about £0.41m on a like for like basis and I anticipate a wage bill fall of a few to several million on the football side..still on course for that mooted 70% rule.

I think the slightly higher playing wage bill can be accounted for by the fact that this 13 month period captures two Junes. June being the month that most of the loyalty payments and other bonuses get paid to the players. This could comfortably amount to enough to create that discrepancy.

It looks as though we've kept a broadly stable monthly wage bill of approximately £2m over the past couple of seasons (inclusive of bonuses). 

I think it's clear that we're a long way from being "sustainable" financially. 

We have basically one major outgoing - player wages, and the income from player sales, tickets, and AG needs to cover that and ideally exceed it. 

Really, to be truly "sustainable" I think you need to be able to operate independently of player trading. And we are nowhere near that. 

AG makes a loss. That's not good enough. That means that at consolidated Holdings level the club is actually subsidising the stadium. Player sales are keeping the lights on. 

I still think, from the vantage point we have today, that we will post a modest but significant profit next season. The money from Semenyo has got us clear for 2022/23 and with a return to a 12 month period, and the money from Scott's sale, we should do ok.

Tuesday's sell out will really help, as would a win and a further sell out at home in the 4th round. These big home games are worth hundreds of thousands of pounds and if we're on the bubble between profit and loss they could be the tipping factor.

Ps. I think there's an analysis piece to do on directors remuneration and staff. All the companies have a highest paid director recieving c.£200k p/a, but there's significant overlap in directorships. I assume JL doesn't draw a salary from any of them. It also looks like Marshall gets paid by Holdings rather than BS as BS's accounts state that it has zero staff. That's odd. Zero staff in a trading and commercial company? 

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

AG makes a loss. That's not good enough. That means that at consolidated Holdings level the club is actually subsidising the stadium. Player sales are keeping the lights on. 

I think that that is incredibly harsh.

Football stadiums are white elephants at the best of times.  You can't use their biggest asset, the open space and stands, for anything other than sport for most of the year, and if you are lucky a handful of concerts in the summer.

Against that background the ground cost the club about £50k for FFP purposes, or £150k accounting loss excluding depreciation.  There will be many, many clubs deeply envious of being able to run a stadium like Ashton Gate at that cost.

Edited January 12 by Hxj

[Mr Popodopolous]

Stoke City Property, Cardiff City Stadium could be two comparables- there aren't many all told, shell companies aside for the sale and leaseback purposes.

Edited January 12 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

I suppose my slight critique would be, AGL run along more Business Oriented lines than a football club.

Therefore it should be breaking even..in cash terms it's probably fine given Amortisation and Depreciation are non-cash items and the Interest payments don't help either.

[ExiledAjax]

12 minutes ago, Hxj said:

I think that that is incredibly harsh.

Football stadiums are white elephants at the best of times.  You can't use their biggest asset, the open space and stands, for anything other than sport for most of the year, and if you are lucky a handful of concerts in the summer.

Against that background the ground cost the club about £50k for FFP purposes, or £150k accounting loss excluding depreciation.  There will be many, many clubs deeply envious of being able to run a stadium like Ashton Gate at that cost.

I am just coming at it from the perspective of being "sustainable". Within the scope of creating a club that's "sustainable", ie able to live without a sugar daddy writing off millions of pounds of loans ever year, it's not good enough.

If one doesn't think that's achievable or really desirable then I agree, it's fine to have AG losing a bit of cash.

But ultimately, if AG doesn't contribute, then the only other major income stream we have is player sales. Which means we will continue to sell players like Semenyo and Scott in order to keep the accounts on an even keel.

Again that is fine if that fits within the definition of "sustainable".

[Davefevs]

Summary of Holdings and the underlying companies:

Together with a check / sum.  As we know they don’t add up due to I guess internal “transfer pricing”?

[Hxj]

5 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

I am just coming at it from the perspective of being "sustainable". Within the scope of creating a club that's "sustainable", ie able to live without a sugar daddy writing off millions of pounds of loans ever year, it's not good enough.

I've always fully understood your view on these matters.  Personally I would have pointed out that the rent paid by the football club to Ashton Gate Ltd also needs to be considered, giving a significantly higher real loss, but as you didn't I'm happy to ignore the issue.  

But I don't believe that a long term championship club can ever be sustainable under the current rules.  The mere fact that you are allowed to overspend by £39 million over three years simply blows sustainability out of the window.

What is clear from any comparable analysis is that the club do very well in the 'other non-football income which qualifies for FFP' box.  By way of comparison the total 2022 income for Nottingham Forest was £30 million who were sold out every single week at home.

[42nite]

On 30/12/2023 at 18:03, CyderInACan said:

And here’s the Bears figures :

 

 

 

Blimey, looks like the Dolman is finally starting to sink!

I always thought those foundations were a bit dodgy.

[W-S-M Seagull]

14 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Player sales are keeping the lights on. 

Are they? 

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Are they? 

The very next paragraph says that AG Ltd "remains dependent on the support of Pula Sport Ltd".

We also know that a large chunk of AG's turnover is in the form of payments from BCFC Ltd and revenue generated by the games played there. BCFC Ltd can only make those payments, and can only exist and fulfill matches and therefore generate revenue, because it a) sells players and b) takes cash from Lansdown (via Pula and BCFC Holdings).

I'm happy to say that, the set up does work, the set up does keep us operational and within FFP, and there's a decent argument that investment in the academy and young players that are then sold for £££ is fair enough. But, we saw in COVID, that this is fragile and relies upon the rest of the football eco-system to be willing to spend those £££ on our players.

Are you not slightly concerned that AG Ltd can increase it's turnover by £5m but then also see it's losses increase? Yes 13 months v 12 etc but that's surely not ideal.

[W-S-M Seagull]

21 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

The very next paragraph says that AG Ltd "remains dependent on the support of Pula Sport Ltd".

We also know that a large chunk of AG's turnover is in the form of payments from BCFC Ltd and revenue generated by the games played there. BCFC Ltd can only make those payments, and can only exist and fulfill matches and therefore generate revenue, because it a) sells players and b) takes cash from Lansdown (via Pula and BCFC Holdings).

I'm happy to say that, the set up does work, the set up does keep us operational and within FFP, and there's a decent argument that investment in the academy and young players that are then sold for £££ is fair enough. But, we saw in COVID, that this is fragile and relies upon the rest of the football eco-system to be willing to spend those £££ on our players.

Are you not slightly concerned that AG Ltd can increase it's turnover by £5m but then also see it's losses increase? Yes 13 months v 12 etc but that's surely not ideal.

Come on mate, thats not how you were originally framing it was you? If you was then you'd have also said the Bears are keeping the lights on. 

I'm not concerned at all. Its paper losses. Its trading day to day with its own cash flow. Whilst I have many issues with Lansdown, one complaint I don't have is the accounting side of things as that's where he excels. I'm not accounting expert but even I can see that there has been some accounting creativity to benefit us.