Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Bristol City announce a £14m loss last season

2»

Comments

  • edited December 2012
    Rizzo said:

    How did this ridiculous slide into business practices that can only be called insane, ever get started? I can sort of understand getting a club into huge debt if you're gambling on Premier League/Champions League success (a la Leeds) as the potential rewards are very enticing but what the hell are Bristol City gambling on? What do they aim to achieve by running the clubs finances into the ground?

    The lure of the promised land ...... "now if we could just get promoted to the Premier League. But first we need to sign the quality of players that will make the dream come true."

    Trouble is, they are having to compete with clubs twice the size of them (some on parachute money). And because most of the Champs clubs have the same dream, they find they need to spend the money on players just to compete in the Champs, let alone actually win promotion to the Prem.

    Plymouth Argyle, a club that was similar in size to Bristol City, tried to do exactly that a few years ago - before the rug was pulled from under their feet, with administration and successive relegations. Look at them now, with a team of kids and freebies, barely keeping their head above water.

  • But they're not spending the sort of money that is going to give them a decent chance of promotion, which is why they are confusing me. If they'd gambles £30m on players to get them to the Premier League that would at least make sense but a couple of million? Never going to have an impact on the pitch but huge impact on the balance sheet.
  • edited December 2012
    We're not talking £30 mill players, here Rizzo. Not in the Champs, and generally not even in the lower half of the Prem.

    In the Champs, Leicester City are one of the big spenders without parachute money, but you've only got to look at Blackburn's spending last summer to see what clubs like Bristol City or even Charlton have to compete with.

    It's no surprise that many new signings are out of contract players - their agents tout them round to clubs, and the club that offers the best deal, gets the player.
    Just because no transfer fee is payable, don't think the player comes for nothing - he'll receive a substantial signing on fee, and a better wages package than any other club offered.

    And so the roundabout goes round.

    In recent years, Bristol City signed then current England international keeper David James. He was out of contract, but why else would a current international player sign for a Champs club if it wasn't for the money? And Bristol City no doubt had competition to sign the player.

    Bristol City are just one club in the Champs which has gambled heavily, without having parachute money. Cardiff City are another, heavily in debt and gambling that after so many near misses, that they'll actually win promotion to the Prem this season.

    How many other Champs clubs are sailing too close to the wind? Most of them I guess.



  • I'm not saying £30m on a player. On a playing squad to give a club a fighting chance of getting out of the Champ and into the Prem. Also, £30m is just a notional figure. Pick any large number you like. The point I'm making is that Bristol are not spending the sort of money that will get them out of the division but are still spending more than they can afford. What is their aim?
  • edited December 2012
    I was trying to point out that it was not about huge spending on transfer fees, Rizzo.
    It's wages.

    Out of contract players .....they sign for the biggest signing on fee and wages package their agent can negotiate.

    And as their agent is usually negotiating with more than one club, the club that offers the best package gets the player.

    Bristol City evidently push the boat out to get the players they want, perhaps at any cost.
    I gave David James as an example.

    The aim is to get to the land of milk and honey, the Prem.

    The reality is that all clubs are competing for the best available players at this level - but they can't all win promotion.

  • The wage bill went up by about £50k/week over the previous year. I'm sure that at least some of that would have been on the likes of David James but the rest seems to be going on decidedly average players. No real star names in the current squad.
  • Maybe not, Rizzo.

    Look at Sam Baldock, as an example in that he was rumoured to be signing for Charlton, except it was said by some that we would not meet his wage demands.

    Bristol City were said to be still owed a substantial sum by West Ham, as part of the Nicky Maynard transfer - so maybe they didn't have to find a transfer fee.


    Baldock didn't seem too keen to leave West Ham or even London, saying he wanted to stay and fight for his place.

    He was told that he wouldn't be named in West Ham's Prem 25-man squad.
    Yet he was their contracted player on reportedly £15k plus per week, and could have just run down his contract/gone out on loan.

    Bristol City no doubt offered him a very attractive signing on fee and probably at least matched his West Ham salary. Why would he have signed for less?


    There we have it, reportedly £15k per week salary paid by Bristol City as a Champs club, with no benefit of a Prem parachute payment.

    How many others have they signed in this way? No wonder they are making such a big loss.




  • I think it's fairly clear we'd have signed Baldock if we had had any money in the summer, as we would Powell's other targets, which had been set up by PV. Baldock hung out for the move to Charlton, as did Lawrie Wilson at a lower level, but whereas Stevenage eventually cut a deal on the basis Wilson couldn't feature in the league unless Charlton had paid up, West Ham wanted to see the money. Charlton were able to make a payment for Wilson when the first Sky instalment came in early August, but there wasn't enough for Baldock.
  • I think it's fairly clear we'd have signed Baldock if we had had any money in the summer, as we would Powell's other targets, which had been set up by PV. Baldock hung out for the move to Charlton, as did Lawrie Wilson at a lower level, but whereas Stevenage eventually cut a deal on the basis Wilson couldn't feature in the league unless Charlton had paid up, West Ham wanted to see the money. Charlton were able to make a payment for Wilson when the first Sky instalment came in early August, but there wasn't enough for Baldock.

    Airman

    Were we prepared to meet Baldock's wage demands? I heard they were off the scale. I am not at all sure he is worth 15k plus/week.
  • Neither am I, but I'd imagine Fuller is on something substantial.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Bristol City's majority shareholder (Stephen Lansdown) has £700m in Hargreaves Lansdown stock alone, so I doubt if he or the club are losing too much sleep over the above figures.
  • Bristol City's majority shareholder (Stephen Lansdown) has £700m in Hargreaves Lansdown stock alone, so I doubt if he or the club are losing too much sleep over the above figures.

    Ah, that's where the money is.

    Even so, though, it's a shocking business performance. Mr Lansdown wouldn't want his HL analysts poring over it, would he?

  • I guess it straddles the line between 'business' and 'charity' for him - he also owns Bristol Rugby too.

    He's no longer involved with HL even though it bears his name and he's the 2nd largest shareholder.
  • edited December 2012
    very expensive tastes...and they're still shit.
  • If they get to build their new stadium then I'd imagine they will pretty well set longer-term given the size of the (fairly wealthy) catchment area and relatively limited competition from Bristol Rovers and the rugby team.

    Brighton were in a similar position not so long ago (crap stadium; wealthy funder; operational losses) and now they're the best supported side in the Championship and clearly on the up.
  • But the Financial Fair Play rules are looming. Unless they completely turn it round on the pitch, they could get caught out, even if they don't get relegated, which at the moment is entirely feasible.
  • Talking of financial fair play rules. If Charlton remain as they are then it will impact on them too ?
  • Losses will be permitted up to £5m before sanctions (fines, embargoes etc.) are considered so in short, yes we would be impacted if the rules were introduced today.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!