Trust meeting with owners today

[3swan]

https://planetswans.co.uk/2023/02/03/the-interview-that-answered-no-questions-eight-targets-each-of-them-missed/

Good article.

Cold light of day, although I wasn't up all night thinking about it

As I posted earlier in the thread, everything that was said could have been said after their first transfer window, and accepted as a learning curve. Nothing they said should have been a surprise to them after numerous other windows now.

Just one other thing amongst the P.R. was when Silverstein emphasised that them putting money in, and sales of players is what keeps the lights on, and stops the club going into administration.

Yes that's business, but I would be more than surprised/shocked if a championship club went into administration with debts of £13/£16m. Other loans would have been looked at and yes further player sales. A drop down the league first before administration.

My final thought last night was like listening to a political interview where questions weren't answered, just waffle to make it look as if they had, but getting their own message out

 

[LeonWasTheDog's]

“ Silverstein added: "We've never taken any money out of the club. We've never had a dividend. We are not going to do that. We put money in, we keep putting money in.”

You’ve charged 5% interest on your loans though. Of course you haven’t had a dividend - you’ve only been a shareholder for a few months and it would not be possible for one to have been declared in that time.

Haven’t watched interview yet. This is from the Wales Online write up. If their summary is accurate then the whole thing is a complete waste of time as they are not being called out on their nonsense.

Funny though that in the link Phil posted the Trust are getting shirty about what’s been posted on here. No one is expecting you to make transfer decisions. We do expect that at some point in a month you may say ‘by the way, why haven’t we signed anyone yet’. You know, as a board member.

Quite. Although the way we’re going we might have to expect the Trust board to pull on a pair of boots!

 

[PSumbler]

My final thought last night was like listening to a political interview where questions weren't answered, just waffle to make it look as if they had, but getting their own message out

That is exactly what it was... a way of getting their message out - speaking to the group who won't challenge just put out a few questions and have an ego stroke at the end.

It's just generated more questions but there has been nothing learned and, more worryingly, we agreed terms with players and still couldn't sign them. That gives us a whole load of reasons why we should be concerned

 

[PSumbler]

There is also reference to the emergency loan keeper situation. I thought that was only applicable if you had no first team keepers available?

Free agents yes but not sure we will get permission for emergency keeper loan?

Could be wrong mind

 

[LeonWasTheDog's]

Good article.

Cold light of day, although I wasn't up all night thinking about it

As I posted earlier in the thread, everything that was said could have been said after their first transfer window, and accepted as a learning curve. Nothing they said should have been a surprise to them after numerous other windows now.

Just one other thing amongst the P.R. was when Silverstein emphasised that them putting money in, and sales of players is what keeps the lights on, and stops the club going into administration.

Yes that's business, but I would be more than surprised/shocked if a championship club went into administration with debts of £13/£16m. Other loans would have been looked at and yes further player sales. A drop down the league first before administration.

My final thought last night was like listening to a political interview where questions weren't answered, just waffle to make it look as if they had, but getting their own message out

Most Championship clubs stay afloat through owner financing (there doesn’t seem to be enough revenue to pay off loans other than those used to help cashflow).

This lot don’t have the money to do that to any great degree, so I reckon we’re in a more precarious position with them than most. Not that that means I think the model is right. It’s beyond nuts that owners in the Championship need to be covering £millions of operating losses each year. But that’s the way it is and this lot aren’t rich enough for this league.

Although inability to get things done seems as big a problem as money.

 

[3swan]

That is exactly what it was... a way of getting their message out - speaking to the group who won't challenge just put out a few questions and have an ego stroke at the end.

It's just generated more questions but there has been nothing learned and, more worryingly, we agreed terms with players and still couldn't sign them. That gives us a whole load of reasons why we should be concerned

As a stand alone interview, you could say it was a good communication exercise.

That would be by anyone watching who didn't know the in's and out's over the last few years.

Anyone looking for answers, and looking more deeply, would, again imo, come away more worried about how the club is being run.

It was reiterated more than once how numerous conversations were happening. Shouldn't a budget be set and transfer dealings carried out within those remits at working level?

 

[A4Jack]

The warning that they're keeping the club out of administration... perhaps if we had taken more sensible decisions at regular turns would have meant that the £16m wasn't needed.

Signed O'Riley - probably would have generated a fair chunk of the above by now.
Not sign Ryan Bennett - an ageing centre half on big money
Accept the decent money offer for Obafemi last summer
Not sign duds like Ogbeta and the rest of the loans which Martin didn't like.

Just there is the money that would have potentially stopped us being in a deficit bearing in mind the player sales we have made. Not including the signing of Ntcham who is thought to be on 20k a week (so £1m a year).

 

[PSumbler]

Most Championship clubs stay afloat through owner financing (there doesn’t seem to be enough revenue to pay off loans other than those used to help cashflow).

This lot don’t have the money to do that to any great degree, so I reckon we’re in a more precarious position with them than most. Not that that means I think the model is right. It’s beyond nuts that owners in the Championship need to be covering £millions of operating losses each year. But that’s the way it is and this lot aren’t rich enough for this league.

Although inability to get things done seems as big a problem as money.

We could save a small (in relative terms) chunk of that by losing the CEO who of course has to accept his own part in this sorry tale

I wonder if the fantastic decision to also own the stadium has paid profits yet

 

[PSumbler]

As a stand alone interview, you could say it was a good communication exercise.

That would be by anyone watching who didn't know the in's and out's over the last few years.

Anyone looking for answers, and looking more deeply, would, again imo, come away more worried about how the club is being run.

It was reiterated more than once how numerous conversations were happening. Shouldn't a budget be set and transfer dealings carried out within those remits at working level?

Your last point is a good one - not sure there was any reference in that interview to the man they employed to oversee this kind of stuff.

They have the dog but seemingly want to bark themselves.

I'm sure our Supporter Director will take them to task at the next board meeting.

 

[3swan]

We could save a small (in relative terms) chunk of that by losing the CEO who of course has to accept his own part in this sorry tale

I wonder if the fantastic decision to also own the stadium has paid profits yet

It does beg the question who has control of decision making at the club.
What is the management reporting structure?
Are there clearly defined lines?


Edit

PhilS

I was typing before I read your

"They have the dog but seemingly want to bark themselves."

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

That's the league though, isn't it. Bristol City have made accounts losses of £28.5m and £38.4m in the last two seasons. £16m is a drop in the leaky Championship bucket.

Without commenting specifically on them too much and their gross mismanagement, we have also brought in far more than them in transfer fees, and have they been rebuilding parts of their stadium?

If the situation is as bleak as they say ('we're keeping the lights on' is the direct quote) why did they reject 8mill plus transfer bids for a player with a chequered past who we signed for 1.5mill? Realistically is anyone confident he'd make it in the prem? I know the couldn't they have predicted his behaviour since&the breakdown of the relationship with the manager but the result is he's gone for at best half and we have no replacement.

Stinks of poor management from the top. I actually feel sorry for Julian Winter.

 

[3swan]

It does beg the question who has control of decision making at the club.
What is the management reporting structure?
Are there clearly defined lines?


Edit

PhilS

I was typing before I read your

"They have the dog but seemingly want to bark themselves."

After listening to RM's interview, he's highlighting the same issues.

 

[Richard]

It's pretty obvious that Jason has the final say.

 

[3swan]

It's pretty obvious that Jason has the final say.

Yes

He also said he had a background as a players agent.

So nothing should have been a surprise, and should have understood the window game better

 

[Risc]

The initial loan note was £5m from Silverstein and £5m from the majority owners.
Both attract interest a5 5% so each year the ‘amount put in’ is increased by £500k unless they take it out.
There was also a few extra bits and bobs put in from people unknown (the Trust said it was NOT the same people when they were asked) - there was a total of c. £12.5-£13m from memory so £2-3m ish on top of original £10m loans from Silverstein / majority plus any interest on those not taken.
In October Silverstein and the majority owners exchanged £5m for each loan for shares (valuing the club after the conversion at £40m). All this is public on companies house website.
It must be that the total loans are now higher again, so the total debt to whoever, is c. £6m plus the unknown ‘others’ of £3m ish or the Trust were wrong and it’s £6m including the unknown £3m ish.

They can’t have issued more shares (it must be a loan) as it would be on companies house website unless done in last few days.

Have these loans now been converted into equity though? So no longer need to be paid back?

** not trying to defend owners here, I’ve made my thoughts clear, just want clarity on this £16m