Lamps
Well-Known Member
I'm a big lad myself but I have a mate who is bigger than me and as camp as they come....and yes he is gay. But you wouldn't want to mess with him.
I'm a big lad myself but I have a mate who is bigger than me and as camp as they come....and yes he is gay. But you wouldn't want to mess with him.Anybody seen Tyler Bindon's ' Hi Blades' post to Sheffield Utd fans ? Camp barely sums it up. Know little about the lad, but you wouldn't have him down as a Central defender, listening to that!
11.9%Because it's a loan payable with interest, BCFC have been spending a big load the owners gave them and it doesn't look like it is the kind of loan lots of owners do when they just right it off.
I may have the maths wrong but the owners are charging the club a not insignificant interest rate for money they spend.
They may in future earn enough to not do this but apart from waffle from the chairman there's no evidence that is happening yet.
Because it's a loan payable with interest, BCFC have been spending a big load the owners gave them and it doesn't look like it is the kind of loan lots of owners do when they just right it off.
I may have the maths wrong but the owners are charging the club a not insignificant interest rate for money they spend.
They may in future earn enough to not do this but apart from waffle from the chairman there's no evidence that is happening yet.
Luke Evans, the Welsh actor who played Bard in the Hobbit is gay, you couldn't tell looking at him or listening to him, Tyler Bidon sounds posh camp lolI'm a big lad myself but I have a mate who is bigger than me and as camp as they come....and yes he is gay. But you wouldn't want to mess with him.
This has been spoken about on here recently.Their strategy is concerning to be honest. The interest payment is significant and there's no real way of repaying it as it stands without coming off Birmingham's bottom line or just accruing. The idiot owner is claiming BCFC will have the biggest revenue ever of clubs which haven't received parachute payments - which just isn't possible.
Then there's the issue of profit & sustainability. I would imagine they'll almost certainly be in breach next season if they fail at achieving promotion as their pre-tax losses over the past two years are already over £40m - albeit some of this will be able to be written off e.g. stadium improvements. So then what?
Does last season in league one wipe out the previous season in the Championship over that 3 year period? I genuinely don't understand how it works but it feels a little like they discovered a cheat code.This has been spoken about on here recently.
There's different rules for League 1 than the Championship. They more or less have a clean sheet to start with. The previous signings don't count as it was more about wages. From now it is something like a 3 year rolling amount of 39m losses. But I agree they have this season to do something but next season may well be different. There's a good chance they spent so much last year on transfers to take full advantage of the rules.
Their strategy is concerning to be honest. The interest payment is significant and there's no real way of repaying it as it stands without coming off Birmingham's bottom line or just accruing year on year.
Their idiot owner is claiming BCFC will have the biggest revenue ever of clubs which haven't received parachute payments - which just isn't possible.
Then there's the issue of profit & sustainability. I would imagine they'll almost certainly be in breach next season if they fail at achieving promotion as their pre-tax losses over the past two years are already over £40m - albeit some of this will be able to be written off e.g. stadium improvements. So then what if they're embargoed and/or receive a points deduction?
The entire strategy they're dreaming up is a complete facade based on fictitious scenarios which aren't even plausible.
This has been spoken about on here recently.
There's different rules for League 1 than the Championship. They more or less have a clean sheet to start with. The previous signings don't count as it was more about wages. From now it is something like a 3 year rolling amount of 39m losses. But I agree they have this season to do something but next season may well be different. There's a good chance they spent so much last year on transfers to take full advantage of the rules.
From what I remember they only started spending massive amounts after relegation. But it could make a difference as it's down to losses.Does last season in league one wipe out the previous season in the Championship over that 3 year period? I genuinely don't understand how it works but it feels a little like they discovered a cheat code.
In League 1 and 2 the rules are about players wages and similar. SCMC or Salary Cost Management Protocol. The cost of signing players don't count other than their wages. Maybe they might take another look at the rules just in case it happens again. But it's really rare for League 1 and 2 clubs to spend a fortune on transfers.I saw people claiming that they were going to build a sports village which they’d generate rent from and this would be the cause of the astronomical revenue.
Back in the real world, no business owner (and certainly not a hedge fund) would ever build something of that nature in the name of the operating company.
Anyway, let’s assume they used up all of their £50m ‘slush fund’ last year (I can only assume it was getting on for full usage given they have had to increase the pot). By the end of this financial year their interest liability will be somewhere in the region of £17m.
In League 1 and 2 the rules are about players wages and similar. SCMC or Salary Cost Management Protocol. The cost of signing players don't count other than their wages. Maybe they might take another look at the rules just in case it happens again. But it's really rare for League 1 and 2 clubs to spend a fortune on transfers.
But what were their losses from? IIRC year 1 they were allowed 80% of income to go.on wages then the second year 60% of income.Birmingham as far as I am aware do not get the slate wiped clean this season and has been said their 2 year losses are already massive. They spent biggest last season they were at this level, people on here talked about how good their recruitment was.
It’s almost like stereotypes aren’t actually true.Luke Evans, the Welsh actor who played Bard in the Hobbit is gay, you couldn't tell looking at him or listening to him, Tyler Bidon sounds posh camp lol
But what were their losses from? IIRC year 1 they were allowed 80% of income to go.on wages then the second year 60% of income.
Still open to abuse. I liked the line 'if owners inject £100m they can only spend £60m'They changed the rules midway through last season due to Birmingham's spending spree.
League One and Two owner investment to be restricted from 2025-26 season
League One and Two clubs will be restricted in the amount of investment from owners that can spend on player wages and transfer fees from the 2025-26 season.www.bbc.co.uk
Under the current SCMP rules, League One sides can spend 60% of turnover on wages and transfer fees and League Two sides 50%, but 100% of any equity investment.Player wages alone would've probably exceeded their income last season.
Under the current SCMP rules, League One sides can spend 60% of turnover on wages and transfer fees and League Two sides 50%, but 100% of any equity investment.
This was taken from the link you provided.
Not necessarily a sign they're in for the long term, they're trying to pump up the value of Birmingham so they can flog it asap.Knight head are in it for the long run at blues, bought the Birmingham wheels site with plans to build a 60k seater stadium on it. I don’t claim to know a lot about how PSR works but surely wouldn’t risk putting Birmingham into financial trouble?
You seem to have missed this bitYes, and there's categorically no way they would've been able to adhere to those regulations given the players they still had under contract, and those which were bought in.
It's a maximum of 60% of turnoverUnder the current SCMP rules, League One sides can spend 60% of turnover on wages and transfer fees and League Two sides 50%, but 100% of any equity investment.
This was taken from the link you provided.
In League 1 and 2 the rules are about players wages and similar. SCMC or Salary Cost Management Protocol. The cost of signing players don't count other than their wages. Maybe they might take another look at the rules just in case it happens again. But it's really rare for League 1 and 2 clubs to spend a fortune on transfers.
Look above. For their time in League 1 they were allowed to spend 100% of any equity investment. As they invested a major amount of money the 60% meant nothing to them.It's a maximum of 60% of turnover
Their wage bill in 2023/24 the year they got relegated was £33.7m against a turnover of around £29m.
The turnover might have improved a little in relation to gate receipts in the L1 season and income from getting to Wembley, but they'll have lost around £8-9m from reduced TV income.
The wage bill I doubt has reduced much if at all from then. They'll certainly have breached the 60% cap.
So loans are not equity investment?they haven't had any new equity investment in either the club or its parent though, it's just loans
fair enough, they issued £100m worth of shares but that was the previous season - not sure how the timings are calculated tbhLook above. For their time in League 1 they were allowed to spend 100% of any equity investment. As they invested a major amount of money the 60% meant nothing to them.
I've deleted that post as I was wrong, they did issue £100m shares in the parent. Loans are not equity investment though no. Equity investment is selling shares in exchange for capital.So loans are not equity investment?
I agree the rules were wrong. That's why they changed them mid season.
So loans are not equity investment?
I agree the rules were wrong. That's why they changed them mid season.
So why did the FL change their rules if it didn't count?I've deleted that post as I was wrong, they did issue £100m shares in the parent. Loans are not equity investment though no. Equity investment is selling shares in exchange for capital.
fair enough, they issued £100m worth of shares but that was the previous season - not sure how the timings are calculated tbh
To me they're as dodgy as Leicester on taking full advantage of the rules. I hope it goes tits up for them and after their major spend they end up just mid table after the first season then are limited to their spend over the next 2 seasons.Didn't they enter into a facility agreement with Knighthead?
To me they're as dodgy as Leicester on taking full advantage of the rules. I hope it goes tits up for them and after their major spend they end up just mid table after the first season then are limited to their spend over the next 2 seasons.
To me they're as dodgy as Leicester on taking full advantage of the rules. I hope it goes tits up for them and after their major spend they end up just mid table after the first season then are limited to their spend over the next 2 seasons.
Classic pump and dump imoEven if I'm wrong and the latest set of accounts aren't considered within the 3 year rolling period due to a ridiculous loophole their strategy is still very rogue and based on a lot of intangibles which aren't even achievable.
If they're unsuccessful in achieving promotion in the next couple of seasons their future will probably be of the highly uncertain variety.
it's a bit circular really, feels like an attempt to disguise debt as equity
share issued in 2023 to BCL (parent of BCFC)
View attachment 44266
BCL has lent that money then to BCFC
View attachment 44267
Ipswich I agree with. We saw what their second string did to us. Southampton? Not so sure. Will Still? Add to this can't see Birmingham being better than us. We have a settled side with good players used to this level.It will.. this season Ipswich and Southampton are my guarantees for the Autos, which leaves the play offs, which as we know anything can happen.
And then next year the 3 coming down will be ridiculous, if you look at how Sunderland, Leeds and Burnley have strengthened since going up..
You can only last so long gaining £120k for every £1m spent
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?