Tuesday 5th April, 2011last year, at the start of April
Bradford City made half a million profit in 2009/10, but it’s not all good news
The Byline
More Information
The Yorkshire Post has this morning revealed Bradford City made a £501,000 for the 2009/10 season – largely thanks to the sell-on clause in the deal which saw Bradford-born Fabian Delph transfer from Leeds to Aston Villa for £8 million in August 2009.
The Bantams received an initial £800,000 windfall for the part they played in developing the young midfielder. The Yorkshire Post also claims that total has risen to just short of a £1 million due to further clauses being triggered – chiefly Villa qualifying for Europe and awarding Delph a new four-year contract.
Were it not for the Delph money, City would have made a loss of around £299,000. For the 2008/09 season, where the Bantams had spent big on wages – a £1.9 million playing budget – but missed out on the play offs, the club recorded a loss of £765,000. One can take an educated guess that City will make a similarly high loss for this season, having again pushed out the boat.
All of which is troubling. Without the unexpected windfall from Delph, City would have lost over £1 million over the previous two campaigns and something similar this year – whether these totals includes loans provided by Lawn and Rhodes is unclear. The decreasing success of the subsidised season ticket scheme will add further pressure, and Julian Rhodes, Mark Lawn and the Board are left in a position where unless they keep investing more of their own money the club is left in an incredibly weak position.
The Valley Parade rent and running costs amount to £1.3 million each year. If the ownership situation could be altered this situation would ease, but it would be wrong to assume that it would lead to City making a profit each year as many of the running costs would still need to be met no matter who owns the deeds to the stadium. And that’s before we consider the costs involved if the club were able to buy back Valley Parade. People often say that you should never rent a home as it’s “a mug’s game” and City are in a similarly position of being trapped and effectively throwing money down a blackhole.
Clearly next season is going to be a tough one financially. The club has spent big on wages again this year and there were other sizeable costs last summer, such as relaying the pitch. With season ticket sales unlikely to match or better this season’s, the resultant playing budget for whoever takes over as manager will be significantly reduced and with it expectations must surely recede. A huge consideration, when selecting the manager, must be their ability to deliver over-performance on a shoestring budget.
What of the longer-term future? Unless City can get back to the Championship, it’s unlikely revenue streams will significantly increase anytime soon – unless they abandon the season ticket initiative. The Valley Parade situation looks unlikely to be resolved anytime soon, if ever. Outside investment remains a faint possibility, but City are far from an attractive proposition. The possibility of further windfalls from other former City youngsters – most notably Tom Cleverly and Andrew Wisdom – remains, but is hardly something to build a five-year business plan upon.
Rumours have recently floated around that another administration is a possibility, but hopefully this can be filed under malicious nonsense. Nevertheless, these are somewhat worrying times for Bradford City and, as gratefully received as the Delph money clearly was, it cannot prop up the club forever.
The Byline
More Information
2 Comments
Comments Closed
- The article could be over fourteen days old and have had comment turned off automatically.
- We might have turned off comments on the article believing that it needs no more further discussion.
- We may have decided the article will not be subject to comments. Sometimes a statement is a start of a debate, sometime it is simply a statement.
- On rare occasions we are not able to respond and approve comments owing to time pressures and we may have turned comments off for a period of time.
Jason
It scares me when I hear financial talk about City these days. We are supposed to have two co-chairmen who believe in financial prudence and long-term thinking.
However, in today’s T&A David Baldwin is quoted as saying that we are struggling to break even and have spent Mark Loan’s (haha) £2m loan as well as the £1m Delph money.
This isn’t struggling to break even, this is reckless, compulsive spending. If Bradford City were a person it would be having to sell its house in negative equity and move back in with its parents.
Equally, I do not want any external investment at the club as I don’t believe we need it. Apart from anything else, it takes the fun away for me if some moneybags overseas investor rocks up and starts splashing cash around. I want to see organic growth. There’s plenty of Bradford born players out there, they just somehow don’t play for us (Huddersfield Town have just signed another from Swindon of all places who says he’s glad to be back ‘home’).
Instead of wasting money on players with supposed League One capability, why not let Jacko loose on some of Wethers’ youth team and build towards a realistic target of promotion in say, five years’ time?
I think the suggestion made in another BfB article about tiered payments according to the League City are in is excellent.
Simply begging Gibb for a reduction won’t work. For a start, even if he is considering offering a reduction to loosen the financial constraints and enable CIty to get in to a higher division (and ultimately pay him higher rents again) he is an astute businessman, so he’ll be looking to evaluate whether the money saved will be wisely spent and I don’t think looking at articles such as the one in the T&A will convince him of that.
We might as well be wasting the money on rent as wasting it on injured players for example.
Instead of just constantly wishing for more money, i’d rather see City think of ways of getting better value and better returns from the money they actually DO have.
(applauds loudly)