Blues 2021/22 Accounts

30 Mar 2023 | 4 comments

Blues accounts for last season were released a few days ago. The main highlights are discussed below.  As well as the headline profit and loss numbers there are some other interesting things happening.  All figures have been rounded to the nearest £100,000 to aid readability, and figures for the last 5 years and from other championship clubs are shown to give some context.

Blues are the thirteenth Championship club to report financials for 2021/22 and so Blues results will be compared to those other 12.  Blues set up in UK is that they have a parent company (Birmingham City PLC) which covers both the men’s and women’s teams as well as well as a company (Birmingham City Football Club PLC) which covers the men’s team.  Both these companies release their accounts at the same time.  The figures in the article are for the men’s football club unless otherwise stated.

Let’s start with revenue.


    • Reduced capacity of St. Andrew’s looks to be impacting revenue
Revenue (£m) 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018
Match Day 4.2 0.0 4.6 5.0 4.9
Broadcasting 8.4 9.3 8.8 8.0 7.6
Commercial 5.0 3.8 9.1 10.0 6.3
Turnover 17.6 13.1 22.5 23.0 18.8
Other income 4.0 1.8 1.5 0.7 0.7

Revenue figures are shown above.  Probably the best past season to compare these against is the last full season before Covid hit.  The season that ended in May 2019. Match day revenue is down 16% compared to that season. Average league crowds at St. Andrews are actually 28% down compared to that season (16,152 compared to 22,483) although this is slightly compensated for by increased prices.  Nevertheless, it appears that the stand closures are having an effect on revenue with Blues having only the ninth largest matchday revenues out of those 13 Championship clubs who have published their 2022 accounts so far.

It is also noticeable that Commercial revenue is only half of what it was in 2019.  This would put Blues mid-table (joint 5th) out of those Championship clubs who have published their 2022 accounts so far, but the reduction is concerning.

Operating Costs

  • Total wage bill is still over £30m
Operating costs £m 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018
Employment costs (31.1) (30.9) (32.4) (33.0) (38.0)
Other Expenses (9.7) (6.6) (10.9) (11.1) (11.6)
Depreciation (1.4) (1.2) (1.3) (0.9) (0.9)
Player Amortisation (6.3) (7.2) (8.3) (8.0) (7.6)
Total Op cost (48.5) (46.0) (53.0) (52.9) (58.1)
Wages/turnover (%) 177% 236% 144% 143% 202%

Blues total wage bill last season was £31.1m, marginally up on 2021 and the wages to turnover ratio was an unsustainable 177%.  Blues have the second highest wages and the second highest wages to turnover ratio for those Championship clubs who have published their 2022 accounts.

Player amortisation, which spreads transfer fees paid over the length of a players’ contracts, was down highlighting that Blues are becoming less of a spending club.

Overall though total operating costs were up slightly at £48.5m.

Operating Profit

  • Significant loss on operations

Putting these together gave an operating loss of £26.9m. Marginally down on recent previous seasons, but still concerning.  Not surprisingly, with high wages and lower than average Championship revenues, Blues operating loss is one of the worst in the Championship so far with only Bristol City, Cardiff City and Stoke City showing slightly worse losses.

  2022 2021 2020 2019 2018
Operating Profit/loss (£m) (26.9) (31.0) (29.0) (29.2) (38.6)

Player Transfers

  • Blues continue to be net sellers

The overall transfer picture for 2021/22 is shown below.  Blues spent £1m getting players in and had sales of around £3m.  It should be noted that the purchases row is probably more accurately described as the cost of player registrations.  It would usually include transfer fees, loan fees, agent fees and lawyer fees etc.  Also, under current accounting rules neither purchases or sales would include any conditional payments not yet triggered.

It can also be seen that after investing strongly in players in 2018 Blues have become a selling club since then.

Transfers (£m) 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018
Purchases (1.0) (6.0) (10.5) (7.4) (15.0)
Sales 3.1 27.6 12.6 7.7 4.0
Net Sales/(Spend) 2.1 21.6 2.0 0.2 (11.0)

The profit on player sales is slightly below the total sales figure as the accounting value for the player on the club’s balance sheet has to be subtracted. For Blues this gives;

  2022 2021 2020 2019 2018
Profit on player sales (£m) 3.1 26.5 11.5 4.4 2.0

Profit and loss

  • Another significant loss last season

Putting the revenue and costs together gives the following total profit and loss

P&L (£m) 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018
Profit before tax (24.8) (5.5) (18.4) (8.1) (37.5)

Blues recorded on overall loss of £24.8m, the worst for four years.  In the previous three seasons significant operating losses were offset by transfer profits or the sale of the ground.  Again, this makes them one of the most loss-making clubs in the Championship out of the 13 who have declared their results so far, with only Bristol City and Cardiff showing slightly worse losses.


  • The owners put in another £24m last season

In recent history the club has generally relied on cash injections from the owners to continue operating and this trend continued last season.  2021 was slightly different as the club relied on a loan from the football league and cash generated directly or indirectly by player sales.

  2022 2021 2020 2019 2018
Cash put in by owner (£m) 24.3 Nil? 18.9 23.8 39.7

You would therefore expect the club’s debt to go up.  But it didn’t, as the UK parent company Birmingham City PLC converted £52.6m of debt to equity.  Therefore the debt has gone down as shown below.

2021 debt to owners (£m) £87.0
Debt converted to equity (£m) -£52.6
Additional cash loaned from owners (£m) £24.3
2022 debt to owners (£m) £58.6

This conversion of some debt to equity is almost certainly for Profitability and Sustainability purposes as the allowed losses a club can make is greater if the owners have put in a certain amount of equity into the club in recent years.

The debt that the men’s football club owed each year over the last 5 years is shown below;

  2022 2021 2020 2019 2018
Debt to the owners (£m) 58.6 87.0 110.3 91.4 73.1

This debt is owed by the men’s football club to its UK parent company Birmingham City PLC who, in turn, owe the money to the ultimate owners of Blues, Birmingham City Sports Holdings Ltd (BHSL) and Oriental Rainbow Investments (ORI). However, the owners have not converted any of the debt owed to them by Birmingham City PLC to equity so although Birmingham City football club ‘only’ owes £58.6m to Birmingham City PLC, Birmingham City PLC still owes £116.8m to the ultimate owners.  This is broken down as £90.9m to BHSL and £25.9m to ORI according to the latest accounts, which suggests that the owners will struggle to recoup their debt even if the football club were ever in a position to pay it.

The Future

  • Keeping the club going

The accounts estimate that £23m will be needed to keep the club going from July 22 to December 23 which, presumably, includes money for stand repairs, although this is not stated.  On the plus side this is significantly less than the £40m estimated to keep the club running July 21 to December 2023 in the last accounts, which suggests that perhaps this season and next the club will finally get to grips with the wage bill.

Interestingly, a note in the accounts says that Maxco have provided £8m of support for the club between June 22 and December 23.  Presumably this is part of the £23m although this is not explicitly stated. As Daniel Ivery and others have pointed out, the wording in the note, “During this period, working capital of £7,970,000 was provided to the club by Maxco Capital Co Ltd as part of the Master Sale and Purchase Agreement relating to the sale of Oriental Rainbow Investments Ltd (ORIL) by its beneficial owners”  is slightly ambiguous as to whether that money is returnable from the club or from ORI.


The accounts make for pretty grim reading.  Revenue is still down on pre-Covid levels, likely at least in part due to the stand closures, and the wage bill is still high leading to high losses.  In turn this is likely to limit future wages and transfer activity due to profitability and sustainability limits.  The only minor glimmer of hope is that the cash injection required up to the end of this year is smaller than in the corresponding injection required 12 months ago, suggesting that the club is at last getting a handle on the wage bill.

Even if there is a new investor or a take-over on the horizon there will still be a substantial amount of work required to get Blues back on an even keel.

Blues Trust


Want to be a full member with voting rights?

We have options for 1 and 2 years at £5 per year.  There is also a 5 year membership for £20 so you get 5 years for the price of 4.  See information and options here.

By making comments:

  • All we ask is that it relates to the Club that we all love. It can inform, question, challenge, criticise even….but it should not be written to threaten and/or cause personal offence.
  • By making comments on the above article, you agree to Blues Trust retaining your email address should we need to make contact with you for admin purposes.   Let us know at if you do not wish us to do this.  We will not give out your email address to any 3rd party sources.

The Trust reserves the right to moderate any comments made (in consultation with the writer) or to deny publication if comments are considered to be inconsistent with the requirements identified above.


  1. Granaldo

    I have to say this is a brilliant summary of the accounts. It is very factual and avoids speculation.
    BSHL released interim accounts on the same day. Looking at these I cannot see how BSHL can sell BCFC unless the new owners take on the debts of BCFC/BC.
    The other problem is that BCS vave not filed accounts and are now 2 years behind. I still do not believe that BCFC have been paid for the stadium. The money due was put in a loan account which is gradually being whittled away. There has to be significant doubt that BCS/ORI will be able to repay what is left of the loan account.

  2. Mark R

    Thanks for this breakdown and summary Blues Trust-very helpful.
    I probably have many questions seeing these numbers, many of which are clearly not fully broken down, but one hopefully easy question here: looking at the revenue from Commercial (in the first table), why has this dropped to pretty much half the amounts generated in 2019 and 2020?
    Can Commercial not find a way to improve on this?
    My other observation is, as highlighted in your summary, we have been a selling club since post the Redknapp era, but looking at this we will increasingly need to be one for some time to have any hope of avoiding flouting FFP rules year on year.
    No doubt the Board are hoping Jude Bellingham moves on for big money in the Summer, but in addition they are possibly hoping a few of our good young uns sell for decent money too-depressing as this will be for us fans!
    A grim scenario whichever way you cut it.
    I’m praying for new owners with genuine love for our club and real business acumen!!

  3. Ed Truman

    Completely agree with Granaldo. A great summary Blues Trust. Thank you. Not everyone is an accountant so to have things explained simply is very helpful.

    But what a mess! Some of the figures are staggering and defy belief. A turnover ratio of 177%? Debt of £58m? Goodness gracious. Why on earth do the owners keep going? I don’t understand the HKSE listing benefit but it must be pretty special! Unless, of course, there are other reasons that they don’t want to disclose…..

  4. Stan Moye

    Factual and very informative, but at the same time totally bewildering. How the hell we can be paying out 177% of turnover on wages, if l’ve got this right, it’s totally suicidal.
    We clearly need to restructure the playing staff on more realistic wages. Whilst l’ve enjoyed seeing some of the loan players, it’s apparent that this type of player is beyond our means. Very interesting summer ahead on a lot of fronts.

Share This