Attendance Vs. Wigan (2 Viewers)

[Astute]

Still don't fully understand this "they get extra revenue" bit. Okay we don't own the Ricoh, but we never did we have always rented it, we currently pay less than 10% than we originally paid, we were the biggest gate by 5000 that would be a £100000+ a match more than most in this league if it carried on like that, that's over 2 million quid more than most, What restrictions do they have compared to us ?

Because it sounds good in a debate. Look at a lot of grounds we visit. We are supposed to be worse off than them because they might own their own ground. But all they have is a bit of grass in the middle and stands all around. But it can cost more in upkeep than we pay in rent.

Or how about the 23 days a year thing? Our last U21 game was at the Ricoh. It is people telling us what they know whilst taking guesses.

 

---

[stupot07]

Because it sounds good in a debate. Look at a lot of grounds we visit. We are supposed to be worse off than them because they might own their own ground. But all they have is a bit of grass in the middle and stands all around. But it can cost more in upkeep than we pay in rent.

Or how about the 23 days a year thing? Our last U21 game was at the Ricoh. It is people telling us what they know whilst taking guesses.

The flip side of this is the Turnover we had in the championship = bottom 4 revenues despite midtable attendances. Not having access to all matchday and other revenues does impact. However, it shouldn't be a major limiting factor in this league when your consider that our higher attendances than average attendances. It is in the championship when everything falls down.

Re: U21's being at the Ricoh, that would have likely cost us extra to hire the pitch and yet would have yielded no income, so not sure what point you're trying to prove. When people mention 23 days they're talking about revenue making potential.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[rupert_bear]

Don't get me wrong being self sustainable is the way to go and if Mr Fisher is to be believed that i quote we are now cash flow positive and Mr Waggott's we need 11000 to satisfy the current SCMP thats good and i think we will achieve that. I am not saying we should throw thousands more on the team, but i think a £2.5million budget, if that's the figure is very low to be honest.

Also if we have to pay extra for other games such as U/21s, JPT and other cup-ties, tell us, and what the cost is.

 

[stupot07]

It sounds lower than it is, to put it in perspective Yeovil got promoted out of this league with a wage bill of £800k.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...Town-preparing-face-Brentford-play-final.html

£2.5m is more than adequate to get out of this league.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[chiefdave]

Because it sounds good in a debate. Look at a lot of grounds we visit. We are supposed to be worse off than them because they might own their own ground. But all they have is a bit of grass in the middle and stands all around. But it can cost more in upkeep than we pay in rent.

Or how about the 23 days a year thing? Our last U21 game was at the Ricoh. It is people telling us what they know whilst taking guesses.

It should be possible for us to get out of this division, I think most people accept that. There are some things we do know, we know we have a budget in the top third of the league, the trust have seen evidence of this, and we know that to achieve that we need an average attendance of 11K. That alone shows you the position we are in, while we can be competitive in this division we need much higher attendances than the majority of clubs to reach that level.

he problem is after promotion, even the independent expert the CT wheeled out said we'd have problems being competitive and of course we've seen the data from our previous time in the championship showing that despite good attendances we were towards the bottom of the league in revenue.

We do only rent for matchdays, extra days use means an extra charge. There's also an issue regarding ACL, under Wasps management, interpretation of what we rent. It seems to have been cut back to the bare minimum with a charge for anything additional.

 

[rupert_bear]

What would happen next season should we get promotion, I would think we would sell mores STs but I don't see gates doubling on a regular basis, players would want higher wages and cost more to sign. Would that be a bridge to far for owner owners ?

 

[ATB81]

Wigan attendance could be a good sign for the away attendance this saturday against Millwall, 1300-1500 maybe?

 

[oldskyblue58]

You might hope that what the club have rights to in terms of occupancy was detailed clearly in the contract they signed.

Also you would have to query which of the events that stops usage of the lounges were booked before the club returned to the Ricoh. For instance the Insomnia gaming festival was signed up before the CCFC return and I believe was a 5 year deal. They must have been aware of that and its likely effect before the return - if not they should have been

Yes other clubs might get other incomes but they also get other costs not only in respect of stadium operation but also directly related to the other incomes. It is not as simple as saying we get that income they get that income aren't we hard done by...... you need in terms of being able to finance success to look at both sides of the equation

Presently the stadium cost (excluding stewards) would appear to be 1/23 x 100000 rent = £4348 per match and on Saturday the club must have taken in excess of £100,000. Compare that with other teams who must bare the full cost of stadium & pitch maintenance/upkeep (likely to be well north of £100k pa) and average say 6000 fans or £60,000 per match.

If the reduction in costs is greater than the rights to income not obtained then which is the more important?

The turnover sets the SCMP budget yes (but even that is not the full business budget and doesn't include all players), ........ it is the level of positive cash flow that finances any potential for success on the pitch. Especially if the club is to be self sufficient

That is not to say turnover is not important, that it shouldn't be maximised and the club should not have more in an ideal world

 

[rupert_bear]

So oldskyblue58 is there a hint of smoke and mirrors then. In your opinion

 

[oldskyblue58]

So oldskyblue58 is there a hint of smoke and mirrors then. In your opinion

The club do not have to give details of the finances until accounts are published. They are not wrong that an increase of income from any source would not be useful. There is an SCMP budget that is affected by various incomes. They appear to have cut costs and put savings in to financing the squad, although the level of finance going in to the playing side seems to have reduced year by year. Think they are choosing what comments to make and how - but what business wouldn't. They are absolutely right that match day income is vital.

Up to us not to take things at face value, and to try to look behind at the whole picture not just the pixels we are pointed at.

Not smoke and mirrors as such more a managed PR (which any business would do)

What comes out or doesn't come out of the club at the moment I have no real problem with to be fair. Aside from CCFC having to be self sufficient then the objectives of the owners have not changed nor would I expect them to. The owners are saying little about their actions or future plans for the club (stadium or otherwise).

To be honest its good we are all concentrating on the team for a while - I think everyone is feeling the benefit of that

 

[stupot07]

You might hope that what the club have rights to in terms of occupancy was detailed clearly in the contract they signed.

Also you would have to query which of the events that stops usage of the lounges were booked before the club returned to the Ricoh. For instance the Insomnia gaming festival was signed up before the CCFC return and I believe was a 5 year deal. They must have been aware of that and its likely effect before the return - if not they should have been

Yes other clubs might get other incomes but they also get other costs not only in respect of stadium operation but also directly related to the other incomes. It is not as simple as saying we get that income they get that income aren't we hard done by...... you need in terms of being able to finance success to look at both sides of the equation

Presently the stadium cost (excluding stewards) would appear to be 1/23 x 100000 rent = £4348 per match and on Saturday the club must have taken in excess of £100,000. Compare that with other teams who must bare the full cost of stadium & pitch maintenance/upkeep (likely to be well north of £100k pa) and average say 6000 fans or £60,000 per match.

If the reduction in costs is greater than the rights to income not obtained then which is the more important?

The turnover sets the SCMP budget yes (but even that is not the full business budget and doesn't include all players), ........ it is the level of positive cash flow that finances any potential for success on the pitch. Especially if the club is to be self sufficient

That is not to say turnover is not important, that it shouldn't be maximised and the club should not have more in an ideal world

I think you're being a tad unfair there OSB. We also pay matchday costs, we don't get 100% profits on F&B's (I'd be surprised with the compass contract of ours isn't the smallest profit margin in football by some distance), we don't get 100% parking, we only get limited pitchside advertising which has to be removable, we can't ad/sell more advertising around the stands (e.g those on the balcony on the main stand will be paying wasps), we can't sell stand sponsorship, ground sponsorship, advertising boards around the outside of the ground, don't get 100% parking, don't get additional 365 revenues from selling meetin/function room. A lot of lower league teams rent their pitch to PL U21/reserve sides, a bigger ground and higher attendances mean higher steward/turnstile/police/ambulance costs. And that's just around matchday. Then you have to balance ticket prices, we have the third lowest ST's in the league so that will impact - for example me, my grandad and 2 boys cost average £5.38 (inc vat) per match,

I agree with the turnover vs useable revenue argument, but we also likely as a more established league club to have more medical staff, etc, we also have a cat 2 academy (£500k pa), I don't imagine many in league one will have? The like you said we're on a commission base for shop and programmes - lower risk but lower income, etc.

We're fine in this league, our fan base should bring enough revenue in to be competitive, but it does fall down in the championship, people focus too much on beer & burgers and not on the whole plethora of extra incomes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[oldskyblue58]

Just trying to keep it simple stupot07 But All fair points

The margin wont be great on the F&B no but there are no cashflow costs/risks to it either. No we cant sell ground/ stand sponsorship and fixed advertising as it stands no but then again we don't have the associated costs of 365 day ground upkeep either.

Don't all teams have match day costs - wasn't sure whether or not CCFC paid these in addition to rent or not. But match day costs are not exclusive to CCFC. Did we contribute to the new pitch going down for instance - other teams would have to bear the cost themselves 100%. Also we restrict match day costs by not using all the ground.

The club chose the ticket prices they did not need to be £249 and third cheapest. I still reckon that they will have taken over £100k net of VAT last Saturday not many teams in L1 are going to match that

Could they hire space to put on those conferences/meetings etc? There are options to generate turnover and the club have accepted on things like Shop & progs that a smaller margin/net profit is acceptable if it suits

Do we know that CCFC are prevented from using some of the advertising or even sponsorship options or is it they don't want or haven't got the cashflow to pay for the right to do it instead choosing to put cashflow in to the team instead

There are ways that even CCFC could generate additional turnovers. Not all teams have the same income streams or have the ability to have all those streams

For fans appetite whilst we are in L1 then we are pointed towards the need for turnover, and yet all the set up and other information indicates that it is cashflow that is important to the club and that the club is prepared to sacrifice some turnover to achieve positive cashflow and lower cost risk

The point is it is not as simple as some make it out to be. On some things we miss out when compared to others, on others we choose not to do, but on some things relating to Turnover we are in a better position than most. That works on the costs as well

Do we maximise what we have or can get?

 

[Astute]

I think you're being a tad unfair there OSB. We also pay matchday costs, we don't get 100% profits on F&B's (I'd be surprised with the compass contract of ours isn't the smallest profit margin in football by some distance), we don't get 100% parking, we only get limited pitchside advertising which has to be removable, we can't ad/sell more advertising around the stands (e.g those on the balcony on the main stand will be paying wasps), we can't sell stand sponsorship, ground sponsorship, advertising boards around the outside of the ground, don't get 100% parking, don't get additional 365 revenues from selling meetin/function room. A lot of lower league teams rent their pitch to PL U21/reserve sides, a bigger ground and higher attendances mean higher steward/turnstile/police/ambulance costs. And that's just around matchday. Then you have to balance ticket prices, we have the third lowest ST's in the league so that will impact - for example me, my grandad and 2 boys cost average £5.38 (inc vat) per match,

I agree with the turnover vs useable revenue argument, but we also likely as a more established league club to have more medical staff, etc, we also have a cat 2 academy (£500k pa), I don't imagine many in league one will have? The like you said we're on a commission base for shop and programmes - lower risk but lower income, etc.

We're fine in this league, our fan base should bring enough revenue in to be competitive, but it does fall down in the championship, people focus too much on beer & burgers and not on the whole plethora of extra incomes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

What is the average F&B and what is the average profit?

How many clubs get parking revenues? I have never paid to park my car at away games. Yet you mention it twice.

All clubs pay matchday costs.

How many stadiums make money on meeting/function rooms?

Cat 2 academy? How much did they get for Wilson?

How can you celebrate the cheap tickets then say it is harming our future? How does Bradford survive?

Show me all the clubs that make millions from their stadium and for each one that does I will show you several that do not.

 

[chiefdave]

I get a feeling the graph is going to be making an appearance again soon.

 

[Nick]

What is the average F&B and what is the average profit?

How many clubs get parking revenues? I have never paid to park my car at away games. Yet you mention it twice.

All clubs pay matchday costs.

How many stadiums make money on meeting/function rooms?

Cat 2 academy? How much did they get for Wilson?

How can you celebrate the cheap tickets then say it is harming our future? How does Bradford survive?

Show me all the clubs that make millions from their stadium and for each one that does I will show you several that do not.

Don't most clubs charge for car parking in the official car parks at the ground or do they just let everybody in for free (apart from VIP, corporate etc)?

 

[Astute]

I get a feeling the graph is going to be making an appearance again soon.

Not me that is trying to make out that just about every club earns money from just about everything that we don't.

 

[Astute]

Don't most clubs charge for car parking in the official car parks at the ground or do they just let everybody in for free (apart from VIP, corporate etc)?

How many clubs have lots of car parking spaces like the Ricoh does? Many of them if they do have spaces do not have many. It isn't an income like the Ricoh spaces are. Unless it is a new ground it is normally surrounded by terraced houses.

How many spaces to sell did HR have?

 

[chiefdave]

How many clubs have lots of car parking spaces like the Ricoh does? Many of them if they do have spaces do not have many. It isn't an income like the Ricoh spaces are. Unless it is a new ground it is normally surrounded by terraced houses.

How many spaces to sell did HR have?

All clubs have parking as FL regulations require parking be provided for directors, players, officials, press etc. Of course that doesn't mean every club has them but many do. Even HR had a car park opposite the ticket office. Our issue is we have to pay ACL to use the car park so again rather than making money we are spending money. Now of course we can buy spaces to sell on at a premium but I don't think we do at present and we don't know how much ACL would want or if they are even available or have been sold on elsewhere.

 

[Astute]

All clubs have parking as FL regulations require parking be provided for directors, players, officials, press etc. Of course that doesn't mean every club has them but many do. Even HR had a car park opposite the ticket office. Our issue is we have to pay ACL to use the car park so again rather than making money we are spending money. Now of course we can buy spaces to sell on at a premium but I don't think we do at present and we don't know how much ACL would want or if they are even available or have been sold on elsewhere.

You say that we don't get all the money on income for parking spaces that other clubs get. So how much do directors, players officials, press etc pay?

 

[chiefdave]

You say that we don't get all the money on income for parking spaces that other clubs get. So how much do directors, players officials, press etc pay?

That's kind of the point! The club has to provide those spaces free of charge under league regulations therefore we have to pay ACL, or whoever they have sold the parking to, for those spaces. We would also need to pay them for any other spaces we wanted to purchase to sell on to regular spectators. Of course there's nothing to say ACL have to sell them to the club even if the club try and buy them.

 

[stupot07]

What is the average F&B and what is the average profit?

How many clubs get parking revenues? I have never paid to park my car at away games. Yet you mention it twice.

All clubs pay matchday costs.

How many stadiums make money on meeting/function rooms?

Cat 2 academy? How much did they get for Wilson?

How can you celebrate the cheap tickets then say it is harming our future? How does Bradford survive?

Show me all the clubs that make millions from their stadium and for each one that does I will show you several that do not.

Pretty sure Waggott said at a fans forum they got 40% profit on F&B's at Charlton, we get 50% of 12% (acl FAQ's). I worked it out it's about £2.90 spend per person.

So we had 13k X£2.90 = £37.7k, 12% profit is £4.5k, our 50 of that profit % £2.25k

So let's say others get 40%. 8k x£2.90 = £23.2k, 40% profit £9.3k

Pretty sure most clubs have some form of parking, an even if they don't, we have a huge car park we should be making money from.

All stadiums make money in function rooms, I have pasted loads of examples on here before. Why don't you check on the commercial tabs of some football clubs and have a look for yourself?

We got £2-3m for Wilson, not sure what your point is, we lost £7m that season despite selling Wilson. It's still about cash flow and the cat 2 academy is still a big (but well worth it) expense.

You can both celebrate lower ticket prices and be mindful of the impact on revenue. Not sure why you think it has to be one or the other. Unless Bradford get promoted, we don't know how they would survive. I imagine they will ramp their ticket prices significantly on promotion. As said many times (but seems to be falling on deaf ears) - the shear size of ours (and Bradfords) fan base means that we should be competitive despite cheaper tickets. I'm just saying that a bigger crowd doesn't necessarily mean more money if ticket prices are cheaper. The full house vs PNE £5 per head would have bright in less than a league game with 11k fans at full price tickets.

And as for providing you research, sorry got better things to do. Again what we do know is that in the championship rent only limited access to revenues our turnover is considerably limited. Bottom 4 turnover despite midtable attendances, . Football finance experts have also said we will struggle under this model in the championship, as we have done since we were relegated over a decade ago.

This is pointless debate, I agree with OSB I'm not sure we're exploiting everything we can but let's not bury our head in the sand and say everything's hunky dory under a rent/limited access to revenue model.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[torchomatic]

It's weird how many of our own fans seem desperate to show that not having access to revenue is a good thing.