Astute
Well-Known Member
Not thread hopping. Same subject more or less on two threads at the same time. Gets a bit confusing
We can't afford to be a Championship club? (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter skybluebeduff
- Start date
Not thread hopping. Same subject more or less on two threads at the same time. Gets a bit confusing
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Not thread hopping. Same subject more or less on two threads at the same time. Gets a bit confusing
As I've said i am stupid. I want you to explain OSB's post only on this thread and how it reconciles with your view on Bournemouth I will truly find it enlightening.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Never only on 2 threads don't believe it must be a first on here for a long timeNot thread hopping. Same subject more or less on two threads at the same time. Gets a bit confusing
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
1) the club won't be killed.
2) only 4 teams can play in the champions league, only 20 in the PL if mediocrity kills clubs why are there 72 football league clubs and a massive none league scene?
To say it will kill the club is pretty odd comment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Sorry I was wrong it will make it stronger
Astute
Well-Known Member
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Sorry I was wrong it will make it stronger
Don't be facetious. I never said it would make the club stronger, I said it wouldn't 'kill' the club.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
And we were paying quite a lot of rent
Astute
Well-Known Member
We were. And we might have to again. We are in the last year of the deal that brought us back. And we don't have a clue what we would be charged next season. And would it have been more for getting promoted?
Bournemouth rent their ground. It only holds 11.5k but they get charged 450k. They can afford it now. But it puts it into perspective what rent deals cost. We could bring up the clubs that don't pay much rent and pretend that they pay what is the norm. Just like we could bring up the most expensive rents and say that is.
Or how about the 175k we paid Northampton? People on here moan about only getting 23 days a year for 100k at the Ricoh. But it is just over half of what we paid Northampton for a much inferior ground.
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
You are absolutely right that the current deal is, financially, a bargain - although football takes second place to computer gamers. The Bournemouth deal sounds expensive for League 1 but cheap for the prem. Will we ever have a proper home for a decent price, who knows. It's all very sad.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
They're not making excuses why we can't succeed. On the flip side this thread is full of comments suggesting that the Club DOESN'T need any of this extra income. Funny, how all the other clubs throughout the leagues need it, just us who doesn't apparently. if it didn't matter then FFP wouldn't exist.
It's like all the hysterical girls last week wetting themselves over Waggot's season tickets comments. What? Clubs get more money when fans buy season tickets shocker.
No one is happy in League One and no one is "willing to put up with it".
It's like all the hysterical girls last week wetting themselves over Waggot's season tickets comments. What? Clubs get more money when fans buy season tickets shocker.
No one is happy in League One and no one is "willing to put up with it".
Last edited:
Astute
Well-Known Member
To me it isn't that we don't need as much income as we can get as we do. It is those that try to make out that all clubs get the revenue that we are now missing out on. Or make out that all the revenues for all other clubs is a massive amount and don't take the expenses into account.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
By your own admission Howe is a good manager. The wage bill is an expense. That expense was £17 million in the championship. Southampton secured promotion with a £29 million wage bill.
We also know that even when we had 20,000 people through the door a week the revenue generated was only £10 per customer.
Given that our actual genuine revenue is very limited. Under no circumstances would we be able to match clubs like Bournemouth. We would be a club that has far more in common with the likes of Rotherham.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
You keep using club's like Bournemouth and Southampton as examples and saying that we can't compete with them like someone is disagreeing with you which they aren't. We don't have multimillionaire owners who are willing to pump the difference in to be a Bournemouth of Southampton. How about a Charlton or a Huddersfield? Plant ourselves in mid table mediocrity in the championship rather than mid table mediocrity in league one because we can't be a Bournemouth or Southampton in championship? We don't have to be a Southampton or Bournemouth if we go up. What would it take to survive the league? Not win the league?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Found an article from Feb that says their owner has put in nearly £40m
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Not sure that's why I asked the question. How much are they throwing in? What gates and ticket revenue do they average per home game?
Doesn't necessarily have to be Huddersfield as the example either. Which other teams have enjoyed mid table mediocrity in the championship for a number of years? Let's be honest, currently that's the best we can hope for as a club for numerous reasons (without going into them) what does that cost to achieve? Can we achieve that without extra funding from our owners? That's what I'm interested in knowing.
I would say the reason we came down wasn't what we spent it was what we squandered. TM has control of the purse strings now and I have more confidence that he can spend it wiser than all who have gone before him. Both on the pitch and behind the scenes.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
We know from our previous time in the Championship that despite having decent crowds we were down in the bottom clubs in terms of revenue. So we'd be starting at a disadvantage. Of course not impossible as spend doesn't directly equate to success but I think it would be foolish to think there's not a link.
Of the 24 teams in the Championship up to 9 will be receiving parachute payments of over £20m a year. You then have to factor in the owners who will take a gamble and spend big. So realistically at least half the teams will have budgets that absolutely dwarf ours making it unlikely we will compete with them. Would the fans settle for season after season of hoping not to be relegated from the Championship?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Over how long a period? What is their actual debt?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Over season after season sitting in league one hoping not to get relegated I would and I would say so would the majority.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Just did a quick google of Charlton, Sheff Wed and Forest, who were mid table last season, and it looks like they've all had owners put in investments in the tens of millions.
Also saw reference to a football finance expert saying at least a £25m budget was needed to compete at that level.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I think it might be an idea to ask the club what the additional "match day" costs they actually pay to ACL/Wasps are. Perhaps a question at the next SCG meeting? Or even do they pay any?
What I would expect if they do pay is it would be made up of the things like following
- cost of staff supplied (excluding kiosk staff because that gets deducted from F&B income I would think before the % split is made)
- Cost of power & utilities (it is possible this is included in the rent)
- a contribution to Pitch preparation and maintenance (could be in the rent but doubt it)
- health & safety/ policing costs
- stewarding costs (not supplied by CCFC itself) - with part of the stadium closed then these can be minimised
- the cost of hospitality packages & parking - I would think this varies depending on number of packages sold
- Board room costs
The rent is a reflection of the quality and upkeep of the stadium bowl or would be if it hadn't been set at an artificially low level. So contribution to the stadium fabric/capital should be reflected in cost of rent
The point I am going to come back to is that despite the public proclamations that turnover is vital, the club is focussed by the directors on cost control and not necessarily income development.
- ST prices lowered considerably (welcome for the fans certainly) but reduced income by probably 245K if they don't climb above current levels (SCG minutes indicated 4700+ last year)
- matchday tickets dropped £2 (welcome for the fans certainly) but if crowds do not improve over last year could cost the £450k in turnover
- Shop sales say turnover £400k and after direct costs was £250K last year we now get a commission lets guess at 15% to count in SCMP - a drop of £200k ish
- Match day hospitality - those prices dropped by the club also say that reduces turnover by £100k (pure guess)
- programme sales say we sell 2000 per game at £3net that's 200K previously. Now we get a commission say what 20% £40k - a drop of £160k
- Cost of advertising reduced
- cost of executive boxes reduced
That's a reduction in Turnover decided by the club of over £1m or put another way a reduction in SCMP of £600k+ Highlights the real need to get more people going to games doesn't it. All guess work yes but you get the idea. What new sources of Turnover are being added or attempted? There are ways and partnerships by which it could be done
On the other side of that.
- Player budget down - although you could argue it is being better spent. Focus is on youth which is cheaper. Per SCG minutes approx. £2m SCMP budget previous year over £3m
- Non football staff wages reduced - only something like 5 staff & directors now employed. Significant savings
- No shop run by CCFC and all CCFC administrative functions now at Ryton so major savings there (may be additional cost of stadium outlet on match days)
- They haven't made use of third party finance to do scheme to spread ST costs
- The lounges have not been block booked. Cost only when used and the number of lounges (or space in them ) restricted to suit
- Travel costs reduced
- etc All made to fit the budget they have. But also the people they have in the offices etc.
all pretty much decisions made by the club
Now don't read the above wrongly it is not meant as a criticism of CCFC more a pointing out what now is. Lowering prices to encourage more customers is a recognised tactic of many businesses, being prudent about cost and only paying for what is absolutely necessary is not a bad thing either. It is a cost risk averse approach. But I think what it points out is that self sufficiency CCFC style is not necessarily about Turnover. It looks like they are prepared to reduce turnover to reduce costs
What I would expect if they do pay is it would be made up of the things like following
- cost of staff supplied (excluding kiosk staff because that gets deducted from F&B income I would think before the % split is made)
- Cost of power & utilities (it is possible this is included in the rent)
- a contribution to Pitch preparation and maintenance (could be in the rent but doubt it)
- health & safety/ policing costs
- stewarding costs (not supplied by CCFC itself) - with part of the stadium closed then these can be minimised
- the cost of hospitality packages & parking - I would think this varies depending on number of packages sold
- Board room costs
The rent is a reflection of the quality and upkeep of the stadium bowl or would be if it hadn't been set at an artificially low level. So contribution to the stadium fabric/capital should be reflected in cost of rent
The point I am going to come back to is that despite the public proclamations that turnover is vital, the club is focussed by the directors on cost control and not necessarily income development.
- ST prices lowered considerably (welcome for the fans certainly) but reduced income by probably 245K if they don't climb above current levels (SCG minutes indicated 4700+ last year)
- matchday tickets dropped £2 (welcome for the fans certainly) but if crowds do not improve over last year could cost the £450k in turnover
- Shop sales say turnover £400k and after direct costs was £250K last year we now get a commission lets guess at 15% to count in SCMP - a drop of £200k ish
- Match day hospitality - those prices dropped by the club also say that reduces turnover by £100k (pure guess)
- programme sales say we sell 2000 per game at £3net that's 200K previously. Now we get a commission say what 20% £40k - a drop of £160k
- Cost of advertising reduced
- cost of executive boxes reduced
That's a reduction in Turnover decided by the club of over £1m or put another way a reduction in SCMP of £600k+ Highlights the real need to get more people going to games doesn't it. All guess work yes but you get the idea. What new sources of Turnover are being added or attempted? There are ways and partnerships by which it could be done
On the other side of that.
- Player budget down - although you could argue it is being better spent. Focus is on youth which is cheaper. Per SCG minutes approx. £2m SCMP budget previous year over £3m
- Non football staff wages reduced - only something like 5 staff & directors now employed. Significant savings
- No shop run by CCFC and all CCFC administrative functions now at Ryton so major savings there (may be additional cost of stadium outlet on match days)
- They haven't made use of third party finance to do scheme to spread ST costs
- The lounges have not been block booked. Cost only when used and the number of lounges (or space in them ) restricted to suit
- Travel costs reduced
- etc All made to fit the budget they have. But also the people they have in the offices etc.
all pretty much decisions made by the club
Now don't read the above wrongly it is not meant as a criticism of CCFC more a pointing out what now is. Lowering prices to encourage more customers is a recognised tactic of many businesses, being prudent about cost and only paying for what is absolutely necessary is not a bad thing either. It is a cost risk averse approach. But I think what it points out is that self sufficiency CCFC style is not necessarily about Turnover. It looks like they are prepared to reduce turnover to reduce costs
Last edited:
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Its an interesting point as I heard Steve Parish on radio the other week (Crystal Palace chairman) and he reckons a 9 million budget should see you mid table in the championship.
4waspsting
Active Member
it doesnt really matter we are nothing as a club its just a day out for most supporters
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Again over how long? Sheffield Wednesday and Forest aren't exactly what you'd call stable clubs either. Jump from manager to manager as if that's the answer which must cost them a few quid on it's own spanking loads on players that don't deliver. Not so different from our failed game plan when we we're last there. That's a money pit all on it's own.
There's that word compete again. What do you actually mean by compete? Compete for automatic promotion? Compete for a playoff place? Compete for mid table mediocrity? Compete for successfully missing out on relegation?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
If we don;t get into ownership questions, if we have little in the way of benefactors, we'd probably have to depend on either growing from youth saleable assets, or finding players cheap in the lower divisions, and selling them on for a profit.
That also becomes harder in the modern day however... as we've certainly shown. Curbishley at Charlton's the best example, where they'd sell a player, re-invest some of the cash on 2-3 players, and keep a surplus for club running costs. With a global player market and freedom of movement, though, it's tricky to get right.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I'm not going to pick through every clubs accounts but its pretty clear we're at a big disadvantage.
We are being run as self sufficient - hard to argue that shouldn't be the case. We know for a fact that the teams receiving parachute payments, which can be up to nine teams in the Championship in any one season, will have an additional £20m plus on top of their regular budget. We know that several clubs will have owners who are prepared to 'have a punt' and we know, from figures shown on the forum several times, that when previously in the Championship while getting decent crowds and a fully running commercial side of the club our revenue was the fourth lowest in the division.
I would conclude from that we will have one of the lowest player budgets in the division and therefore, although spend is not directly linked to performance, will struggle to compete. To be competitive in my mind we'd be talking about at least mid-table if not challenging higher up. The reality for us is that it will be regular relegation battles unless we punch above our weight.
The saddest part is that the sale of ACL to Wasps means that even when we do finally see the back of SISU things are unlikely to improve. Our only real options for a brighter future are:
1) Wasps fail and sell ACL at a reasonable price;
2) Someone funds a new ground, they would essentially need to gift the cost of the land and build;
3) A billionaire owner who doesn't mind losing money;
4) Significant changes in regulation and revenue sharing to level the playing field - we would still be behind others but the difference might be smaller.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
And the amount developing clubs are entitled to for younger players has been reduced, don't think anyone would be surprised if it was reduced again in the future as obviously all the PL clubs are short on cash to pay a decent amount for them.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Just sort out a good rent deal look at West Ham they are now getting a ground for vertualy nothing if the figures coming out are correct so therefore they are in a better situation then all the ground owning clubs.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Watford are a club who have done well whilst not spending too much cash, they have there special arrangement with Udinese as well through the owners which helps.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I think they have a Local Authority that sees benefits of local sport in the community. Unlike some I could mention.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33780720
Is It not more like a beneficial situation through the Taxpayer /Olympic Authority thats seems to have been benign to them?
I'm not absolutely sure on the figures but I think they're liable to pay around £3M per season much like Man City.
lifeskyblue
Well-Known Member
We will never know until we get there! Until then speculation. If/when we are on the up some consortia/individual may come in for us. Wasps if they stay at Ricoh may do us a good deal. Sisu may build another stadia etc etc
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
It's believed to be £2m - £2.5m however with the way the stadium costs are being funded it is said to be effectively rent free.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33780720