D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Quite old now, mind. Was the first of the new stadiums... if such a thing exists!
Quite old now, mind. Was the first of the new stadiums... if such a thing exists!That's strange really, Glandford Park is a 'new stadium' itself. Nice design.
This is my whole problem, full-stop, though, that football is all about the finance.The balance sheet or sporting achievement?
If I was running the show I advice SISU that you have to speculate to accumulate. There is no better time to do it than division4 where the investment would not need to be extortionate.
I would convince them that under Robins we have a genuine chance. I would convince them to give Robins a top 2 budget. I would convince them that we need to earn the fans trust.
I would devise a scheme where you agree to buy a season ticket for £300. You pay £100 upfront. At the halfway point of the season. If we are not within 9 points of the playoffs you can walk away if you choose however if we are within 9 points you are automatically charged the £200
It's shows firstly SISU are prepared to give us a top two budget and do want success.
It shows they have confidence that we will achieve it.
It's an incentive and a thank you to the loyal fans who no longer believe and are about to walk away.
For SISU you are speculating to accumulate, of course there is a gamble. However under the current plan the drop in ticket sales will result in us been very lucky if we can mount a challenge.
But beyond all that shit the useless **** has presided over 'TWO' relegations.Our crowds are more than decent for this level.
Our rent is quite low, even for this level.
We are handed a percentage of match day revenue, with no financial risk to ourselves.
We have received substantial sums for players we have sold.
We outsource shop, ticket sales etc so therefore incur no costs ourselves.
We have just had a money-spinning day out at Wembley.
It baffles me how this man can keep spouting the shit he does, then despite this being
Proven beyond doubt, some give him the benefit of the doubt and suck it up.
I'll have a proper read through later on at work. I'm doing the classic night shift, 'trying to sleep in the day and instantly being wide awake for no reason', routine at the moment.
This is the disclosure for Walsall, roughly 40% more non match receipt income, despite significantly lower crowds....Just to give you an idea of income sources this is how Scunthorpe United disclose theirs in the 2016 accounts
View attachment 7134
this is the disclosure for CCFC
View attachment 7135
This is the disclosure for Walsall, roughly 40% more non match receipt income, despite significantly lower crowds....
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
This is what grinds my gears.Final The
Turnover SUFC £3.7m Player sales £0 total spend before interest 6.9m
Turnover CCFC £5.4m Player sales £2.5m total spend before interest 7.3m
League position
SUFC 7th
CCFC 8th
Its not all about the money and turnover
Looks like their play off run brought in roughly a million.This is the disclosure for Walsall, roughly 40% more non match receipt income, despite significantly lower crowds....
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Looks like their play off run brought in roughly a million.
Do you have their outgoings?
They made £500k profit, in fact they have made profits for something like 11 of their last 12 yearsDo you have their outgoings?
Match receipts are pretty small.
They make income from having 365 days revenue and it's a significant revenue versus rental cost.
I tried explaining to someone else on another thread but I have given up.
Looks like their play off run brought in roughly a million.
They made £500k profit, in fact they have made profits for something like 11 of their last 12 years
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Ah.Match receipts are pretty small.
They make income from having 365 days revenue and it's a significant revenue versus rental cost.
I tried explaining to someone else on another thread but I have given up.
Why are you fixating on the pies, it would be a smallish proportion of the turnover & profit even if the margins were doubled or even trebled.Margin should generally run 25-35% for stadium catering. However if you also factor in that our prices are the highest in the league (according to the BBC's price of football survey) then it is reasonable to suggest the margin should be higher.
But even if it isn't you'd be looking at £360K compare to £70K, a not insignificant amount at this level. And of course if we were successful and attendances increased that number would rise.
Here is the bit that Grendel highlighted earlier, different clubs have different definitions of match or commercial income
You also have to look at the fact they got to the playoff semi finals, good cup runs against big(ger) teams including Chelsea and put on a pop concert. All that will have affected the following
- shop sales (we franchise ours)
- TV money
- sponsorship (I assume Banks pay for the name) but cup runs attract others
- prize money
- event income (the one category we apparently can not possibly access the others above we can especially this season despite relegation)
- They rent the stadium but have income rights but also the right to pick up all the stadium running costs
our turnover despite ultimate failure was 5.4m, their success brought them in another £1m. Wonder what the comparison will be like for this season where both teams have dipped but we had Wembley
their total wage bill 3.447m ................ ours 4.306m.... value for money?
This isn't a knock at our Trust Steve but why the hell wasn't what OSB has put put to Fisher at that meeting a few weeks ago ? Would I believe put him right on the spot.Thank You OSB,
When its put this way it starts to make you want to ask more questions.;
But isn't that run by Bescott promotions and aren't the council part of it?gYes it's impossible. Some revenues include sales and others don't. The one I quoted (Walsall) does have the exceptional ground billboard values and its 200 stall market hire. So all positions are unique.
At the moment though the club is benefitting from an exceptional rental arrangement which will not be offered again. If a normal commercial rent is applied and we remain we then become very uncompetitive.
Personally I just assume its used as a shorthand. He doesn't explain everything in detail at the best of times so he's not going to drill down on the finances in a statement like the one he made yesterday. If you look at what he said:Look the figures & % ages etc are going to vary from team to team. The point of the first post was that we have more income than match day tickets, the assertion made by Fisher in his statement yesterday was simply incorrect
then what is the better, more accurate, term for him to use? I think we all know what he's getting at, he's been banging on about it for long enough.We are unlike most other football clubs, in that we do not benefit from non-ticketing revenue. The club does not get either matchday non-ticketing revenues or non-matchday revenues. We are therefore pushed to generate most income via ticketing means, and this puts pressure on the current Season Ticket pricing structure.
He's banging on about us paying for his mistakes whereas it should be SISUPersonally I just assume its used as a shorthand. He doesn't explain everything in detail at the best of times so he's not going to drill down on the finances in a statement like the one he made yesterday. If you look at what he said:
then what is the better, more accurate, term for him to use? I think we all know what he's getting at, he's been banging on about it for long enough.
Personally I just assume its used as a shorthand. He doesn't explain everything in detail at the best of times so he's not going to drill down on the finances in a statement like the one he made yesterday. If you look at what he said:
then what is the better, more accurate, term for him to use? I think we all know what he's getting at, he's been banging on about it for long enough.
Personally I just assume its used as a shorthand. He doesn't explain everything in detail at the best of times so he's not going to drill down on the finances in a statement like the one he made yesterday. If you look at what he said:
then what is the better, more accurate, term for him to use? I think we all know what he's getting at, he's been banging on about it for long enough.
Has Tony and G finished their daily row, was it on this thread.
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?