| The Bigger Cost? 13:10 - Feb 20 with 7418 views | Toffeemanc |
After watching last nights game and the gutting end result I've started thinking about next season. I'm convinced after last night that we will be in League Two next season as no team who defends like we do could ever hope to stay up.
With seemingly more fans than ever prepared to ditch Hill I started to wonder If we are relegated about the financial implications of the drop.
I know dropping into League Two will see us receive significantly less TV revenue than staying in League one and obviously a playing budget to match.
If the board decided to sack Hill we would also need to pay him off which would be a substantial amount for the club.
I'm genuinely left wondering one question, which would cost the club more?
Is the drop in TV revenues big enough for the board to consider sacking Hill now and paying him off in the hope of avoiding the drop and staying in league one and having the higher TV revenues for next season, some of which would no doubt be spent towards Hills payoff.
Or is the cost of paying Hill off going to cost the club more than the drop in TV revenues and therefore the board will stick with him as he would be happy to operate on a further reduced budget in League Two next season.
I've no idea personally of the figures involved so find it hard to make a judgement one way or the other, but was left wondering if anybody else has any knowledge / thoughts on the situation.
|  |
| |  |
| The Bigger Cost? on 13:34 - Feb 20 with 4718 views | dawlishdale |
This is an excellent question, and one that I discussed with a Director last season.
He told me that adding everything together (TV money, season ticket sales, away fans income , sponsorship etc,) relegation would cost us somewhere itro £750k-1m per season.
Of course, you have to subtract a proportion of this because of reduced player salaries and less paid in bonuses etc, but overall, he estimated that we would be £3-500k per year worse off as a club by dropping into L2.
Perhaps this is why we were desperate to offload anyone who was saleable in January, as it's become quite obvious that our experiment to increase the playing budget this year has backfired massively. Players brought in on higher wages have largely disappointed, and those given pay increases have not responded with better performances.
The other point, is that Hill's 5 year contract, which was largely applauded on here has come back to bite us on the bum in that not only can we ill afford to sack him (and he surely would have been sacked by now had he had the usual 12 month rolling contract) but every time we sell a player, he benefits personally, and if that isn't a conflict of interest, I don't know what is.
Adshead would be a prime example of the conflict, as Hill would have stood to gain hugely from a financial point of view if he were sold in January.
Having hardly figured before November, Adshead started 8 out of 9 games from late November through to Mid January, but hasn't started a single game since the transfer window shut... talk about unsubtle !!! Wonder if the Directors have picked up on this? |  | | |
| The Bigger Cost? on 13:35 - Feb 20 with 4711 views | sweetcorn |
Your scenario suggests that a new manager would keep us up..
I don’t see this as the case. This team is bobbins. |  |
| Leader of the little gang of immature cretins. |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 13:45 - Feb 20 with 4667 views | EllDale |
I'm normally an optimist by nature but I think that the game is up.
I can't see where the next win is going to come from with our brittle defence and porous midfield.
And that awful goal difference might be worse after we've been to places like Luton and Portsmouth.
Fifty years ago we celebrated promotion against Southend; the game against them this time could be a morbid wake. | | | |
| The Bigger Cost? on 13:49 - Feb 20 with 4646 views | ParkinsGimp |
I am worried since we are stuck with KJH the GME next season we could drop even further if he continues to sign sub standard players or offers unrealistic contracts to crap players like McNulty and Andrew. | | | |
| The Bigger Cost? on 15:17 - Feb 20 with 4476 views | James1980 |
I asked a similar question a few weeks back about whether the clubs decision to stick with Hill is based on a cost benefit analysis of all permutations. | |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 15:33 - Feb 20 with 4432 views | richfoad32 |
| The Bigger Cost? on 15:17 - Feb 20 by James1980 |
I asked a similar question a few weeks back about whether the clubs decision to stick with Hill is based on a cost benefit analysis of all permutations. |
I should imagine it would be a large consideration, the 5 year contract is now looking like an albatross rather than the coup a lot of people (including me) thought it was at the time. You seem very pro Hill, what would your stance be if the financial implications of binning him off weren't nearly as great? | | | |
| The Bigger Cost? on 16:37 - Feb 20 with 4321 views | James1980 |
| The Bigger Cost? on 15:33 - Feb 20 by richfoad32 |
I should imagine it would be a large consideration, the 5 year contract is now looking like an albatross rather than the coup a lot of people (including me) thought it was at the time. You seem very pro Hill, what would your stance be if the financial implications of binning him off weren't nearly as great? |
Considering the opinions that we are heading for League 2 regardless of the gaffer. I would say stick with him until it is mathematically impossible to stay up at least. | |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 17:06 - Feb 20 with 4255 views | DaleiLama |
| The Bigger Cost? on 13:34 - Feb 20 by dawlishdale |
This is an excellent question, and one that I discussed with a Director last season.
He told me that adding everything together (TV money, season ticket sales, away fans income , sponsorship etc,) relegation would cost us somewhere itro £750k-1m per season.
Of course, you have to subtract a proportion of this because of reduced player salaries and less paid in bonuses etc, but overall, he estimated that we would be £3-500k per year worse off as a club by dropping into L2.
Perhaps this is why we were desperate to offload anyone who was saleable in January, as it's become quite obvious that our experiment to increase the playing budget this year has backfired massively. Players brought in on higher wages have largely disappointed, and those given pay increases have not responded with better performances.
The other point, is that Hill's 5 year contract, which was largely applauded on here has come back to bite us on the bum in that not only can we ill afford to sack him (and he surely would have been sacked by now had he had the usual 12 month rolling contract) but every time we sell a player, he benefits personally, and if that isn't a conflict of interest, I don't know what is.
Adshead would be a prime example of the conflict, as Hill would have stood to gain hugely from a financial point of view if he were sold in January.
Having hardly figured before November, Adshead started 8 out of 9 games from late November through to Mid January, but hasn't started a single game since the transfer window shut... talk about unsubtle !!! Wonder if the Directors have picked up on this? |
When this subject was first mooted on here I argued exactly this, in terms of conflict of interest, but remember that I was very much in the minority holding this viewpoint. My opinion hasn't changed one iota since. The manager should be rewarded over and above his contract based on performance only. If he contributes to increased profitability, I see no reason not to include a profit share element too. I strongly disagree with him getting a direct share of sale profits. Always have and always will. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Bigger Cost? on 17:38 - Feb 20 with 4180 views | richfoad32 |
| The Bigger Cost? on 17:06 - Feb 20 by DaleiLama |
When this subject was first mooted on here I argued exactly this, in terms of conflict of interest, but remember that I was very much in the minority holding this viewpoint. My opinion hasn't changed one iota since. The manager should be rewarded over and above his contract based on performance only. If he contributes to increased profitability, I see no reason not to include a profit share element too. I strongly disagree with him getting a direct share of sale profits. Always have and always will. |
I may have missed it but has it ever been actually admitted that Hill receives a cut of any transfer fees paid or is it just speculation? | | | |
| The Bigger Cost? on 17:55 - Feb 20 with 4135 views | rochdaleriddler |
| The Bigger Cost? on 13:35 - Feb 20 by sweetcorn |
Your scenario suggests that a new manager would keep us up..
I don’t see this as the case. This team is bobbins. |
I Think the team is playing. bobbins because of Hill, and someone new could get more out of them. If the players really are bobbins, then that is entirely down to the manager also |  |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 17:58 - Feb 20 with 4120 views | James1980 |
If rumours are true about transfer bonuses, if the 5 year deal is included. Were the board naive/incompetent to offer such a good deal with what appears to be no strings attached? In hindsight of course. | |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 18:03 - Feb 20 with 4102 views | richfoad32 |
| The Bigger Cost? on 17:58 - Feb 20 by James1980 |
If rumours are true about transfer bonuses, if the 5 year deal is included. Were the board naive/incompetent to offer such a good deal with what appears to be no strings attached? In hindsight of course. |
So it is just rumours then? A lot of people seem to be treating it as gospel. I'm not Hill's biggest fan but using it as another stick to beat him without any actual proof is pretty low. | | | |
| The Bigger Cost? on 18:06 - Feb 20 with 4083 views | James1980 |
| The Bigger Cost? on 18:03 - Feb 20 by richfoad32 |
So it is just rumours then? A lot of people seem to be treating it as gospel. I'm not Hill's biggest fan but using it as another stick to beat him without any actual proof is pretty low. |
Hence my qualifying if it is true | |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 18:08 - Feb 20 with 4077 views | rochdaleriddler |
| The Bigger Cost? on 18:03 - Feb 20 by richfoad32 |
So it is just rumours then? A lot of people seem to be treating it as gospel. I'm not Hill's biggest fan but using it as another stick to beat him without any actual proof is pretty low. |
I’ve been told by someone close to the club that it is definately true, Hill profiting from selling our assets as we fall down the leagues is pretty wrong | |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 18:33 - Feb 20 with 4017 views | electricblue |
What is obvious this season with regards to players is the fact that just because you pay new players more doesnt mean they are any better than a lower paid player...
So it doesnt alway mean you get what you pay for..
There must be better players who dont earn that big wage and dont earn a pittence either who could have made a better impression on the team..
The gamble of extra money to the budget as in a way back fired on the club and it may half burnt the boards fingers and maybe reluctant to try again..
As for Hill he surely as to be a realist and he must be frustrated with whats happening with the players at the club..
As for wanting hill out i would rather hill be in charge next seaon weither thats league 1 or league 2...
As for income will the club decrease the match day ticket if Dale go down?.
Season ticket sales may less in lge2
TV money will be less in lge2.
Sponsorship will be less in Lge2.
Wages will be lower but not by much...
But the board always cut their cloth accordingly and there is nothing to day that this new board will or wont do the same...
This board are very very silent..... |  |
| My all time favourite Dale player Mr Lyndon Symmonds |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 19:20 - Feb 20 with 3886 views | nordenblue |
| The Bigger Cost? on 18:03 - Feb 20 by richfoad32 |
So it is just rumours then? A lot of people seem to be treating it as gospel. I'm not Hill's biggest fan but using it as another stick to beat him without any actual proof is pretty low. |
I seem to remember during the David Bottomley show disguised as a meet the board evening, he was specifically asked the exact question to which he responded along the lines it's wrong to discuss Hillys contract.
To me that was a massive chance if it is totally false to state "No,the manager doesnt benefit from any profit of outgoing sales" read between the lines.
As others alluded to,I've also heard it directly from a very good source as being true. | | | |
| The Bigger Cost? on 19:27 - Feb 20 with 3863 views | DaleiLama |
| The Bigger Cost? on 17:38 - Feb 20 by richfoad32 |
I may have missed it but has it ever been actually admitted that Hill receives a cut of any transfer fees paid or is it just speculation? |
It was stated by the Directors at the last fan's forum that staff remuneration is not a topic for public discussion by the board. I agree with this stance. I also agree that it is not KH's fault that he may or may not have a % of transfer fees or a 5 year contract. Nor should he be beaten with such a stick. I don't think anyone has proven conclusively he has a % of transfers. Much like no one has proven conclusively yet that global warming is here to stay. Oh, wait a minute ……..
Edit - just seen NB's post. It does seem very reasonable. [Post edited 20 Feb 2019 19:28]
| |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 20:48 - Feb 20 with 3733 views | James1980 |
DL agree any bonus clauses should not be used as a stick against KH, perhaps to criticise the board though. | |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 20:56 - Feb 20 with 3712 views | fitzochris |
| The Bigger Cost? on 19:20 - Feb 20 by nordenblue |
I seem to remember during the David Bottomley show disguised as a meet the board evening, he was specifically asked the exact question to which he responded along the lines it's wrong to discuss Hillys contract.
To me that was a massive chance if it is totally false to state "No,the manager doesnt benefit from any profit of outgoing sales" read between the lines.
As others alluded to,I've also heard it directly from a very good source as being true. |
It is true. |  |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 21:04 - Feb 20 with 3679 views | judd |
| The Bigger Cost? on 20:56 - Feb 20 by fitzochris |
It is true. |
The David Bottomley show.
THIS is what we have become.
Fook off out of our club. |  |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 21:58 - Feb 20 with 3572 views | Yorkshire_Dale |
Ignoring the fact that the Maestro might be on a taste of all transfer deals (we just had a lump of cash from 3 recently!) we are still on a dilemma ...we can't affords to sack him shorterm because we are skint but hanging on for months to see if we ride out this crap form is doing nothing but harm to a shrinking fan base which is already barely sustaining us......we are loosing fans and revenue like drain and in the longterm will we be able to get these fans back?....Not an easy job,folk can find MUCH better things to spend their hard earned cash on! | | | |
| The Bigger Cost? on 15:03 - Feb 21 with 3172 views | sweetcorn |
| The Bigger Cost? on 17:55 - Feb 20 by rochdaleriddler |
I Think the team is playing. bobbins because of Hill, and someone new could get more out of them. If the players really are bobbins, then that is entirely down to the manager also |
No doubt the team we have is down to Hill has signed, but don’t kid yourself someone would make these players better..
Is the new manager going to give inman a heart transplant to dare put his body on the line? Is he going to speed McNulty up so he doesn’t look so slow? Give calvin a left foot capable of playing football on the ground?
I could go on, we have so many players who arent good enough for the rigours of league one football.. | |
| Leader of the little gang of immature cretins. |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 16:02 - Feb 21 with 3107 views | Hopwoodblue |
| The Bigger Cost? on 15:03 - Feb 21 by sweetcorn |
No doubt the team we have is down to Hill has signed, but don’t kid yourself someone would make these players better..
Is the new manager going to give inman a heart transplant to dare put his body on the line? Is he going to speed McNulty up so he doesn’t look so slow? Give calvin a left foot capable of playing football on the ground?
I could go on, we have so many players who arent good enough for the rigours of league one football.. |
There will also be a lot less away fans paying to get in and spending money in the bars / food kiosks |  |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 16:26 - Feb 21 with 3070 views | rochdaleriddler |
| The Bigger Cost? on 15:03 - Feb 21 by sweetcorn |
No doubt the team we have is down to Hill has signed, but don’t kid yourself someone would make these players better..
Is the new manager going to give inman a heart transplant to dare put his body on the line? Is he going to speed McNulty up so he doesn’t look so slow? Give calvin a left foot capable of playing football on the ground?
I could go on, we have so many players who arent good enough for the rigours of league one football.. |
All signed by Hill............ | |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 17:54 - Feb 21 with 3011 views | WhiteyBFC |
Keith Hill has worked wonders for Rochdale AFC, he's had you competing a division higher than you ought to be. You are well-run financially, considering your gates and other revenue streams, it's commendable. But it seems it's become harder the last couple of years to compete, hence the survival battles.
I know Keith can rub folk up the wrong way, but it's awful to read so much negativity about him on here, considering everything he's achieved for you over the years. It screams Wenger and Arsenal. Where you're ignoring all the good and focusing on the bad.
From the outside, but knowing the respective budgets of each club and other factors, you're about where I'd expect you to be, under Keith. With another manager, I fear you'd be worse off.
Your noisy neighbours who get the bigger crowds, better history, more budget, they're generally behind you in terms of division/results in the last decade.
Dare to dream by all means, but remain grounded in reality too. Your club's made progress. Made it under Keith's watch. Right now you're a level above where most would place you. Support the manager, players and club in remaining so.
Then assess everything. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
