| SACK THE BOARD 16:32 - Dec 1 with 44985 views | RAFC1907 |
Absolutely terrible.
No ambition, robbing fans constantly with overpriced entrance fees for watching garbage.
Garbage created by them for not backing the manager with any money, constantly pocketing it and saying we don't have any.
1600 home fans today says it all.
No wonder we will always be little old Rochdale.
Shambles of a football club. |  |
| |  |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:41 - Dec 2 with 2357 views | judd |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:36 - Dec 2 by Brierls |
It’s representing exactly what it says it’s representing; players wages and gate receipts. If it said income vs expenditure then you’d have a point. But it’s not.
FFS Col. Forget whatever you’ve got on, get a line on there for every income stream. Add an additional grand for money saved on freeloading Goldbond agents while you’re at it  |
If you think that graph represents everything then fine.
But you don't because you have said it yourself.
It misrepresents the reality of income and expenditure.
As for your Goldbond issue and freeloading? Really? |  |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:45 - Dec 2 with 2334 views | Rochdale_ger |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:41 - Dec 2 by judd |
If you think that graph represents everything then fine.
But you don't because you have said it yourself.
It misrepresents the reality of income and expenditure.
As for your Goldbond issue and freeloading? Really? |
Attacking the guys who are out collecting subs in all weathers is low. |  | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:45 - Dec 2 with 2333 views | Brierls |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:31 - Dec 2 by judd |
In running a business you can forecast all you want but the reality is how you generate income to fund the cashflow any business needs.
For the previously fiscally sound board to toss out 30% increase in expenditure without understanding how it would be funded is both unfathomable given their collective performance and an insult.
That graph needs deleting. [Post edited 2 Dec 2019 22:32]
|
I’m not seeing a suggestion that the board tossed out a 30% increase in expenditure without understanding how it would be funded. |  | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:45 - Dec 2 with 2333 views | NDGN82 |
Not sure what sacking the board will do to improve things? Do people think a life long Dale fan with previous and successful experience of running a League One club will waltz in with a load of money and sort everything out that is perceived as being wrong with the club?! I think not! | | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:45 - Dec 2 with 2330 views | SI_Blue |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:40 - Dec 2 by Brierls |
Ahhhh yes, I see what you mean. Thanks for explaining that. |
No worries Gary, i hope there was no flippancy in your reply. I would hate to think so. | |
| Backs Against The Wall Since 1907 |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:46 - Dec 2 with 2321 views | nordenblue |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:40 - Dec 2 by NDGN82 |
By overspent, I mean in terms of the contracts offered (including KHs) that had no hope of being sustained. You would need a Scott Hogan sell on fee every year to continue at the level of outgoings.
I do think you have to speculate to accumulate and the Hogan money and the like could have been put to better use when we had it. I.e. by signing young hungry talent that you could sell on at a premium (a la Peterborough) - unfortunately that didn’t happen, but we gave contracts to the likes Done, Andrew and Wilbraham and then decided to play them out of position. Unfortunately our current gaffer is doing exactly the same and he was appointed by the ‘current board’! |
You can't just pluck young hungry talent with a 100% success rate though, the Posh of this world whilst granted have churned out some real talent have also signed a shed load of other players on silly money that haven't made a big outgoing transfer, we simply don't have the backing to do that.
Whilst trying to bring through these youngsters to try and make a fortune you also need a sprinkling of the type of players you mentioned,the Dones,Wilbrahams of this world,some older pros to bring them along. | | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:48 - Dec 2 with 2299 views | 49thseason |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:23 - Dec 2 by judd |
As I see it the 2 lines in the graph are players wages compared with Gate Receipts.
If that is the case then I'm afraid it misrepresents all income and expenditure. |
What it does do is to highlight the importance of "other" revenue streams, in the main, regular player sales and sponsorships. If Gold Bond is running into problems then that will be a serious concern. £1.3 million a year is an awful lot of money from "other sources" to be found each year, Clearly increasing gate money by half a million would be a huge help and whichever way you look at it there are probably 20 home league games a season with 6000+ empty seats.
At £20 a person that would require over a 1000 extra supporters at each game, I think the average per game for season tickets is about £9 at the moment, indicating that we probably need to sell nearly 5000 season tickets at current prices to become more self-sufficient but still dependent on other sources of income.
Clearly this is why the squad has been trimmed and then back-filled with Academy players, but no one predicted the injury list and international call-ups. There is more trimming needed to get to say 20 reasonably healthy and adept players capable of playing in L1. Not many currently fit that requirement. |  | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:49 - Dec 2 with 2287 views | judd |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:45 - Dec 2 by Brierls |
I’m not seeing a suggestion that the board tossed out a 30% increase in expenditure without understanding how it would be funded. |
I am. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:50 - Dec 2 with 2280 views | Brierls |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:41 - Dec 2 by judd |
If you think that graph represents everything then fine.
But you don't because you have said it yourself.
It misrepresents the reality of income and expenditure.
As for your Goldbond issue and freeloading? Really? |
The Goldbond comment was tongue in cheek as you well know. We discussed the own goal of the saving at length yesterday.
Obviously others on here won’t know that, so I can assure you I’m not having a pop at Goldbond agents. I think they’re mental for what they do, but it’s to be appluaded. | | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:55 - Dec 2 with 2229 views | judd |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:48 - Dec 2 by 49thseason |
What it does do is to highlight the importance of "other" revenue streams, in the main, regular player sales and sponsorships. If Gold Bond is running into problems then that will be a serious concern. £1.3 million a year is an awful lot of money from "other sources" to be found each year, Clearly increasing gate money by half a million would be a huge help and whichever way you look at it there are probably 20 home league games a season with 6000+ empty seats.
At £20 a person that would require over a 1000 extra supporters at each game, I think the average per game for season tickets is about £9 at the moment, indicating that we probably need to sell nearly 5000 season tickets at current prices to become more self-sufficient but still dependent on other sources of income.
Clearly this is why the squad has been trimmed and then back-filled with Academy players, but no one predicted the injury list and international call-ups. There is more trimming needed to get to say 20 reasonably healthy and adept players capable of playing in L1. Not many currently fit that requirement. |
That challenge of funding did not suddenly appear overnight.
I have nothing but respect for those directors over the years who have worked tirelessly and for free to deliver professional football in this undeserving town.
Playing in this division will generate a significant dividend towards the implied shortfall. | |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:57 - Dec 2 with 2216 views | NDGN82 |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:46 - Dec 2 by nordenblue |
You can't just pluck young hungry talent with a 100% success rate though, the Posh of this world whilst granted have churned out some real talent have also signed a shed load of other players on silly money that haven't made a big outgoing transfer, we simply don't have the backing to do that.
Whilst trying to bring through these youngsters to try and make a fortune you also need a sprinkling of the type of players you mentioned,the Dones,Wilbrahams of this world,some older pros to bring them along. |
I agree but was thinking you spend say 3 or 4 times £100k (plus wages) of the £3m and surely one of those comes good in the couple of years you can fund them for. Then eat sleep repeat!
We can’t pay what P’boro can pay but I’m sure we could entice one or two of the likes of players found at Boston’s level (number 2 on loan from Huddersfield and no. 10)
With regards the older pros, I agree 100% but sacking the board isn’t going to make the manager play players in their best positions. That’s down to BBM. There were at least 3 players out of position yesterday - how should the board sort that? Sack BBM? | | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 23:02 - Dec 2 with 2186 views | Brierls |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:45 - Dec 2 by SI_Blue |
No worries Gary, i hope there was no flippancy in your reply. I would hate to think so. |
It was laced with it, Che | | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 23:16 - Dec 2 with 2129 views | wildie |
| SACK THE BOARD on 17:55 - Dec 2 by ColDale |
ok few bits in the interest of 100% openness before assumptions continue to snowball.
* Since DB's appointment as CEO, every single time I have met him it has been in a Trust capacity (and minuted on the Trust website). Every conversation throughout I've had with him whether that be via email or over the phone has been in a Trust capacity.
* To suggest that I've been complicit or an active participant as part of a group of friends in a plot to get rid of Dunphy is completely false. Apologies if I've misread that.
* As a Trust, we have worked hard to rebuild the relationship with the club since it was arguably at an all time low early in 2018. There have been a great deal of positives to come out of this, and I've always been of the opinion its better to work with someone than to work against them. The nature of the reporting back on the Trust website is (in my opinion) far more transparent and frequent that it has even been, and far superior to any club in the division (including the Trust owned clubs) though I accept my involvement brings a certain amount of bias.
* The Trust's work with the club often involves a lot of difficult conversations. The minutes from the meetings indicate this with the range of questions asked. I accept some haven't always been happy with the answers given but I don't believe there's been a single question that has been shyed away from. I appreciate the reporting back might not reflect the difficult conversations that take place, but the meetings are not an exercise in blowing smoke up each other's backsides. Take the recent discussions about attracting an investor into the club or the endless conversations about the change in pies as an example. If we feel something isn't right, we are happy to tell them so.
* if it is felt (principally by the Trust membership) that the above makes me too friendly with DB, then I will happily walk away tomorrow and never have any involvement again in the Trust. It's not a role undertaken for any personal benefit, and if I'm being honest, it takes up far more hours than it should do (through my own choice let it be said).
I've said before, dealings with DB have come across open and honest throughout. I know this doesn't always fit the narrative but I can only say it how Ive seen it throughout the past 12 months. I understand the concerns people have, and much is done with genuine care and concern for the football club. We live in a post-Bury world and in my mind, this brings a need for a greater transparency than was needed a couple of years ago, and the current climate would be helped if this was taken into account.
Anyway, changing tact much has been said about the finances of the club. Now I am no financial expert by any stretch so its entirely possible that more learned people than myself could rip this to pieces, but I spent much of last weekend going through the published accounts from the club for the five year period up until the Summer of 2018 and comparing figures. (all of these figures are available in the public domain, and no figures later than the Summer of 2018 are available yet)
This was obviously done independent of the club and is not intended as either a finger pointing exercise or as a defence for anyone(though I don't think Keith Hill comes out of it particularly well). It was prompted following the answer to the MUFC question at the recent Trust meeting which I know has caused much concern.
The stand out one for me was the Players' wages over the five year period from 2013-4 to 2017-8 comparing it with gate receipts. Within that time, the differential between gate receipts and wage budget went from £380,000 to close to £1.3 million.
What's perhaps most worrying about this is that the Summer following this, the players' wage budget was increased by 30% at a time when the season tickets were limited at £150, £200, £250. That gap might well have reached a level way in excess of £1.5m when the club publishes its accounts in the Spring time.
I don't know if this increase was par for the course for League One football during this time, and we were simply keeping up with the minimum spend but these increases in wage budget from 2017 onwards did little to improve matters on the field. There were similar increases in the budget for the manager, coaches, youth set up and off the field wages which went from £700,000 to £1.3m in the same five year time period.
The club were keen to point out that the only clubs with smaller attendances than our's in this division (Fleetwood, Accrington, Burton) all had owners who kept those clubs afloat from their own pocket. We've followed a different path of player sales keeping us going and that has worked for us - but the question is how long can this be maintained?
The figures also show during this time period the receipt of just short of £5million worth of transfer fees and sell on clauses, which in my layman's terms means that those five years were subsidised to the tune of a £1m a season. From my estimates on the player sales, sell ons and MUFC game throughout 2019, I don't think we have brought in the £2m to cover both last season and this based on the assumption of £1m subsidy per season. Of course, spending £200,000 on wages in January would be worth its weight in gold if relegation could be avoided.
I don't think there is a stockpiling of money as there's no reason to, and there is certainly no money coming out of the club as the accounts will indicate this. Any tightening of the belt is done to act before things become a problem as certainly that wage bill could not continue at the level it was increasing by. We don't want a repeat of the Le Fondre situation where we sell players to rival clubs to pay the bills. There's much work to be done, and we as a Trust have to accept and act on that, and do our bit to ask the right questions and feed that back to the supporters, and ask again if we're not satisfied with the answers. |
To post an unsourced graph with two lines and not expect it to be questioned is naive. There is so little information it tells us nothing other than expenditure. We know Income is not just based on gate receipts or let’s face it we’d be part time. A quick look on companies house and the 30 page document on our last submitted accounts tells you why the graph has absolutely no credibility. I’d suggest people read that document first. Then if someone with an astute accountancy mind could summarise it, it would be much appreciated because the figures don’t look half as bad as what has been suggested in this post [Post edited 2 Dec 2019 23:21]
| | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 23:41 - Dec 2 with 2075 views | Dalenet |
| SACK THE BOARD on 23:16 - Dec 2 by wildie |
To post an unsourced graph with two lines and not expect it to be questioned is naive. There is so little information it tells us nothing other than expenditure. We know Income is not just based on gate receipts or let’s face it we’d be part time. A quick look on companies house and the 30 page document on our last submitted accounts tells you why the graph has absolutely no credibility. I’d suggest people read that document first. Then if someone with an astute accountancy mind could summarise it, it would be much appreciated because the figures don’t look half as bad as what has been suggested in this post [Post edited 2 Dec 2019 23:21]
|
Spot on. We all know that as fans (or customers) we pay less than 30% of the cost of the club. Slowly rising gate receipts is not a surprise. The bulk of our income comes from the football pyramid, TV and cup competition prize monies, player sales and commercial activity
We also know that the TV monies for Lge 1 have increased in recent years
Unless we compare apples and apples, Cols graph doesn't help at all. It just tells us that player costs rose but doesn't tell us whether they rose in keeping with total income
For me the killer is the cost of Hilly/Beech severance deals. That will have put significant strain on the budget for this year.
One final point on posters call for the need to be transparent if we have financial challenges. No business can flag such issues or the suppliers/creditors will run for the hills. Best wait for the published accounts. | | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 00:01 - Dec 3 with 2031 views | Brierls |
| SACK THE BOARD on 23:16 - Dec 2 by wildie |
To post an unsourced graph with two lines and not expect it to be questioned is naive. There is so little information it tells us nothing other than expenditure. We know Income is not just based on gate receipts or let’s face it we’d be part time. A quick look on companies house and the 30 page document on our last submitted accounts tells you why the graph has absolutely no credibility. I’d suggest people read that document first. Then if someone with an astute accountancy mind could summarise it, it would be much appreciated because the figures don’t look half as bad as what has been suggested in this post [Post edited 2 Dec 2019 23:21]
|
I think it does need somebody with said accountancy brain, because my pickled brain is seeing the following:
2017
Transfer Fees Received: £2,165,772
Overall profit/loss: £1,364,322
2018
Transfer Fees Received: £710,820
Overall profit/loss: - £306,604
TV Revenue was much increased in 2018.
The good news is I expect an increase in ‘Transfer Fees Received” thanks to the sales of Adshead, Raff & McGahey and sell-on from Dawson. That income may come in instalments over several months/years depending on the structure of the deals.
It will be interesting to see how much sacking Hill and Beech cost us in the end.
As I said previously, I don’t believe for one min we’re in financial dire straits, but I can see why we’d want to stop the wage bill increasing by too much year on year. Or even reduce the wage bill as has been stated this season. We can’t expect to have substantial transfer fees every year. Hopefully there is a happy medium. [Post edited 3 Dec 2019 0:23]
| | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 01:59 - Dec 3 with 1945 views | TalkingSutty |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:48 - Dec 2 by 49thseason |
What it does do is to highlight the importance of "other" revenue streams, in the main, regular player sales and sponsorships. If Gold Bond is running into problems then that will be a serious concern. £1.3 million a year is an awful lot of money from "other sources" to be found each year, Clearly increasing gate money by half a million would be a huge help and whichever way you look at it there are probably 20 home league games a season with 6000+ empty seats.
At £20 a person that would require over a 1000 extra supporters at each game, I think the average per game for season tickets is about £9 at the moment, indicating that we probably need to sell nearly 5000 season tickets at current prices to become more self-sufficient but still dependent on other sources of income.
Clearly this is why the squad has been trimmed and then back-filled with Academy players, but no one predicted the injury list and international call-ups. There is more trimming needed to get to say 20 reasonably healthy and adept players capable of playing in L1. Not many currently fit that requirement. |
Annually each L1 Club receives a payment from the EFL and the Television deal...those payments combined exceed what we bring in through gate receipts throughout the Season. The combined amount we receive is around about £1.5 million that’s before we have had one paying customer through the turnstile. The daft graph which Col has published reveals very little apart from wages rising, wages should be rising over that period, we are trying to progress the Club not take it back into L2 aren’t we? Monies coming into the Club have risen too because we have re-invested back into the team over the years and continued to be successful in generating money through Cup games and selling players.
The size of the squad under Hill ended up being ridiculous and obviously proved to be a drain on resources, i’m Sure Chris Dunphy would accept some responsibility for that but so do most of the current Directors. I don’t have a problem with the budget being cut but it has to be done to a manageable level and one that gives the manager a chance of progression and I think it’s gone completely the other way which makes me seriously question the ambition of those running the Club.
It seems that the desire to keep us competitive in L1 has left them and their efforts are being targeted towards a training complex and bringing on youth players, the first team is no longer the priority and that is my overwhelming feeling. We have just been outplayed on three different occasions by non league teams, possibly the worst team performances I have seen in over 40 years and these performances are now becoming the norm.
We have budgeted to lose money every season but the sale of a player or two or a decent cup ties always either covers that loss or eats into the deficit, it’s been no different this year we’ve generated plenty of extra revenue since the start of the year. It seems now that somebody has decided they can just sell kids from the asademy by fast tracking them through the first team, how long will that supply last and how long does it take even if the plan was feasible? In the meantime the first team is being neglected and fans are leaving in their droves.
The Chairman is a joke, a insult to the fans, a fella who smugly suggests that he might not even be here next year and his ambition for the Club is survival...he needs booting out of the Club with a attitude like that and it reflects very badly on the current Boardroom to allow such arrogance into the Club. It doesn’t surprise me though in the slightest. The Chairman should be a respected figurehead of the Club and this fella is nothing of the sort, he’s not really interested and he knows it, we all do. The fact that our Directors and CEO obviously back him speaks volumes regarding the character of those in the Boardroom. It comes as no real surprise though.
In a nutshell you can have as many fancy plans as you want but if you don’t invest into the product on the pitch and keep trying to improve it the fans will see through it and that’s what we have here. We have a lot of supporters who are feeling as though they are having the wool pulled over their eyes, we know what we are watching and if we wanted to watch kids football we could go to Firgrove Playing Fields and watch it for free. If the Directors have no ambition to remain in this league then they should be man enough to hold up their hands and walk away it’s that simple. [Post edited 3 Dec 2019 4:08]
|  | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 05:04 - Dec 3 with 1886 views | kiwidale |
| SACK THE BOARD on 23:28 - Dec 1 by Dalenet |
I do hope that isn't true. But if so then that is the end for my membership and support. Care to elaborate so that the membership know? |
Didn't a recent employee/director get sacked for an improper liaison with another employee recently? is there a one rule for us and one for them policy in place at Spotland. it might not be the same as two employees but if the allegations about a director and member of the trust board are true then heads need to role on both sides. How can the trust allow this if it is true. this only add to speculation and rumor about the director in question. [Post edited 3 Dec 2019 5:07]
| |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 05:52 - Dec 3 with 1861 views | kiwidale |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:23 - Dec 2 by judd |
As I see it the 2 lines in the graph are players wages compared with Gate Receipts.
If that is the case then I'm afraid it misrepresents all income and expenditure. |
Col was right he is not a financial expert his graph has limited, very limited information it is simplistic in the extreme and paints a misleading picture of the current financial heath of the club. | |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 06:08 - Dec 3 with 1829 views | Dalenet |
| SACK THE BOARD on 05:04 - Dec 3 by kiwidale |
Didn't a recent employee/director get sacked for an improper liaison with another employee recently? is there a one rule for us and one for them policy in place at Spotland. it might not be the same as two employees but if the allegations about a director and member of the trust board are true then heads need to role on both sides. How can the trust allow this if it is true. this only add to speculation and rumor about the director in question. [Post edited 3 Dec 2019 5:07]
|
Well it is more an moral issue for the Trust Board. Anybody is entitled to have a relationship with whoever. But there is a significant conflict of interest for the Trust Board and I am disappointed that they can't see it.
That doesn't mean I don't recognise that Trust Board members don't work hard for free on our behalf. But I genuinely want the Trust to be made up of passionate Board members that remain independent at all times without any undue influence because that is the only way a supporters trust should operate | | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 06:56 - Dec 3 with 1784 views | fitzochris |
I think those of us who have supported Dale for more than a decade know that we didn’t sign up to the high life, but supporting your club shouldn’t make you feel like you’ve licked piss off a nettle daily.
From top to bottom the product is leaving the majority of supporters I know feeling uninspired and disenfranchised. Off the pitch woes have led to on the pitch woes. That is indisputable.
So can we all get past the fact that the questioning of the hierarchy is in any way part of a personal vendetta or some big bukkake exhibition by those purported to be ITK? It isn’t. It’s about getting answers to what exactly is going on at our club and to safeguard it against becoming a footnote in football history. |  |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 08:37 - Dec 3 with 1636 views | Plattyswrinklynuts |
I can understand why the goldbond is struggling at the mo, gambling habits have changed out of all recognition since it was launched 30 odd years ago, not withstanding the online element! It’s a difficult one for the commercial dept to fill the shortfall from an income stream which literally kept the club alive in the dark times... it also provided a personal link between club & fans who wouldn’t necessarily walk through the turnstiles.
Again on the personal stuff though, it’s not helping the debate & IMO it’s clouding a far more serious issue. Frankly I couldn’t give a hoot who’s seeing who & every employee could turn up for work in a wet suit & flippers as long as they DO THEIR JOBS!!! Drop the personal nonsense, look at the numbers & if you’re going to try to have a word with the hierarchy it should be to pin them down on their plans for the short/medium/long term. |  | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 08:58 - Dec 3 with 1578 views | nordenblue |
| SACK THE BOARD on 08:37 - Dec 3 by Plattyswrinklynuts |
I can understand why the goldbond is struggling at the mo, gambling habits have changed out of all recognition since it was launched 30 odd years ago, not withstanding the online element! It’s a difficult one for the commercial dept to fill the shortfall from an income stream which literally kept the club alive in the dark times... it also provided a personal link between club & fans who wouldn’t necessarily walk through the turnstiles.
Again on the personal stuff though, it’s not helping the debate & IMO it’s clouding a far more serious issue. Frankly I couldn’t give a hoot who’s seeing who & every employee could turn up for work in a wet suit & flippers as long as they DO THEIR JOBS!!! Drop the personal nonsense, look at the numbers & if you’re going to try to have a word with the hierarchy it should be to pin them down on their plans for the short/medium/long term. |
That's your opinion which is fine,but some folk would rather certain aspects of the club and the supporters were instead represented by an impartial/neutral type figure, especially when asking sometimes difficult questions with many times a conflicting idea.
As recent events highlight that's pretty impossible when a few of these folk rather than being neutral/ impartial are instead in bed together,in some cases quite literally it would seem, can you not see a slight conflict of interest in this?
This untouchable,not giving a toss and do what I like kind of mentality from above seems to have filtered down to the pitch.
It's a real shame as I think there is a decent manager in BBM ,but one thing that must be said is whilst working with his hands tied and a blindfold on, he's acted with nothing but professionalism which considering what he's surrounded by is massively commendable. | | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 09:01 - Dec 3 with 1570 views | Dale27 |
| SACK THE BOARD on 08:58 - Dec 3 by nordenblue |
That's your opinion which is fine,but some folk would rather certain aspects of the club and the supporters were instead represented by an impartial/neutral type figure, especially when asking sometimes difficult questions with many times a conflicting idea.
As recent events highlight that's pretty impossible when a few of these folk rather than being neutral/ impartial are instead in bed together,in some cases quite literally it would seem, can you not see a slight conflict of interest in this?
This untouchable,not giving a toss and do what I like kind of mentality from above seems to have filtered down to the pitch.
It's a real shame as I think there is a decent manager in BBM ,but one thing that must be said is whilst working with his hands tied and a blindfold on, he's acted with nothing but professionalism which considering what he's surrounded by is massively commendable. |
Nail. Head. | | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 09:02 - Dec 3 with 1567 views | dingdangblue |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:48 - Dec 2 by 49thseason |
What it does do is to highlight the importance of "other" revenue streams, in the main, regular player sales and sponsorships. If Gold Bond is running into problems then that will be a serious concern. £1.3 million a year is an awful lot of money from "other sources" to be found each year, Clearly increasing gate money by half a million would be a huge help and whichever way you look at it there are probably 20 home league games a season with 6000+ empty seats.
At £20 a person that would require over a 1000 extra supporters at each game, I think the average per game for season tickets is about £9 at the moment, indicating that we probably need to sell nearly 5000 season tickets at current prices to become more self-sufficient but still dependent on other sources of income.
Clearly this is why the squad has been trimmed and then back-filled with Academy players, but no one predicted the injury list and international call-ups. There is more trimming needed to get to say 20 reasonably healthy and adept players capable of playing in L1. Not many currently fit that requirement. |
'If Gold Bond is running into problems then that will be a serious concern.'
How much money does Goldbond actually make the club these days? I know 20-30 years ago it was a good money stream but times have changed. |  |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 09:33 - Dec 3 with 1501 views | fitzochris |
| SACK THE BOARD on 09:02 - Dec 3 by dingdangblue |
'If Gold Bond is running into problems then that will be a serious concern.'
How much money does Goldbond actually make the club these days? I know 20-30 years ago it was a good money stream but times have changed. |
So we should discount it altogether then? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
