| Lotto 15:19 - Sep 18 with 11055 views | rochdaleriddler |
Just seen the prizes for last two weeks, pitiful, would indicate hardly any members. That isn’t going to be supporting the club in any meaningful way |  |
| |  |
| Lotto on 17:24 - Sep 19 with 2605 views | judd |
| Lotto on 16:08 - Sep 19 by Reedy |
Sorry Judd, I’m a touch confused here! Where has this figure of £54 come from? Also, where have fieldgate solutions come from?
I’ve no sympathy for the club whatsoever, from start to finish (whether you agreed with the move or not) the way it was handled was an absolute shambles. I wonder how many of those 1206 members that signed up are still signed up, one thing is for sure, it’s a lot easier to click a button and cancel a standing order or direct debit, than it is to cancel someone who’s called at your house for years.
When the lotto restarted the club said 284 members had signed up from the old goldbond system. Meaning there was (roughly) 5,216 members lost from the old system. If any business makes a change and losses 95% of their custom, heads would (quite rightly) roll.
The fact the top prize is now £50 shows how far it’s fallen in such a short space of time. I wonder if the carrot of the first 5 draws having a top prize of £1,000 swayed anyone, also how many could stop now that’s gone?
For some reason, I’ve still got my walking order book, I can’t seem to get rid of it! In the tiny hope the club come to their senses when normality resumes, I doubt it though. |
Back to the 1206 members which, if you then read the last trust report, you will see turnover is nowhere near that that would be generated by 1206 x £2 x 52 weeks, so we've been fed absolute bollocks. It's probably 50p tickets (4 per £2 member), just more spin from those reporting on the numbers and going unchallenged. |  |
| |
| Lotto on 17:28 - Sep 19 with 2589 views | James1980 |
Could the situation regarding the lotto/goldbond be described as a short sighted cost cutting exercise that has majorly back fired? Or is it still too soon to say? |  |
| |
| Lotto on 17:40 - Sep 19 with 2552 views | judd |
Prizes appear to have reduced from 42 per week to 16 plus jackpot.
Have existing customers who have transferred been made aware of all these changes? | |
| |
| Lotto on 17:51 - Sep 19 with 2514 views | foreverhopefulDale |
| Lotto on 17:15 - Sep 19 by Statzdale |
Totally agree Reedy, I still have my stuff in the hope the club come to their senses. When I told the customers the feedback I received was that they would rejoin again if it started again and I was the agent. There were a lot of angry and upset people that night. [Post edited 19 Sep 2020 17:23]
|
Those are the only circumstances I would rejoin. The new lotto is a rip off, and I have no wish to see my money going to outside organisations to make money. Also I choose myself to what charities I donate to. |  |
| |
| Lotto on 10:10 - Sep 20 with 2381 views | Reedy |
| Lotto on 17:28 - Sep 19 by James1980 |
Could the situation regarding the lotto/goldbond be described as a short sighted cost cutting exercise that has majorly back fired? Or is it still too soon to say? |
It’s certainly short sighted, but whether it’s a cost cutting exercise remains to be seen, the proof will be in the numbers next year, and from what I know, I can’t see how they’re going to make more profit under this system than the old system. One thing we can all say for sure is that it created a lot of unrest amongst supporters, but worse than that, it created a lot of bad feeling within the local community due to how it was handled. I know plenty of my members would only rejoin it agents were to be reinstated, and have no desire whatsoever of joining by direct debit.
If (and I stress if, but I’ve no reason not to belief Judd) that TGS charge £54 per new member signed up by Place Enterprise (to put this into context, when I used to go canvassing for my round, we used to keep the first weeks payment, normally £1) then it stands to reason, if someone signs up, then cancels the direct debit after 10 or 20 weeks, the club make a loss.
Every single road from this sorry mess leads back to Barry Kilby, the charity donations, the firm operating the lottery. Now the management and printing is being linked to him. It would appear the club have sold their entire operation to him, and now have no say on what goes on. Twenty five years of work, gone in a matter of months.
I thought lost night that if one my members had £1 per week, that was classed as two members, it wouldn’t surprise me if the club were still implanting this in a way to boost numbers. It’s an absolute farce.
Edit: I also found it very strange how someone on here asked why there hadn’t been a draw for two weeks, then within the space of a couple of hours, two weeks worth of draws were put on the website. [Post edited 20 Sep 2020 10:15]
| |
| |
| Lotto on 10:25 - Sep 20 with 2355 views | Boss_Hog |
It is a sorry situation indeed, however it was inevitable as soon as they went down the DD route. That is nothing new, the club wanted to do it 20 years ago but were told by 'lottery experts' that it wouldn't work. These 'lottery experts' made a lot of money from running Goldbond, something TGS have never done as their dismal record at a host of clubs testifies.
If, and I have no reason to disbelieve the club here, that under the previous set-up with cash collections it made small amounts of money, why is that? Only the club and the staff responsible for the lottery can answer why membership fell so much that it made bottom line profits not worth the hassle. | | | |
| Lotto on 10:58 - Sep 20 with 2325 views | Dalenet |
| Lotto on 10:25 - Sep 20 by Boss_Hog |
It is a sorry situation indeed, however it was inevitable as soon as they went down the DD route. That is nothing new, the club wanted to do it 20 years ago but were told by 'lottery experts' that it wouldn't work. These 'lottery experts' made a lot of money from running Goldbond, something TGS have never done as their dismal record at a host of clubs testifies.
If, and I have no reason to disbelieve the club here, that under the previous set-up with cash collections it made small amounts of money, why is that? Only the club and the staff responsible for the lottery can answer why membership fell so much that it made bottom line profits not worth the hassle. |
Its a ruddy sad state of affairs and the biggest home goal in recent history perhaps.
But I also can't believe that our CEO has walked away from something making a big profit. If all the revenue was being subsumed in costs then the writing was on the wall. The costs could of course be reduced through better systems - like auto draws and automatic banking for agents so that club didn't need to employ people to manage it except for agents. And of course there was the suggestion that it was illegal in terms of set up. But the world has changed in 25 years and there are many lottery options and prize draws to choose from. Remember Readers Digest.....exactly.
We are in a new world now. One with 1200 Season Ticket holders and where no fans can join in. Its all virtual. Its the future. How are you virtually feeling today before the virtual game? | | | |
| Lotto on 11:36 - Sep 20 with 2296 views | judd |
| Lotto on 10:25 - Sep 20 by Boss_Hog |
It is a sorry situation indeed, however it was inevitable as soon as they went down the DD route. That is nothing new, the club wanted to do it 20 years ago but were told by 'lottery experts' that it wouldn't work. These 'lottery experts' made a lot of money from running Goldbond, something TGS have never done as their dismal record at a host of clubs testifies.
If, and I have no reason to disbelieve the club here, that under the previous set-up with cash collections it made small amounts of money, why is that? Only the club and the staff responsible for the lottery can answer why membership fell so much that it made bottom line profits not worth the hassle. |
When there has been a constant cash grab over the past few years you'd think anything profitable would be worth the hassle.
I have no doubt that profitability in Goldbond was way down but I would doubt the numbers quoted in the report from 4th August, given the doubt cast on membership number of 1208 as quoted in November 2019.
Now we have no staff monitoring the new Lotto. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Lotto on 11:57 - Sep 20 with 2269 views | 49thseason |
| Lotto on 11:36 - Sep 20 by judd |
When there has been a constant cash grab over the past few years you'd think anything profitable would be worth the hassle.
I have no doubt that profitability in Goldbond was way down but I would doubt the numbers quoted in the report from 4th August, given the doubt cast on membership number of 1208 as quoted in November 2019.
Now we have no staff monitoring the new Lotto. |
The answers to many of these questions will be in the contract between the club and the Lotto managers. You would presume there are minimum performance requirements, and and exit clause that reflects them as well as an end date. Signing up to things is usually quire easy, getting out of them is often difficult and messy, few people pay sufficient attention to the exit clauses and suffer unexpected consequences as a result. Has anyone at the Trust seen the contract.? |  | | |
| Lotto on 12:05 - Sep 20 with 2256 views | judd |
| Lotto on 11:57 - Sep 20 by 49thseason |
The answers to many of these questions will be in the contract between the club and the Lotto managers. You would presume there are minimum performance requirements, and and exit clause that reflects them as well as an end date. Signing up to things is usually quire easy, getting out of them is often difficult and messy, few people pay sufficient attention to the exit clauses and suffer unexpected consequences as a result. Has anyone at the Trust seen the contract.? |
I understand it to be a 5 year contract.
If the trust had seen it, well... | |
| |
| Lotto on 15:50 - Sep 22 with 2035 views | James1980 |
| Lotto on 10:10 - Sep 20 by Reedy |
It’s certainly short sighted, but whether it’s a cost cutting exercise remains to be seen, the proof will be in the numbers next year, and from what I know, I can’t see how they’re going to make more profit under this system than the old system. One thing we can all say for sure is that it created a lot of unrest amongst supporters, but worse than that, it created a lot of bad feeling within the local community due to how it was handled. I know plenty of my members would only rejoin it agents were to be reinstated, and have no desire whatsoever of joining by direct debit.
If (and I stress if, but I’ve no reason not to belief Judd) that TGS charge £54 per new member signed up by Place Enterprise (to put this into context, when I used to go canvassing for my round, we used to keep the first weeks payment, normally £1) then it stands to reason, if someone signs up, then cancels the direct debit after 10 or 20 weeks, the club make a loss.
Every single road from this sorry mess leads back to Barry Kilby, the charity donations, the firm operating the lottery. Now the management and printing is being linked to him. It would appear the club have sold their entire operation to him, and now have no say on what goes on. Twenty five years of work, gone in a matter of months.
I thought lost night that if one my members had £1 per week, that was classed as two members, it wouldn’t surprise me if the club were still implanting this in a way to boost numbers. It’s an absolute farce.
Edit: I also found it very strange how someone on here asked why there hadn’t been a draw for two weeks, then within the space of a couple of hours, two weeks worth of draws were put on the website. [Post edited 20 Sep 2020 10:15]
|
Thank you for the comprehensive reply Reedy and apologies for my delayed response. Wasn't a reason for moving from doorstop collection to DD because it is supposedly cheaper to administer? It appears even if that is the case the numbers that have not transferred to DD negates any cost savings that might occur.
Do you think a standing order would have been more palatable to some of your customers that didn't wish to pay by DD?
From what I can gather it sounds as though Goldbond wasn't broke didn't need fixing but perhaps some tweeking. Either someone from the club has decide it did or been convinced it did by a sales representative from TGS | |
| |
| Lotto on 17:02 - Sep 22 with 1958 views | Reedy |
| Lotto on 15:50 - Sep 22 by James1980 |
Thank you for the comprehensive reply Reedy and apologies for my delayed response. Wasn't a reason for moving from doorstop collection to DD because it is supposedly cheaper to administer? It appears even if that is the case the numbers that have not transferred to DD negates any cost savings that might occur.
Do you think a standing order would have been more palatable to some of your customers that didn't wish to pay by DD?
From what I can gather it sounds as though Goldbond wasn't broke didn't need fixing but perhaps some tweeking. Either someone from the club has decide it did or been convinced it did by a sales representative from TGS |
I believe the original reason was due to the pandemic, but in my opinion that is just a cover story (I know the club aren’t alone in doing this)
My issue is, I just fail to see how the new version is cheaper than the goldbond system, agents used to take 15% and now 20% goes to charity, before other companies have taken their cut. If the figure of £54 per new sign up is correct, then the alarm bells that were ringing before are even louder now.
The loss of paying members is staggering, around 95% haven’t signed up from the old system, that’s thousands in lost revenue every month.
Under the new system, the club relentlessly pushed DD, to the point where some of my members asked if I was stopping collecting, not one signed up or was interested in going DD, some of my older members didn’t even know what direct debits are. There’s no doubt the old system needed tweaking, but it didn’t need wholesale change.
Since the new system was introduced, the club never canvassed for any agent (that I know of, I stand to be corrected here, but I’m pretty sure I’m correct) so members that cancelled were never going to be replaced, I asked time and again for it to be done, but it never was. Under the old system your round was canvassed roughly once per year, which kept numbers up and the members who cancelled were replaced. For instance, I took over a second round about ten years ago, which had about 20 members, which grew to somewhere between 100-150 members, all by canvassing. That’s one round that was worth an extra £5,000 per year, it’s not rocket science.
Under the current system, and the prizes on offer, I’m afraid to say, I don’t see it lasting a year. | |
| |
| Lotto on 17:14 - Sep 22 with 1949 views | EllDale |
So, to put it bluntly, how much of my £4.33 monthly direct debit actually goes to the club these days?
When I signed up I understood that they got it all?
Is a percentage going to third parties?
If so I might as well make a lump sum donation once a year or buy extra Golden Gamble tickets as and when we can actually go to a game. | | | |
| Lotto on 17:32 - Sep 22 with 1930 views | judd |
| Lotto on 17:02 - Sep 22 by Reedy |
I believe the original reason was due to the pandemic, but in my opinion that is just a cover story (I know the club aren’t alone in doing this)
My issue is, I just fail to see how the new version is cheaper than the goldbond system, agents used to take 15% and now 20% goes to charity, before other companies have taken their cut. If the figure of £54 per new sign up is correct, then the alarm bells that were ringing before are even louder now.
The loss of paying members is staggering, around 95% haven’t signed up from the old system, that’s thousands in lost revenue every month.
Under the new system, the club relentlessly pushed DD, to the point where some of my members asked if I was stopping collecting, not one signed up or was interested in going DD, some of my older members didn’t even know what direct debits are. There’s no doubt the old system needed tweaking, but it didn’t need wholesale change.
Since the new system was introduced, the club never canvassed for any agent (that I know of, I stand to be corrected here, but I’m pretty sure I’m correct) so members that cancelled were never going to be replaced, I asked time and again for it to be done, but it never was. Under the old system your round was canvassed roughly once per year, which kept numbers up and the members who cancelled were replaced. For instance, I took over a second round about ten years ago, which had about 20 members, which grew to somewhere between 100-150 members, all by canvassing. That’s one round that was worth an extra £5,000 per year, it’s not rocket science.
Under the current system, and the prizes on offer, I’m afraid to say, I don’t see it lasting a year. |
Canvassing was stopped when the TGS contract was signed back end of 2018 so that Place Enterprise could do it.
With regards pushing DD, I had 1 customer who offered to switch when I stopped collecting.
I even offered to fill the forms out for customers but they simply did not want to give up their bank details or the weekly visit.
Goldbond customers who did not switch to the new lotto were never contacted to be told they did not enter the jackpot draw any longer (which I think is correct), and I feared telling them in case they cancelled.
I agree about the tweaking, even a 50p per member increase for example, but from the early Agents' meetings I knew it was a done deal and that agents were seen simply as a cost burden. I would imagine the powers that be were seduced by the former Burnley chairman into going down their route, one that has had a previous poster refer to their "dismal record at a host of club testifies", so you have to question due diligence and understanding your market and customers behaviour.
I am sure they were grateful for Goldbond funds in lean times previously and Christ knows what to expect in the coming months. | |
| |
| Lotto on 17:38 - Sep 22 with 1925 views | judd |
| Lotto on 17:14 - Sep 22 by EllDale |
So, to put it bluntly, how much of my £4.33 monthly direct debit actually goes to the club these days?
When I signed up I understood that they got it all?
Is a percentage going to third parties?
If so I might as well make a lump sum donation once a year or buy extra Golden Gamble tickets as and when we can actually go to a game. |
You have an option to pay annually but a percentage will still go outside the club.
20% to BKPCA, an element of management fee as alluded to in the minutes of the last Trust report on the lotto, what appears to be a further layer of external management in Fieldgate Solutions if they replaced our lottery team, expenses claimed by TGS, and depending on how you were acquired, £54 is paid out immediately to TGS and I think £20.00 if you were not canvassed.
The Golden Gamble, or Grab a Grand, I believe falls under TGS also, but not sure of their cut. I would imagine they were incandescent when the jackpot was won in 3 out of 4 consecutive draws last season. | |
| |
| Lotto on 19:37 - Sep 22 with 1811 views | Reedy |
| Lotto on 17:14 - Sep 22 by EllDale |
So, to put it bluntly, how much of my £4.33 monthly direct debit actually goes to the club these days?
When I signed up I understood that they got it all?
Is a percentage going to third parties?
If so I might as well make a lump sum donation once a year or buy extra Golden Gamble tickets as and when we can actually go to a game. |
This is an estimate, but I would say at least 1/3 will go to outside sources:
TGS - Charity - Canvassers
Judd is right about the new lotto and jackpot draw, even if you paid £2 per week you weren’t allowed in the jackpot draw, something I vehemently disagreed with and had countless crossed words with the club about (the principal really irked me) I was told, and this is a direct quote:
“They can enter the draw, if they switch over to direct debit. If they won’t, tough.”
The agents were a cost burden, but a necessary burden. The more the agent earned, the more the club earned. It’s like when people complain about paying a lot of tax, you’ve got to earn it to pay tax on it!
I was told on at least a dozen occasions that the club had no plan to get rid of agents, the club loved the agents etc. We were all lied to, I honestly believe it was planned all along, the virus just sped it up.
When TGS came in we were told something along the lines off - this company will take it to the next level, they’re experts and run the most successful lotteries in the country. We were either lied to, or the club didn’t vet them properly.
On a slightly separate note, there was never a reason for the Christmas draw being scrapped. In the 2009/2010 the draw alone netted over £10,000 profit for the club. I would be surprised if the lottery makes that per annum now. | |
| |
| Lotto on 22:45 - Sep 22 with 1713 views | judd |
| Lotto on 19:37 - Sep 22 by Reedy |
This is an estimate, but I would say at least 1/3 will go to outside sources:
TGS - Charity - Canvassers
Judd is right about the new lotto and jackpot draw, even if you paid £2 per week you weren’t allowed in the jackpot draw, something I vehemently disagreed with and had countless crossed words with the club about (the principal really irked me) I was told, and this is a direct quote:
“They can enter the draw, if they switch over to direct debit. If they won’t, tough.”
The agents were a cost burden, but a necessary burden. The more the agent earned, the more the club earned. It’s like when people complain about paying a lot of tax, you’ve got to earn it to pay tax on it!
I was told on at least a dozen occasions that the club had no plan to get rid of agents, the club loved the agents etc. We were all lied to, I honestly believe it was planned all along, the virus just sped it up.
When TGS came in we were told something along the lines off - this company will take it to the next level, they’re experts and run the most successful lotteries in the country. We were either lied to, or the club didn’t vet them properly.
On a slightly separate note, there was never a reason for the Christmas draw being scrapped. In the 2009/2010 the draw alone netted over £10,000 profit for the club. I would be surprised if the lottery makes that per annum now. |
The jackpot draw exclusion must contravene rules, surely?
Big emphasis on arrears making Goldbond "illegal".
Ask yourself if anything else about Goldbond and how it's funds were used totally complied. I'm sure audits can show a squeaky clean trail. Absolutely sure. | |
| |
| Lotto on 12:56 - Sep 30 with 1393 views | judd |
I always thought that the lottery department was run by the Rochdale AFC Development Association, a body registered of late with RMB because of size of turnover.
It was self-funding and made a nett contribution to the football club.
According to the consolidated P&L in the last 3 years accounts:
Year ended 31st May 2017, Development Association contributed a nett £151,058
Year ended 31st May 2018, Development Association contributed a nett £142,308
Year ended 31st May 2019, Development Association contributed a nett £84,014
(Note that TGS contract kicked in October 2018, in place for 8 months of YE May 2019)
Last year it was said that the Development Association's nett contribution was less than £20,000 after wages, prizes, expenses etc (which I always thought were deducted BEFORE this contribution was made). This is the first full year with TGS on board.
That is a startling decline in performance, despite the club telling us in November 2019 that the overhead had been reduced, so we must have had thousands of customers bailing out from Goldbond, which does not appear to have been reported as so.
And so this year a target has been set of £89,000 turnover in order to better profits. | |
| |
| Lotto on 15:40 - Sep 30 with 1282 views | 49thseason |
| Lotto on 12:56 - Sep 30 by judd |
I always thought that the lottery department was run by the Rochdale AFC Development Association, a body registered of late with RMB because of size of turnover.
It was self-funding and made a nett contribution to the football club.
According to the consolidated P&L in the last 3 years accounts:
Year ended 31st May 2017, Development Association contributed a nett £151,058
Year ended 31st May 2018, Development Association contributed a nett £142,308
Year ended 31st May 2019, Development Association contributed a nett £84,014
(Note that TGS contract kicked in October 2018, in place for 8 months of YE May 2019)
Last year it was said that the Development Association's nett contribution was less than £20,000 after wages, prizes, expenses etc (which I always thought were deducted BEFORE this contribution was made). This is the first full year with TGS on board.
That is a startling decline in performance, despite the club telling us in November 2019 that the overhead had been reduced, so we must have had thousands of customers bailing out from Goldbond, which does not appear to have been reported as so.
And so this year a target has been set of £89,000 turnover in order to better profits. |
Judd, do you know if the contract with the new people prohibits the club from creating other lotteries targeting new clients not currently or previously signed up to any of the previous Dale lotteries / raffles? | | | |
| Lotto on 16:29 - Sep 30 with 1248 views | judd |
| Lotto on 15:40 - Sep 30 by 49thseason |
Judd, do you know if the contract with the new people prohibits the club from creating other lotteries targeting new clients not currently or previously signed up to any of the previous Dale lotteries / raffles? |
I don't know, but I would imagine a contract would contain non-competing terms.
I do know that, when I asked for my area to be canvassed, I was told that fell under the new partners. | |
| |
| Lotto on 19:13 - Sep 30 with 1139 views | ncfc_chalky |
After winning £20 on the lotto a month ago I got a cheque made out to 'Chalky' and returned it informing them that I couldn't cash it and could they donate the money to a charity that judd had suggested but I didn't hear anything back even though I enclosed an email address,how long would it take to write an email to say that they had received it and would pass on the mone y?
It's just good customer relationship to me and wouldn't cost them anything [Post edited 30 Sep 2020 19:14]
|  |
| |
| Lotto on 19:19 - Sep 30 with 1132 views | 442Dale |
| Lotto on 19:13 - Sep 30 by ncfc_chalky |
After winning £20 on the lotto a month ago I got a cheque made out to 'Chalky' and returned it informing them that I couldn't cash it and could they donate the money to a charity that judd had suggested but I didn't hear anything back even though I enclosed an email address,how long would it take to write an email to say that they had received it and would pass on the mone y?
It's just good customer relationship to me and wouldn't cost them anything [Post edited 30 Sep 2020 19:14]
|
A cheque made out to Chalky.
Quite spectacular. |  |
| |
| Lotto on 19:26 - Sep 30 with 1122 views | SuddenLad |
Did it not say 'Fook Off' anywhere on it? |  |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| Lotto on 19:27 - Sep 30 with 1120 views | judd |
| Lotto on 19:26 - Sep 30 by SuddenLad |
Did it not say 'Fook Off' anywhere on it? |
Genuine laugh out loud moment there 😂😂😂 | |
| |
| Lotto on 19:33 - Sep 30 with 1102 views | ncfc_chalky |
| Lotto on 19:26 - Sep 30 by SuddenLad |
Did it not say 'Fook Off' anywhere on it? |
You know what,I would have absolutely loved it if it had  | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
