I picked up on the fact that we need to raise a million pound through transfer dealings. What is frustrating is that another two thousand season ticket holders would have addressed that. That annoys me very much.
Only if they were all paying 500 quid each which would be unlikely and also doesnt take account of VAT etc.
Would be great to have more ST holders and income but to do that the club need to, IMHO, explain what was happening, what the plans were etc and so create a narrative around the club going forward.
In the same way backing Bob earlier with the players he needed might have kept us closer to the top 6 and sold a few more half STs.
Maybe if we'd tied done Hammer, Dervite and Poyet1 to longer contracts we could have raised another 1m by selling them.
I picked up on the fact that we need to raise a million pound through transfer dealings. What is frustrating is that another two thousand season ticket holders would have addressed that. That annoys me very much.
Only if they were all paying 500 quid each which would be unlikely and also doesnt take account of VAT etc.
Would be great to have more ST holders and income but to do that the club need to, IMHO, explain what was happening, what the plans were etc and so create a narrative around the club going forward.
In the same way backing Bob earlier with the players he needed might have kept us closer to the top 6 and sold a few more half STs.
Maybe if we'd tied done Hammer, Dervite and Poyet1 to longer contracts we could have raised another 1m by selling them.
We just gave away for nothing a player that was playing regularly in our division on a long(ish) term contract so I wouldn't be too hopeful on that one !
I picked up on the fact that we need to raise a million pound through transfer dealings. What is frustrating is that another two thousand season ticket holders would have addressed that. That annoys me very much.
Only if they were all paying 500 quid each which would be unlikely and also doesnt take account of VAT etc.
Would be great to have more ST holders and income but to do that the club need to, IMHO, explain what was happening, what the plans were etc and so create a narrative around the club going forward.
In the same way backing Bob earlier with the players he needed might have kept us closer to the top 6 and sold a few more half STs.
Maybe if we'd tied done Hammer, Dervite and Poyet1 to longer contracts we could have raised another 1m by selling them.
We just gave away for nothing a player that was playing regularly in our division on a long(ish) term contract so I wouldn't be too hopeful on that one !
True. Shows how hard it is to raise money from player sales without letting go of the Crown jewels which in turn weakens the squad.
I picked up on the fact that we need to raise a million pound through transfer dealings. What is frustrating is that another two thousand season ticket holders would have addressed that. That annoys me very much.
Only if they were all paying 500 quid each which would be unlikely and also doesnt take account of VAT etc.
Would be great to have more ST holders and income but to do that the club need to, IMHO, explain what was happening, what the plans were etc and so create a narrative around the club going forward.
In the same way backing Bob earlier with the players he needed might have kept us closer to the top 6 and sold a few more half STs.
Maybe if we'd tied done Hammer, Dervite and Poyet1 to longer contracts we could have raised another 1m by selling them.
In broad terms the income net of VAT from an average season ticket sale - allowing for a typical percentage of concessions - is £200. It has been higher and is probably now lower, but it's a pretty good benchmark. So 5,000 extra season ticket holders would be needed to generate £1m.
Even then you would need to deduct the money they would have spent on match tickets if they weren't season ticket holders, which will be significant, to get the net benefit to the club. There's a small pay-off from catering, programmes, etc, but it's not significant next to ticket revenue, in part because of the cost of sale.
Half season ticket sales are pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things. The club reported having sold 140 in mid-December maybe worth £15k (but see above). Worth having but very small beer against the total ticket receipts. For comparison, the club gets more benefit than that by selling an extra 1,000 away tickets for a single match, which might be the difference between playing on a Saturday or in midweek.
Secondly the review of last season and forecast for this could go into how much more should be spent or "invested" but that is pure speculation. The numbers and associated narrative are about forecasting where the club is actually going +/- £1m. For sure there is an additional £3M losses available under FFP rules this season. I don't know what the supporters or supporters Trust view is on this. If I were still involved I would be asking them. The fact is that CAFC was very well positioned IF the FFP regime had remained intact for next season... c.ten clubs would have had to make further cuts or revenue increases to stay within the limits. FFP rules have changed and it remains to be seen whether CAFC playing and financial strategy will change or not.
Finally, I think it is very useful that a certain number of fans get this and can discuss in millions what might happen or needs to happen. I thought it was 3,000 season tickets = £1M in revenue but perhaps that was adult tickets at last season's prices? Either way that's a lot of fans and there needs to be separate article and analysis on how CAFC might break back into 20,000 gates again. No-one likes the idea of player sales to balance the books simply because we want the best on the pitch and we want it to improve over time.
The club is in a place where losses are c. £5M (£2.6M after FFP deductions) which is significantly better than many of our competitors. Many clubs are announcing losses of £10M+ (£8M after FFP adjustments) which might add up to £50M in just four years. And there are several clubs whose parachute payments are about to run out. I genuinely thought we were moving towards a break even position on FFP rules (after adding back the academy and stadium depreciation) so I was surprised that: 1) revenue was only enhanced because of the cup run and that the hike in prices was revenue neutral and 2) overall costs did not come down by £1M
This season it looks like Tv media revenue will be up, shirt sponsorship up and costs down and this is paying for a cut in prices and and a raise in player amortisation as CAFC acquires players for fees, and not "off the street". Let us hope that this acqisition of talent continues so that Peeters and the squad can rise to the challenge in the second half of the season.
It's all about results, yes but the management may well be judged on obta stats, prozone and squad valuation techniques. This is another area which could be explored. Where we go in 2015-16 is very unclear in terms of the financials and squad development. As above re. the gates, writing about where the club might go and what it should do is a separate piece. What we all know is that the further a club moves up the food chain, the more crowded it gets and securing the right talent to take us to the next level will be neither simple nor cheap. As it happens I don't think our new owner is simple or cheap and I genuinely believe he will be thinking ahead for next season as we enter the January window...but that's for another article.
I just can't take anyone seriously who says things like:
We had not been the ninth best side in the league.
We finished 9th, clearly making us the 9th best team in the league. There are no extra points for style or flair, the league table can't lie.
That's perfectly fine with me because I don't take myself seriously either. However, if you think that the team that finishes 9th in the league is necessarily the 9th best team then you are quite simply mistaken. And I'm not talking about style or flair.
Apart from league position how else can we measure how good a team is?
To a point I agree. However that season we were bottom four or five when we played Bolton in April. Going on the unbeaten run papered over the cracks methinks.
To a point I agree. However that season we were bottom four or five when we played Bolton in April.
I think the point is probably that the difference between ninth and relegation trouble that year was narrower than usual (without looking at the tables!) which doesn't bear on the question of whether we were the ninth best team at all.
In any event, we did well to finish ninth with the squad we had (and the turmoil behind the scenes).
To a point I agree. However that season we were bottom four or five when we played Bolton in April.
I think the point is probably that the difference between ninth and relegation trouble that year was narrower than usual (without looking at the tables!) which doesn't bear on the question of whether we were the ninth best team at all.
In any event, we did well to finish ninth with the squad we had (and the turmoil behind the scenes).
Agree totally, shame we have not moved on a great deal since Carlisle.
Finally, I think it is very useful that a certain number of fans get this and can discuss in millions what might happen or needs to happen. I thought it was 3,000 season tickets = £1M in revenue but perhaps that was adult tickets at last season's prices? Either way that's a lot of fans and there needs to be separate article and analysis on how CAFC might break back into 20,000 gates again. No-one likes the idea of player sales to balance the books simply because we want the best on the pitch and we want it to improve over time.
Fair point - £200 average yield is too low on reflection. I think it was about £220 before the 2013 increases and I estimated it at about £265 last season. I then factored in about £140k in net profit from ancillary sales (say 23 x 3,000 x £2), which is £935k. But that was a stretch for the reasons I outlined above.
I reckon the average price will be down again this season because of existing purchasers trading down and new people disproportionately buying at the £150/£250 gross price. If you are using price to attract additional purchasers this of itself is bound to reduce the average price and means you need to attract more than the previous average implies to make the revenue target. Overall, 5,000 may be realistic.
One final thing. MF's £500k revenue increase from shirt sponsorship, which I know is your take, would imply we are getting £700k instead of £200k in round numbers. Quite clearly, and as MF reflects, such an increase cannot credibly reflect shirt sponsorship alone, unless Greenwich University is run by complete idiots, which it isn't. Of course it doesn't matter now how it's badged, but if the number is anywhere near a correct assumption the capital component does impact on its sustainability as part of the turnover mix.
Comments
Would be great to have more ST holders and income but to do that the club need to, IMHO, explain what was happening, what the plans were etc and so create a narrative around the club going forward.
In the same way backing Bob earlier with the players he needed might have kept us closer to the top 6 and sold a few more half STs.
Maybe if we'd tied done Hammer, Dervite and Poyet1 to longer contracts we could have raised another 1m by selling them.
Not easy this football lark
Even then you would need to deduct the money they would have spent on match tickets if they weren't season ticket holders, which will be significant, to get the net benefit to the club. There's a small pay-off from catering, programmes, etc, but it's not significant next to ticket revenue, in part because of the cost of sale.
Half season ticket sales are pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things. The club reported having sold 140 in mid-December maybe worth £15k (but see above). Worth having but very small beer against the total ticket receipts. For comparison, the club gets more benefit than that by selling an extra 1,000 away tickets for a single match, which might be the difference between playing on a Saturday or in midweek.
Secondly the review of last season and forecast for this could go into how much more should be spent or "invested" but that is pure speculation. The numbers and associated narrative are about forecasting where the club is actually going +/- £1m. For sure there is an additional £3M losses available under FFP rules this season. I don't know what the supporters or supporters Trust view is on this. If I were still involved I would be asking them. The fact is that CAFC was very well positioned IF the FFP regime had remained intact for next season... c.ten clubs would have had to make further cuts or revenue increases to stay within the limits. FFP rules have changed and it remains to be seen whether CAFC playing and financial strategy will change or not.
Finally, I think it is very useful that a certain number of fans get this and can discuss in millions what might happen or needs to happen. I thought it was 3,000 season tickets = £1M in revenue but perhaps that was adult tickets at last season's prices? Either way that's a lot of fans and there needs to be separate article and analysis on how CAFC might break back into 20,000 gates again. No-one likes the idea of player sales to balance the books simply because we want the best on the pitch and we want it to improve over time.
The club is in a place where losses are c. £5M (£2.6M after FFP deductions) which is significantly better than many of our competitors. Many clubs are announcing losses of £10M+ (£8M after FFP adjustments) which might add up to £50M in just four years. And there are several clubs whose parachute payments are about to run out. I genuinely thought we were moving towards a break even position on FFP rules (after adding back the academy and stadium depreciation) so I was surprised that:
1) revenue was only enhanced because of the cup run and that the hike in prices was revenue neutral and
2) overall costs did not come down by £1M
This season it looks like Tv media revenue will be up, shirt sponsorship up and costs down and this is paying for a cut in prices and and a raise in player amortisation as CAFC acquires players for fees, and not "off the street". Let us hope that this acqisition of talent continues so that Peeters and the squad can rise to the challenge in the second half of the season.
It's all about results, yes but the management may well be judged on obta stats, prozone and squad valuation techniques. This is another area which could be explored. Where we go in 2015-16 is very unclear in terms of the financials and squad development. As above re. the gates, writing about where the club might go and what it should do is a separate piece. What we all know is that the further a club moves up the food chain, the more crowded it gets and securing the right talent to take us to the next level will be neither simple nor cheap. As it happens I don't think our new owner is simple or cheap and I genuinely believe he will be thinking ahead for next season as we enter the January window...but that's for another article.
Once again Seasons greetings.
In any event, we did well to finish ninth with the squad we had (and the turmoil behind the scenes).
I reckon the average price will be down again this season because of existing purchasers trading down and new people disproportionately buying at the £150/£250 gross price. If you are using price to attract additional purchasers this of itself is bound to reduce the average price and means you need to attract more than the previous average implies to make the revenue target. Overall, 5,000 may be realistic.
One final thing. MF's £500k revenue increase from shirt sponsorship, which I know is your take, would imply we are getting £700k instead of £200k in round numbers. Quite clearly, and as MF reflects, such an increase cannot credibly reflect shirt sponsorship alone, unless Greenwich University is run by complete idiots, which it isn't. Of course it doesn't matter now how it's badged, but if the number is anywhere near a correct assumption the capital component does impact on its sustainability as part of the turnover mix.
Time for a drink now!