|
Post by droitwichgas on Jul 15, 2021 19:25:48 GMT
Not the case at all, I am not comfortable with losing 50k a week, but I am a tad more realistic than you it seems.
You seem to be struggling with how to approach the problem that our expenditure is exceeding income.
Try it another way, imagine Wael is gone and you are in charge so now its your problem.
Surely you have at least some idea as to how to to approach it?
I would start by getting in touch with some accountants that I've worked with in the past and ask them to try to work out what the heck has been going on over the last 5 years. Not sure you need accountants to tell you are biggest expense is wages and that needs to be cut? You only have to look at the fodder still at the club even after a big clear out, Barrett, Liddell, Hargreaves etc to see where we're going wrong. Although if Wael (& Hani?) are content to lose upto £3m p.a. then it's not really an issue.
|
|
warehamgas
Predictions League
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,558
|
Post by warehamgas on Jul 15, 2021 19:35:52 GMT
I've said some mean things about Wael in the past. However I think he is a decent man who wants to do the best for our Club. I presume the size of the debt now outweighs the equity in the Memorial Stadium (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). If this is true then the Al-Qadi family (mostly Wael) must personally be losing £50,000 per week to keep the Club afloat. Sami and Hani must also be suffering smaller losses. Year on year accounts show that the weekly losses are slowly coming down. What credible plan is there for Wael to ever get this money back? What is the medium/long term strategy for the business to ever return a profit? There would not appear to be one. I just don't get it. Wael is throwing money into a big pit. On the one hand, if he didn't do this, we would be out of business. So I can understand people saying "well done Wael". On the other hand the annual losses Dwane Sports are racking up are a direct result of senior (mis) management. I don't see competence at the top level to get Wael Al-Qadi out of this financial nightmare. He needs better help and advice at Board level. I don't want to see him fail. He fails, Bristol Rovers ultimately fails. Hey ho. Not my problem. And the band played on. Epping A large chunk of the debt has gone, that's what the capitalisation does, it converts the it to shares. It has gone, it has ceased to be. However much anyone wants to use the 'debt' figure against Wael they can no longer do so (not saying you are doing that but some will). We are no longer £23m in debt and this will show in the next accounts (as per the note in the accounts just published) You could call it a 'reset'. or perhaps 'Year Zero'. Debt will 'commence' being run up again from that point though (it already has and you can work it out based on 50k a week loss) as we know that the club is operating at a loss as are 99% of other clubs. Some people seem to think we re a 'basket case' for losing 50k per week but if thats true then nearly all other clubs are too. For example- MK Dons lost £63k per week, Charlton 100k per week. The list is endless. And practically all of them have better grounds than Rovers with better income generating opportunities. Basket cases, all of them, obviously. (we know some really are) The model of funding clubs is broken. Its madness, no other business does this, but football is not any old business. Its exists for the Lee Brown moment (or equivilent) which all clubs are trying to get to. It doesn't actually exist to make a profit as its primary aim. There is no pitch invasion from the fans for breaking even. We know the club were trying to become more sustainable before Covid, with some limited success, but remember that if Rovers really did try and operate in a break even way in the current circumstances of operating a ground that is hardly fit for purpose it would likely need : Huge reduction in wages, a non competitive team, a squad of say 18 being paid peanuts (remember it must be " what we can afford") No development squad, no academy (no future?) Limited support staff (forget scouting the opposition, unless Joey does that as well as training etc, as he wouldn't have any coaches) Limited scouting for recruitment Even worse facilities at the Mem for the supporters (maintenance costs at the Mem are very high due to its age, high expenditure is necessary to get annual health & safety licence) And thats only part of it, you get the picture. But we may break even if we did the above, few would bother to attend though as we finished mid table in Conference South (at which point one or two people could carry WAQ down Glos Road for breaking even) This is the reality that owners of football clubs have to deal with and we as fans need to appreciate more. Until the model changes clubs are reliant on the owners to fund losses, as the alternative is the bleak picture above. WAQ has to balance the above with the need for a competitive team which requires giving a manager the best chance to do so, and the expectation of fans (rightly so) to do well and aim high. What the club is clearly trying to do is control costs through better value contracts and increasing income where it can (ticketing, retail outsourcing, bars development but it has very limited options whilst at the Mem) and try and get a competitive team, which will ensure crowds are decent, with some players sold on at a profit and aid sustainability. Not a lot more can be done unless/until a new stadium Wael would only ever get his money back on selling the club, if a potential buyer was prepared to pay the value he put on it. One challenge for the accountants on here could be to try to create a pretend break even budget for the club and see what they were up against Thanks contradiction, haven’t read all the thread but that seems a fair summing up of the position of many football clubs at the moment. And whilst some find it easy to criticise they don’t usually provide any hard, concrete or realistic alternatives at this present time. I’d suggest there’s many other clubs in a similar situation and probably worse because they don’t have WAQ. UTG!
|
|
warehamgas
Predictions League
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,558
|
Post by warehamgas on Jul 15, 2021 19:49:29 GMT
Epping A large chunk of the debt has gone, that's what the capitalisation does, it converts the it to shares. It has gone, it has ceased to be. However much anyone wants to use the 'debt' figure against Wael they can no longer do so (not saying you are doing that but some will). We are no longer £23m in debt and this will show in the next accounts (as per the note in the accounts just published) You could call it a 'reset'. or perhaps 'Year Zero'. Debt will 'commence' being run up again from that point though (it already has and you can work it out based on 50k a week loss) as we know that the club is operating at a loss as are 99% of other clubs. Some people seem to think we re a 'basket case' for losing 50k per week but if thats true then nearly all other clubs are too. For example- MK Dons lost £63k per week, Charlton 100k per week. The list is endless. And practically all of them have better grounds than Rovers with better income generating opportunities. Basket cases, all of them, obviously. (we know some really are) The model of funding clubs is broken. Its madness, no other business does this, but football is not any old business. Its exists for the Lee Brown moment (or equivilent) which all clubs are trying to get to. It doesn't actually exist to make a profit as its primary aim. There is no pitch invasion from the fans for breaking even. We know the club were trying to become more sustainable before Covid, with some limited success, but remember that if Rovers really did try and operate in a break even way in the current circumstances of operating a ground that is hardly fit for purpose it would likely need : Huge reduction in wages, a non competitive team, a squad of say 18 being paid peanuts (remember it must be " what we can afford") No development squad, no academy (no future?) Limited support staff (forget scouting the opposition, unless Joey does that as well as training etc, as he wouldn't have any coaches) Limited scouting for recruitment Even worse facilities at the Mem for the supporters (maintenance costs at the Mem are very high due to its age, high expenditure is necessary to get annual health & safety licence) And thats only part of it, you get the picture. But we may break even if we did the above, few would bother to attend though as we finished mid table in Conference South (at which point one or two people could carry WAQ down Glos Road for breaking even) This is the reality that owners of football clubs have to deal with and we as fans need to appreciate more. Until the model changes clubs are reliant on the owners to fund losses, as the alternative is the bleak picture above. WAQ has to balance the above with the need for a competitive team which requires giving a manager the best chance to do so, and the expectation of fans (rightly so) to do well and aim high. What the club is clearly trying to do is control costs through better value contracts and increasing income where it can (ticketing, retail outsourcing, bars development but it has very limited options whilst at the Mem) and try and get a competitive team, which will ensure crowds are decent, with some players sold on at a profit and aid sustainability. Not a lot more can be done unless/until a new stadium Wael would only ever get his money back on selling the club, if a potential buyer was prepared to pay the value he put on it. One challenge for the accountants on here could be to try to create a pretend break even budget for the club and see what they were up against Oh that's good, so if someone came along and offered Wael the (circa) £7m that Higgs was paid to hand the keys over then he would pretend that the massive losses he's run up over the last 5 years didn't count, because a paper exercise has been carried out to convert the debt into equity, stick the £7m in his back pocket and he would have lost nothing. Glad that's been cleared up. As for the ongoing losses, I don't know how many times this has to be explained to you or asked of you. If Wael had Lansdown's income and had built a 'fit for purpose' stadium, then nobody would care too much about the accounts showing a loss of £3m a year, the issue is that he has no income that anybody has been able to demonstrate that comes anywhere near being able to support that level of financial burden, and our new stand is a tent. Oh, and we are in L2 with a yob for a manager. Apart from that, it's all going very well. Come on TWD that’s a bit unfair. You’ve done two things there, used your great ability to be sarcastic and tried to imply that contradiction doesn’t know what he’s talking about when you said “how many times does this need to be explained.” It would have helped the discussion had you made some alternative suggestions and solutions about how Wael could improve things at the current times. UTG!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2021 20:01:34 GMT
Not the case at all, I am not comfortable with losing 50k a week, but I am a tad more realistic than you it seems.
You seem to be struggling with how to approach the problem that our expenditure is exceeding income.
Try it another way, imagine Wael is gone and you are in charge so now its your problem.
Surely you have at least some idea as to how to to approach it?
I would start by getting in touch with some accountants that I've worked with in the past and ask them to try to work out what the heck has been going on over the last 5 years.You are really struggling here by looks of it. You are REALLY on the ropes.
The iceberg is approaching, (your words) you are running the ship and being asked what to do and you have come up with the equivilent of "mmm think I might write a letter to the builders to see what they make of this chaps".
This is not about accounting treatement, this is about the running of the business losing 50k a week for which you are heavily criticising the ownership. (which to be fair is not unreasonable) and for which I am saying its far more complicated than that.
Please come up with something that should be done to address it. For your own street cred if nothing more.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2021 20:09:49 GMT
Oh that's good, so if someone came along and offered Wael the (circa) £7m that Higgs was paid to hand the keys over then he would pretend that the massive losses he's run up over the last 5 years didn't count, because a paper exercise has been carried out to convert the debt into equity, stick the £7m in his back pocket and he would have lost nothing. Glad that's been cleared up. As for the ongoing losses, I don't know how many times this has to be explained to you or asked of you. If Wael had Lansdown's income and had built a 'fit for purpose' stadium, then nobody would care too much about the accounts showing a loss of £3m a year, the issue is that he has no income that anybody has been able to demonstrate that comes anywhere near being able to support that level of financial burden, and our new stand is a tent. Oh, and we are in L2 with a yob for a manager. Apart from that, it's all going very well. Come on TWD that’s a bit unfair. You’ve done two things there, used your great ability to be sarcastic and tried to imply that contradiction doesn’t know what he’s talking about when you said “how many times does this need to be explained.” It would have helped the discussion had you made some alternative suggestions and solutions about how Wael could improve things at the current times. UTG! Try to keep up. Yes, I'm talking down to you, in the exact same way you are talking to me, so don't bother complaining about it. It's not my fault if it's too difficult for you to follow. I'll try to make it easy enough for both you and contradiction. It's not an issue to me particularly how much Wael loses, the problem is whether it's sustainable or not. So, the ball is now firmly in your court to demonstrate that Wael is in a position to continue to support £3m PA. We've had his known business interests discussed on here, and they don't come close to providing that level of income for him. Over to you.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jul 15, 2021 20:11:07 GMT
I would start by getting in touch with some accountants that I've worked with in the past and ask them to try to work out what the heck has been going on over the last 5 years. You are really struggling here by looks of it. You are REALLY on the ropes.
The iceberg is approaching, (your words) you are rinning the ship and being asked what to do and you have come up with the equivilent of "mmm think I might write a letter to the builders to see what they make of this chaps".
This is not about accounting treatement, this is about the running of the business losing 50k a week for which you are heavily criticising the ownership. (which to be fair is not unreasonable) and for which I am saying its far more complicated than that.
Please come up with something that should be done to address it. For your own street cred if nothing more.
'Street cred' :-)
|
|
warehamgas
Predictions League
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,558
|
Post by warehamgas on Jul 15, 2021 20:12:30 GMT
Epping A large chunk of the debt has gone, that's what the capitalisation does, it converts the it to shares. It has gone, it has ceased to be. However much anyone wants to use the 'debt' figure against Wael they can no longer do so (not saying you are doing that but some will). We are no longer £23m in debt and this will show in the next accounts (as per the note in the accounts just published) You could call it a 'reset'. or perhaps 'Year Zero'. Debt will 'commence' being run up again from that point though (it already has and you can work it out based on 50k a week loss) as we know that the club is operating at a loss as are 99% of other clubs. Some people seem to think we re a 'basket case' for losing 50k per week but if thats true then nearly all other clubs are too. For example- MK Dons lost £63k per week, Charlton 100k per week. The list is endless. And practically all of them have better grounds than Rovers with better income generating opportunities. Basket cases, all of them, obviously. (we know some really are) The model of funding clubs is broken. Its madness, no other business does this, but football is not any old business. Its exists for the Lee Brown moment (or equivilent) which all clubs are trying to get to. It doesn't actually exist to make a profit as its primary aim. There is no pitch invasion from the fans for breaking even. We know the club were trying to become more sustainable before Covid, with some limited success, but remember that if Rovers really did try and operate in a break even way in the current circumstances of operating a ground that is hardly fit for purpose it would likely need : Huge reduction in wages, a non competitive team, a squad of say 18 being paid peanuts (remember it must be " what we can afford") No development squad, no academy (no future?) Limited support staff (forget scouting the opposition, unless Joey does that as well as training etc, as he wouldn't have any coaches) Limited scouting for recruitment Even worse facilities at the Mem for the supporters (maintenance costs at the Mem are very high due to its age, high expenditure is necessary to get annual health & safety licence) And thats only part of it, you get the picture. But we may break even if we did the above, few would bother to attend though as we finished mid table in Conference South (at which point one or two people could carry WAQ down Glos Road for breaking even) This is the reality that owners of football clubs have to deal with and we as fans need to appreciate more. Until the model changes clubs are reliant on the owners to fund losses, as the alternative is the bleak picture above. WAQ has to balance the above with the need for a competitive team which requires giving a manager the best chance to do so, and the expectation of fans (rightly so) to do well and aim high. What the club is clearly trying to do is control costs through better value contracts and increasing income where it can (ticketing, retail outsourcing, bars development but it has very limited options whilst at the Mem) and try and get a competitive team, which will ensure crowds are decent, with some players sold on at a profit and aid sustainability. Not a lot more can be done unless/until a new stadium Wael would only ever get his money back on selling the club, if a potential buyer was prepared to pay the value he put on it. One challenge for the accountants on here could be to try to create a pretend break even budget for the club and see what they were up against These are average figures for the three years to June 2020 Income Profit (Loss) AFC Wimbledon £ 5.177 million (£ 0.966 million) Crewe Alexandra £ 3.951 million (£ 0.774 million) Lincoln City £ 5.740 million (£ 1.385 million) Shrewsbury Town £ 5.799 million £ 0.619 million (profit) Bristol Rovers FC £ 6.056 million (£ 2.759 million) Why do we under perform on and off the pitch compared to these other clubs ? Thanks for posting those figures swiss. It’s only when you start to delve down that you start to see the complete picture and comparing with others is a good way to look to improve, imo. So Crewe with two thirds of our income have only a quarter of our loss. Lincoln look the nearest to us with a broadly similar income yet are making losses half of what we are doing. I would hope someone in the club are actively comparing operations to get to the reasons for the loss. In most organisations it’s usually staff that are your main expenditure so most organisations looking to cut costs would probably look at staff first of all. Not a comfortable thing to do after relegation and finishing bottom. But for the time being thank goodness we have Wael. UTG!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2021 20:14:46 GMT
I would start by getting in touch with some accountants that I've worked with in the past and ask them to try to work out what the heck has been going on over the last 5 years. You are really struggling here by looks of it. You are REALLY on the ropes.
The iceberg is approaching, (your words) you are rinning the ship and being asked what to do and you have come up with the equivilent of "mmm think I might write a letter to the builders to see what they make of this chaps".
This is not about accounting treatement, this is about the running of the business losing 50k a week for which you are heavily criticising the ownership. (which to be fair is not unreasonable) and for which I am saying its far more complicated than that.
Please come up with something that should be done to address it. For your own street cred if nothing more.
All you are doing here is making it clear to anybody still bothering to read this that you have no clue what you are talking about. Point me towards the post where I suggested that the issue was accounting procedure? You can't defend your position so are making stuff up. To start with, you would take a look at the accounts of the business to try to understand where the income was, where the expenditure was and then compare that to similar companies. Once you actually understood what had been happening within the organisation you would, exactly as Swiss says, seek the help of industry experts. On the ropes? If you say so. But it's nothing to do with me, it's to do with Rovers losing huge sums, more than we can see Wael has as income, and the club falling like a stone at the same time.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2021 20:14:51 GMT
There are 5, you're not in Rovers accounts department are you ? I looked at League 1 clubs with a similar turnover level to Rovers but couldn't include Gillingham because their accounts are still overdue, Burton Albion's figures are skewed because they were in the Championship during the period, Plymouth changed their accounting dates in 2019, and Oxford didn't publish a P & L in 2018. Thanks for the rationale.
I dont think its nearly as simple as that though. Whats the circumstances of these clubs compared to BRFC? Especially regarding their stadiums. Wimbledon just built one, Shewsbsury had a new stadium a few years ago. Presume they have plenty of income generation opportunities in it, up to date tech, relatively little upkeep etc etc.
We play in a dump. Its unchanged for many years. Good example - matchday hospitality. We can serve 500 meals. Play Man U in the cup and its still 500 meals. A quick and easy example of our limitations. We are paying for the lack of development of the Mem for years, based on a promise of a new ground in the future.
Our outlay on ground maintenance very high, just to get a health & safety certificate to play in the bloody thing. Im pretty sure that was one of the drivers for the bars being done out.
Just some simple examples that its necessary to compare apples with apples
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2021 20:19:09 GMT
You are really struggling here by looks of it. You are REALLY on the ropes.
The iceberg is approaching, (your words) you are running the ship and being asked what to do and you have come up with the equivilent of "mmm think I might write a letter to the builders to see what they make of this chaps".
This is not about accounting treatement, this is about the running of the business losing 50k a week for which you are heavily criticising the ownership. (which to be fair is not unreasonable) and for which I am saying its far more complicated than that.
Please come up with something that should be done to address it. For your own street cred if nothing more.
All you are doing here is making it clear to anybody still bothering to read this that you have no clue what you are talking about. To start with, in this position, you would take a look at the accounts of the business to try to understand where the income was, where the expenditure was and then compare that to similar companies. Once you actually understood what had been happening within the organisation you would, exactly as Swiss says, seek the help of industry experts. On the ropes? If you say so. But it's nothing to do with me, it's to do with Rovers losing huge sums, more than we can see Wael has as income, and the club falling like a stone at the same time. What a cop out.
So you cant offer any alternatives but will keep criticising anyway. Fair enough. We probbaly knew that anyway.Thanks for confirming
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2021 20:24:26 GMT
"That the club is clearly trying to do is control costs through better value contracts and increasing income where it can (ticketing, retail outsourcing, bars development but it has very limited options whilst at the Mem) and try and get a competitive team, which will ensure crowds are decent, with some players sold on at a profit and aid sustainability." Can you see any evidence in the latest accounts the club are trying to control costs, as it look to me there's been little change, next year's accounts will show the costs of recruiting 2 new managers and it's looking like Wael's given JB an open cheque book this summer. Probably not much in these accounts, I was referring generally to actions post 19/20 - the recruitment (that clearly failed miserably), the contracts offered (no more 3/4 years) and the outsourcing of the likes of the ticketing etc to get better value.
I think the playing staff costs will show significant reduction in next years accounts, with the obvious exception of management costs that will totally blow those reductions away.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2021 20:25:52 GMT
If you actually want to compare apples with apples then I agree, comparing us to Shrewsbury is pointless.
We take 35,000 ~ 40,000 supporters to showpiece matches. Our potential is huge compared to theirs.
Shrews took 14,000 to the Checkatrade final in 2018 at Wembley.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2021 20:28:12 GMT
All you are doing here is making it clear to anybody still bothering to read this that you have no clue what you are talking about. To start with, in this position, you would take a look at the accounts of the business to try to understand where the income was, where the expenditure was and then compare that to similar companies. Once you actually understood what had been happening within the organisation you would, exactly as Swiss says, seek the help of industry experts. On the ropes? If you say so. But it's nothing to do with me, it's to do with Rovers losing huge sums, more than we can see Wael has as income, and the club falling like a stone at the same time. What a cop out.
So you cant offer any alternatives but will keep criticising anyway. Fair enough. We probbaly knew that anyway.Thanks for confirming
So, in your opinion, understanding the present accounts then seeking professional help in getting expenditure and losses broadly in line with other clubs with a similar profile is 'a cop out'. OK then. BTW, can you please provide the data that you've used to reach the conclusion that the arrangement with TicketMaster provides the club with 'better value' ?
|
|
warehamgas
Predictions League
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,558
|
Post by warehamgas on Jul 15, 2021 20:30:51 GMT
Come on TWD that’s a bit unfair. You’ve done two things there, used your great ability to be sarcastic and tried to imply that contradiction doesn’t know what he’s talking about when you said “how many times does this need to be explained.” It would have helped the discussion had you made some alternative suggestions and solutions about how Wael could improve things at the current times. UTG! Try to keep up. Yes, I'm talking down to you, in the exact same way you are talking to me, so don't bother complaining about it. It's not my fault if it's too difficult for you to follow. I'll try to make it easy enough for both you and contradiction. It's not an issue to me particularly how much Wael loses, the problem is whether it's sustainable or not. So, the ball is now firmly in your court to demonstrate that Wael is in a position to continue to support £3m PA. We've had his known business interests discussed on here, and they don't come close to providing that level of income for him. Over to you. Well, there’s a surprise, some clever words and talking down but no answers, but I do appreciate you trying to make it easy for me. Thank you.😉 I’d suggest losses of that size are not sustainable but I’ve no idea how much Wael has got, rather like you I suspect. And I don’t really have to demonstrate anything. I thought contradiction summed up our predicament very well and said so. You replied with sarcasm but no suggestions and when called out decided to do the same again, this time to me. Hey ho. Blimey, this from someone who didn’t even know who we signed a few days ago and couldn’t be bothered to find out. Priceless. UTG!
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Jul 15, 2021 20:37:17 GMT
There was a point earlier stating if Rovers were sold would the owners take £7 Mill.
How many clubs in the EFL could be sold so that the owners can get all their money back?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 15, 2021 20:41:09 GMT
There are 5, you're not in Rovers accounts department are you ? I looked at League 1 clubs with a similar turnover level to Rovers but couldn't include Gillingham because their accounts are still overdue, Burton Albion's figures are skewed because they were in the Championship during the period, Plymouth changed their accounting dates in 2019, and Oxford didn't publish a P & L in 2018. Thanks for the rationale.
I dont think its nearly as simple as that though. Whats the circumstances of these clubs compared to BRFC? Especially regarding their stadiums. Wimbledon just built one, Shewsbsury had a new stadium a few years ago. Presume they have plenty of income generation opportunities in it, up to date tech, relatively little upkeep etc etc.
We play in a dump. Its unchanged for many years. Good example - matchday hospitality. We can serve 500 meals. Play Man U in the cup and its still 500 meals. A quick and easy example of our limitations. We are paying for the lack of development of the Mem for years, based on a promise of a new ground in the future.
Our outlay on ground maintenance very high, just to get a health & safety certificate to play in the bloody thing. Im pretty sure that was one of the drivers for the bars being done out.
Just some simple examples that its necessary to compare apples with apples
I agree the overall situation is not simple but the comparison of these figures is extremely simple and is a genuine measure. We are talking about actual income and how it is spent not a "what if" scenario. These clubs spend their income wisely, they create a team which is competitive enough to stay in League 1 and they provide their supporters with reasonably comfortable facilities. If Rovers were able to serve 2000 meals per game and boosted revenue proportionately or if the ground was brand new and very low maintenance, on the evidence we have, the club would waste the extra money through mismanagement. Incidentally, does the Mem have a current health & safety certificate ?
|
|
warehamgas
Predictions League
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,558
|
Post by warehamgas on Jul 15, 2021 20:44:08 GMT
There are 5, you're not in Rovers accounts department are you ? I looked at League 1 clubs with a similar turnover level to Rovers but couldn't include Gillingham because their accounts are still overdue, Burton Albion's figures are skewed because they were in the Championship during the period, Plymouth changed their accounting dates in 2019, and Oxford didn't publish a P & L in 2018. Thanks for the rationale.
I dont think its nearly as simple as that though. Whats the circumstances of these clubs compared to BRFC? Especially regarding their stadiums. Wimbledon just built one, Shewsbsury had a new stadium a few years ago. Presume they have plenty of income generation opportunities in it, up to date tech, relatively little upkeep etc etc.
We play in a dump. Its unchanged for many years. Good example - matchday hospitality. We can serve 500 meals. Play Man U in the cup and its still 500 meals. A quick and easy example of our limitations. We are paying for the lack of development of the Mem for years, based on a promise of a new ground in the future.
Our outlay on ground maintenance very high, just to get a health & safety certificate to play in the bloody thing. Im pretty sure that was one of the drivers for the bars being done out.
Just some simple examples that its necessary to compare apples with apples
You’re correct in that comparing directly with other clubs isn’t straightforward but even in differing contexts some comparisons can be made for example staffing levels, playing squad size and costs, match day staffing and non playing staffing. Maintenance comparisons would be very different when you look at the Mem. Perhaps travelling costs would differ. Most businesses operate in differing contexts and depending on what their core purpose is they will still likely do some benchmarking comparisons with neighbours or others about what they do and what it costs. Of course it’s best to compare apples with apples but in Rovers case perhaps we're Granny Smith and the other clubs are Golden Delicious or Gala, all apples but different kinds.😀 UTG!
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 15, 2021 20:46:58 GMT
Thanks for the rationale.
I dont think its nearly as simple as that though. Whats the circumstances of these clubs compared to BRFC? Especially regarding their stadiums. Wimbledon just built one, Shewsbsury had a new stadium a few years ago. Presume they have plenty of income generation opportunities in it, up to date tech, relatively little upkeep etc etc.
We play in a dump. Its unchanged for many years. Good example - matchday hospitality. We can serve 500 meals. Play Man U in the cup and its still 500 meals. A quick and easy example of our limitations. We are paying for the lack of development of the Mem for years, based on a promise of a new ground in the future.
Our outlay on ground maintenance very high, just to get a health & safety certificate to play in the bloody thing. Im pretty sure that was one of the drivers for the bars being done out.
Just some simple examples that its necessary to compare apples with apples
You’re correct in that comparing directly with other clubs isn’t straightforward but even in differing contexts some comparisons can be made for example staffing levels, playing squad size and costs, match day staffing and non playing staffing. Maintenance comparisons would be very different when you look at the Mem. Perhaps travelling costs would differ. Most businesses operate in differing contexts and depending on what their core purpose is they will still likely do some benchmarking comparisons with neighbours or others about what they do and what it costs. Of course it’s best to compare apples with apples but in Rovers case perhaps we're Granny Smith and the other clubs are Golden Delicious or Gala, all apples but different kinds.😀 UTG! In days gone by I'd have come up with a rotten to the core joke Wareham ...... but I've mellowed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2021 20:46:58 GMT
Try to keep up. Yes, I'm talking down to you, in the exact same way you are talking to me, so don't bother complaining about it. It's not my fault if it's too difficult for you to follow. I'll try to make it easy enough for both you and contradiction. It's not an issue to me particularly how much Wael loses, the problem is whether it's sustainable or not. So, the ball is now firmly in your court to demonstrate that Wael is in a position to continue to support £3m PA. We've had his known business interests discussed on here, and they don't come close to providing that level of income for him. Over to you. Well, there’s a surprise, some clever words and talking down but no answers, but I do appreciate you trying to make it easy for me. Thank you.😉 I’d suggest losses of that size are not sustainable but I’ve no idea how much Wael has got, rather like you I suspect. And I don’t really have to demonstrate anything. I thought contradiction summed up our predicament very well and said so. You replied with sarcasm but no suggestions and when called out decided to do the same again, this time to me. Hey ho. Blimey, this from someone who didn’t even know who we signed a few days ago and couldn’t be bothered to find out. Priceless. UTG! Why is this a hard concept for you? Can you show where Wael has sufficient income to cover the present level of ongoing losses? As said several times, over a long period, if we were in 1982's position and were losing £10m PA I wouldn't care as you can easily see that the owner has sufficient income and it's a matter of public record that he has sufficient reserves to cover this on an ongoing basis. The rest of it from contradiction is just bluster and noise, much the same as you attempting to suggest that because I haven't watched the official site for player signing news, my concerns about the club's finances are not valid. It's a daft suggestion, as well you know.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2021 20:56:37 GMT
What a cop out.
So you cant offer any alternatives but will keep criticising anyway. Fair enough. We probbaly knew that anyway.Thanks for confirming
So, in your opinion, understanding the present accounts then seeking professional help in getting expenditure and losses broadly in line with other clubs with a similar profile is 'a cop out'. OK then. BTW, can you please provide the data that you've used to reach the conclusion that the arrangement with TicketMaster provides the club with 'better value' ? Its not about understanding the accounts is it, its about running the business. Its a £2.5m shortfall, you are talking major policy decisions here.
Other clubs have different circumstances, other challenges that may or may not apply.
But you have already gone to print with the criticism, then only now trying to find out what options you have. You dont really seem to know do you, although you made up your mind anyway.
I could give you some options quite quickly, whether they would be "acceptable" to the fan base who knows, as none of them are very palatable.
Regarding the ticketing, I believe they undertook a tender excercise. I think it was on the web site (which you cant be bothered to read I recall). If it was a tender then one would assume its better value than what we had before.
|
|