Your investments can go up or down. Things you buy could be good or bad. A league season could be good or bad. Your revenue could go up or go down. It's getting close to the time on this thread where someone should mention Hitler...
@DevC said:
I believe that is what you were implying about off-field staff. I am glad you are rowing back from that one.
I don't remember any previous numbers, @marlowchair. Would you like to remind us.
The terrace sponsorship is worth some level of income if you can find someone willing to pay for it. Then you would take a view whether to sign up that offer or wait for a potential better offer down the road. Sometimes that offer will come, sometimes you wish you had taken the first offer when available. Its very similar to selling your house, (or similar still renting it on a long contract).
If I remember your question was about do I think kit sponsorship rates should increase or fall on the back of a promotion? Between league 1 and league 2, with similar levels of TV exposure and similar levels of home support, intrinsically I see no reason why they should necessarily increase or fall. So it simply comes down to what companies if any are interested and how badly they want it.
Now presumably you are going to base your narrative on a drop in shirt sponsorship value this year (which may or may not be true) and your narrative will claim that that is evidence of management incompetence. That could be true or it could be simply that there were nobody else interested at rates available when the previous deal was agreed.
No, but I’m done wasting time with you. It’s pointless.
If anyone else would like to engage on my post with the questions I’m glad to go into it and demonstrate what I know to be the case.
Dev, don’t accuse me of not supporting my position and reasons for that position with supportive argument and foundation ever again, you’ve shown you aren’t interested regardless.
I know the answer and am happy to give my valuation after you’ve considered it Dev.
This is a pretty irritating approach. I'm not convinced anyone can know the answers to the questions you have posed, but if you do it would be better to state them at the start than have other people guess first.
My gut feeling is that none of it will add up to the club being sustainable given the state of lower league football finances in general, but I'd be very happy to be wrong. There are only three fan owned clubs in the football league, so it would be a great achievement if we could keep going with our current structure and be a positive example to others; but the other side of that coin is maybe there is a good reason the vast majority of clubs are not fan owned.
The phrase most used was 'football fortune' which was repeated every time it was said for some reason. I went to bed dreaming of Nicky Campbell. Mind you nothing new there.
I don't remember any previous numbers, @marlowchair. Would you like to remind us.
I don’t recall them either- which is not to say they’re not there. You’ve said you can walk us through it but don’t want to until we have a go at guessing as last time some posters ridiculed them. I for one would like to be taken through it. I may disagree or I may not, I promise I won’t ridicule.
I’m going to work you through it objectively to show you why it’s a statement I make with substance to support it. It’s what you continually ask for .
yes it is, @marlowchair . So I answer your question about whether shirt sponsorship should be higher in Lg1 or lg2 with an honest answer that I don't think it makes much difference and you run away. So much for convincing supported argument that you promised us.......
Incidentally for those interested, I looked up three random Lg1 and Lg2 shirt sponsors to see if there was an obvious trend.
Rochdale in lg1 are sponsored by crown oils - a locally based company, perhaps owned by a fan
Stevenage in Lg2 are sponsored by Tyre pros - a locally based company perhaps owned by a fan
Exeter in lg2 are sponsored by Flybe - a business selling nationally but based locally
Cheltenham in lg2 are sponsored by Mira- a business selling nationally but based locally
And then the odd ones
Southend are sponsored by prostrate Cancer UK - I cant find a direct link
Gillingham bizarrely in the current financial climate are sponsored by Medway council
I haven't checked the other 41 but at that brief random sample suggestion would be no huge difference between status of Lg1 and lg2 shirt sponsors at least and my guess would be in the price that can be obtained. Indeed the guess from the latter two at least would be that funds raised would be fairly low in either league.
I don't remember any previous numbers, @marlowchair. Would you like to remind us.
I don’t recall them either- which is not to say they’re not there. You’ve said you can walk us through it but don’t want to until we have a go at guessing as last time some posters ridiculed them. I for one would like to be taken through it. I may disagree or I may not, I promise I won’t ridicule.
Oh and do you have comparisons with other clubs. For example clubs X Y and Z who get around 4000 a game make on average £y profit from catering, WWFC only make 1/3 of £y would be the kind of concrete stuff that might have me thinking we could do better in that area. More so than directors may have conflicting interests or Hayes was or was not a good egg (chaser).
I would guess L1 shirt sponsorship might be worth a little more owing to being able to put your brand in front of 40,000 at Sunderland over 1,500 at Morecambe (extreme cases, I know).
@Shev said:
I would guess L1 shirt sponsorship might be worth a little more owing to being able to put your brand in front of 40,000 at Sunderland over 1,500 at Morecambe (extreme cases, I know).
Depends on the brand perhaps. A national one or a local one. And ‘football fortune’ may play a part here- if the league loses the big clubs at the end of the season will the sponsors want to renegotiaite??
I know the answer and am happy to give my valuation after you’ve considered it Dev.
This is a pretty irritating approach. I'm not convinced anyone can know the answers to the questions you have posed, but if you do it would be better to state them at the start than have other people guess first.
My gut feeling is that none of it will add up to the club being sustainable given the state of lower league football finances in general, but I'd be very happy to be wrong. There are only three fan owned clubs in the football league, so it would be a great achievement if we could keep going with our current structure and be a positive example to others; but the other side of that coin is maybe there is a good reason the vast majority of clubs are not fan owned.
Apologies for the irritating approach but if I just put the numbers to it i’d only be accused of making them up , hence my approach
Like I said it won’t fill the whole gap , but I do think we deserve to know if the current operating deficit is best case or worst case. We deserve to know how much , if any, our current management and leadership is increasing the Deficit due to competency and decision making.
We are being misled or frightened into the premise that prize money and player sales will cease to exist in future when the £500k per year loss is thrown about , which is hugely disingenuous . They can’t havs it both ways and pretend they are running it even close to perfectly.
They aren’t and they know it. More than once directors have been made aware of errors and problems that have cost us money.
@Shev said:
I would guess L1 shirt sponsorship might be worth a little more owing to being able to put your brand in front of 40,000 at Sunderland over 1,500 at Morecambe (extreme cases, I know).
Depends on the brand perhaps. A national one or a local one. And ‘football fortune’ may play a part here- if the league loses the big clubs at the end of the season will the sponsors want to renegotiaite??
League 2 v league 1 is not really the point, we sign out sponsorships year on year , that is per season. Sometimes we sign them for 2 seasons like Utilita but that’s an exception.
Therefore forget other clubs or other league 1 and league 2 values .
We mostly have the same kit sponsors visible this season as last. Some move to new positions but essentially we are negotiating with the same people last close season as the pre season before.
But difference being this time was on the back of a brilliant promotion charge.
@blucket said:
Someone enquired about Wycombe Rye swimming pool- yes-it was refurbished recently-the current wife swims there regularly-they’ve done a good job?
That was me. Thanks. Are you still allowed to go fishing in the dyke? I fished there many years ago. Some big carp in there.
One argument on sponsor income would be whether there is a premium on being involved with a side pushing for promotion rather tham battling relegation?
I also can't see any world where a club/company plays the perfect game and maximises every opportunity.
Apologies for the irritating approach but if I just put the numbers to it i’d only be accused of making them up , hence my approach
Then don’t just put the numbers, give the context so that it’s clear you aren’t making them up.
Like I said it won’t fill the whole gap , but I do think we deserve to know if the current operating deficit is best case or worst case. We deserve to know how much , if any, our current management and leadership is increasing the Deficit due to competency and decision making.
>
I think that would be very difficult to quantify.
We are being misled or frightened into the premise that prize money and player sales will cease to exist in future when the £500k per year loss is thrown about , which is hugely disingenuous . They can’t havs it both ways and pretend they are running it even close to perfectly.
There is a massive risk if we rely on player sales and prize money and then we don’t sell any players or generate any prize money. What happens if we don’t make anything from those sources two years running? Three years? That scenario is not unrealistic so we need to know the club would survive it happening.
They aren’t and they know it. More than once directors have been made aware of errors and problems that have cost us money.
I think that’s fairly usual in any business, there are always improvements to be made - the question for me would be around the scale of those problems and what had been done about them.
I've kept my own counsel on this discussion until now and break the habit only to say that if @marlowchair has anything substantive to say on the questions to which he has referred countless times on the past few pages, he should say it or stop making the insinuations contained in the original post.
I don’t know about anyone else but I would be far happier with our club getting less income from a ‘cool’ sponsor like Cherry Red than more income from a blander sponsor like Tesco Express for example.
This shirt sponsorship thing is one of those lovely little shades of grey things that add to the colour (so to speak) of the debate.
As a lower league club do you maximise your possible sponsorship opportunity by taking the highest bidder or do you stay loyal to the local businesses who pay less but will stick with you for years to come if your brand visibility drops a bit?
@bookertease said:
I don’t know about anyone else but I would be far happier with our club getting less income from a ‘cool’ sponsor like Cherry Red than more income from a blander sponsor like Tesco Express for example.
This shirt sponsorship thing is one of those lovely little shades of grey things that add to the colour (so to speak) of the debate.
As a lower league club do you maximise your possible sponsorship opportunity by taking the highest bidder or do you stay loyal to the local businesses who pay less but will stick with you for years to come if your brand visibility drops a bit?
That would be nice in principle however we don’t have that luxury if we are running an unfunded loss. And we certainly haven’t made that judgement call, we should seek to get as much value as possible on every piece of available inventory.
Pay day lenders and betting companies should be tabled if they are an option for trust board to consider and decide if we will accept the cash over principals
Apologies for the irritating approach but if I just put the numbers to it i’d only be accused of making them up , hence my approach
Then don’t just put the numbers, give the context so that it’s clear you aren’t making them up.
Like I said it won’t fill the whole gap , but I do think we deserve to know if the current operating deficit is best case or worst case. We deserve to know how much , if any, our current management and leadership is increasing the Deficit due to competency and decision making.
>
I think that would be very difficult to quantify.
We are being misled or frightened into the premise that prize money and player sales will cease to exist in future when the £500k per year loss is thrown about , which is hugely disingenuous . They can’t havs it both ways and pretend they are running it even close to perfectly.
There is a massive risk if we rely on player sales and prize money and then we don’t sell any players or generate any prize money. What happens if we don’t make anything from those sources two years running? Three years? That scenario is not unrealistic so we need to know the club would survive it happening.
They aren’t and they know it. More than once directors have been made aware of errors and problems that have cost us money.
I think that’s fairly usual in any business, there are always improvements to be made - the question for me would be around the scale of those problems and what had been done about them.
Good post I agree with you on much of it. If enough was done about them and the scale wasn’t affecting our chances of staying supporter owned I wouldn’t have a problem
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
One argument on sponsor income would be whether there is a premium on being involved with a side pushing for promotion rather tham battling relegation?
I also can't see any world where a club/company plays the perfect game and maximises every opportunity.
Agree. No one is asking for perfection or even close to it. We can only dream that our off pitch and football board capability might be close to equalling the on pitch and recruitment quality and talent of our manager and staff.
We are more tony Adams than Gareth Ainsworth in that dept sadly.
With respect @marlowchair my point is the opposite. Yes we might ‘win’ in the short-term with more money from the likes of pay-day loan companies but ‘lose’ in the long-term if we, for example get relegated and having given previously loyal sponsors the cold shoulder end up scaping the bottom of the barrel.
If your argument on this is that we should always take the highest bidder then I am afraid I fundamentally disagree with you and it puts the rest of your arguments about financial mismanagement in a very different pot.
If you do hold that fundamental and narrow view then, for me, I have lost faith with a fair proportion of your arguments.
We are not dismissing or upsetting any loyal local backers because of giving them the cold shoulder for bigger nationals,we are upsetting them because of bad management. Our financial revenue is adversely affected directly due to these issues.
Very few , if any league clubs are refusing larger offers for shirt sponsors than currently received, and none do who are telling supporters they are broke and it’s impossible to stay in the league unless we go private.
Comments
Your investments can go up or down. Things you buy could be good or bad. A league season could be good or bad. Your revenue could go up or go down. It's getting close to the time on this thread where someone should mention Hitler...
No, but I’m done wasting time with you. It’s pointless.
If anyone else would like to engage on my post with the questions I’m glad to go into it and demonstrate what I know to be the case.
Dev, don’t accuse me of not supporting my position and reasons for that position with supportive argument and foundation ever again, you’ve shown you aren’t interested regardless.
This is a pretty irritating approach. I'm not convinced anyone can know the answers to the questions you have posed, but if you do it would be better to state them at the start than have other people guess first.
My gut feeling is that none of it will add up to the club being sustainable given the state of lower league football finances in general, but I'd be very happy to be wrong. There are only three fan owned clubs in the football league, so it would be a great achievement if we could keep going with our current structure and be a positive example to others; but the other side of that coin is maybe there is a good reason the vast majority of clubs are not fan owned.
Just remembered another great quote from the meeting
"Do we want to be like Portsmouth or like Exeter?"
The phrase most used was 'football fortune' which was repeated every time it was said for some reason. I went to bed dreaming of Nicky Campbell. Mind you nothing new there.
I don’t recall them either- which is not to say they’re not there. You’ve said you can walk us through it but don’t want to until we have a go at guessing as last time some posters ridiculed them. I for one would like to be taken through it. I may disagree or I may not, I promise I won’t ridicule.
I’m going to work you through it objectively to show you why it’s a statement I make with substance to support it. It’s what you continually ask for .
yes it is, @marlowchair . So I answer your question about whether shirt sponsorship should be higher in Lg1 or lg2 with an honest answer that I don't think it makes much difference and you run away. So much for convincing supported argument that you promised us.......
Incidentally for those interested, I looked up three random Lg1 and Lg2 shirt sponsors to see if there was an obvious trend.
Rochdale in lg1 are sponsored by crown oils - a locally based company, perhaps owned by a fan
Stevenage in Lg2 are sponsored by Tyre pros - a locally based company perhaps owned by a fan
Exeter in lg2 are sponsored by Flybe - a business selling nationally but based locally
Cheltenham in lg2 are sponsored by Mira- a business selling nationally but based locally
And then the odd ones
Southend are sponsored by prostrate Cancer UK - I cant find a direct link
Gillingham bizarrely in the current financial climate are sponsored by Medway council
I haven't checked the other 41 but at that brief random sample suggestion would be no huge difference between status of Lg1 and lg2 shirt sponsors at least and my guess would be in the price that can be obtained. Indeed the guess from the latter two at least would be that funds raised would be fairly low in either league.
Oh and do you have comparisons with other clubs. For example clubs X Y and Z who get around 4000 a game make on average £y profit from catering, WWFC only make 1/3 of £y would be the kind of concrete stuff that might have me thinking we could do better in that area. More so than directors may have conflicting interests or Hayes was or was not a good egg (chaser).
I would guess L1 shirt sponsorship might be worth a little more owing to being able to put your brand in front of 40,000 at Sunderland over 1,500 at Morecambe (extreme cases, I know).
Depends on the brand perhaps. A national one or a local one. And ‘football fortune’ may play a part here- if the league loses the big clubs at the end of the season will the sponsors want to renegotiaite??
Apologies for the irritating approach but if I just put the numbers to it i’d only be accused of making them up , hence my approach
Like I said it won’t fill the whole gap , but I do think we deserve to know if the current operating deficit is best case or worst case. We deserve to know how much , if any, our current management and leadership is increasing the Deficit due to competency and decision making.
We are being misled or frightened into the premise that prize money and player sales will cease to exist in future when the £500k per year loss is thrown about , which is hugely disingenuous . They can’t havs it both ways and pretend they are running it even close to perfectly.
They aren’t and they know it. More than once directors have been made aware of errors and problems that have cost us money.
@marlowchair are you running for the Trust board?
League 2 v league 1 is not really the point, we sign out sponsorships year on year , that is per season. Sometimes we sign them for 2 seasons like Utilita but that’s an exception.
Therefore forget other clubs or other league 1 and league 2 values .
We mostly have the same kit sponsors visible this season as last. Some move to new positions but essentially we are negotiating with the same people last close season as the pre season before.
But difference being this time was on the back of a brilliant promotion charge.
But our sponsorship reduced.
Answering that could jeopardize anonymity. ?
Would you vote for me?
The fact he asks that question actually guarantees he doesn’t know me
That was me. Thanks. Are you still allowed to go fishing in the dyke? I fished there many years ago. Some big carp in there.
One argument on sponsor income would be whether there is a premium on being involved with a side pushing for promotion rather tham battling relegation?
I also can't see any world where a club/company plays the perfect game and maximises every opportunity.
@braywanderer , not sure it you're allowed, but I saw someone fishing there the other day! Can't imagine it's exactly rammed with fish though!
Then don’t just put the numbers, give the context so that it’s clear you aren’t making them up.
>
I think that would be very difficult to quantify.
There is a massive risk if we rely on player sales and prize money and then we don’t sell any players or generate any prize money. What happens if we don’t make anything from those sources two years running? Three years? That scenario is not unrealistic so we need to know the club would survive it happening.
I think that’s fairly usual in any business, there are always improvements to be made - the question for me would be around the scale of those problems and what had been done about them.
Some big carp on here as well at times.
It's that kind of plaice
How many squid do they charge for fishing there?
I've kept my own counsel on this discussion until now and break the habit only to say that if @marlowchair has anything substantive to say on the questions to which he has referred countless times on the past few pages, he should say it or stop making the insinuations contained in the original post.
I don’t know about anyone else but I would be far happier with our club getting less income from a ‘cool’ sponsor like Cherry Red than more income from a blander sponsor like Tesco Express for example.
This shirt sponsorship thing is one of those lovely little shades of grey things that add to the colour (so to speak) of the debate.
As a lower league club do you maximise your possible sponsorship opportunity by taking the highest bidder or do you stay loyal to the local businesses who pay less but will stick with you for years to come if your brand visibility drops a bit?
That would be nice in principle however we don’t have that luxury if we are running an unfunded loss. And we certainly haven’t made that judgement call, we should seek to get as much value as possible on every piece of available inventory.
Pay day lenders and betting companies should be tabled if they are an option for trust board to consider and decide if we will accept the cash over principals
Good post I agree with you on much of it. If enough was done about them and the scale wasn’t affecting our chances of staying supporter owned I wouldn’t have a problem
Agree. No one is asking for perfection or even close to it. We can only dream that our off pitch and football board capability might be close to equalling the on pitch and recruitment quality and talent of our manager and staff.
We are more tony Adams than Gareth Ainsworth in that dept sadly.
With respect @marlowchair my point is the opposite. Yes we might ‘win’ in the short-term with more money from the likes of pay-day loan companies but ‘lose’ in the long-term if we, for example get relegated and having given previously loyal sponsors the cold shoulder end up scaping the bottom of the barrel.
If your argument on this is that we should always take the highest bidder then I am afraid I fundamentally disagree with you and it puts the rest of your arguments about financial mismanagement in a very different pot.
If you do hold that fundamental and narrow view then, for me, I have lost faith with a fair proportion of your arguments.
We are not dismissing or upsetting any loyal local backers because of giving them the cold shoulder for bigger nationals,we are upsetting them because of bad management. Our financial revenue is adversely affected directly due to these issues.
Very few , if any league clubs are refusing larger offers for shirt sponsors than currently received, and none do who are telling supporters they are broke and it’s impossible to stay in the league unless we go private.