Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Alternatives

OK, you now know the size of the gap you need to close if you don't want to go down the road of outside investment. If that is your preference, you need to come up with a credible way to raise an extra £600k per annum or so. its a lot of money.

Ideas here please (a bit more substantive than better catering!)

Let me start, as part of a way to outside investment would you accept higher prices. Lets say £3 on the price of admission across the board. Expected additional revenue 6000 23 Games *3 = £414,000. Assume 5% people don't now come at all - 600023 games£20.05 = -£138000. Net additional revenue - £276000 - less VAT = £230k. Is this acceptable?

Remove senior discounts until reach age 67 (currently offered at 60) - estimated extra revenue - £50k. Yes or no?

Any more?

«13

Comments

  • I’d definitely remove senior citizens discount. Many of that age are considerably better off than 30-somethings.

  • @DevC , good idea to run this thread - however, I don't want to sound negative but are you suggesting raising every season ticket by £3 x 23 = £69? In some cases that's a very significant percentage increase. A meaningful proportion of our home gate is ST holders and I think you need to take that into account in your calculations. And charging the under 12's £3 rather than letting them in free as we do at present? Also, although we've had good gates so far this season, and can expect one on Saturday, I'm not sure it's safe to assume an average gate of 6,000 - you might expect the Luton and Oxford games to bring in fans, but there are a lot that won't have the same draw. I think you're a bit ambitious.

    I do think we are quite generous with the senior citizen's discount - I'd raise the qualifying level to 70 rather than remove it altogether though. (Full disclosure - I'm 63!)

  • Pretty good suggestion coming from someone who never goes to a home game! Give it a break Dev and stop trying to play the big finance director part.
    Your suggested approach would probably turn people away in their droves and thus kill off part of our key revenue stream.

    👍 👎 ( 0 )
  • Why have any senior citizen's discount? The majority of people don't suddenly become destitute when they turn 60, 67 or 70.

    Regardless of this, assuming Dev's £50,000 figure is accurate, it's not really going to reduce the annual loss significantly.

  • A really good topic. There are other way than were discussed last night by the Board understandably feel tired after doing good work to date. The number of times “ it’s been so busy” “ it’s nearly a full time job” “ we have day jobs” was said highlights this.

    We cannot allow the fact the current board ( or at least the ones driving this project daily ) are tired of at the end of their realistic ability to continue contribute so much bias or push the dialogue towards selling at all costs.

    Let me make it clear , selling may be the best option. BUT only once all other scenarios have been given due consideration and equal time , thought and presentation.

    what became clear last night was that our directors are required to ,or choose to, take a rather executive role in these important mergers and acquisition talks. YES they must certainly should be at the table and driving the strategic and governing view ,but they ideally should be standing with and supporting our paid executive who is full time and paid handsomely and whose job it is to do the administrational due diligence , operational application and essentially the groundwork of the boards strategic vision. That is 101...

    Last night we learned we don’t have that capacity, or competency ,or willingness to allow that paid executive to perform in that way. Whichever it is it is far from ideal . We are paying a good salary to take the lead but for whatever reason not getting an executive performance and so our volunteer directors are performing full time roles whilst juggling their day jobs ,

    We therefore have NOT been operating with the best chance of limiting or reducing that loss and we are therefore NOT in the strongest position to deliver a measured and objective report, negotiation, or presentation on this crucial strategic options process.

    Not personal,never is personal. Just business & strategy decision making 101.

    I won’t bore you with the widely accepted theory and texts that support this diagnosis ( or my position on it ) however anyone interested should take a look at google for heuristics bias in business decision making , strategic decision making tools , etc

    Excellent article from here that outlines how most objective business analysts or consultants would measure the subjectivity or bias in our clubs current decision making process

    http://uk.businessinsider.com/cognitive-biases-that-affect-decisions-2015-8

  • blue, in the real world if you want to argue against outside investment, you have to come up with an alternative. Simply moaning doesn't do. Simply exploring whether alternatives exist and whether they are acceptable to those that go every game.

    If there is to be any chance of filling the hole, it is clear pretty radical steps would be needed. So yes £3 on every attendee on every game (I don't know t be honest whether U12s are currently counted in the attendance figures but yes £3 per game. ). Maybe Wig is right and it would raise a little less. Question is though, if that was part of the solution, would you go for it.

    Re elderly discounts, I was only suggesting delaying eligibility until pension age (67). Although I think there is a case for eliminating altogether (given that elderly people now on average have more disposable income than younger), I suspect that is too radical a step.

  • I note by the way that Marlow again offers no solutions, just finding yet another person to criticise.

  • I would support keeping free entry for pre-schoolers but charging £2-£3 for children older than that. I actually feel a bit embarrassed that my 11 (soon to be 12) year old son is getting the amount of enjoyment he gets from coming to games for absolutely nothing this season, when the club is crying out for more money. That's a large driver behind why I paid out for a season ticket for his older sister, even though she will probably only attend 3-4 home games over the course of the season; a kind of proxy payment for my son. over the course of the season, my son's attendance at away matches will contribute a lot more financially to our competitors than his attendance at home matches will to Wycombe Wanderers, which doesn't seem quite right.

    I would support an extra £2-£3 on other age range tickets too.

    One thing that I most definitely would support is an increase in the £10 per year Trust membership subscription. I know the low level of the fee is intended to keep membership open to all, but £10 really is small change these days for those who are old enough to join the Trust. I feel sure vast the majority of current Trust members would continue to be members if the subscription was doubled or trebled and that a majority would still continue membership if it went up to £50 a year. £10 really seems a miniscule amount to pay to be part-owner of a League One professional football club.

    👍 👎 ( 1 )
  • @marlowchair, very interesting as usual. It would be good to keep this input on the main thread as it is valuable to that debate.

  • Each of us convince 2 friends to start attending to come back to attending. There are plenty of lapsed Chairboys out there.
    Problem solved

  • @TheAndyGrahamFanClub said:
    Each of us convince 2 friends to start attending to come back to attending. There are plenty of lapsed Chairboys out there.
    Problem solved

    I've got about a dozen mates coming to the game on Saturday who haven't been to Adams Park for a couple of years. Sadly they're all Oxford fans.

  • @DevC said:
    I note by the way that Marlow again offers no solutions, just finding yet another person to criticise.

    I’ve given a very clear starting point Dev, get an executive in place who is experienced and can lead this change project and give us a fighting chance of a balanced and unbiased consideration.

    Your obsession with everything I post makes you look more and more like a mouthpiece everyday. Give over ‘guv 😊

  • Cutting discounts won't help attendances, spend per head etc but prices probably could be higher, otherwise the trust members are subsidising everyone else, things like the cheap hospitality are nice to have but a higher end offering could raise more.

    I'd challenge the stark 600k figure, it relies on no player sales, no cup runs, no one offs, no improvement in profitability generally, no investment from ordinary fans, possible but unlikely when you look at the last 6 years.

    The stadium , car park area and training ground should be used more, I'd like to see food festivals, and even car boot sales in the car park. Weddings, maybe even hosting a school or nursery during the week.

    Also how about looking at vice president club type things where people who do wish to contribute maybe 10k not 600k are looked after a bit, name on seats etc. Covenant agreements etc.

    Most clubs do a naming wall, possibly as part of refurb, £20 to have a name or message listed forever.

    Need to look at lottery options again, and sponsor opportunities.

    It's a start.

    👍 👎 ( 1 )
  • I didn’t realise it was totally free to under 12s. That does seem very generous. I’d cut that incentive to under 5s only and make it a fiver for a child up to secondary school age (11). Then onto the teenage/junior pricing or whatever it is.

  • ... and now back to the topic. Do not lose sight of the fact that many fans are making contributions to the club in one way or another over and above the cost of attending a match. Increasing the cost of getting through the turnstiles may result in reduced income elsewhere. IMHO this is especially relevant when considering those in retirement.

  • @DevC said:

    OK, you now know the size of the gap you need to close if you don't want to go down the road of outside investment. If that is your preference, you need to come up with a credible way to raise an extra £600k per annum or so. its a lot of money.

    Ideas here please (a bit more substantive than better catering!)

    Let me start, as part of a way to outside investment would you accept higher prices. Lets say £3 on the price of admission across the board. Expected additional revenue 6000 23 Games *3 = £414,000. Assume 5% people don't now come at all - 600023 games£20.05 = -£138000. Net additional revenue - £276000 - less VAT = £230k. Is this acceptable?

    Remove senior discounts until reach age 67 (currently offered at 60) - estimated extra revenue - £50k. Yes or no?

    Any more?

    Do you think out of all the people that post on here there is anyone that contributes less financially to Wycombe Wanderers than you do?

    👍 👎 ( 3 )
  • I'd love this question to be posed by the Trust to members and then some of the ideas acted upon, but this doesn't appear to be how the club is run.

    I've read people like Andy Warboys for years on here put out some good ideas and some not so good ideas but as far as I'm aware I don't think its ever got further than words on a messageboard.

    So it's not for me today Dev

  • Simple idea, don't have a squad of 26 players, all of which with the exception of the new keeper are potential 1st team players.
    And don't spend money on (albeit good) players e.g. McCarthy, when we already have players that can play in his position.
    The cynic in me would be thinking we're spending money we haven't got to push us into this position of last night,

  • Almost certainly not, Eric but while you are scoring points on a internet message board, the club is losing £12000 a week.

    If stadium naming could bring in a worthwhile sum is this an acceptable option to raise money? Other clubs have judged that it is. Yes or no?

    👍 👎 ( 0 )
  • @WestLondonWanderer said:
    Simple idea, don't have a squad of 26 players, all of which with the exception of the new keeper are potential 1st team players.
    And don't spend money on (albeit good) players e.g. McCarthy, when we already have players that can play in his position.
    The cynic in me would be thinking we're spending money we haven't got to push us into this position of last night,

    The realist in me thinks that we are spending money on good, proven players to give us the best chance of staying up.

    👍 👎 ( 1 )
  • The slightly enlarged squad enables us to play eleven versus eleven in training.

  • Although I am reluctant to step into the OAP issue...I think there is an argument for increasing the age for discounts up to 67 or 70. I would worry about increasing costs for kids...as I am only a recent arrivee, I only started as a season ticket holder because my daughter wanted to come to footy at Adams Park.

  • Make kits available from a younger age, I think they start selling kits for age 5/6.

    I would of liked to buy one for my kids. They'd be a nice birthday / Christmas present etc plus it gets them involved from a very early age.

  • I imagine a significant proportion of our senior season ticket holders receive only the state pension. An acquaintance argued this morning that an extra £69 (or similar amount) would deter enough of them from buying a season ticket to defeat the object. I personally find it hard to believe that a supporter keen enough to buy a season ticket would even consider not doing so for the sake of such a small amount, especially as I believe it can be spread across 10 months.

    In retrospect, I wonder if the decision not to increase ticket prices and also to let 12s and under in for free, rather than for, say, a fiver, was right. Having said that, I have to say it’s great to see such a big increase in the number of youngsters attending, particularly in the Frank Adams stand, and of course we like to think that this will reap dividends in the longer term.

  • Agreed. What happened to selling baby-grows? Just think of all that social media engagement we're missing out on!

    To satisfy @DevC's criteria: £5 a time - we'd only need to sell 120,000 and we'd be at break-even. Our fans look like a fertile bunch, so this seems realistic enough to me.

    👍 👎 ( 2 )
  • Wycombe baby-grows with Feed The Beast on them would sell by the bucketload, surely.

    I think the free entry for under-12s is good long-term thinking. Letting kids in free makes it feel cheaper for parents when they want to come to a match and having got the kid(s) in free are probably more likely to spend on other things - merch / food etc. Also, it's tapping into the next generation of fans. Get them interested before they can be dazzled by the lights of the Premier league. Worked for me - started bringing my lad when he was 7. Now he's 16 and a die-hard STH.

    👍 👎 ( 2 )
  • Very amusing @Last_Quarter ! But I don’t think @DevC was talking £5 per season(or was his figure £3?) and, for my part, I was only thinking of one small area of income that might nudge us towards the target.

  • I think a number of these posts raise an interesting point. Income needs to be increased and needless expenditure reduced on a regular basis. There is no point an investor coming in with a one off lump sum (however seemingly big) if money keeps seeping out through the holes in the bucket. If renaming Adams Park the 'Mcvities Hobnob Stadium' is the only viable solution then it will have to be considered.

Sign In or Register to comment.