I can see some possibility in a ten game “season ticket” far more than the tenth game free loyalty card suggested earlier.
Not sure whether it would be revenue positive overall though.
As I am very much a “copy others successes ” rather than “reinvent the wheel” guy, always interesting to see what others are doing. Five of six clubs chosen at random are doing nothing in this area but one (whisper it quietly Colchester) do offer 5 and 10 game bulk purchase discounts if I understand their scheme correctly. Does appear to be ten games for roughly the price of nine. In fact you can buy 100 game packages - so four or more seasons worth.
I presume the discount at WWFC driving people to buy online is partly aimed at collecting data to be used for targeting offers and measuring success down the road.
I have always thought that a “come back and give us another go” scheme with say a free ticket for someone who used to go regularly but hasn’t been for a while may be a good idea. Need the data first though.
@bookertease Another benefit of buying a ST year on year, even when not making every single game, is the entitlement of a vote. This, to me, is more important than not always being able to squeeze the full “tenner a game” value out of it.
@WildWestFC, we do forms of crowdfunding in the 500 Club and Share Scheme. We don't seem to be able to attract enough members/contributors to reach our targets in this way and I feel the reality is that ongoing funding to run a league club in nowhere near sustainable. I think it's taken Wimbledon long enough to reach where they are as a one off funding let alone that sort of level of continuous income. Good luck to them though.
@LeedsBlue said: @bookertease Another benefit of buying a ST year on year, even when not making every single game, is the entitlement of a vote. This, to me, is more important than not always being able to squeeze the full “tenner a game” value out of it.
That is the sole reason why I continued to buy a season ticket for a period of a few years when I knew I would miss quite a few home matches per season: keeping my voting rights.
@ValleyWanderer said: @WildWestFC, we do forms of crowdfunding in the 500 Club and Share Scheme. We don't seem to be able to attract enough members/contributors to reach our targets in this way and I feel the reality is that ongoing funding to run a league club in nowhere near sustainable. I think it's taken Wimbledon long enough to reach where they are as a one off funding let alone that sort of level of continuous income. Good luck to them though.
This is exactly right. I was criticised when I pointed out that the uptake for this year’s 500 Club, welcome though it was, was still a disappointingly small percentage of our average attendance. You can’t escape the harsh reality that if people want the club to remain fan owned there are basically only two alternatives: more supporters paying in more money on a regular basis or a major reduction in the playing budget with the inevitable decline in on field results.
@ValleyWanderer said: @WildWestFC, we do forms of crowdfunding in the 500 Club and Share Scheme. We don't seem to be able to attract enough members/contributors to reach our targets in this way and I feel the reality is that ongoing funding to run a league club in nowhere near sustainable. I think it's taken Wimbledon long enough to reach where they are as a one off funding let alone that sort of level of continuous income. Good luck to them though.
This is exactly right. I was criticised when I pointed out that the uptake for this year’s 500 Club, welcome though it was, was still a disappointingly small percentage of our average attendance. You can’t escape the harsh reality that if people want the club to remain fan owned there are basically only two alternatives: more supporters paying in more money on a regular basis or a major reduction in the playing budget with the inevitable decline in on field results.
@glasshalffull said:
So tell me what you think the alternatives are.
monkey tennis?
Guess that would count as finding extra income from the stadium on non-match days.
I'm not rehashing hundreds of pages of old stuff on here, I'm also not anti the couhigs proposals but these kind of pronouncements are dull and unhelpful.
We will be need to look at all methods of fundraising and have been asked to regardless of ownership model. After all there's very little we've seen so far that is rocket science or cost millions.
Dull and unhelpful they may be but it’s still the unpalatable truth. The Trust have said time and again that the present model is unsustainable. You either believe them or you don’t. I do.
@glasshalffull said:
Dull and unhelpful they may be but it’s still the unpalatable truth.
Well its opinion not fact
The Trust have said time and again that the present model is unsustainable. You either believe them or you don’t. I do.
I believe they may be right, for us at this moment, as several posters have commented the current trust and board aren't exactly business dynamoes or perfect but all are dually elected from those who offered to stand.
I wouldn't rule out trust management totally, football might be in a better place if more clubs were run by trusts and less by chancers
@glasshalffull said:
Dull and unhelpful they may be but it’s still the unpalatable truth. The Trust have said time and again that the present model is unsustainable. You either believe them or you don’t. I do.
Here's the thing though, Rob Couhig has already stated that he can't afford, nor does he want to be propping up the shortfall between revenue and spending and that he want us to become fully self-sufficient. Now, you either believe him or you don't. But if you do, then you do believe that it's possible for Wycombe Wanderers to operate in such a way that it can sustain league 1 football (and higher) by the revenue that it creates rather than the money ploughed into it by an external investor.
It's a strange dichotomy for me. We can't make ends meet without investment, so we need to give away 75% of the club to a man who claims he can make ends meet without investment.
@glasshalffull said:
Dull and unhelpful they may be but it’s still the unpalatable truth. The Trust have said time and again that the present model is unsustainable. You either believe them or you don’t. I do.
Here's the thing though, Rob Couhig has already stated that he can't afford, nor does he want to be propping up the shortfall between revenue and spending and that he want us to become fully self-sufficient. Now, you either believe him or you don't. But if you do, then you do believe that it's possible for Wycombe Wanderers to operate in such a way that it can sustain league 1 football (and higher) by the revenue that it creates rather than the money ploughed into it by an external investor.
It's a strange dichotomy for me. We can't make ends meet without investment, so we need to give away 75% of the club to a man who claims he can make ends meet without investment.
I think to be fair they are at least initially investing, and it is needed.
If they can make us stable and back to being a going concern then great.
The "what happens after" needs some safeguards but needs to maybe be seen against the chances of it all going belly up before we get there.
@glasshalffull said:
The Trust have said time and again that the present model is unsustainable.
As a counterpoint to the Trust Board's strongly held opinion, I find it interesting to note that a significant number of people have, in the wake of the Bury and Bolton situations, publicly expressed an opinion that the key to ensuring long-term sustainability of football league clubs and the league itself is for each club to be majority owned by its supporters.
With Bury and Bolton fresh in the memory, having the Trust telling its members that relinquishing majority ownership is necessary for sustainability while large sections of the wider footballing community appear to be advocating the opposite will make it very difficult for some Legacy Members to decide which way to vote in the anticipated ownership poll.
Well quite. You wonder if a day of reckoning is coming for football, and just as it arrives we decide to launch ourselves into the ludicrous casino it has become
@DevC said:
Question that always has to be asked is does the scheme generate more revenue or less.
Does the coffee style shop encourage more people to come to their eighth or ninth game to earn their freebie than revenue lost from the guy who was always going to watch and pay for his tenth game that you have now given him for nothing.
Does the kickback to season ticket holders for bringing a friend earn more revenue from people who wouldn't have otherwise come or lose revenue from people who were always coming and paying but now you are paying out on.
Think aeroplane with 50 seats. 30 people are willing to pay £100, 20 no more than £50. Put all seats on sale for £50 and you get revenue of £2500. Put all seats on sale for £100, you get revenue of £3000. If you can find a way to charge the 30 £100 and the 20 only £50 and you get total revenue of £4000 but its bloody hard to do.
I think this is one of the issues with the bring a friend for a fiver scheme. Currently I t allows the ST holder to purchase the ticket rather than the guest attendee. So you don’t know who is actually coming as the guest or capture their contact details. It would be better as a unique invite code you could send someone to allow them to buy a £5 ticket. Maybe just give each STH 2-3 discount invites they can use during the season.
@glasshalffull said:
Dull and unhelpful they may be but it’s still the unpalatable truth. The Trust have said time and again that the present model is unsustainable. You either believe them or you don’t. I do.
Here's the thing though, Rob Couhig has already stated that he can't afford, nor does he want to be propping up the shortfall between revenue and spending and that he want us to become fully self-sufficient. Now, you either believe him or you don't. But if you do, then you do believe that it's possible for Wycombe Wanderers to operate in such a way that it can sustain league 1 football (and higher) by the revenue that it creates rather than the money ploughed into it by an external investor.
It's a strange dichotomy for me. We can't make ends meet without investment, so we need to give away 75% of the club to a man who claims he can make ends meet without investment.
Exactly @eric_plant. The Trust Board are saying that the present model is unsustainable, because they do not have the skill or knowhow to make it pay, but we know a man who we think (only think) does know how to make it pay, at the cost of losing control of the club. How will it play out if he can't achieve that?
A lot of members are already saying they will vote yes, have fallen head over heels with Rob and Missy, before they have seen any tangible evidence that a new model will succeed. I think the Couhigs are great, I really like them, but this is a momentous business deal before us. Let's see how things work out over the next half season and then make a reasoned judgement.
@Uncle_T also makes the valid point that supporter owned may be the way to go, and that we may be going against the trend. The urgent push to pay off our historical creditors, and bring in more effective club management, probably puts paid to us staying supporter owned any longer.
@Steve_Peart - I also have severe doubts that the new model will work.
However, unfortunately by the time the vote takes place the indebtedness to the Couhig's will be at such a level that we have no realistic chance of ever repaying it. The choice will therefore be similar to the Sharkie debacle where it was accept his offer or go under. We will at least have competent individuals running our club.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am in no way comparing the Couhig's to that chancer Hayes. Having spoken to the Couhig's they seem incredibly friendly and committed to our club and are successful businessmen. I would not have voted for the previous Americans, but I will be voting for Rob unless something convinces me to the contrary in the meantime.
The wider sections of the football community to which Uncle T refers are probably fans who are understandably but perhaps naively attracted to the romantic idea of owning their own club. In an ideal world it would be great if every club was run that way, but do people really believe that the demise of Bury is going to lead to a seismic change of structure throughout the whole FL?
I have just read an article by the excellent Martin Samuel in the Daily Mail (cue cries of outrage!) that perfectly encapsulates Bury’s problems. It was wilful overspending to massage the owner’s ego that led to their downfall and I haven’t seen any sign of Mr Couhig wanting to follow a similar path.
@glasshalffull said:
Dull and unhelpful they may be but it’s still the unpalatable truth. The Trust have said time and again that the present model is unsustainable. You either believe them or you don’t. I do.
Here's the thing though, Rob Couhig has already stated that he can't afford, nor does he want to be propping up the shortfall between revenue and spending and that he want us to become fully self-sufficient. Now, you either believe him or you don't. But if you do, then you do believe that it's possible for Wycombe Wanderers to operate in such a way that it can sustain league 1 football (and higher) by the revenue that it creates rather than the money ploughed into it by an external investor.
It's a strange dichotomy for me. We can't make ends meet without investment, so we need to give away 75% of the club to a man who claims he can make ends meet without investment.
Exactly @eric_plant. The Trust Board are saying that the present model is unsustainable, because they do not have the skill or knowhow to make it pay, but we know a man who we think (only think) does know how to make it pay, at the cost of losing control of the club. How will it play out if he can't achieve that?
A lot of members are already saying they will vote yes, have fallen head over heels with Rob and Missy, before they have seen any tangible evidence that a new model will succeed. I think the Couhigs are great, I really like them, but this is a momentous business deal before us. Let's see how things work out over the next half season and then make a reasoned judgement.
@Uncle_T also makes the valid point that supporter owned may be the way to go, and that we may be going against the trend. The urgent push to pay off our historical creditors, and bring in more effective club management, probably puts paid to us staying supporter owned any longer.
From the interview with Rob Couhig on Phil's podcast it sounds like they want this done and will look to arrange a vote sooner btw.
Not wishing to go off at a tangent (I lie) but on the subject of the B word it will be interesting to see what effect our imminent exclusion from the Bosman effect will have on football in this country.
Logically, the sudden loss of readily available ‘average’ European (as in EU) footballers should create an increasing market for British footballers (assuming we apply similar criteria to those as non-EU players).
Still wearing my optimist head, this should give home-grown talent more of a chance and clubs with a proven record of developing such talent either through academies or by taking and polishing not-particularly-rated players from the bigger clubs may do quite well.
(Swapping heads however no-one will be able to afford the luxury of wasting £20 every other week on ‘entertainment’ so all clubs outside the closed shop of Prem 1 & 2 will be forced to go part time with the players serving the few who do make it to games Red Kite kebabs at half time)
Having bought our way to the Prem we won't have to worry about all that lower league stuff @bookertease and what with the country becoming more united, prosperous and chlorinated life will just bob along optimistically and positively.
Having returned to the Gasroom after a period of self-denial I find that a thread about disappointing attendances (well, one disappointing attendance) has transmuted into a debate about the need/justification to pin our faith on a likeable and successful trio of sport-loving businessmen.
I understand @eric_plant’s concerns (quite possibly shared by as many as 25% of Legacy Members) about conceding ownership at a time when there is a faint, if barely credible, hope that fundamental changes in the governance of EFL and member clubs may be in the offing. Equally, I agree with @Steve_Peart when he says that “the urgent push to pay off our historical creditors and bring in more effective club management probably puts paid to us staying supporter owned any longer.”
But what I really wanted to say, more directly in the context of the thread, was that I agreed with the person who suggested putting a sign announcing our next home fixture in the vicinity of the Hour Glass rather than at the end of Hillbottom Road. To be fair to the original poster, I think that was probably their intention because they referred to the position as being half a mile from the stadium.
An AFC Wimbledon supporting mate (who I’ll be meeting this evening) told me a couple of days ago that the crowd-funding thing brought in a million pounds in the first 24 hours.
Comments
I can see some possibility in a ten game “season ticket” far more than the tenth game free loyalty card suggested earlier.
Not sure whether it would be revenue positive overall though.
As I am very much a “copy others successes ” rather than “reinvent the wheel” guy, always interesting to see what others are doing. Five of six clubs chosen at random are doing nothing in this area but one (whisper it quietly Colchester) do offer 5 and 10 game bulk purchase discounts if I understand their scheme correctly. Does appear to be ten games for roughly the price of nine. In fact you can buy 100 game packages - so four or more seasons worth.
I presume the discount at WWFC driving people to buy online is partly aimed at collecting data to be used for targeting offers and measuring success down the road.
I have always thought that a “come back and give us another go” scheme with say a free ticket for someone who used to go regularly but hasn’t been for a while may be a good idea. Need the data first though.
@bookertease Another benefit of buying a ST year on year, even when not making every single game, is the entitlement of a vote. This, to me, is more important than not always being able to squeeze the full “tenner a game” value out of it.
@LeedsBlue I guess that won't be a reason for future seasons?
I’ve just seen an advert on the train in Surrey for AFC Wimbledon crowdfunding their new stadium...
https://www.seedrs.com/afcwimbledon
This kind of investment scheme could be an alternative for Wycombe?
@peterparrotface Who knows what the future may bring...?
@WildWestFC, we do forms of crowdfunding in the 500 Club and Share Scheme. We don't seem to be able to attract enough members/contributors to reach our targets in this way and I feel the reality is that ongoing funding to run a league club in nowhere near sustainable. I think it's taken Wimbledon long enough to reach where they are as a one off funding let alone that sort of level of continuous income. Good luck to them though.
That is the sole reason why I continued to buy a season ticket for a period of a few years when I knew I would miss quite a few home matches per season: keeping my voting rights.
This is exactly right. I was criticised when I pointed out that the uptake for this year’s 500 Club, welcome though it was, was still a disappointingly small percentage of our average attendance. You can’t escape the harsh reality that if people want the club to remain fan owned there are basically only two alternatives: more supporters paying in more money on a regular basis or a major reduction in the playing budget with the inevitable decline in on field results.
They aren't anything like the only alternatives
So tell me what you think the alternatives are.
monkey tennis?
Guess that would count as finding extra income from the stadium on non-match days.
I'm not rehashing hundreds of pages of old stuff on here, I'm also not anti the couhigs proposals but these kind of pronouncements are dull and unhelpful.
We will be need to look at all methods of fundraising and have been asked to regardless of ownership model. After all there's very little we've seen so far that is rocket science or cost millions.
Dull and unhelpful they may be but it’s still the unpalatable truth. The Trust have said time and again that the present model is unsustainable. You either believe them or you don’t. I do.
Well its opinion not fact
The Trust have said time and again that the present model is unsustainable. You either believe them or you don’t. I do.
I believe they may be right, for us at this moment, as several posters have commented the current trust and board aren't exactly business dynamoes or perfect but all are dually elected from those who offered to stand.
I wouldn't rule out trust management totally, football might be in a better place if more clubs were run by trusts and less by chancers
Here's the thing though, Rob Couhig has already stated that he can't afford, nor does he want to be propping up the shortfall between revenue and spending and that he want us to become fully self-sufficient. Now, you either believe him or you don't. But if you do, then you do believe that it's possible for Wycombe Wanderers to operate in such a way that it can sustain league 1 football (and higher) by the revenue that it creates rather than the money ploughed into it by an external investor.
It's a strange dichotomy for me. We can't make ends meet without investment, so we need to give away 75% of the club to a man who claims he can make ends meet without investment.
I think to be fair they are at least initially investing, and it is needed.
If they can make us stable and back to being a going concern then great.
The "what happens after" needs some safeguards but needs to maybe be seen against the chances of it all going belly up before we get there.
As a counterpoint to the Trust Board's strongly held opinion, I find it interesting to note that a significant number of people have, in the wake of the Bury and Bolton situations, publicly expressed an opinion that the key to ensuring long-term sustainability of football league clubs and the league itself is for each club to be majority owned by its supporters.
With Bury and Bolton fresh in the memory, having the Trust telling its members that relinquishing majority ownership is necessary for sustainability while large sections of the wider footballing community appear to be advocating the opposite will make it very difficult for some Legacy Members to decide which way to vote in the anticipated ownership poll.
Well quite. You wonder if a day of reckoning is coming for football, and just as it arrives we decide to launch ourselves into the ludicrous casino it has become
I think this is one of the issues with the bring a friend for a fiver scheme. Currently I t allows the ST holder to purchase the ticket rather than the guest attendee. So you don’t know who is actually coming as the guest or capture their contact details. It would be better as a unique invite code you could send someone to allow them to buy a £5 ticket. Maybe just give each STH 2-3 discount invites they can use during the season.
Exactly @eric_plant. The Trust Board are saying that the present model is unsustainable, because they do not have the skill or knowhow to make it pay, but we know a man who we think (only think) does know how to make it pay, at the cost of losing control of the club. How will it play out if he can't achieve that?
A lot of members are already saying they will vote yes, have fallen head over heels with Rob and Missy, before they have seen any tangible evidence that a new model will succeed. I think the Couhigs are great, I really like them, but this is a momentous business deal before us. Let's see how things work out over the next half season and then make a reasoned judgement.
@Uncle_T also makes the valid point that supporter owned may be the way to go, and that we may be going against the trend. The urgent push to pay off our historical creditors, and bring in more effective club management, probably puts paid to us staying supporter owned any longer.
@Steve_Peart - I also have severe doubts that the new model will work.
However, unfortunately by the time the vote takes place the indebtedness to the Couhig's will be at such a level that we have no realistic chance of ever repaying it. The choice will therefore be similar to the Sharkie debacle where it was accept his offer or go under. We will at least have competent individuals running our club.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am in no way comparing the Couhig's to that chancer Hayes. Having spoken to the Couhig's they seem incredibly friendly and committed to our club and are successful businessmen. I would not have voted for the previous Americans, but I will be voting for Rob unless something convinces me to the contrary in the meantime.
The wider sections of the football community to which Uncle T refers are probably fans who are understandably but perhaps naively attracted to the romantic idea of owning their own club. In an ideal world it would be great if every club was run that way, but do people really believe that the demise of Bury is going to lead to a seismic change of structure throughout the whole FL?
I have just read an article by the excellent Martin Samuel in the Daily Mail (cue cries of outrage!) that perfectly encapsulates Bury’s problems. It was wilful overspending to massage the owner’s ego that led to their downfall and I haven’t seen any sign of Mr Couhig wanting to follow a similar path.
From the interview with Rob Couhig on Phil's podcast it sounds like they want this done and will look to arrange a vote sooner btw.
Actually, he said the timing of the vote was ultimately up to the Trust, but they would be happy either way.
Disillusioned by all sides I will not be voting this time.
Oh hang on.
Wrong vote.
Don’t sully the Gasroom with the B word!
Unlike most voting systems a legacy none vote will counts as a no, not an abstain.
More GE than B @perfidious_albion unless you mean Our Glorious leader...
I will of course be using my legacy vote...
Not wishing to go off at a tangent (I lie) but on the subject of the B word it will be interesting to see what effect our imminent exclusion from the Bosman effect will have on football in this country.
Logically, the sudden loss of readily available ‘average’ European (as in EU) footballers should create an increasing market for British footballers (assuming we apply similar criteria to those as non-EU players).
Still wearing my optimist head, this should give home-grown talent more of a chance and clubs with a proven record of developing such talent either through academies or by taking and polishing not-particularly-rated players from the bigger clubs may do quite well.
(Swapping heads however no-one will be able to afford the luxury of wasting £20 every other week on ‘entertainment’ so all clubs outside the closed shop of Prem 1 & 2 will be forced to go part time with the players serving the few who do make it to games Red Kite kebabs at half time)
Having bought our way to the Prem we won't have to worry about all that lower league stuff @bookertease and what with the country becoming more united, prosperous and chlorinated life will just bob along optimistically and positively.
Having returned to the Gasroom after a period of self-denial I find that a thread about disappointing attendances (well, one disappointing attendance) has transmuted into a debate about the need/justification to pin our faith on a likeable and successful trio of sport-loving businessmen.
I understand @eric_plant’s concerns (quite possibly shared by as many as 25% of Legacy Members) about conceding ownership at a time when there is a faint, if barely credible, hope that fundamental changes in the governance of EFL and member clubs may be in the offing. Equally, I agree with @Steve_Peart when he says that “the urgent push to pay off our historical creditors and bring in more effective club management probably puts paid to us staying supporter owned any longer.”
But what I really wanted to say, more directly in the context of the thread, was that I agreed with the person who suggested putting a sign announcing our next home fixture in the vicinity of the Hour Glass rather than at the end of Hillbottom Road. To be fair to the original poster, I think that was probably their intention because they referred to the position as being half a mile from the stadium.
An AFC Wimbledon supporting mate (who I’ll be meeting this evening) told me a couple of days ago that the crowd-funding thing brought in a million pounds in the first 24 hours.