|
Post by Henry Pratt on Oct 21, 2020 11:24:11 GMT
That's a hell of a windfall, isn't it? An effective annual grant of over £1.1m, although I know we're all hoping fans will be back before a year of it has passed (at which point the money will presumably stop?). How does that rate as a % of our turnover, anyone know? I imagine even in the worst case scenario of Covid being here in 12 months, this grant would only go as far as end of April at best so only 7 months not 12, so more like £650k. I think a lot of our sponsorship money has remained and this is to cover lost match day costs. If you assume (including STs) 5000 a match day, average price per ticket (adult/concession/kid) after tax £8, and £10k for food/drink/hospitality that's £50k per match over 22 games (no Macc) that's £1.1m The fact that some ST holders are not asking for a refund and additional streaming revenue, combined with lower match day costs, I'd say we shouldn't be too far away from original non-Covid projections. (although clearly if we continue to play the way we are, 5000 would be a very conservative estimate!) Yeah, I realise it's not for the year - hence "effective" annual grant, and the comment about fans being back. The point I was trying to make is that a monthly rate of a significant annual amount is still a significant monthly amount. Before this, we were relying on indebtedness to Stott to see us through - now, with this money, and the other revenue you point out, we'll hopefully not be relying on him very much at all. Good point about the success, though. Whilst this money's all very welcome, I think we'd be averaging 7-8000 if we maintained our current level of success for a full season.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Pratt on Oct 21, 2020 11:26:12 GMT
That's a hell of a windfall, isn't it? An effective annual grant of over £1.1m, although I know we're all hoping fans will be back before a year of it has passed (at which point the money will presumably stop?). How does that rate as a % of our turnover, anyone know? [br £1.1m would likely have covered all of our outgoings in the last few seasons, not sure it would this time out. No, but as discussed in the conversation with bristolhatter, given all the other sources of revenue, it doesn't need to.
|
|
|
Post by desmond on Oct 21, 2020 11:29:21 GMT
I believe it only runs for three months initially. Indeed but that’s why the OP said “effective annual” turnover.
|
|
TC
Contributor
Posts: 784
|
Post by TC on Oct 21, 2020 11:35:32 GMT
If we continue to do well, there should be an increase in the streaming revenue. Another 2,000 streams at £6.25 (after VAT) equates to £12,500 per match. With three home matches a month that's another £37,500 per month. It all adds up.
|
|
|
Post by County1999 on Oct 21, 2020 11:41:27 GMT
I believe the ex FL clubs are being given more as they have a higher attendance and wage bill.Same in NLN and NLS but I dont remember Dulwich Hamlet being in the FL Itll be down to average attendances. Most Ex EFL clubs have good followings Dulwich Hamlet being the exception to the rule. They get a lot for a team with no previous EFL history, around 1,500 average. I guess that's why they are being given extra funds. Makes sense because they're missing out the most.
|
|
|
Post by vicar on Oct 21, 2020 11:44:06 GMT
If it's based on Tory MPs we've got two. We've also got two Labour ones. Including the MP for Stockport the constituency EP and County are in. Plus the local Labour MP is to the left of the party and voted against the government's Police Can Do What They Like bill* *This may not actually be the official title. It should be.
|
|
|
Post by vicar on Oct 21, 2020 11:45:58 GMT
If we continue to do well, there should be an increase in the streaming revenue. Another 2,000 streams at £6.25 (after VAT) equates to £12,500 per match. With three home matches a month that's another £37,500 per month. It all adds up. So being on BT sport is quite a hit when we're at home and a slight bonus when we're away.
|
|
3330
Contributor
Posts: 806
|
Post by 3330 on Oct 21, 2020 16:14:48 GMT
The monthly grant per fan based on last season's average attendance: Top 5 -Boreham Wood £116.02 -Hungerford Town £92.02 -Oxford City £84.99 -Wealdstone £81.55 -Weymouth £78.80 Bottom 5 -Notts County £18.23 -Chester £17.83 -Hereford £17.60 -Dulwich Hamlet £16.41 -York City £13.31
Lifted from twitter
This is a great piece of reaserch (if true)..again it shows the winners and losers I think we would be just above notts county Its welcome money but it doesn't feel fair
|
|
|
Post by Barmy Blue Army on Oct 21, 2020 16:45:48 GMT
Its welcome money but it doesn't feel fair That was my initial thought too regarding the split (as the total amount is exactly quite substantial). I wonder how much the increased streaming revenue for the bigger clubs balances this out though? In any event, it's welcome news for the League and hopefully we can get a full season of matches (for all 23 clubs) in.
|
|
|
Post by badgersc on Oct 21, 2020 16:51:57 GMT
[br £1.1m would likely have covered all of our outgoings in the last few seasons, not sure it would this time out. No, but as discussed in the conversation with bristolhatter, given all the other sources of revenue, it doesn't need to. I suspect you’re being very optimistic, even with bigger crowds ( which we would undoubtedly be getting). We wouldn’t be getting near covering the increased spending on playing staff, non playing staff, even before we get to ground improvements.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Pratt on Oct 21, 2020 16:58:14 GMT
No, but as discussed in the conversation with bristolhatter, given all the other sources of revenue, it doesn't need to. I suspect you’re being very optimistic, even with bigger crowds ( which we would undoubtedly be getting). We wouldn’t be getting near covering the increased spending on playing staff, non playing staff, even before we get to ground improvements. I'm not saying we would. Just that the indebtedness to Stott will be less.
|
|
|
Post by Ngard on Oct 21, 2020 17:03:25 GMT
The monthly grant per fan based on last season's average attendance: Top 5 -Boreham Wood £116.02 -Hungerford Town £92.02 -Oxford City £84.99 -Wealdstone £81.55 -Weymouth £78.80 Bottom 5 -Notts County £18.23 -Chester £17.83 -Hereford £17.60 -Dulwich Hamlet £16.41 -York City £13.31 Lifted from twitter This is a great piece of reaserch (if true)..again it shows the winners and losers I think we would be just above notts county Its welcome money but it doesn't feel fair There are already moaners from the smaller clubs going on about how its not fair the larger clubs have received a bigger share of the cash whilst conveniently ignoring stuff like that quoted above.
|
|
|
Post by BWScarf on Oct 21, 2020 23:10:14 GMT
Not read every post in this thread, but I’m a bit fed up of clubs pissing and whining about this decision. They’re getting a handout. How that’s shared has to be decided somehow.
I appreciate that’s easy for us to say as the main beneficiaries, but these circumstances are really something no-one could have prepared for; and frankly, even if we work on a ‘lost attendances’ model, us and Notts will still be the main beneficiaries.
But I’ve got very little time for the likes of Darlington, Chester and Maidstone sulking because Boreham Wood are getting more money than they are.
Like it or not, Boreham Wood are in the division above you. Relatively, their travel costs are higher. Their operational costs are likely higher. Their overnighting costs are higher. Their wages are probably higher. It’s a well-accepted precedent in football that clubs in higher divisions get relatively higher proportions of the pie than those in lower divisions. If this was money split between League 2 and the National League, I’d expect the League 2 clubs to get relatively more than us.
I get that there’s a structural unfairness in all of this, but football is structurally unfair. How things are distributed in the long term is a valid question for another day, but not a conversation for the here and now.
I also tend to find those shouting the loudest are also those who appear to be the most unsustainable. If Maidstone didn’t want to have concerns about cash flow, perhaps they shouldn’t have decided to stay full time in the sixth tier, in the middle of a f*cking pandemic.
|
|
|
Post by BWScarf on Oct 21, 2020 23:14:36 GMT
I believe the ex FL clubs are being given more as they have a higher attendance and wage bill.Same in NLN and NLS but I dont remember Dulwich Hamlet being in the FL Itll be down to average attendances. Most Ex EFL clubs have good followings Dulwich Hamlet being the exception to the rule. They get a lot for a team with no previous EFL history, around 1,500 average. I guess that's why they are being given extra funds. Makes sense because they're missing out the most. It’s substantially higher than that. Their average last season was just under 2,200. In attendance terms, they’re one of the biggest clubs outside the Football League (9th in Non-League last year) They’ve got a bit of a cult following, similar to St Pauli in Germany (but on a smaller scale).
|
|
|
Post by County1999 on Oct 21, 2020 23:24:43 GMT
Itll be down to average attendances. Most Ex EFL clubs have good followings Dulwich Hamlet being the exception to the rule. They get a lot for a team with no previous EFL history, around 1,500 average. I guess that's why they are being given extra funds. Makes sense because they're missing out the most. It’s substantially higher than that. Their average last season was just under 2,200. In attendance terms, they’re one of the biggest clubs outside the Football League (9th in Non-League last year) They’ve got a bit of a cult following, similar to St Pauli in Germany (but on a smaller scale). Even better than I thought then. They definitely need the extra funds provided then. It's odd to see on social media that there's calls for it to be split evenly. 🤦♂️
|
|