| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| How much should adult entry to first division football be? |
| £7 or £8 |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| £9 or £10 |
|
18% |
[ 9 ] |
| £11 or £12 |
|
36% |
[ 18 ] |
| £13 or £14 |
|
18% |
[ 9 ] |
| £15 or £16 |
|
20% |
[ 10 ] |
| £17 or £18 |
|
6% |
[ 3 ] |
| £19 or £20 |
|
2% |
[ 1 ] |
| Less than £7 |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 50 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Vinnie
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 8219
Location: None Of Your Business
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:01 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Rovers and clubs in general in SFL 1 would not survive on a £10 admission price .Yes clubs can turn part time,cut their cloth accordingly but clubs are carrying debt as it is .
I do agree that football not just in our division is over priced and its showing in attendances all over Scotland.I think it was Tam Cowans column the other day,a parent /child ticket for Rangers/Celtic in a normal game is £45 which is dearer than a parent/ child ticket for an ordinary game at Man City.In fact there were only three clubs in the premiership that were dearer.Man Utd,Liverpool? and Swansea.
_________________
THERES FIVE OF ME |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stephen
Joined: 19 Aug 2008
Posts: 370
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vinnie wrote: | | Rovers and clubs in general in SFL 1 would not survive on a £10 admission price .Yes clubs can turn part time,cut their cloth accordingly but clubs are carrying debt as it is . |
Do you think that Rovers and SFL1 clubs will survive on £17? With such a price, people will stay away.
Any first division club will be able to operate on £10 entry prices, however, it would require major re-structuring which is something that football clubs don't seem to want to do. The club needs to diversify and instigate a number of revenue streams, and not be content to accept only gate prices and hand-outs.
I have said it many times - the way forward for football clubs is to become non-profit trusts with arms-length commercial activities. This is what many junior teams do and they are much more financially secure than most Pro teams. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R12ATH
Joined: 11 Jul 2008
Posts: 1234
Location: West Lothian, Scotland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| scotty wrote: | The only way in the current ecconomic climate you'll see clubs (not just Raith) who have or are likely to have crowds of 2500 charging £10-14 will be if we go completely with youth players and do away with paid professionals.
As it stands after VAT is taken off the club get £14 for every £17.
Consider the ratio of full paying adults to concessions 3:1 means the Rovers average gate price is £13 which is actually nearer £11 once vat is deducted.
Now £11 x 2,200 is £23,200 and there are two (usually) home games a month so thats £46,000 (not inc Lotto, adverising and corporate hosp) add the other income and it'll be around £50,000 if you are lucky.
Wages we are told account for 52% of income so somewhere between £23,000 - 25,000 a month goes there. As we only had a crowd of 1,500 on Saturday we will be struggling this month I guess.
So lets take the entry value down to £12 which would be an average of £9.50 and would equate to just under £8 after vat deducted.
Raith would need around 2,800 fans to be at the same place as we were with Saturdays low gate of 1500. To substantiate FT football they reckon on needing a regular home gate of 3,000+.
To generate the income that 3,000 fans would bring (£17 averaged to £14 and thus £11) in £33k. If reduced to £12 for adults we would need to have a crowd of 4,000+ every week.
Now any one see that happening even if prices were £12?
Nope me neither.
It isn't so much that the football is too expensive more that we cannot support a prodfessional team in Kirkcaldy in these times.
The facts are the people don't have the money during this recession. |
Yes but those points and figures are to balance what we are currently spending expenditure wise - why cant we balance the expenditure better to sustain reduced pricing.. rather than trying the impossible of trying to get 3000 at each home game to sustain our current expenditure. I am sure we could cut some of the cost and still maintain some degree of full time status.
- remove some higher paid pro's with existing U19s. Sell some of the high paid pro's, raise some capital and replace with existing U19s. Sure it lowers the product on the pitch but does not mean we will get relegated either.
- combine player/management or coach roles - take out some staff costs. If we really wanted we could do this. I'm not picking on Paul Smith but we could remove that position and have Murray or Ellis pick this up as part of their current role for a nominal fee on top, but still saving overall.
- why do we persist on opening the North Stand ? accomodate away fans in existing areas of the south stand or main stand to save costs on electricity, rates, policing, stewarding, etc,
These would reduce our expenditure I am sure that would either allows us to operate on an even balance sheet or indeed give the opportunity to reduce pricing if possible.
The answer to all our problems seems to be to plead to the paying customer to pay more, or hope that more customer come through the gates at £17 a head.. it is not going to happen.. the board are out of touch if they believe we are going to get 3000 for each home game, at £17 per head, with the product that is currently on show.
So whats left ? re-address expenditure to live within the means of average gates of 1700 at £17 per head is the logical choice!! maybe if the wages were trimmed by a certain % and it was then given back to the fans via reduced admission prices that allowed more people to attend and allowed the club to operate more within their means.
Easier said than done I assume, otherwise the board would have done that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scotty
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 9065
Location: Almost Dysart.
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| R12ATH wrote: |
Yes but those points and figures are to balance what we are currently spending expenditure wise - why cant we balance the expenditure better to sustain reduced pricing.. rather than trying the impossible of trying to get 3000 at each home game to sustain our current expenditure. I am sure we could cut some of the cost and still maintain some degree of full time status.
- remove some higher paid pro's with existing U19s. Sell some of the high paid pro's, raise some capital and replace with existing U19s. Sure it lowers the product on the pitch but does not mean we will get relegated either. . |
The current expenditure is more than 50% wages and we are struggling to put a decent team on the park, reduce that further and I'd hate to see what we'd be like.
Also sell some pro's?? In these post Bosman years that doesn't happen, you can't even release them as you have to honour their contracts. Baird will be away in Jan thopugh but I doubt we'll get much for him (£10k maybe). As for playing only youngsters and a few pro's, well we're largely doing just that at the moment and we are 4th bottom. More cuts and I think we'd be real relegation candidates if we are not already.
| R12ATH wrote: |
- combine player/management or coach roles - take out some staff costs. If we really wanted we could do this. I'm not picking on Paul Smith but we could remove that position and have Murray or Ellis pick this up as part of their current role for a nominal fee on top, but still saving overall.. |
I agree but it'll only save a few quid to do that, a more viable option would be get rid of the manager and make a bigger saving. That's a move I pray they don't make.
| R12ATH wrote: |
- why do we persist on opening the North Stand ? accomodate away fans in existing areas of the south stand or main stand to save costs on electricity, rates, policing, stewarding, etc, . |
We did just that with the railway stand and the pigeons and neglect rendered it unusable, if there ever came a time that we needed the North stand again and it couldn't be opened there be hell on. Electricity isn't a big cost but stewarding is and is something that we should be doing something about!
Again real savings could be made if we simply left Starks Park and rented elsewhere. A drastic move that would slash costs at a stroke but isn't the answer in my book.
| R12ATH wrote: |
These would reduce our expenditure I am sure that would either allows us to operate on an even balance sheet or indeed give the opportunity to reduce pricing if possible. . |
Reduce costs they would but I doubt it'd be enough to balace the books enough and as I said earlier I don't think reducing admission charges will bring in sufficiently more punters to balance the books never mind increrase profit.
| R12ATH wrote: |
The answer to all our problems seems to be to plead to the paying customer to pay more, or hope that more customer come through the gates at £17 a head.. it is not going to happen.. the board are out of touch if they believe we are going to get 3000 for each home game, at £17 per head, with the product that is currently on show. . |
£17 is average for Div 1, I agree it's not value for money but it is about what most are charging. If it wasn't for the recession and general shortage of cash in the town I doubt it'd be a big issue. Kdy is skint as is Fife/Scotland/UK/Everywhere. In an ideal world 5,000 punters paying £10 or £10,000 paying £5 would be great but it isn't going to happen as [quote="R12ATH"]y or the inclination to follow the team anymore.
| R12ATH wrote: |
So whats left ? re-address expenditure to live within the means of average gates of 1700 at £17 per head is the logical choice!! maybe if the wages were trimmed by a certain % and it was then given back to the fans via reduced admission prices that allowed more people to attend and allowed the club to operate more within their means.
Easier said than done I assume, otherwise the board would have done that. |
Miracle required.
_________________
Competitive goals: Vaughan 16, Easton 11, Hamilton 9, Smith 7, Stanton 7, Mullin 4, Connolly 3, O'Reilly 3, Rudden 3, S Brown 1, Dick 1, Gullan 1, Masson 1, Millen 1, Mitchell 1, Murray, Watson 1, OG's 1, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vinnie
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 8219
Location: None Of Your Business
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stephen wrote: | | Do you think that Rovers and SFL1 clubs will survive on £17? With such a price, people will stay away. |
Mostly likely not .Not saying prices are not part of the problem for stay away fans but whats being served up on the park is a major issue
| Quote: | | Any first division club will be able to operate on £10 entry prices, however, it would require major re-structuring which is something that football clubs don't seem to want to do. The club needs to diversify and instigate a number of revenue streams, and not be content to accept only gate prices and hand-outs. |
Clubs could probably operate on less than £10 entry prices with major restructuring which won`t and couldn`t happen in the short term and what they`d be able to put out on the pitch is anyones guessHow do clubs address their debts in the transitional period?
_________________
THERES FIVE OF ME |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Graeme Meldrum
Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 1254
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| scotty wrote: |
Again real savings could be made if we simply left Starks Park and rented elsewhere. A drastic move that would slash costs at a stroke but isn't the answer in my book. |
Craziest idea ever, we already pay thousands of pounds per month, and have a large lump sum to pay off in a few year time, yet you want to leave and incur an additional rent somewhere else.
Madness total madness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Soundwave
Joined: 15 Jul 2008
Posts: 819
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Graeme Meldrum wrote: | | scotty wrote: |
Again real savings could be made if we simply left Starks Park and rented elsewhere. A drastic move that would slash costs at a stroke but isn't the answer in my book. |
Craziest idea ever, we already pay thousands of pounds per month, and have a large lump sum to pay off in a few year time, yet you want to leave and incur an additional rent somewhere else.
Madness total madness. |
No he doesn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R12ATH
Joined: 11 Jul 2008
Posts: 1234
Location: West Lothian, Scotland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="scotty"] | R12ATH wrote: |
Yes but those points and figures are to balance what we are currently spending expenditure wise - why cant we balance the expenditure better to sustain reduced pricing.. rather than trying the impossible of trying to get 3000 at each home game to sustain our current expenditure. I am sure we could cut some of the cost and still maintain some degree of full time status.
- remove some higher paid pro's with existing U19s. Sell some of the high paid pro's, raise some capital and replace with existing U19s. Sure it lowers the product on the pitch but does not mean we will get relegated either. . |
The current expenditure is more than 50% wages and we are struggling to put a decent team on the park, reduce that further and I'd hate to see what we'd be like.
Also sell some pro's?? In these post Bosman years that doesn't happen, you can't even release them as you have to honour their contracts. Baird will be away in Jan thopugh but I doubt we'll get much for him (£10k maybe). As for playing only youngsters and a few pro's, well we're largely doing just that at the moment and we are 4th bottom. More cuts and I think we'd be real relegation candidates if we are not already.
| R12ATH wrote: |
- combine player/management or coach roles - take out some staff costs. If we really wanted we could do this. I'm not picking on Paul Smith but we could remove that position and have Murray or Ellis pick this up as part of their current role for a nominal fee on top, but still saving overall.. |
I agree but it'll only save a few quid to do that, a more viable option would be get rid of the manager and make a bigger saving. That's a move I pray they don't make.
| R12ATH wrote: |
- why do we persist on opening the North Stand ? accomodate away fans in existing areas of the south stand or main stand to save costs on electricity, rates, policing, stewarding, etc, . |
We did just that with the railway stand and the pigeons and neglect rendered it unusable, if there ever came a time that we needed the North stand again and it couldn't be opened there be hell on. Electricity isn't a big cost but stewarding is and is something that we should be doing something about!
Again real savings could be made if we simply left Starks Park and rented elsewhere. A drastic move that would slash costs at a stroke but isn't the answer in my book.
| R12ATH wrote: |
These would reduce our expenditure I am sure that would either allows us to operate on an even balance sheet or indeed give the opportunity to reduce pricing if possible. . |
Reduce costs they would but I doubt it'd be enough to balace the books enough and as I said earlier I don't think reducing admission charges will bring in sufficiently more punters to balance the books never mind increrase profit.
| R12ATH wrote: |
The answer to all our problems seems to be to plead to the paying customer to pay more, or hope that more customer come through the gates at £17 a head.. it is not going to happen.. the board are out of touch if they believe we are going to get 3000 for each home game, at £17 per head, with the product that is currently on show. . |
£17 is average for Div 1, I agree it's not value for money but it is about what most are charging. If it wasn't for the recession and general shortage of cash in the town I doubt it'd be a big issue. Kdy is skint as is Fife/Scotland/UK/Everywhere. In an ideal world 5,000 punters paying £10 or £10,000 paying £5 would be great but it isn't going to happen as | R12ATH wrote: | y or the inclination to follow the team anymore.
| R12ATH wrote: |
So whats left ? re-address expenditure to live within the means of average gates of 1700 at £17 per head is the logical choice!! maybe if the wages were trimmed by a certain % and it was then given back to the fans via reduced admission prices that allowed more people to attend and allowed the club to operate more within their means.
Easier said than done I assume, otherwise the board would have done that. |
Miracle required. |
I dont think one U19 playing in the first team constitutes 'largely doing that'.. Falkirk on the other hand have 10 teenagers in their first team squad |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scotty
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 9065
Location: Almost Dysart.
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes Falkirk have had up to 10 but actually the Raith squad some/most weeks features up to 6 U19's, 3 from RRFC (Laidlaw, Callaghan and Walls) 1 from Hearts (Thompson) and 1 from St Johnstone (Reynolds) but only 1 is usually deemed good enough to make the staring 11 (Reece Donaldson). Most weeks we finish with 3 U19's on the pitch in the second half. Ok so only 1 in the starting 11 but 2 or 3 on the bench and when were struggling and changes are needed so far the kids haven't been the answer. My take is that there seems to be a lack of depth in the current squad and the squad we have is struggling to make an impact (and maybe worse!). Unless we have some Sinclairs, Dairs, Camerons or Crawfords coming through the ranks I can't see us surviving the drop if we do decide to "sell off older Pro's" and play more youths.
As for the stadium issue,
I'm not for leaving Starks Park far from it (Unless we had a new purpose built stadium to go to) but I can see the logic and financial sense in leaving as the upkeep costs would be gone, and we can probably rent somewhere else for the same amount or even less (I DOUBT IT'D BE A GOOD LONG TERM IDEA) but crowds would suffer imo.
As for having "a large lump sum to pay off " implying then it'll be ours? That'll only be the case if Mr Sim decides to hand SP back to the club. He's the owner after all and once the loan is cleared on the stadium it's still his to do with as he pleases and he may want to carry on and charge £4,000 (or more) in rent per month, even after the debt is cleared.
I know of one or two folk who say if they won the Euro lottery they'd happily give money to build a new ground if RRFC would walk away from Starks Park and tell Mr Sim to poke it!
_________________
Competitive goals: Vaughan 16, Easton 11, Hamilton 9, Smith 7, Stanton 7, Mullin 4, Connolly 3, O'Reilly 3, Rudden 3, S Brown 1, Dick 1, Gullan 1, Masson 1, Millen 1, Mitchell 1, Murray, Watson 1, OG's 1, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Graeme Meldrum
Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 1254
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| scotty wrote: |
I know of one or two folk who say if they won the Euro lottery they'd happily give money to build a new ground if RRFC would walk away from Starks Park and tell Mr Sim to poke it! |
He's safe enough then  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R12ATH
Joined: 11 Jul 2008
Posts: 1234
Location: West Lothian, Scotland
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| scotty wrote: | | Yes Falkirk have had up to 10 but actually the Raith squad some/most weeks features up to 6 U19's, 3 from RRFC (Laidlaw, Callaghan and Walls) 1 from Hearts (Thompson) and 1 from St Johnstone (Reynolds) but only 1 is usually deemed good enough to make the staring 11 (Reece Donaldson). Most weeks we finish with 3 U19's on the pitch in the second half. Ok so only 1 in the starting 11 but 2 or 3 on the bench and when were struggling and changes are needed so far the kids haven't been the answer. My take is that there seems to be a lack of depth in the current squad and the squad we have is struggling to make an impact (and maybe worse!). Unless we have some Sinclairs, Dairs, Camerons or Crawfords coming through the ranks I can't see us surviving the drop if we do decide to "sell off older Pro's" and play more youths. |
I guess the point is do we continue to run at a loss and have mild ambition to finish in the top half of the league or cut our cloth accordingly, reduce expenditure and have to play more U19s at the expense of more expensive seasoned professionals, and run the risk of relegation. The point regarding Falkirk is not about how many u19s they have its more about where they are progressing, it does not seem to be impacting them - top half of the league and into semi finals of a major cup. Simple example - take Walker, if he went in January and was replaced by say Callaghan in midfield sitting along side Davo, do you think that would really make such a huge difference to our overall form that we would be instant relegation candidates? I dont think it would and I suppose it would save a wage circa £20 to 25k a year or whatever he gets paid. If we are selective it would work, ease the financial burden and still be able to put a team out on he pitch that would finish not in the relegation zone, but would have no ambition to winning the league this season. Same could be applied to McBride and Hill. I'm sure we would not miss their contribution greatly over the season that an existing youth player could not warm the bench/stand for and come in now and then as bit part players like they two are. Thats 2 salaries saved right there with little impact, as they dont tend to be first choice starting 11. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stephen
Joined: 19 Aug 2008
Posts: 370
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moving away from the "what we should do" discussion and look at First Division football as a whole. Do you feel that £17 per week (or £19 in Dundee) full time football is better entertainment value that [say] £12 part time football? I would say that a part-time, cheaper First Division would be a much more attractive prospect than what we have.
I know many people have debated the fact that dropping the cost of football will not attract any more fans... I disagree. Beginning at £20, you can't really [in this climate] expect a parent and child to go to the football on a whim. Also, in my personal experience, I can no longer afford to go to every home and away match - this season I will be going to every other home game. If the prices were even £15, I would be attending more games.
Longer term, a part of the answer is to leave Starks IMO. We need a stadium with modern, quality, flexible corporate facilities. We need public spaces - gym, bar etc. Ideally we also need office space to be hired out. A few astro pitches and a lovely big car park and we would be heading in the right direction.
Personally, I think the club has got a lot wrong in the past. They are better now, but IMO the club lacks at many of the basics. It smacks of "this is the way we have always done it". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keith S
Moderator
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1169
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stephen wrote: | Moving away from the "what we should do" discussion and look at First Division football as a whole. Do you feel that £17 per week (or £19 in Dundee) full time football is better entertainment value that [say] £12 part time football? I would say that a part-time, cheaper First Division would be a much more attractive prospect than what we have.
|
Theres nothing wrong with change - and almost everyone in the South Stand is crying out for it every week.
I personally believe that I'd rather pay £14 quid to watch a team of part time youngsters try their hearts out than what we currently have to watch. OK we may lose more than we win, But some of the stuff on Saturday was little better than schoolboy football - only without the passion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scotty
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 9065
Location: Almost Dysart.
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| R12ATH wrote: | | scotty wrote: | | Yes Falkirk have had up to 10 but actually the Raith squad some/most weeks features up to 6 U19's, 3 from RRFC (Laidlaw, Callaghan and Walls) 1 from Hearts (Thompson) and 1 from St Johnstone (Reynolds) but only 1 is usually deemed good enough to make the staring 11 (Reece Donaldson). Most weeks we finish with 3 U19's on the pitch in the second half. Ok so only 1 in the starting 11 but 2 or 3 on the bench and when were struggling and changes are needed so far the kids haven't been the answer. My take is that there seems to be a lack of depth in the current squad and the squad we have is struggling to make an impact (and maybe worse!). Unless we have some Sinclairs, Dairs, Camerons or Crawfords coming through the ranks I can't see us surviving the drop if we do decide to "sell off older Pro's" and play more youths. |
I guess the point is do we continue to run at a loss and have mild ambition to finish in the top half of the league or cut our cloth accordingly, reduce expenditure and have to play more U19s at the expense of more expensive seasoned professionals, and run the risk of relegation. The point regarding Falkirk is not about how many u19s they have its more about where they are progressing, it does not seem to be impacting them - top half of the league and into semi finals of a major cup. Simple example - take Walker, if he went in January and was replaced by say Callaghan in midfield sitting along side Davo, do you think that would really make such a huge difference to our overall form that we would be instant relegation candidates? I dont think it would and I suppose it would save a wage circa £20 to 25k a year or whatever he gets paid. If we are selective it would work, ease the financial burden and still be able to put a team out on he pitch that would finish not in the relegation zone, but would have no ambition to winning the league this season. Same could be applied to McBride and Hill. I'm sure we would not miss their contribution greatly over the season that an existing youth player could not warm the bench/stand for and come in now and then as bit part players like they two are. Thats 2 salaries saved right there with little impact, as they dont tend to be first choice starting 11. |
Thing is though if we were to punt those 3 (or more) and promote from the U19s what would then happen in May?
Would we then release them and promote another 3? If you hold on to them they become a wage just like the original 3.
There's no hard and fast solutions other than;
. The economy picks up and people can afford to come and watch the team again.
. A major shake-up happens in the game and wages are slashed.
. A sugar daddy arrives in Pratt St on a white steed.
or
. Someone on here wins the Euro lottery. 
_________________
Competitive goals: Vaughan 16, Easton 11, Hamilton 9, Smith 7, Stanton 7, Mullin 4, Connolly 3, O'Reilly 3, Rudden 3, S Brown 1, Dick 1, Gullan 1, Masson 1, Millen 1, Mitchell 1, Murray, Watson 1, OG's 1, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12th man
Joined: 31 Oct 2009
Posts: 1429
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It ain't going to happen but I'd go a 14 team SPL the top 8 go into play offs for the Euro slots the bottom 6 go into play off with the top 6 in the SFL and the resulting top six getting promoted for a slot in the SPL....pretty sure that's a more attractive way to work it.......'B Plan' Euromillion ticket in hand!!!!
_________________
supportrovers@aol.co.uk
Account Name - ' Support Rovers '
Account Nr : 06025487
Sort Code : 80-16-84 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
