CBX1985

3 hours ago, Jimbo Ram said:

He’s consistently vague.

He gets fed vague rubbish by agents so they can create a bit of a buzz around the league two journeyman they have on their books.  Then such and such from Crawley Town is "about to enter talks" with Derby. 

He is a useful idiot who believes he has his ear to the ground.  

6 hours ago, Gabby'sThighs said:

I think he's retired.

And dead.

On 31/05/2024 at 11:18, Phoenix said:

I don't recall many English clubs queueing up to sign some unknown bloke called Wanchope. He turned out all right.

Searching the Costa Rican league was inspired.  I would have thought, with matches in these random places being streamed to the world, it would be easier to carve out a niche as somewhere to showcase the very best from unusual countries.  

23 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

Quick questions for the "finance" thread as I trawled through all 17 pages but couldn't find it - sorry if I missed it?

1. Do we know what our turnover has been in League One?
2. Do we know what our wage bill is?
3. Do we know what our losses have been (after DC stabilized the club, but not including his one-off payments to do that)?
4. Do we know how much turnover rises next season as a result of being in the Championship?

Thanks!

1) £20.4m (2022/23)

2). £17.2m total;  plus £1m for Stadium usage (2022/23).

3) No.  Latest accounts are eye of the storm and very hard to glean (due to write downs and non-compensated expenditure - i.e. the Academy); administration was £13m.  A fair picture will emerge in next accounts. 

4) £9m from TV.  Based on Season ticket sales and rises, a further £1m-£2m there (very roughly).  

On 24/05/2024 at 08:05, MadAmster said:

Surely that "extra £8M" would only mean we break even rather than lose money?

Well, it depends on the losses.  As I say, we do have extraordinary losses - and I suspect these carried into this season just gone, as we agreed a two year timetable of repayment (so more will appear in next set of accounts).  But they are extraordinary, and not operating, losses which is important.  

Extraordinary losses will always fall away (and if they do not they are not extraordinary and thus you are insolvent).  

So if we add a sum and then pay away that sum in wages, our position will not change.  So (disregarding changes in ST and the like) we have an extra £8m to spend on either a) wages or b) fees and wages without impacting on our financial position (within a one year horizon).   

10 hours ago, MadAmster said:

On what are you basing that assertion?

22/23, we lost £10M, some of which was due to the mess MM had put us in and the costs of getting us out of Admin. Virtually the same average gate in 23/24 and other income is likely to have been similar as the one before. I expect us, based on that, to have a loss on last season but a lower one than the season before. That would mean we lost £10M in 22/23 plus maybe half of that again last season.

Your statement that we can "spend £8m more on wages to have the same revenue/spending point" doesn't seem to add up. Sending the extra gate/TV money would likely see us make yet another loss. That's David Clowes' money we'd be losing. He might be said to be "worth" £250M but what most people fail to understand is that the vast majority of that "worth" is land, buildings, plant, machinery, a football ground etc.  Unfortunately it is NOT liquid assets he can fritter away.

If I've got this all wrong, I would be ecstatic if someone could explain to me how/why so that I can better understand the current state of play. I would appreciate any explanation taking into account the £36M we already owe David Clowes.

Fair comments to a point - I should have said, to be wholly accurate we didn't have "operating losses" of £8m.  However, I would say year 1 of a new business being bought in the way it was is not really reflective of any position at all. 

I haven't gone through the reports for a while, but from reading them last year my recollection is that there were extraordinarily high extraordinary costs - and operational break even.  My point, which is fact and not opinion, is that if we increase operational income by £8m, the balance sheet would remain unchanged should we increase (within that period) spending by £8m.

On 21/05/2024 at 17:59, Simmo’s left foot said:

All that money will do is cover existing losses.

We don't have £8m in losses.

Basically, we can - seasons after not withstanding - spend £8m more on wages to have the same revenue/spending point.  

11 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

The bookies have us 20-1 to win the league and 11/4 for top 6. About 11th alongside the likes of Stoke. Too short to warrant a bet IMO. 

Realistically - relegation would be complete failure. 16th to 21st is a reasonable expectation, pretty similar to the Wendies and Plymouth this season.

Top half would be an excellent season and play offs would be miraculous. 
 

@Leeds Ram summed it up, Coventry should be the model we follow. Very similar situation being promoted after major collapse and having to build without much investment. Luton had a way of playing and a unique momentum that catapulted them forwards, and we just don’t have the budget to do what Ipswich did (although they only had a top half budget and massively overachieved)

Only way I could see this changing is if we had major investment or a take over in the summer. 

Takeovers and major investment can work against you: see Birmingham.  Well run clubs, like Brentford and Brighton, are the way forward.  You don't need billions, you just need good business sense and stability.

I think we need a survival year (2024/25), followed by a push on year (higher mid table) followed by a promotion chase.  We need to get them ducks in a row, and then kick on.

On 18/05/2024 at 15:00, Scott129 said:

I'm going to guess:

- 3 free agents

- 3 loans (Prem youngsters)

- 4 fees (2 nominal fees of less than 500k - Adams included - and 2 "marquee" signings of 1m+)

Total spend 3m-ish.

I can see very few fees paid - and being top payers (at our level) for free transfers.  Adams an exception, as he has shown his worth.

We have £8m (more) from TV money this coming season that we didn't last - so that is a lot of additional revenue that can be shifted to paying top wages. 

Turning fees to wages, in my view, gets you further as it is not a dead cost - and is spread over several seasons.  One £3m signing prevents maybe 4 or 5 other players coming on the books.     

7 hours ago, alexxxxx said:

I think if you did a deal which prevented premier league 3PMs being broadcast you'd have the best of both worlds. You can retain 3PM kick offs and prevent some loss of attendances whilst retaining TV revenue for those that can't go anyway. Accrington fans might stay at home to watch man utd v Fulham for example but they aren't staying at home to watch Stoke v West Brom. 

League 1 and League 2 teams also have to balance the threat of a championship breakaway (and TV revenue that's distributed through that to them) to the premier league with their own interests.

League 1 and League 2 TV rights are worth very little on their own.

 I agree with most of this.  Not sure I believe a breakaway is realistic; a threat, maybe, but not sure it would add much.  

40 minutes ago, Rich3478 said:

It’s not up to the broadcasters is it, sky would’ve killed it years ago if so.

this feels a way to inconvenience lots of fans and then point at the block when people annoyed about.

No, it is up to clubs. Premiership and Championship teams probably want it gone; league one more likely want it to remain; and league 2 and below will be desperate for it to be kept.  Which means at a vote, chances are it is kept.

Not sure Sky care all that much (other providers, like TNT, might want this more from a place of challenger firm).  Were it to open up, Sky would be expected to pay a lot more for content, but it would clearly bring very little additional income for that content.  Those not already subscribed are hardly likely to want to pay up just for a few 3pm games - so would need to drastically change their model.

It is a little inconvenient.  But Sky are doubling our income.  For that, we will probably have an extra 5 games kick off Mon-Fri than already, several earlier than normal and a few more on a Sunday.  To me it feels a price worth paying.  

56 minutes ago, MadAmster said:

I've read/heard of 27 different players we're buying this summer. 2 of those arriving would be a miracle. Where did you hear it? Who from? A reputable, reliable source or did you overhear someone saying they'd seen something on FB or X?

The whole point being there's a lot of crap being written by folk wanting clicks to gain advertising revenue from their FB pages, YouTube channels and websites. We don't yet know who's staying and who's going. We're not the only club that hasn't yet published their retained list. Unless a club has said something, there's no traction in any of these rumours.

Indeed.  A further, agents are liable to telling white lies:

My client is reviewing their options and is unwilling to sign "at this time".  It puts out the word that they might be interested in a change and makes the club up wage offer.

Always be sceptical it might all be smoke and mirrors.  

2 minutes ago, Rich3478 said:

Agree, it feels like a way to kill the blackout off.

Not sure I agree.

If you were going to do that, you'd just do it.  There is a base level of income for the games.  Once you exceed this, you get very little more for each game available.  Therefore, I doubt that showing all the games would get more than a 10% increase.  I think Sky may be reluctant to even agree to it.

This deal has a further component.  Lg 2 teams, like Accrington, have very small fan bases.  Their fans might be less likely to go if Man Utd are on TV (I doubt EFL would stop many just because it's on TV).  They would receive less TV cash and may impact attendences.  Keeping 3pm is for them.

The core fact to the deal is this: all the clubs voted in favour.  Every. Single. One.  If you take away blackout, you would need to offer all the clubs - not simply Championship - way way more money to agree.  This is basically a compromise: loads more of everyone's games are to be televised, but 3PM remains. There is a natural limit to about 30 games per season broadcast.  All clubs get more money, with an exclusive slot (the lower you are the more 3pms you have).

If you break from these principles, teams in league 2 start voting against the deal en-mass.  While those clubs get much less TV money, they have a vote - and if you alienate Lg 2 and half of League 1, you might well lose it.  

13 minutes ago, ram59 said:

I would like to see a minor tournament played by pro teams without any offside, just to see how it panned out. It might be a total disaster, but I would like to see how it worked. The argument against is that it would encourage goal hangers, but it's up to the opposition to mark them. It would certainly spread out play and would put a stop to one of the most contentious issues in football.

Would the benefits outweigh the negatives?

On a side note, 5, 6 and 7 a-side games are played without offside and fun to play in and to watch, with far fewer disputes.

I recall from my visit several years ago the national football museum in Preston, they had an exhibit on the history of the offside rule.  Prior to it's introduction there would be no formations by modern standards (the usual was 1-1-8 or 1-0-9) and that short passing becomes utterly pointless - so the ball is hoofed one side to the other.  

Offside emerged quickly due to it's necessity (first as gentlemen's agreement and then rule).  

3 minutes ago, Rev said:

PayPal?

I'm sure solutions will emerge, but I think they will need to make it more of a hassle - to stop all but the most determined.  

1 minute ago, Stive Pesley said:

Would they really do that? My eldest is living overseas for the next year or so and still has a UK bank account/card. He can't be the only ex-pat in that situation

I think with Sky paying as much as they are they are going to want to have their monopoly on UK EFL.  The sums brought in from broadcasting abroad will be small, but worthwhile continuing.  However, a few losses to show "we are making sure no-one circumvents Sky" would probably be in the club's interest, if not UK fans overseas.

1 hour ago, Animal is a Ram said:

The opposite. Just stops RamsTV streaming to UK customers for non-Saturday 3pm games.

I suspect they will be stricter on Rams TV being viewed in the UK. They cannot do much to stop VPNs, but they can restrict UK registered credit and debit cards (as one of the numbers in the long PAN code denotes country of registration).  Quite a simple process to block on these grounds; no different in practice than not accepting American Express.  

15 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

How many people watch matches on RamsTV now?. Anyone know?.

Obviously it will vary a lot.

I don't know.  Probably when shown in UK, lots for away games and a fraction for home games.

I recall during the pandemic it was about 1/3rd of normal attendance was watching (based on the company accounts).  Will be less the more people can attend games.  

27 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I think my argument about TV subscription is just how many people actually want the service sky offer Vs how many just want the bits they're interested in.

People want their entertainment all la carte and not set menu especially if they're paying for it and these days it's a realistic expectation.

I don't want to watch however many championship, league 1 and league 2 matches, I just want to watch DCFC, and I highly doubt high numbers are subscribing to sky to watch EFL matches anyway. So why do sky pay the EFL for the rights? Stop anyone else having them,steer the ones who do subscribe towards the matches it's profitable for sky to show.

 

You offer a bundle which includes: SKY Sports but also crucially Sky Broadband, Sky home insurance, Sky mobile etc, and the base TV package (which is Sky TVs greatest driver of profit) The sport element has made a loss for Sky every year in it's history, but by bundling lots of other things in to the package the sports budget (and formally, but less so now Movies) becomes negligible overall but it drives all the other subs.  Few people subscribe without wanting Sport or Movies.

What they are doing here is trying to get a percentage of the EFL fan market to subscribe.  The individual matches will make eye watering losses but are designed to drive enough people to subscribe to enough "extras" to make it worth it.  You need lots of add on products to make this model work, which is what makes the numbers appear uneconomic and yet they are highly successful.  

Just now, therealhantsram said:

As one of the bigger draws in Championship, I'd expect Derby to be on TV closer to 30 times.

And the knock-on effect on this is even more Saturday games moved to Sunday (even when not on TV) to give players recovery time from that Thursday game.

I expect to see around 35 games moved from their original kick-off time next season. 

Then it will be on TV.

Any games not covered by 3pm Saturday rule are being broadcast.

16 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

Eight million in the UK are watching sport streaming live already, this is the genie that Sky is trying to put back in the bottle. It's the equivalent of trying to stop people record music on cassettes (reference for the teenagers there).

https://dubsports.net/illegal-streaming-on-the-rise-for-premier-league/

They don't need to.  All they need is enough people who do not want buffering, random commentary, fear legal consequences etc.  The bottom of the market never subscribed - what they need is enough ordinary people who want an easy life (and little hassle) to pay.  They will, realistically, accept a certain percentage steam.  They will make token efforts to combat it - to deter people who would subscribe by creating risk, not to stop it.

2 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

There'll probably have everyone 12.30ko on the opening day except for Friday and Sunday for the games they decide to irritate fans with.

As someone snookered by distance and rarely gets to matches these days,I should be all over this extra coverage but I hate what it's doing to the game overall. I certainly won't be paying sky for it where as I didn't mind giving ramstv the occasional tenner.

Hopefully the ramstv international coverage is still available and I may discover a new enthusiasm for flights abroad.

I think this is probably the last big rights deal with sky that the EFL will be able to pull. The subscription sports TV model is not what it was 20 years ago and it strikes me as sky are trying to kill off club streaming to get everyone watching their very expensive premier League games.

I think in a few years the clubs will rebel against this and do their own streaming - which is what Mel Morris was arguing for, but at the time he didn't have enough support (and picking fights with the league whilst also making all the other clubs hate him, wasn't savvy)

As I explained in a different thread, the model for streaming games is just not there.  It probably never will be as it is the one area normal TV has a distinct, and almost impossible to penetrate competitive advantage.  MM either did not understand this or did and was trying to frighten the horses at Sky to give clubs more.

Basic example.

Sky are giving us £9m for next season.  This will be £195,652 per match whether broadcast or not.  This will be VAT free to DCFC.

To match that, at £10 per game (assuming each is broadcast) we would need 19,562 domestic subscribers.  However, we would only receive £8 in £10 due to tax.  Therefore, to break even we would need 24,456 people to pay for each match home and away to break even.

Home matches would clearly have lower subscriber numbers as you might as well go if you are going to charge.  Therefore, on any reasonable analysis to simply match Sky money we would need as many people watching EVERY game on TV (irrespective of home crowd) as were attending.  We would then need to pay for the production (which would need to have very good values to justify the subscriber needs), which Sky take care of.  

Sky do this by economic aggregation.  The overall number of subscribers is so high that individual payments (to clubs) are relatively low (but high to them).  We would never have this luxury and can never realistically over come the sheer weight of the numbers I outline.

4 minutes ago, Grumpy Git said:

I asked the SLO when the 'free' seats would be released and just got this reply:

"The date will be announced on the DCFC website in the near future"

😡

Jobs like that a ripe for AI.  They are so far removed from anyone of influence they in reality know as much as we do.

8 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

To be honest, League One should be a breeze for them as I don’t think they have gone down in turmoil like we perhaps did.

They got relegated because of Rooney. The other 3 managers who were there would have had then mid table over a 46 game season.

Their budget is bigger than ours this season. Their squad is better.

I think a big part of getting out of Lg 1 is acceptance you are there.  Because we were such a basket case, we took it quite well and management appeared humble enough to not feel the big I am.  If you think you are better than it, it will consume - as endless Tuesday night cup ties versus teams like Harrogate Town takes it's toll.

The budget helps, but is not all.  Where BC will have issues is if they don't mentally accept the difference and carry on as though going up is inevitable.  I found that we had the effect of being everyone's cup final: you can defeat anyone if primed for a one off match.  

42 minutes ago, alram said:

it would have been the full house of idiotic fanbases relegated if forest had joined them but that looks unlikely now

still will take this though, it is even funnier that they finally got rid of their awful last owner and replaced him with another moron who is only keeping them on side with ridiclous 60,000 seater stadium plans when they cant fill a 30k one.

The old carrot on a stick regime.  I give us more chance of winning the Champions League in the next ten years than Birmingham having a 60,000 seater stadium.