sage Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 How much did PG offer? I wonder if their arm may be forced by a big reduction in income ie falling season ticket and match ticket sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 How much did PG offer? I wonder if their arm may be forced by a big reduction in income ie falling season ticket and match ticket sales. PG claimed that he offered £37m to buy the club and would give Nigel £5m to spend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 PG claimed that he offered £37m to buy the club and would give Nigel £5m to spend. If attendances drop 2-3k, they may reconsider that offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Is average attendance 25k ish. A 2.5K drop in attendances would just be made up for by the 10% increase in prices. (I assume the increase will be on walk up prices too) If we start playing well then revenue would go up as many returning fans would be paying higher ticket prices, those that were season ticket holders paying more over per match they attend than if they had bought season tickets A big if I know . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 However, 2500 people would be spending less in the club shop, on programmes, etc. Also I fear it is easier to keep someone going than try to win them back or attract new people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I don't know. If I stopped going I'd miss it even if we were playing badly - if the team starting playing well then it would be easy to win me back. That's just me though. Look back to the promotion year - team plaing well and we took 9,000 I think it was to oakwell and home attendances went up too. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Back to the original point of the thread, Liam Lawrence has just joined Cardiff on Ioan from Portsmouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I can see increases in away following if we're doing well as I guess a lot of these go at home and then just add the away games. I fear increases at home harder though as these people wouldn't be going at all and would fall out of the habit. I think the 10% increase was a mistake in the current climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Have heard that 7,000 ish have renewed by end of Feb (many taking advantage of the interest free 4 monthly plan). Don't know how accurate that figure is (my mate reckons he asked in the club shop on Wednesday). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 If attendances drop 2-3k, they may reconsider that offer. So might PG ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbrianRam Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 How much did PG offer? I wonder if their arm may be forced by a big reduction in income ie falling season ticket and match ticket sales. Don't want that t*** anywhere near this club! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deirdre_Barlow Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Lets face it if Pompey can spend what they have done in recent years and come out of this with a slap on the wrist then I'm expecting champagne to be served with my balti pie the next few years, might as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Nobody will convince me that we are currently spending anything near 60% of turnover,yet we're supposed to be over budget now. The last public accounts are for 09/10 when the wage bill was 55% of turnover and we had the benefit of the last parachute payment. Now we've lost nearly £10m of that income there must've been some major cost-cutting if we weren't to be considerably over 60% of turnover since then. How have you worked it out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 The last public accounts are for 09/10 when the wage bill was 55% of turnover and we had the benefit of the last parachute payment. Now we've lost nearly £10m of that income there must've been some major cost-cutting if we weren't to be considerably over 60% of turnover since then. How have you worked it out? Your 55% is based on the total wage bill of £16.410m,whereas the 60% guidelines relate to players' wages.If you recalculate on the basis of £10.5m players' wages (for the year you mention),you'll get a far smaller figure.Bit surprised you didn't realise this as it's not so long ago that we were discussing the rather high figures for non players' wages for both 08/09 and 09/10 -around £6m each time,from memory. As far as my calculations go,I base them on the fact that Glick said not so long ago that turnover was £18m,and that 60% of this would be £10.8m.To allow for slippage you can deduct £0.6m for every £1m drop in turnover.Given that Glick put players' wages at "just over £9m" in late March of last year,and that this would probably represent the final 10/11 figure (not much activity after late March),then the bill must be much lower now due to an exodus of high earners,to be replaced by ???. I think you'll find that the lower divisions are faced with 2 targets -one for players' wages and the other for total wages.From memory only,I think these were 60% and 75% respectively,though I know there was talk of bringing players down to 55%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I wasn't aware the FFP regs were specifically for player wages - thought it was just "club wage bill"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lil_miss_s Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Forest were quoted as spending 109% of turnover on player wages.....even Frank Clark said that they needed to adopt Derby's way financially for them to carry on as a club. And PG?? You have got to be joking. Trust me, you don't want this man anywhere near our football club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dangerous Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I dont really have an issue with the finances at Derby.My issue is whats happpening on the pitch.If Derby had continued spending like we were under Pickering etc we would have been in the same mess as Rangers and Pompey.Fortunately we have had a board that doesnt pander to every whim of the fans and has steadied the books. Im not convinced that the americans intentions in the long term are as good as they make out but they have reduced the debt,at a time when the taxman is after football clubs with a vengeance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I wasn't aware the FFP regs were specifically for player wages - thought it was just "club wage bill"? I'm pretty sure I've seen players' wages mentioned in relation to the guideline.I think a clue lies in the actual regs for the lower divisions whereby the restriction on players' wages is similar to our FFP guideline,yet there is a raised threshold in respect of total wages. If your interpretation were correct,then based on an £18m turnover,FFP would allocate a staggering £7.2m for non pay related overheads.Now I'm well aware that costs aren't insignificant,but £7.2m? Do me a favour,that's a staggering amount of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I dont really have an issue with the finances at Derby.My issue is whats happpening on the pitch.If Derby had continued spending like we were under Pickering etc we would have been in the same mess as Rangers and Pompey.Fortunately we have had a board that doesnt pander to every whim of the fans and has steadied the books. Im not convinced that the americans intentions in the long term are as good as they make out but they have reduced the debt,at a time when the taxman is after football clubs with a vengeance. Well,if you want to give them credit for 'being around' when a pre arranged debt reduction of £10.4m took place (according to AP),then fair enough.Because the charge document relating to a £9m+ loan that the current administration took out was registered at Companies House in July 08,there's every indication that the debt rose over the inherited £31m for a short period (until the £10.4m was repaid).Now that would have made for an interesting snapshot (just as the £31m was a mere snapshot,which didn't take account of the 2 chute payments to follow,let alone the massive cash surplus,despite the Jan 08 squandering,that arose in the Prem season). By the way,the LOG were the first to register a real profit for ages (unless you want the current administration to hijack that -it would be true to say that they influenced it significantly[negatively] ).Never mind,a few years on from thisevent and our financial saviours might manage a small profit of their own making,having finally clawed back an unsustainable position of their own making in 08/09 (it was AP who confessed that the wages were £2.5m over where they should be then,and that was before all the activity for that season had concluded). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jun/10/football-league-uefa-fair-play]http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jun/10/football-league-uefa-fair-play The 60% cap in the lower divisions has,as I thought,reduced to 55%,and players' wages are stipulated early on in the piece.Whilst players' wages (nor a percentage) aren't stipulated for the championship,I think it's fair to assume that the 60% guideline has it's roots in what was decided for the lower divisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.