How many Away members? How much income?

[king canary 7,606]

2 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

 I’m not sure that I agree with Essex on the “for life” point means the benefit can be passed on and think it might benefit his heart rate to perhaps take a break from his campaign. 

However I do agree with the gist of his fundamental point on this thread. We sell ourselves as a “community” club run for the fans. But there is an inconsistency between that ethos, the way we try and screw every single penny out of our fans and the way that some senior staff at the club are being paid huge sums of money.

I would throw into the mix the fact that I suspect (although can’t prove) that the bill for the owners/directors matchday benefits probably comes to something close to the amount raised by the away membership scheme over the course of a season and I would be amazed if they are paying for it themselves.

we have some of the highest season ticket prices in the country. We have much higher casual ticket prices than many clubs. We rinse our fans for an extra £25 a season on top of their season tickets just for the right to have priority access to buy away tickets. We have been taking money for memberships off shareholders for several years now who were actually entitled to free membership but not publicising that fact. These things raise minimal amounts in comparison with, for example, the salaries and bonuses taken home by some senior staff, even in seasons where they have performed badly.

if people can’t see a potential paradox there then they are wilfully looking the other way. One might call it champagne socialism. 

One of the biggest problems I have with our owners is, when it comes to how the game treats fans, they talk the talk but consistently fail to walk the walk. 

[hogesar 9,671]

18 minutes ago, king canary said:

One of the biggest problems I have with our owners is, when it comes to how the game treats fans, they talk the talk but consistently fail to walk the walk. 

But they couldn't do that - the fans wouldn't accept it.

They already get abuse and stick for not having enough money - let's take matchday income down too, and other aspects of income from fans just to weaken us further? 

I would absolutely love to think that Jim Smith would suddenly be ok with our ownership model if his tickets were cheaper but if anyone seriously believes that they're living in an alternate universe. 

Let's say they implement cheaper ticket prices now, for next season. We miss out on two signings. We don't get promoted. What happens? This forum is full of criticism for the worst decision making from owners who clearly know nothing about football and what's required.

The owners can talk about how much they dislike the way the game treats fans - they can try to raise awareness which to be fair Delia does in every possbile public interview - but it's another battle to then essentially weaken the clubs position in football.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

7 minutes ago, hogesar said:

But they couldn't do that - the fans wouldn't accept it.

They already get abuse and stick for not having enough money - let's take matchday income down too, and other aspects of income from fans just to weaken us further? 

I would absolutely love to think that Jim Smith would suddenly be ok with our ownership model if his tickets were cheaper but if anyone seriously believes that they're living in an alternate universe. 

Let's say they implement cheaper ticket prices now, for next season. We miss out on two signings. We don't get promoted. What happens? This forum is full of criticism for the worst decision making from owners who clearly know nothing about football and what's required.

The owners can talk about how much they dislike the way the game treats fans - they can try to raise awareness which to be fair Delia does in every possbile public interview - but it's another battle to then essentially weaken the clubs position in football.

My point really is that the things they do to raise extra revenue from the fans, in reality raise quite small amounts revenue in the grand scheme of things and yet all contribute to hitting the fans in the pocket more and more.

The away membership will probably raise around £100k.

The season ticket price increase an extra  £500k.

Ok I get the “look after the pennies” point that one could respond with and I will no doubt be told that you have to pay the going rate to recruit/retain top staff but in comparison with some of the amounts wasted on the playing and management staff in recent years or indeed the burgeoning salaries and bonuses of the senior employees at the club (the figure in the accounts has gone up significantly although conveniently it’s not revealed how many employees it covers) then it’s clear that the burden of “self funding” falls predominantly on one side of the fence.

The response to any criticism from the club is also worrying in my view.

 

 

[shefcanary 2,407]

20 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Ok I get the “look after the pennies” point that one could respond with and I will no doubt be told that you have to pay the going rate to recruit/retain top staff but in comparison with some of the amounts wasted on the playing and management staff in recent years or indeed the burgeoning salaries and bonuses of the senior employees at the club (the figure in the accounts has gone up significantly although conveniently it’s not revealed how many employees it covers) then it’s clear that the burden of “self funding” falls predominantly on one side of the fence.

In the organisations I worked in this was my view also. It is counter productive in my view to "screw" a little more out of the customer base, as in return you tend to spend it on huge marketing campaigns to "build the brand"! Concentrate on the seemingly little things in contracts and you can find you save much bigger amounts than any incremental cash you raise by edging up customer prices.

I too think that preserving benefits beyond the life of the person purchasing shares is also unrealistic. Things can change immeasurably, was the benefit worth very much at the beginning of the 2009-10 season for instance? I'm more for careful monitoring of the benefits given on an annual basis to ensure they still represent good value for money for all concerned, with a commitment from the Board that no-one would miss out, ideally putting this forward to the beneficiaries before any change was made as part of the AGM.  

[king canary 7,606]

2 hours ago, hogesar said:

But they couldn't do that - the fans wouldn't accept it

They absolutely could do that.

I'm not asking for a 50% ticket price reduction, but we got by fine for years without charging fans £25 for a chance to get away tickets (or even £50 as we first attempted). Similarly I don't think we'd be worse off on the pitch if we classified a few less games as category A (£48 to watch Brentford ffs) to make tickets a bit more affordable. 

2 hours ago, hogesar said:

The owners can talk about how much they dislike the way the game treats fans - they can try to raise awareness which to be fair Delia does in every possbile public interview - but it's another battle to then essentially weaken the clubs position in football

Raising awareness isn't good enough I'm afraid. Pissing and moaning about it when you're one of the very few people in the country who has the actual power to do something about it is pretty rubbish in my view.

[essex canary 496]

11 hours ago, Commonsense said:

Why not look at the 2 clubs accounts? I also thought that we were in the Premier League last season, hence the higher prices. 
I like your suggestion of Boris- a totally self obsessed individual who believed that constantly reiterating his own point, whether it was true or not ,was the way forward. Does that remind you of anybody?

So when we get relegated season ticket prices go up and casual prices go down. That's a fact.

Would I be better off asking Commonsense or Boris to explain?

 

[essex canary 496]

8 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

My point really is that the things they do to raise extra revenue from the fans, in reality raise quite small amounts revenue in the grand scheme of things and yet all contribute to hitting the fans in the pocket more and more.

The away membership will probably raise around £100k.

The season ticket price increase an extra  £500k.

Ok I get the “look after the pennies” point that one could respond with and I will no doubt be told that you have to pay the going rate to recruit/retain top staff but in comparison with some of the amounts wasted on the playing and management staff in recent years or indeed the burgeoning salaries and bonuses of the senior employees at the club (the figure in the accounts has gone up significantly although conveniently it’s not revealed how many employees it covers) then it’s clear that the burden of “self funding” falls predominantly on one side of the fence.

The response to any criticism from the club is also worrying in my view.

 

 

Here, here Jim.

The return of Citizen Smith. Power to the people!

No problem with good budgeting but the 'custodians" ever agree the detail of 'self funding' with the fans?

Edited July 8, 2022 by essex canary

[essex canary 496]

12 hours ago, shefcanary said:

In the organisations I worked in this was my view also. It is counter productive in my view to "screw" a little more out of the customer base, as in return you tend to spend it on huge marketing campaigns to "build the brand"! Concentrate on the seemingly little things in contracts and you can find you save much bigger amounts than any incremental cash you raise by edging up customer prices.

I too think that preserving benefits beyond the life of the person purchasing shares is also unrealistic. Things can change immeasurably, was the benefit worth very much at the beginning of the 2009-10 season for instance? I'm more for careful monitoring of the benefits given on an annual basis to ensure they still represent good value for money for all concerned, with a commitment from the Board that no-one would miss out, ideally putting this forward to the beneficiaries before any change was made as part of the AGM.  

Sounds reasonable to me. Basically understand fully the customers viewpoint and demonstrate goodwill if in an ambiguous situation because it may benefit the organisation further down the line. 

Perhaps one way to look at it would be that S&J, based on their shareholding, own over 14,000 seats at Carrow Road. Do they effectively claim a rent for it? Perhaps the answer is modest but it is certainly not NIL.

Lots of small shareholders own 4 shares therefore around 6 of them need to club together to own 1 seat between them. Maybe some are happy to provide that for free though I understand Shef that you are now claiming the, in some senses generous reward, that according to the regulations you are entirely entitled to so on average the rent is not NIL there either.

Someone owning 1,000 shares effectively owns almost 44 seats at Carrow Road. I claim my rent for them in the form of my seat concession. Why shouldn't an inheritor of same do likewise? If you rented a house from a landlord who subsequently died, would you be able to live rent free when the offspring takes over the ownership? Why should you think you are entitled to?

When the OSP was formed I put forward a paper to the Club addressed to the OSP proposing that the current system should be regularised in replacing the existing system with £1 value per share per annum with a minimum floor of £10 for small shareholders to replace existing benefits. Perhaps it is connected with the OSP remit but the Club just rejects the proposal outright without putting it to the OSP. It would probably cost something, but like Jim Smith says about Membership Fees, relatively modest yet the 'custodians' aren't prepared to entertain it. Is that democracy?

Perhaps the solution is around the corner anyway regarding the potential American investment. If so perhaps they should give an outline briefing about that? 

 

[Greavsy 2,413]

1 minute ago, essex canary said:

Sounds reasonable to me. Basically understand fully the customers viewpoint and demonstrate goodwill if in an ambiguous situation because it may benefit the organisation further down the line. 

Perhaps one way to look at it would be that S&J, based on their shareholding, own over 14,000 seats at Carrow Road. Do they effectively claim a rent for it? Perhaps the answer is modest but it is certainly not NIL.

Lots of small shareholders own 4 shares therefore around 6 of them need to club together to own 1 seat between them. Maybe some are happy to provide that for free though I understand Shef that you are now claiming the, in some senses generous reward, that according to the regulations you are entirely entitled to so on average the rent is not NIL there either.

Someone owning 1,000 shares effectively owns almost 44 seats at Carrow Road. I claim my rent for them in the form of my seat concession. Why shouldn't an inheritor of same do likewise? If you rented a house from a landlord who subsequently died, would you be able to live rent free when the offspring takes over the ownership? Why should you think you are entitled to?

When the OSP was formed I put forward a paper to the Club addressed to the OSP proposing that the current system should be regularised in replacing the existing system with £1 value per share per annum with a minimum floor of £10 for small shareholders to replace existing benefits. Perhaps it is connected with the OSP remit but the Club just rejects the proposal outright without putting it to the OSP. It would probably cost something, but like Jim Smith says about Membership Fees, relatively modest yet the 'custodians' aren't prepared to entertain it. Is that democracy?

Perhaps the solution is around the corner anyway regarding the potential American investment. If so perhaps they should give an outline briefing about that? 

 

Are you still banging the same drum..........tedious. 

[essex canary 496]

Just now, Greavsy said:

Are you still banging the same drum..........tedious. 

I will take it that if you lived in a rented house where the landlord passed away, you would expect free rental thereafter.

[cornish sam 953]

20 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I will take it that if you lived in a rented house where the landlord passed away, you would expect free rental thereafter.

Are you actually being serious now or is this just one massive, convoluted wind up?

Firstly, you didn't buy shares in carrow road, you bought shares in the club, carrow road is one asset owned by the club (I assume it's owned by the same company that you bought share son though I do know that in other clubs they have split the club into different subsidiaries so that may not be the case), but, if you did then perhaps you're 0.16% share is actually the toilets, or part of the car park, or even it was for mark fotheringhams right leg. And as for your analogy, have you been paying for the upkeep of your 44 seats or the provision of services such as lighting, or access rights, or ground rent? If your %ge is actually a player, have you been paying their salary or insurance costs? 

Stop being a twonk and get some bloody perspective, you are just making yourself seem more and more stupid the more you try to justify your positions.

[essex canary 496]

9 hours ago, cornish sam said:

Are you actually being serious now or is this just one massive, convoluted wind up?

Firstly, you didn't buy shares in carrow road, you bought shares in the club, carrow road is one asset owned by the club (I assume it's owned by the same company that you bought share son though I do know that in other clubs they have split the club into different subsidiaries so that may not be the case), but, if you did then perhaps you're 0.16% share is actually the toilets, or part of the car park, or even it was for mark fotheringhams right leg. And as for your analogy, have you been paying for the upkeep of your 44 seats or the provision of services such as lighting, or access rights, or ground rent? If your %ge is actually a player, have you been paying their salary or insurance costs? 

Stop being a twonk and get some bloody perspective, you are just making yourself seem more and more stupid the more you try to justify your positions.

As you rightly but rather rudely point out there is the question of the Clubs premises expenditure in a wider sense. The service costs are met from the 'self-funding' equation whereas the capital value is not (aside from the backdoor way I have explained). I suspect there is no level playing field for this in football.

You have entirely missed the point about why some people should be expected to pay for this over and above others?

Furthermore under my proposal any season ticket holder shareholder who wanted to decline their £10 discount could do so or donate it to the CSF as could anyone who gets a bigger discount.

Edited July 9, 2022 by essex canary

[Greavsy 2,413]

6 minutes ago, essex canary said:

You have entirely missed the point

Sounds familiar. 

[TIL 1010 4,746]

This is getting beyond totally ridiculous.

[hogesar 9,671]

2 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

This is getting beyond totally ridiculous.

When I'm nodding my head in agreement with Til then you know you're definitely getting things very wrong @essex canary

[Diane 500]

3 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

This is getting beyond totally ridiculous.

God help our new Head of Supporters Engagement when Essex gets his email address 🤣

[Greavsy 2,413]

6 minutes ago, Diane said:

God help our new Head of Supporters Engagement when Essex gets his email address 🤣

  

[......and Smith must score. 1,343]

4 hours ago, hogesar said:

When I'm nodding my head in agreement with Til then you know you're definitely getting things very wrong @essex canary

Wise old Confucius he say to essex canary

” Man aggrieved by some real or imagined anomaly + Life’s too short = Peace and contentment

   Man won’t let it rest + It’s the principle of the thing = Anger and resentment “

Essex canary he say to wise old Confucius,  “ **** off “

Edited July 9, 2022 by ......and Smith must score.

[Greavsy 2,413]

10 minutes ago, ......and Smith must score. said:

Life’s too short

But in @essex canary's case life isnt that short as it doesnt end at death.

[GMF 742]

4 hours ago, Diane said:

God help our new Head of Supporters Engagement when Essex gets his email address 🤣

Why go for the new head of Supporters Engagement, when you’re already emailing the Legal and Governance Director? 😜