[Archived] The Old Gate Debate

[thenodrog]

Youve had three matches for £15?

A Non ST holder has paid at least double that.

Is that not what I just said Stu? Certainly £15 is fantastic value but even the £30 is sod all for 3 European matches.

[stuwilky]

Is that not what I just said Stu? Certainly £15 is fantastic value but even the £30 is sod all for 3 European matches.

No.

You said "very little...... but so have non season ticket holders in effect"

I was simply adding, that your "very little" is half of anyone else's "very little"

Or at least that's what was written in the Ryanair toilet cubicle.

[Lee]

I hate how its a double-edged sword...

It isnt a coincidence that our falling gates have been met with less spending by our board. Under the first few years of Souness' reign, Id think that we were among the biggest spenders outside the top 4, and we were averaging Id say about 3-5 thousand more fans a game, if not more.

We've still spent plenty, those new contracts over the summer for Nelsen, Pedersen, Reid, Tugay etc aren't cheap you know!

[stuwilky]

We've still spent plenty, those new contracts over the summer for Nelsen, Pedersen, Reid, Tugay etc aren't cheap you know!

Whilst you are quite correct Lee, our net transfer spend has to be amongst the lowest in the league. Not that I am suggesting that is necessarily a bad thing.

[Exiled in Toronto]

But everyone else gets that minimum too. So we are operating at a disadvantage when we are competing against the likes of Manchester City, Everton, Aston Villa (pre Lerner) as they get almost twice as many fans through their doors every other week, meaning that their gate revenue per season is twice that of ours.

It is only because Rovers run such a tight ship when it comes to their spending that we are able to make up some of the differences.

Yes...but, unlike those clubs, we have had a brand new gound (well, 3/4 of one), brand new training ground and brand new academy gifted to us while they have had to pay for theirs out of revenue/borrowings. Aren't both Everton and City massively in debt? Servicing costs on debts of 70-80 million would make a huge hole in their extra gate money, if not wipe it out altogether. If we have a much lower cost structure then that is more due to Jack's historical investments. Just focusing on income differences is like arguing that no-one can compete with Proctor & Gamble because they have higher sales than anyone else.

We CAN compete depsite lower incomes, but only if we have a different strategy. We more than most cannot afford to sign million pound annual contracts for donkeys such as Matteo, so I was delighted to read that Bentley was on a miserly 15k/week. As long as we have a manager who gets more hits than misses when taking punts on these relatively unknown/cheap players, then we will be fine despite missing out on some gate income. I'm happy to leave the clubs with higher cash flows p!ssing it down the drain splashing out on the likes of Owen, Baros etc; which is probably what we would also do if we had it.

[Darth Paul]

Yes it is frustrating that us season ticket holders seem to be the ones that are the ones that subsidise the club but the fact is that we dont have enough fans to keep the club afloat in the current climate under normal terms. So if we want the club to be self subsidising, we have to accept that we have to bow to the ignorant masses who dont attend the matches on a regular basis and make the issue of attending our games as attractive as possible, be it subsidised transport, or whatever...

I fork out my cash the same as most of you do but at the end of the day it is the club that matters so no matter what level they have to sink to to get fans in lets roll with it...

I got married this Xmas and mised the Uefa game against Nancy yet still bought a ticket as a gesture of support. Many of you would have done the same yet we are a rare breed, so accept the fact that the none diehards need as much encouragement as they can get, be it subsidies or freebies or whatever...we all have a common good so I believe that as long as the season ticket holders are not penalised for being so, then lets all work towards the cause of a full Ewood...

[RevidgeBlue]

But everyone else gets that minimum too. So we are operating at a disadvantage when we are competing against the likes of Manchester City, Everton, Aston Villa (pre Lerner) as they get almost twice as many fans through their doors every other week, meaning that their gate revenue per season is twice that of ours.

It is only because Rovers run such a tight ship when it comes to their spending that we are able to make up some of the differences.

Finances certainly isn't my area but I'm sure that our non-footaballing expenses on a year by year basis is significantly lower than many other clubs that we compete against in the Premiership. (Liverpool have 18 staff involved with their website!!)

As has said by others, if only we had an extra 5000 fans every fortnight, it would make such a huge difference to our coffers and the money available to spend on the team.

How much have you spent on your UEFA Cup home tickets so far this season Gordon?

Garbage Lee, please don't insult everyone's intelligence on here.

Ballpark figures, before the proposed increase in TV money, and before the recent drop in attendances, gate money formed roughly 6m of a 40m turnover.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that despite a relatively small decrease in gate revenue, we'll be worse off next season than before, or even that we're in a worse position than the vast majority of European Clubs who don't get anything like the amount of TV money we do.

Only 44 players can play for the "Big 4" And only a further 176 can play for the other 16 Premiership sides

as opposed to most European sides and worldwide sides with far less income than us.

5000 extra fans every fortnight (x 19) at an apparently accepted average 13 quid per head = 1 235 000 Hardly enough to make a "huge difference to the coffers! It's not even as much as you get for moving up 3 places in the table!

A few seasons under Uncle Jack aside we've never had it so good. And we probably never will again once if the TV bubble bursts. Whether there's an average 20k or 30k in the ground.

Edited January 7, 2007 by RevidgeBlue

[Paul]

I'm not sure why one would describe Lee's post as garbage Rev? I've heard JW make the same statement a number of times. I struggle to see how it makes much difference but I think there is an element of truth there. The average revenue per seat is £13 per match, per season. A quick calculation on ST prices proves this and JW has stated it a couple of times.

I'd guess the extra 5000 might be walk-ons paying an average of, say, £20 which would give the club an extra £2m. Using your figure or mine this is a reasonable sum to have available for wages. I think this is the area Lee is alluding to. £1.25 - £2m would probably get us 2-4 young squad players, perhaps like Bentley. Giving them a chance to prove themselves before being offered a new deal, as Bentley is reported to be, after proving their worth?

I can't recall the wage bill reported in the last club accounts but guess it's £28-£30m. The bulk of this is presumably player wages. Given we have a squad of 30 I'd suggest a number of players are probably earning around £500k, a lot less than many might imagine? So getting perhaps 3 players for £2m, in wages, is not out of the question.

Edited January 7, 2007 by Paul

[philipl]

20,000 x £13 x 19 = £4,940,000 BRFC

25,000 x £20 x 19 = £9,500,000 Charlton (at a guess)

30,000 x £25 x 19 = £14,250,000 Villa (at a guess)

60,000 x £33 x 19 = £38,000,000 Arsenal

No Rev, we are not at a disadvantage.

Incidentally, I have seen the Rovers' accounts and I can immediately see why there would be no money for transfers this January. The Walker Trust's £6m is plugging the gap between Charlton's gate money and our's.

The wage bill last season jumped appreciably. Players on performance related pay performed. Something I recall numerous posts on this MB have been calling for.

[stuwilky]

Incidentally, I have seen the Rovers' accounts and I can immediately see why there would be no money for transfers this January. The Walker Trust's £6m is plugging the gap between Charlton's gate money and our's.

What about the £3.5m+ for the difference in league placings Phil, if only it was as simplistic as people make out.

[Eddie]

Does the increased revenue from the league performance not cover the increase in wages as a result of good performances?

[The Gull]

I believe a lot, if not most, other Prem clubs have large loans which means large interest payments which we do not due to the Walker family.

We have a modern Stadium that is paid for, which preseumably means low cost maintenance compared to sum such as Everton.

We have a modern training facility that is paid for, see above.

We really dont have that large a squad of 1st team players do we?

As has been mentioned earlier, and I think this is due to the stature of our club, we have a good net record in the transfer market. When I say a club of our stature I mean that of a club outside the big 4, where when we get a star player we tend to make a nice profit on them as we can't stop players wanting to play almost guaranteed Champions League football every season.

The fall in attendances is a sign of the growing shift in the appeal of the game from joe public to corporate big wigs.

I know for a fact that people at Rovers are doing everythng they possibly can, and if something doesn't wok they will try something new, but there is only so much they can do at the end of the day.

Success on the pitch may add another couple of thousand on, an improvement in the image of the club outside of Blackburn may also improve attendances.

My personal circumstances over the pat couple of years have meant that I have attended a lot less, this is due to the fact that I have a young family and they take prioriy, especially when I am leaving the house at 7am and not getting home till 8/9pm on most occasions, therefore not seeing my children some times during the week. Can some shortminded people understand why I can't attend every game? I haven't even mentioned the cost yet which is spiraling.

This isn't meant to sound like a rant, just a view from a supporter who has been watching Rovers for the past 20 years plus, and up until 3 years ago was a season ticket holder for nearly all of those years, yet I amd one of the missing 5000 most weeks.

It isn't just about cost but also other factors that Rovers have no control of.

[thenodrog]

The wage bill last season jumped appreciably. .

I'll bet it'll jump a lot more in the next year or two! Prem history shows that whatever Sky etc stump up the players and their agents are lined up with their snouts in the trough to devour it all.

[joey_big_nose]

20,000 x £13 x 19 = £4,940,000 BRFC

25,000 x £20 x 19 = £9,500,000 Charlton (at a guess)

30,000 x £25 x 19 = £14,250,000 Villa (at a guess)

60,000 x £33 x 19 = £38,000,000 Arsenal

No Rev, we are not at a disadvantage.

Wow. That puts it in perspective.

[thenodrog]

Wow. That puts it in perspective.

Surely those simple sums are fairly obvious to anyone JBN?

Worse still ........Please note that those figures do not include the massive gap in other income streams between BIG and small clubs. Cup matches, regular Champions league involvment, Sponsorship, Corporate hospitality, advertising revenue, worldwide sales of replica kits and merchandise etc might easily double Philips simple guesstimate between the likes of Arsenal and ourselves.

[philipl]

More than quadruple actually.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

I'll bet it'll jump a lot more in the next year or two! Prem history shows that whatever Sky etc stump up the players and their agents are lined up with their snouts in the trough to devour it all.

Nowt as sure Theno!

I agree that the difference in income is probably quadruple and to me it makes us finishing in the top 6, or dare I say, even competing in the Prem even more of a miracle season by season.

Edited January 7, 2007 by SIMON GARNERS 194

[Fife Rover]

I did not want to take up too much space by quoting the Gull's last post again; it is only 2 or 3 posts back from this. However, having read and fully understood his post I must say I agree with him and fully understand where he is coming from. There must also be lots more people who see themselves as true Rovers supporters who for similar, or different but equally valid reasons to them, would LIKE to attend at Ewood on a regular basis. The only reason they don't is because circumstances purely applicable to them and nobody else conspire to prevent them doing so.

There are many reasons why once die-hard supporters no longer attend regularly; most of them have been discussed at length on here and I will not trawl through them all again. I will just summarise (if I may) what I feel are the main causes for this decline. Listed in no particular order of importance, but all are valid reasons:

1) Total Cost of attendance. i.e. not just admission, but travel and other expenses as well.

2) TV coverage.

3) Hooligan behavior.

4) General disappointment with the "entertainment level" due to players cheating, match officials performance.

5) Unhappy with the seating arrangements, comfort level, poor view, people standing etc.

6) Unhappy with other incidentals; Noise from PA, Drummers, poor catering facilties etc.

There are probably some I have missed that other people would include, but whatever. These are ALL valid reasons that should be being addressed by BRISA and the club. And on a wider stage too they should be being addressed by Prem League and F.A. because over the country as a whole the decline in attendance at football matches over the last 30 or so years must be a major concern to them all.

Just one more point that occurs to me, and harking back to what was discussed a little way back in this thread.

On the subject of attendances at Ewood: If we could just be allowed to fantasise for a moment and speculate on what would be the effect on attendance at Ewood if for one match absolutely everybody from all parts of the world that count themselves as still-committed Rovers fans were to turn up? I am discounting all those who no longer have an interest other than very passive. Only still fully dedicated fans; how many would that be?

I guess it would be more than enough to fill Ewood, as it stands, to more than it's capacity, but by how much?

My guess is not enough to fill say Anfield (45,000). What do you think?

Edited January 7, 2007 by Fife Rover

[FourLaneBlue]

20,000 x £13 x 19 = £4,940,000 BRFC

25,000 x £20 x 19 = £9,500,000 Charlton (at a guess)

30,000 x £25 x 19 = £14,250,000 Villa (at a guess)

60,000 x £33 x 19 = £38,000,000 Arsenal

Regarding the £13 per seat...is that what they get per game from season tickets or including walk-ons? Don't remember JW being too clear on that. Obviously the Liverpool game for example would be far higher than that with so many having paid £36.

Also...is the £13 for each seat filled or are they using that on the basis of a full stadium...£13 for each seat filled or £13 for each seat of the 30,000?

[ihateburnley]

20,000 x £13 x 19 = £4,940,000 BRFC

25,000 x £20 x 19 = £9,500,000 Charlton (at a guess)

30,000 x £25 x 19 = £14,250,000 Villa (at a guess)

60,000 x £33 x 19 = £38,000,000 Arsenal

Hold on a minute, when was the last time anybody paid £13 to watch the Rovers? It's normally at least £18. And if you're talking £13 as an average cost per game for season ticket holders - well proportionally it's unfair to use our season ticket holders' costs as an average cost for a fan. We have a season ticket holder fan base of about 13k I believe which means we have roughly 8000 (on average) 'walk-ons' every game paying much more for their tickets.

Clubs such as Everton, Villa, Arsenal and Manchester United rely on their season ticket holders to make up the vast majority of their attendances. I have read somewhere that Everton have around 30,000 season ticket holders.

Also, by using the figures in your post Philip, and also by some people's hypothesis that losing gate receipt revenue will directly affect our league position and abiity to compete, we can actually see that this is in fact - B*LLOCKS!

Last time I checked the league table, we were above Charlton and Aston Villa! Newcastle, West Ham and Middlesbrough all charge more than us and get higher gates, yet we are above these teams and performing to a far higher standard! Man City, Everton and Spurs all get double the attendances that we do, but has this affected our competetiveness? NO - we are only one point, three points and four points behind these teams respectively!

So I say let's continue to reduce our tickets and try and get more through the door. I can't think what would be worse - having less money to spend on players in the summer, or starting next season with only 10k others around me at Ewood!

[RevidgeBlue]

20,000 x £13 x 19 = £4,940,000 BRFC

25,000 x £20 x 19 = £9,500,000 Charlton (at a guess)

30,000 x £25 x 19 = £14,250,000 Villa (at a guess)

60,000 x £33 x 19 = £38,000,000 Arsenal

No Rev, we are not at a disadvantage.

Incidentally, I have seen the Rovers' accounts and I can immediately see why there would be no money for transfers this January. The Walker Trust's £6m is plugging the gap between Charlton's gate money and our's.

The wage bill last season jumped appreciably. Players on performance related pay performed. Something I recall numerous posts on this MB have been calling for.

You obviously didn't read a word I was saying. We're obviously at a huge disadvantage financially with the "big four" and a much smaller one with some of the other Premiership Clubs but then again we're at an equally huge advantage as against seventy two League Clubs and countless more clubs European and world wide because of the TV money. There's only a relatively minute percentage of players worldwide who can play for clubs with more dosh than us. Plenty more good un's to go round surely.

P.S. Sorry for being so rude Lee, must not post after a couple of gallons of ale. :ph34r:

I stand by my original point though, 1.2 or 1.3m on the bottom line is all very nice and a pound is a pound and all that but I can't see that it would transform our fortunes. We must have to allow for more flexibility than that at the start of the season when budgeting where we're going to finish in the League for a start.

[RevidgeBlue]

Regarding the £13 per seat...is that what they get per game from season tickets or including walk-ons? Don't remember JW being too clear on that. Obviously the Liverpool game for example would be far higher than that with so many having paid £36.

Also...is the £13 for each seat filled or are they using that on the basis of a full stadium...£13 for each seat filled or £13 for each seat of the 30,000?

As I understood it from what den said it was an overall average of 13 quid per head and it was 13 quid per seat filled.

I can't recall the wage bill reported in the last club accounts but guess it's £28-£30m. The bulk of this is presumably player wages. Given we have a squad of 30 I'd suggest a number of players are probably earning around £500k, a lot less than many might imagine?

Does 30m divided by 30 not suggest that senior players will be on 1m p.a. upwards given that there are a number of youngsters included in the squad who bring the average down?

[Al]

Philipl's calculations not only show differences in attendance but a massive difference between £13 per person and £33 per person in revenue. Where do you get those numbers from?

You can prove anything by changing the assumptions. That's why Excel is such a useful tool. I'm not disputing your assumptions because I,like you,have no real idea what the correct figures are. I am sure however that all other teams have concession prices as well as us. I also think that £13 sounds low for Rovers.

[den]

"The average revenue per seat, per match at Ewood Park is £13. Relatively little room remains, if any, for further discounting which would inevitably lead to “prostituting” the ticket price"

From JW at a meeting with BRISA. What that actually means, is that the average money taken per person is £13. It's not too difficult to work out either, if you consider everything. - ie, how much the average ST holder pays per game, how much senior citizens/juniors pay per game.

[Exiled in Toronto]

Wow. That puts it in perspective.

It would do if it were based on fact. Evidence that Charlton rake in an extra 7 quid per seat than us??? And aren't they the club that put on free transport from deepest Kent?

Usual 'estimated' nonsense dressed up as gospel that we've come to expect from our Maltese accountant