Season Restart

[tomphil]

They do seem to find the money to carry favourites and spew on big money investments easily enough.

[JHRover]

There are a couple of other admittedly smaller issues here that I will be asking the club about that can't be exchanged for a password to stream matches online.

I bought a programme subscription at the start of the season, so I'd like to know if I will be getting money back on that. 

In addition, the terms and conditions of a season ticket clearly state that it also entitles fans to access to all home u23 matches, and I would go to them all work permitting.

So I'd also like to know what will be happening there as there's been no mention of u23 games resuming and probably no prospect of online viewing.

Much smaller issues agreed but I dont think it is reasonable for the club just to ignore it and hope nothing happens.

Edited June 12, 2020 by JHRover

[rigger]

Just now, JHRover said:

There are a couple of other admittedly smaller issues here that I will be asking the club about that can't be exchanged for a password to stream matches online.

I bought a programme subscription at the start of the season, so I'd like to know if I will be getting money back on that. 

In addition, the terms and conditions of a season ticket clearly state that it also entitles fans to access to all home u23 matches, and I would go to them all work permitting.

So I'd also like to know what will be happening there as there's been no mention of u23 games resuming and probably no prospect of online viewing.

Much smaller issues agreed but I dont think it is reasonable for the club just to ignore it and hope nothing happens.

They seem to be ignoring the bigger problem of a Dwindling supporter base with ease.

[Mattyblue]

Car parking season passes too? 

Best not pull at these threads, don’t want the bailiffs in...

[Mashed Potatoes]

10 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I'm not sure I follow this line of argument. 

Firstly, I'd be astounded if the Authorities didn't temporarily relax FFP to allow for losses caused by the Pandemic. It would be unbelievably harsh not to.

Secondly doesn't FFP run on a rolling 3 year basis whereby you can lose £39m in that period? It would have to be a very specific and unfortunate cut off point for a few refunds to make the difference between us going over or being compliant with FFP.

Let's say we have to give back 3k refunds. (If we'd handled it better and "done a Derby" I'd bet the numbers would have been in the hundreds) Even at 3k refunds you're only talking sub 200 k which I know is a lot if you've not got it but surely that could be saved somewhere on next year's budget and if you piss a ST holder off,  for the sake of that £60 refund, you'll probably lose a £350 renewal and the year after and the year after that etc etc.

I stand to be corrected but I don't think "the Authorities" decide on FFP. Rather the FFP rules form part of the constitution/rules of the Championship and so can only be changed if 3/4 of the clubs vote accordingly - or more pertinently any rule change can be blocked by 7 clubs. If so, that opens up the possibility that if 7 clubs are confident that they can satisfy the rules even with the Covid hit there will be a competitive advantage in blocking the proposed change because they will not suffer points deductions unlike other clubs.

[arbitro]

1 minute ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

I stand to be corrected but I don't think "the Authorities" decide on FFP. Rather the FFP rules form part of the constitution/rules of the Championship and so can only be changed if 3/4 of the clubs vote accordingly - or more pertinently any rule change can be blocked by 7 clubs. If so, that opens up the possibility that if 7 clubs are confident that they can satisfy the rules even with the Covid hit there will be a competitive advantage in blocking the proposed change because they will not suffer points deductions unlike other clubs.

I think you are right but that in itself isn't a level playing field as a good few clubs are in receipt of parachute payments which could well influence their decision to bring FFP in and give the club's with larger incomes an advantage.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Car parking season passes too? 

Best not pull at these threads, don’t want the bailiffs in...

I'd sooner they actually fix the layout of the bloody car park and use the remaining money from my pass this year to re-line the thing and sort out a one way system.

But yes, another big issue because they're not exactly cheap.

[Mashed Potatoes]

4 minutes ago, arbitro said:

I think you are right but that in itself isn't a level playing field as a good few clubs are in receipt of parachute payments which could well influence their decision to bring FFP in and give the club's with larger incomes an advantage.

Yes, I agree.

One other point . I don't think wage deferrals - as opposed to cuts- help with FFP. A wage deferred would still be expensed in the club's profit and loss account in the period for which it fell due - therefore the loss made by the club is not reduced.

[only2garners]

2 hours ago, arbitro said:

That might be the case but if Smallwood plays beyond June 30th he will have to have a new deal albeit short term. And that will add insult to injury in light of the clubs absolute reluctance to offer refunds to season ticket holders for missed games.

My understanding is that all those whose contracts end at the end of June get a month's severance pay and that those at Rovers have agreed to play during July with no further pay.

[Kie_BRFC]

50 minutes ago, JHRover said:

There are a couple of other admittedly smaller issues here that I will be asking the club about that can't be exchanged for a password to stream matches online.

I bought a programme subscription at the start of the season, so I'd like to know if I will be getting money back on that. 

In addition, the terms and conditions of a season ticket clearly state that it also entitles fans to access to all home u23 matches, and I would go to them all work permitting.

So I'd also like to know what will be happening there as there's been no mention of u23 games resuming and probably no prospect of online viewing.

Much smaller issues agreed but I dont think it is reasonable for the club just to ignore it and hope nothing happens.

They'll probably offer you a PDF version and say its worth £90

[Mattyblue]

@only2garners

Did the FF make it clear to Waggott, not withstanding the obvious cash flow issues the club has, the potential cataclysmic drop in ST sales if the club brushes off the need for any kind of discounted price for next season? 

(Apologies if you didn’t attend)
 

 

Edited June 12, 2020 by Mattyblue

[roversfan99]

2 hours ago, JoeH said:

Yes, hadn't seen this but just spoke about that. I feel like that is a likely possibility. 

I suspect he has just picked up a knock, when you consider Samuel, Graham, Downing etc all played including Smallwood who hasnt featured all season and it was just wishful thinking on my part.

[tomphil]

1 hour ago, Mattyblue said:

@only2garners

Did the FF make it clear to Waggott, not withstanding the obvious cash flow issues the club has, the potential cataclysmic drop in ST sales if the club brushes off the need for any kind of discounted price for next season? 

(Apologies if you didn’t attend)
 

 

Well we can rely on 12000   10000  8000 so we'll set the prices accordingly.....

[arbitro]

I have emailed Lynsey Talbot outlining my concerns and worries of the long term damage the statement yesterday could do. I have had a reply to tell me if has been forwarded to the Commercial Department. I also sent links to three other Championship clubs websites who ARE offering refunds.

I would urge anybody who is aggrieved by this to email the club. They have to understand the depth of feeling.

[Mattyblue]

Problem is too many fans just think, ‘well, I’ll watch the stream, don’t see the problem?’

I’ll be watching it, but I know many fans aren’t like me, and more importantly I know the ‘collective’ mind set of many Rovers fans, and history has shown us they don’t take too kindly to having the piss taken (doesn’t matter if you think the club isn’t taking the proverbial, it’s what they feel), and that retribution is normally doled out by not renewing STs and quietly walking away - see 1960 and 2012 for prime examples.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Mattyblue

[MarkBRFC]

Speaking to a good mate of mine who is a Port Vale season ticket holder at lunch today.

He sent me this extract from a letter to all ST holders from the clubs owners.

"Before we move too hastily to next season though, we must complete the business of this one. As we were unable to host 5 matches at Vale Park that you had bought tickets for, you are entitled to a rebate. A number of you have already informed us that you wish for the monies to be donated and remain in the club to help during this time and for that we are so grateful and thank you dearly, should you wish to do the same, please let us know. It is really important to say that we are very mindful of the fact that this lockdown crisis is having a devastating impact on many of our families and should you want or need a refund please contact us on any of the following with your full name, address and season ticket number and we will organise one. The closing date for applying for a refund is 31st July 2020.

Compare that to what we received yesterday...

[arbitro]

7 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Problem is too many fans just think, ‘well, I’ll watch the stream, don’t see the problem?’

I’ll be watching it, but I know many fans aren’t like me, and more importantly I know the ‘collective’ mind set of many Rovers fans, and history has shown us they don’t take too kindly to having the piss taken (doesn’t matter if you think the club isn’t taking the proverbial, it’s what they feel), and that retribution is normally doled out by not renewing STs and quietly walking away - see 1960 and 2012 for prime examples.

I don't disagree with your general point about the mindset but for the sake of a five minute email I think it might be worth the bother. My feeling is that if the powers that be can understand the depth of feeling they might change their minds about how they are going about this.

[Mattyblue]

9 minutes ago, OnePhilT said:

If "too many fans" are OK with the arrangement for the remainder of the season, why is that a problem?

Me and someone else are going to have a live stream together watching the remaining games on iFollow; I have an overseas subscription, he has a ST and will actually enjoy at least being able to watch all of the last nine games together. I didn't expect that we'd be able to even finish the season, so my perspective is that this is going to be some unexpected fun and footy-fill.

Nobody should feel like they're causing a problem with the arrangements. There seems to be a sweeping cult of "everybody is having the piss taken out of them by the club", which is entirely untrue.

Eh? Think you’ve completely mis-read the post.

I am happy enough with the arrangement personally, I’m eagerly awaiting moaning about ifollow already, nobody should feel guilty about watching it, I won’t be, but I’m looking at the bigger picture of the fanbase, and if the no refund turns into no discounted rate for existing ST holders next time round, we will see mass non renewals, in my opinion - and as we know non-renewal usually means a lost fan.

The 5,000 of so ST holders that were happy with the arrangement will simply have even more empty seats surrounding them and the future support base of our club becomes ever more eroded, that matters more to me than the fact I got to see a mid table clash at an empty Milwall...

Edited June 12, 2020 by Mattyblue

[Mattyblue]

1 minute ago, arbitro said:

I don't disagree with your general point about the mindset but for the sake of a five minute email I think it might be worth the bother. My feeling is that if the powers that be can understand the depth of feeling they might change their minds about how they are going about this.

Don’t you worry I will be doing.

[Mattyblue]

17 minutes ago, MarkBRFC said:

Speaking to a good mate of mine who is a Port Vale season ticket holder at lunch today.

He sent me this extract from a letter to all ST holders from the clubs owners.

"Before we move too hastily to next season though, we must complete the business of this one. As we were unable to host 5 matches at Vale Park that you had bought tickets for, you are entitled to a rebate. A number of you have already informed us that you wish for the monies to be donated and remain in the club to help during this time and for that we are so grateful and thank you dearly, should you wish to do the same, please let us know. It is really important to say that we are very mindful of the fact that this lockdown crisis is having a devastating impact on many of our families and should you want or need a refund please contact us on any of the following with your full name, address and season ticket number and we will organise one. The closing date for applying for a refund is 31st July 2020.

Compare that to what we received yesterday...

A club owned by local people, that are also fans, just contrast the warmth and connection to their community that you can feel in that letter to the hired hands running our hollowed out organisation...

Edited June 12, 2020 by Mattyblue

[Biddy]

So, if each season ticket holder can get their own password to the iFollow stream and you only really need one in any household, how many passwords will be sold via DM which will make up refunds for some people and stop extra money going to Waggot from non ST holders ?

Not that I would ever condone such a thing.

P.S. Rovers, if you are reading, you are idiots.

[roversfan99]

I dont understand the mindset of those going out of their way to defend the club in this case.

Like myself, I presume that most of those people are content with the ifollow option, they feel adequately remunerated and like myself on a personal level are happy to leave that there. Or even in isolated cases, arent STH's/regular attendees and are just struggling to empathise.

As @Mattyblue touches on you also have to appreciate the bigger picture ie that it could be harmful for the club longer term because it is a big example of potentially straining a relationship with its supporters.

Defending and condoning the statement yesterday, both in its content and tone is leaving the responsibility and guilt of a "struggling" club upon the working class rather than the directors whose salaries have tangibly sky rocketed recently and the players who have as far as I know agreed to defer their wages but not in any way compromise the amount they will receive.

You would never expect people to donate £60 to the club to help to "safeguard it" otherwise so if these people do not feel adequately remunerated, if they dont have a computer, if they are part of a household of multiple season tickets or if they hold no interest in BCD as an alternative to what they paid for then essentially letting that rest and going without would be donating £60 to the club and people shouldnt be guilt tripped into doing that.

The FFP excuses has been laid to rest to because the refund could be deferred.

 

Edited June 12, 2020 by roversfan99

[arbitro]

I heard this morning of a long standing Rovers can who very rarely misses a game and is self isolating due to a medical condition. He has never owned a computer and probably wouldn't know how to switch one on. He lives alone and with self isolating there is no chance he can watch Rovers on iFollow anywhere. The assumption Rovers have made is that one size fits and it is completely wrong and almost discriminatory. They have taken a lazy approach to this which sadly seems to be the norm in the last decade.

[Biddy]

Just now, OnePhilT said:

I assume that virtually every other club in the league is doing the same, right?

I meant they were idiots for not tailoring options and treating the fans like shite.

[arbitro]

2 minutes ago, OnePhilT said:

I assume that virtually every other club in the league is doing the same, right?

Check the Wigan, Barnsley and Derby websites. And I'm sure there are more who are offering different options rather than our one item agenda.