Well Well Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 All this 'voting' will be a paper exercise if the board of Motherwell are if tabloid reports are saying are involved in secret talks with the SFA, SPL and SFL. If this turns out to be true then the board should resign on mass as they would have no integrity after agreeing to allow the Well Society to 'vote' on NEWCO. I await the outcome of the associations meetings with utter cynicism as I have NEVER seen any of our associations do ANYTHING to improve the game despite the once in a lifetime opportunity that has been presented. self interest (cash) will come first Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 All this 'voting' will be a paper exercise if the board of Motherwell are if tabloid reports are saying are involved in secret talks with the SFA, SPL and SFL. If this turns out to be true then the board should resign on mass as they would have no integrity after agreeing to allow the Well Society to 'vote' on NEWCO. I await the outcome of the associations meetings with utter cynicism as I have NEVER seen any of our associations do ANYTHING to improve the game despite the once in a lifetime opportunity that has been presented. self interest (cash) will come first I'd hang back on any such talk for the moment. All of that is just tabloid chit chat. What we do know for a fact is that the club are giving the members of the Society a say in how this pans out, which is all we can really ask for at present. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 The biggest thing they have missed in the letter is the real prize; fairer revenue distribution. This can only be achieved by a No vote followed by the scrapping of the 11:1 voting structure on commercial deals. If anyone is scared by the numbers if the letter, please remember that Rangers in 2nd would get almost DOUBLE what we get from SPL commercial terms. To that end, I'm comfortable with the implications of a NO vote. a fairer distribution in revenue would result in 1st place losing 5%, 2nd place losing 4% and other placings get bumped up by 0.9% or everyone getting 8.3%. last season the first option would have seen us gain £160,000 and the second option would see us losing around the same amount. neither of these changes would have a huge effect on our budget and be completely insignificant if the prize fund was reduced by 40% or 50%. i'm quite shocked that pay at the gate motherwell fans only contributed £87,500 in ticket revenue over the season and that's including three patg cup games where season ticket holders paid in. we should consider putting the prices up. it's quite shocking to read the letter stating that administration is a possibility and i don't expect any more signings this summer. we're fucked and anyone who thinks income split or more motherwell fans coming to games is going to get us out of this needs a reality check. it looks like we're going to need to get our money out again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well Well Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 I'd hang back on any such talk for the moment. All of that is just tabloid chit chat. What we do know for a fact is that the club are giving the members of the Society a say in how this pans out, which is all we can really ask for at present. Why...?? Its a 'discussion forum'. The chit chat as you put it is quite detailed and that for me is a warning signal as most paper chit chat has not had an ounce of detail regarding this whole affair. I hope you are right and I am very wrong but I have always found that self preservation of the duopoly is a founding principle of the SPL and SFA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 i'm quite shocked that pay at the gate motherwell fans only contributed £87,500 in ticket revenue over the season and that's including three patg cup games where season ticket holders paid in. we should consider putting the prices up. I don't see that as a possibility. The current cost of a PATG seat is already pretty high, and a raise in ticket prices would simply drive support away, making any such raise counter productive. Put simply, we'll need to just look at cutting our cloth to suit. As someone mentioned previously, the other clubs will have to do the same, so it's not as if we'll be falling behind everyone else. Also, doesn't the current TV deal have a year or so still left on it? If that is the case we have enough wriggle room to allow those with high wages to either see out their contracts or get moved on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatcalf Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 a fairer distribution in revenue would result in 1st place losing 5%, 2nd place losing 4% and other placings get bumped up by 0.9% or everyone getting 8.3%. last season the first option would have seen us gain £160,000 and the second option would see us losing around the same amount. neither of these changes would have a huge effect on our budget and be completely insignificant if the prize fund was reduced by 40% or 50%. i'm quite shocked that pay at the gate motherwell fans only contributed £87,500 in ticket revenue over the season and that's including three patg cup games where season ticket holders paid in. we should consider putting the prices up. it's quite shocking to read the letter stating that administration is a possibility and i don't expect any more signings this summer. we're fucked and anyone who thinks income split or more motherwell fans coming to games is going to get us out of this needs a reality check. it looks like we're going to need to get our money out again. Course we will, it's up to us but I'd rather have it that way than hang on the coat tails of the Old Firm. Use this as a positive and hope to Hell the rumours of a carve up are not true cos if they are then I tend to reckon I'll be doing the walking away that I vowed I would never do. Pretty sure if we're creative we can cut costs and bring more punters in using the old integrity card. Any restructuring can be done after Rangers are refused entry even to the 3rd Div, let them start in the Juniors and we'll vote in a pyramid structure to give them a clear pathway. We do not need to include them otherwise this whole affair will have been pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DosserJoe Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 David, 5 page letter. To be honest, mainly negative points of each scenario. I'm not sure the club are willing to outline a bold Vision for the future of Scottish Football without Rangers. Looks to be mainly a short-term doomsday on each scenario, not really guiding toward one or the other. As I said, the big thing for me isnt the vote, it's what happens after it. The bullying of Sky into a decent deal, the redistribution of revenue fairer, the levels of payer wages coming back to realistic levels over the years without them, the improvement in competition (not necessarily quality), the fans hopefully coming back in decent numbers, better chances for Scottish youth to shine (not having our best youths stuck in a dark corner of Murray park being quarantined from ever seeing a blade of grass) and hopefully a single governing body rather than paying 3 lots of suits to do jobs that could be done by 1! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well Well Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 Also why has no one actually tried the other broadcasters to see if a better TV deal can be struck. We seem to be begging SKY to give us any measly deal. I would rather have a 5 year deal with the 'council' channels or ESPN than SKY who have given us the crumbs left over from the EPL deal. I haven't heard much from the SFA or SPL re sponsors for a good few years now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bomjac Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 Dont think i have seen it mentioned anywhere yet, but if you consider the impact of voting yes with regards to the non OF supporters in the country. I honestly think that most fans will vote with their feet towards any club that votes "YES to Newco". Granted we may lose rangers fans by voting no, but should we vote yes then we will lose a similar amount of fans from Celtic when they come to town. Likewise I would fully expect the away support at every Well home game to at least halve if we vote yes. In this scenario then the loss of the Rangers support will have the lesser impact on us. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DosserJoe Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 a fairer distribution in revenue would result in 1st place losing 5%, 2nd place losing 4% and other placings get bumped up by 0.9% or everyone getting 8.3%. last season the first option would have seen us gain £160,000 and the second option would see us losing around the same amount. neither of these changes would have a huge effect on our budget and be completely insignificant if the prize fund was reduced by 40% or 50%. Your right to an extent with your figures. But it's 1st & 2nd standing to lose 5 & 4 percent of the total pot, not of their own revenue, which is a huge leveller. I might be wrong on this, but I believe this distribution to only cover Domestic Tv and league sponsorships. Any international deals are outwith this an get funnelled more into them two, so if I'm right in that point, you'll get more levelling. Talking of 40 & 50% reductions isnt impossible, but I really do think we wouldn't get that level of cut. ESPN will have some money to spend now so why not get back to the table with them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 I don't see that as a possibility. The current cost of a PATG seat is already pretty high, and a raise in ticket prices would simply drive support away, making any such raise counter productive. Put simply, we'll need to just look at cutting our cloth to suit. As someone mentioned previously, the other clubs will have to do the same, so it's not as if we'll be falling behind everyone else. Also, doesn't the current TV deal have a year or so still left on it? If that is the case we have enough wriggle room to allow those with high wages to either see out their contracts or get moved on. if rangers are booted out sky can renegotiate the deal. that's a potential big black hole for us. i think the patg cost could go up by a pound or two. if the figures are correct patg punters contributed less than 50 grand over 19 league fixtures, that's shocking and should put an end to any arguments about season ticket holders getting preferential treatment. that to me is one revenue stream with potential to improve. at the very least we should be looking to milk the upcoming champions league game for at it's worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well Well Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 I haven't seen a single thing from SKY to say that they would renegotiate any TV deal if Rangers aren't in the SPL, can anyone post a link..??. Only thing I have read is that Doncaster hasn't signed the new deal yet, why the hell he hasn't is beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daver Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 i'm quite shocked that pay at the gate motherwell fans only contributed £87,500 in ticket revenue over the season and that's including three patg cup games where season ticket holders paid in. we should consider putting the prices up. A small point but figures were for SPL so didn't include cup games but I'm still shocked at how low the figure is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 Your right to an extent with your figures. But it's 1st & 2nd standing to lose 5 & 4 percent of the total pot, not of their own revenue, which is a huge leveller. I might be wrong on this, but I believe this distribution to only cover Domestic Tv and league sponsorships. Any international deals are outwith this an get funnelled more into them two, so if I'm right in that point, you'll get more levelling. Talking of 40 & 50% reductions isnt impossible, but I really do think we wouldn't get that level of cut. ESPN will have some money to spend now so why not get back to the table with them? if celtic lose 5% of the current £16m prize fund that represents less than 2% of the their total turnover. that is in no way a leveler. changing the income split is worth pursuing on the grounds of fairness but the impacts it would have on clubs and competitiveness would be minimal. i think espn will chuck their subscription channel when the current epl tv deal ends. surely their business model won't be viable when the majority of their subscribers walk away? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 A small point but figures were for SPL so didn't include cup games but I'm still shocked at how low the figure is. good point. it works out at roughly 280 adults paying in per spl game Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shooie Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 A small point but figures were for SPL so didn't include cup games but I'm still shocked at how low the figure is. The letter says underPotential Implications on Revenue, paragraph 2. Gate Income: "Last year our cash income from gate receipts was £1.64m comprising £670k season tickets, £970k fans pay at gate." Where did you find other figures? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 The letter says underPotential Implications on Revenue, paragraph 2. Gate Income: "Last year our cash income from gate receipts was £1.64m comprising £670k season tickets, £970k fans pay at gate." Where did you find other figures? it doesn't mention how much queen's park or morton fans chipped in so it's probably only spl games. plus we had probably 11,000 patg fans at £15, £10 and £5 at the three scottish cup games so that surely isn't in the £87,500. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelman1991 Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 it doesn't mention how much queen's park or morton fans chipped in so it's probably only spl games. plus we had probably 11,000 patg fans at £15, £10 and £5 at the three scottish cup games so that surely isn't in the £87,500. Haven't got my letter yet - but the question Shooie asked previously obviously still stands - 'Where did you get the figure of £87.5k of patg income?. He's quoting £970k ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 Haven't got my letter yet - but the question Shooie asked previously obviously still stands - 'Where did you get the figure of £87.5k of patg income?. He's quoting £970k ? £970k total patg income. 31% from rangers. 29% from celtic. 31% from the other 9 clubs. therefore 9% from motherwell fans which is £87,500. the other 9 away attendances at fir park were pathetic last season. hibs in the reduced ticket game and hearts in august were probably the only ones who broke 600. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 So the prospect of administration had been mentioned in this letter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelman1991 Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 £970k total patg income. 31% from rangers. 29% from celtic. 31% from the other 9 clubs. therefore 9% from motherwell fans which is £87,500. the other 9 away attendances at fir park were pathetic last season. hibs in the reduced ticket game and hearts in august were probably the only ones who broke 600. Thanks for clarifying - quite shocking when its laid out in black and white. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 So the prospect of administration had been mentioned in this letter? yes. it also points out that although other clubs are in the same boat we would be docked more points (21) than any other club, celtic apart, who go into admin next season. the figures given are frightening. £500k loss last season and possibly losing net £650k of income next season. take all the well society money (£360k) and the playing budget reduction (£200k plus jenno's wage so maybe £300k) into account and we are looking at a shortfall of around half a million and that's if we perform the same way we did last season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 500k loss last season with the mighty Rangers and Sky ploughing money into the club. If accurate our financial model is fucked. Sell any assets we have on the park and start again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finlay Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 I take it is not a closed vote. The Club will know how each member votes? When is the form to be returned by? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 500k loss last season with the mighty Rangers and Sky ploughing money into the club. If accurate our financial model is fucked. Sell any assets we have on the park and start again. we made a £540k profit the season before. over the two year period we made a profit which is good going. the plan was clearly to use the profit from 2010/11 to cover a loss in season 2011/12 with the aim of having a good season, getting europe and hopefully selling a few players. rangers have thrown a rather large spanner in the works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.