I probably don't get it and will be educated, but if a coach only picks up 15 fans on average and in total they have paid say £4k in season tickets and a coach probably costs £8k for the season, isn't it as if the club were giving away 15 season tickets? What are they losing by giving up £4k in revenue and £8k in expenditure, isn't it a net saving of £4k. If you had a rotating number of different fans making up 15 every week it closes the gap, but I doubt if this actually happens.
So is it right to be hard on the club if these loss making coaches are cancelled? I used to use the Hants/Surrey one which has been dropped so not happy at all, but I rather thought I understood why it was happening and thought it wrong if I was being subsidised.
The Hants coach ceased to make financial sense as the team's fortunes declined so we dropped it, together with Essex, the A25 and the Meopham and Longfield one. However, all the remaining routes have operated successfully in League One, so if they cannot now survive in the Championship I suggest the club is doing something wrong.
In addition, must of the remaining routes overlap with others, so there is potential to pick up slack from one on another. This is what we spent a lot of time planning and more coaches also makes for fewer pick-ups and a better journey, whereas diversions and extra pick-ups can antagonise people.
Nobody would argue that a coach averaging 15 people should be subsidised. However, a coach with 35 people on it will yield 35 x 23 x £8.50 in fares, give or take the discount for season pass holders. That's £6842.50 over the season. If the coach hire is £450 per match that's £10,350 - a shortfall of £3,500 in round numbers.
Divided by 805 journeys, that's £4.35 subsidy per passenger (and this is a worst case scenario based on what I believe is the weakest route). If the average yield per spectator at the stadium is £15 then you'd only need 10 out of 35 people to be dependent on that coach running to attend to make it viable to operate. And most routes operating now will have much better numbers than that and always have had.
1) it provides a useful service 2) it brings in profit (eventually) by match ticket sales 3) no matter what is privately thought at the club, by confirming the continuation of Valley Express despite operational losses, the club can come up with a great sound-bite - "we place travelling supporters interests very highly, therefore Valley Express discontinuing has never been considered a possibility, blah, etc". The goodwill attached to messages such as these has a value, and its the kind of stuff supporters like to hear from their club from time to time.
The fact the continuation of the service is up in the air sends out a poor message.
I probably don't get it and will be educated, but if a coach only picks up 15 fans on average and in total they have paid say £4k in season tickets and a coach probably costs £8k for the season, isn't it as if the club were giving away 15 season tickets? What are they losing by giving up £4k in revenue and £8k in expenditure, isn't it a net saving of £4k. If you had a rotating number of different fans making up 15 every week it closes the gap, but I doubt if this actually happens.
So is it right to be hard on the club if these loss making coaches are cancelled? I used to use the Hants/Surrey one which has been dropped so not happy at all, but I rather thought I understood why it was happening and thought it wrong if I was being subsidised.
The Hants coach ceased to make financial sense as the team's fortunes declined so we dropped it, together with Essex, the A25 and the Meopham and Longfield one. However, all the remaining routes have operated successfully in League One, so if they cannot now survive in the Championship I suggest the club is doing something wrong.
In addition, must of the remaining routes overlap with others, so there is potential to pick up slack from one on another. This is what we spent a lot of time planning and more coaches also makes for fewer pick-ups and a better journey, whereas diversions and extra pick-ups can antagonise people.
Nobody would argue that a coach averaging 15 people should be subsidised. However, a coach with 35 people on it will yield 35 x 23 x £8.50 in fares, give or take the discount for season pass holders. That's £6842.50 over the season. If the coach hire is £450 per match that's £10,350 - a shortfall of £3,500 in round numbers.
Divided by 805 journeys, that's £4.35 subsidy per passenger (and this is a worst case scenario based on what I believe is the weakest route). If the average yield per spectator at the stadium is £15 then you'd only need 10 out of 35 people to be dependent on that coach running to attend to make it viable to operate. And most routes operating now will have much better numbers than that and always have had.
Looks like a pretty compelling case to me. Is there any way of also of also factoring in the amount that these supporters would be spending at the valley, on programmes, food /drink/ etc. There is also the issue that most of these fans would probably come by there own transport, and the parking issue, which at best has been made more difficult by the RBG extending the parking restrictions at the Olympics. Personally I only live in Bexley, and sometimes the traffic congestion is pretty poor. As I help out on the stall before most home matches, I get down there early, but the journey home is not good, especially when the council decide to section off the A2 with roadworks on the night games. So not the best 'green' solution is it CAFC. Has KM ever tried this service,? We know she likes a train........
never fail to understand the screwed up way football operates.
Away from the football side, screw the margin as tightly as possible. Look to end a loss that may run to a few thousand a year but essentially helps bring hundreds of people through the turnstiles every game and act as an advertisement and attraction to the club outside of its catchment area.
Haggling over a few grand, when unsuitable players get dumped upon us (and on our wage) that may be costing the club 200k+ a year, for example.
Sadly another case of "Sweating the asset" and not looking at the wider picture when you get people to the SE7 via Valley Express. Food, Drink, Merchandise....
never fail to understand the screwed up way football operates.
Away from the football side, screw the margin as tightly as possible. Look to end a loss that may run to a few thousand a year but essentially helps bring hundreds of people through the turnstiles every game and act as an advertisement and attraction to the club outside of its catchment area.
Haggling over a few grand, when unsuitable players get dumped upon us (and on our wage) that may be costing the club 200k+ a year, for example.
Just as well we have a network so we can pass on those high earning non performers to other clubs
In all seriousness we have over 8,000 empty seats for 22 of our 23 home games. Making it more expensive or more difficult for 1,000 fans is nuts!
I doubt West Ham will do same when they move. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if they offered a subsidised HS1 train ticket. If you're a football fan in Kent what would you choose? FAPL or championship relegation struggle.
One would hope that after a year Staprix would understand a bit more about CAFC but what I've seen and heard this month suggests otherwise.
never fail to understand the screwed up way football operates.
Away from the football side, screw the margin as tightly as possible. Look to end a loss that may run to a few thousand a year but essentially helps bring hundreds of people through the turnstiles every game and act as an advertisement and attraction to the club outside of its catchment area.
Haggling over a few grand, when unsuitable players get dumped upon us (and on our wage) that may be costing the club 200k+ a year, for example.
Haggling over a few grand, when we pay, let's say £500K or was it £800K for Polish Pete ?
never fail to understand the screwed up way football operates.
Away from the football side, screw the margin as tightly as possible. Look to end a loss that may run to a few thousand a year but essentially helps bring hundreds of people through the turnstiles every game and act as an advertisement and attraction to the club outside of its catchment area.
Haggling over a few grand, when unsuitable players get dumped upon us (and on our wage) that may be costing the club 200k+ a year, for example.
Just as well we have a network so we can pass on those high earning non performers to other clubs
In all seriousness we have over 8,000 empty seats for 22 of our 23 home games. Making it more expensive or more difficult for 1,000 fans is nuts!
I doubt West Ham will do same when they move. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if they offered a subsidised HS1 train ticket. If you're a football fan in Kent what would you choose? FAPL or championship relegation struggle.
One would hope that after a year Staprix would understand a bit more about CAFC but what I've seen and heard this month suggests otherwise.
seriously_red - no offence mate, but it would appear that you have just woken up & can smell the coffee.
Some good points by Airman on the role of loss leaders. Completely agree.
Using your 3.5K as a guide, that would be recouped in the medium term (5 years) if those coaches attracted a single family to come who previously wouldn't have save for the coach. That's one bod per season who then will likely bring his mates if he has any.
When you are talking about revenue margins then you discount anyone who would have spent the same anyway. What I mean by that is the areas the coach service has traditionally served are exactly where you pick up the new supporters and floating voters.
Much as we were lampooned for it, the drive in the early PL years to get bums on seats from a wider catchment area was a fantastic initiative and brilliantly executed.
Doesn't even take into account that any business would happily pay 20k out of a 15M overhead business if that made a difference to the product and a fuller ground is surely a pretty valuable intangible for the atmosphere.
Some good points by Airman on the role of loss leaders. Completely agree.
Using your 3.5K as a guide, that would be recouped in the medium term (5 years) if those coaches attracted a single family to come who previously wouldn't have save for the coach. That's one bod per season who then will likely bring his mates if he has any.
When you are talking about revenue margins then you discount anyone who would have spent the same anyway. What I mean by that is the areas the coach service has traditionally served are exactly where you pick up the new supporters and floating voters.
Much as we were lampooned for it, the drive in the early PL years to get bums on seats from a wider catchment area was a fantastic initiative and brilliantly executed.
Doesn't even take into account that any business would happily pay 20k out of a 15M overhead business if that made a difference to the product and a fuller ground is surely a pretty valuable intangible for the atmosphere.
You can't underestimate either the statement Charlton make by running the coaches or the awareness it creates. While on council business I have met dozens of people in East Kent who have been to The Valley because of Valley Express and at one point we were bringing in virtually every primary school in Thanet - 65 miles from the ground - during the season, all of them buying tickets.
I would willingly switch to coach if the Hants route was still available. Don't know where it picked up as have been here less than two years, but anything is better than using SW & SE trains.
I have never been on a Valley Express coach but I have always taken pride in the fact that our club has been prepared to make bold commercial moves and it was always impressive to be able to tell friends and supporters of other clubs that we have bussed in 5000 regularly (albeit in the past). It's also impressive to see dozens of coaches lining the lower road that have brought home fans. Away fans are invariably impressed and it's been a very visual reminder of where our fans travel from outside of the Borough. If it's stopped it will be short-sighted and counter-productive.
Surely put the prices up so it breaks even and don't run half filled coaches If you you put it up to £10 that's still half the price of the train from kent
Surely put the prices up so it breaks even and don't run half filled coaches If you you put it up to £10 that's still half the price of the train from kent
It's not as simple as that. Each route is different and so is each game. On some coaches there will be no breakeven point because as the price increases the number of passengers will go down, requiring a further increase and driving away more people.
The club's concern is entirely financial. It's been telling people all season that Valley Express lost £19k in 2013/14. But if it's concern is financial it's no good saving that £19k on coaches but losing £50k in ticket sales because fewer people attend.
The missing piece of the jigsaw is that Valley Express has always been about increasing ticket revenue, by enabling people who would not otherwise come, to attend. It is not a charity operation by the club or a favour to supporters who use it and it has always paid its way. Unfortunately the club no longer understands that.
To put it another way, if Valley Express broke even (or was scrapped completely) but only 60 fewer people (60 x £14 x 23 = £19,320) attended matches as a consequence of changes the club would be no better off.
I spent the last 2 hours trying to get my 5 year off to sleep, nothing was working until I forced her to read this thread.....and within 3 posts she was snoring her head off.
Just picked up on this, I am not a VEX user never have been. This is what happens when lawyers and accountants are in charge of businesses. It beggars belief that the club do not understand that there are non financially quantifiable benefits of some activities.
Marketeers are much maligned, but we can look at services that in themselves do not present a return and identify attributable contributions and it is not rocket science to realise this with VEX.
Just picked up on this, I am not a VEX user never have been. This is what happens when lawyers and accountants are in charge of businesses. It beggars belief that the club do not understand that there are non financially quantifiable benefits of some activities.
Marketeers are much maligned, but we can look at services that in themselves do not present a return and identify attributable contributions and it is not rocket science to realise this with VEX.
Having read the thread, that's the problem - it's not possible to calculate precisely because you have to take a guess on additional revenue coming through the turnstiles once they are here. Unless the case is so bad it can't possibly work, logic tells you we should persist. If you cut this club to the bone based purely on profitability, no complimentary tickets, no Valley Express, no food and drink that wasn't sufficiently profitable, the Big Screen etc, you make a big dent in the "match experience" and the size of the crowd. That becomes a vicious circle because supporters become dispirited by small gates, poor atmosphere etc not to mention the players playing in an empty stadium. You could extend the Valley Express argument and say that the club doesn't make money so should close. Someone else has already made the point that given the relatively large wage bill, better negotiation on that could make the shortfall in some of these critical services. That or the owner putting his hand into his £600m plus personal fortune. Let's face it, he couldn't possibly spend all that money in his or his family's lifetime and what's the point owning a club that you aren't prepared to invest in to develop it. That includes the ground and it's supporters.
And before anyone asks, I don't have £650m to buy the club, but if I did I would be prepared to support Valley Express and invest in other areas of the club because I am a supporter.
Doesn't seem to be much in the way of "sweating the assets" here does there?
So, maybe the answer is SPONSORSHIP. The way we are going, a series of coaches with a company's name on it is likely to be seen by more people on the road than an advert in the ground!
Doesn't seem to be much in the way of "sweating the assets" here does there?
So, maybe the answer is SPONSORSHIP. The way we are going, a series of coaches with a company's name on it is likely to be seen by more people on the road than an advert in the ground!
Not sure how feasible this is as we don't own the coaches. That said any sponsor would tend to be a benevolent benefactor (fan) similar to the AXIS guy who has just pulled out, rather than a big business.
The annoying thing is that most business cases are guess work, based on some facts. It's a case of whether RD would accept the assumptions behind any case the VEX supporters base put forward.
I wonder if this is coming from RD or KM. I suspect that KM has been given a budget for the operational side of the business and needs to find cuts and identified VEX without realising that fans will stop coming, club reach and awareness will be reduced in critical catchment areas at a time when a major marketing campaign will take place for our more illustrious rivals and our long term fan base in those areas will be weakened. This potential decision is so contrary to "building the fan base" "improving the match day experience".
As indicated before, KM is a lawyer by nature they look at cold hard facts not the soft facts of what if. As much as I like KM and how she is trying to show a human face to the fans and integrate, she is not a business person and needs to quickly integrate the new commercial guy into her thinking.
Ben Kensell moved the hire of the coaches to one firm who became the "preferred supplier" presumably in exchange for a fee, which was then priced into the hire. They then subbed the Sussex work back to the people who were doing it originally, because it made no sense for them to operate those routes, but that's another story.
However, in the real world there are only so many firms willing to sponsor Charlton so while this is potentially a different audience you are probably just moving the money from one part of the business to another. Branding is also difficult as above.
The old chestnut that keeps coming up and did at the FF is to sell programmes on board. However, most of that wouid be displaced sales so add nothing overall and that which wasn't would be peanuts and never justify the cost of distribution, even if it could be done.
That said, I'm not arguing nothing can be done, just that the situation is being looked at upside down. It's actually an opportunity to sell more match tickets.
Just picked up on this, I am not a VEX user never have been. This is what happens when lawyers and accountants are in charge of businesses. It beggars belief that the club do not understand that there are non financially quantifiable benefits of some activities.
Marketeers are much maligned, but we can look at services that in themselves do not present a return and identify attributable contributions and it is not rocket science to realise this with VEX.
You are right. You and I have had to do this kind of analysis, many times in our past careers. (for example arguing successfully that a marketing campaign was an investment success even though market share went down) . And Airman has done the same work on VE.
It has to be said that I cannot see anything at all in Katrien Meire's previous career that would have allowed her to learn how to conduct such an analysis. However she is clearly an intelligent person, capable of getting her head around (relatively) complex arguments. She should at the very least sit down and go through the rational business argument, which will be supported by new data from a survey. Ideally it should be presented by Airman himself. It's always best to allow the person who has done the work and crunched the numbers, to present their work in person (not least because they are best able to answer the follow up questions). But if she refuses to do that, somebody from the Trust can present it instead.
I cannot think of any good rational reason why she should refuse the discussion. It's a figures based argument. "Politics" or personal issues, real or imagined, should not come into it.
I don't use Valley Express for getting to games at the Valley, so I can't really comment how good or bad it is, surely a club of charltons size needs all the supporters it can?
I can understand for some fans the importance of something like Valley Express, and without it, they probably wouldn't go.
I've used the coach for getting to an away match, and thought it was brilliant, a lot less stressful than driving, and would use it again.why not charge people more for an occasional coach trip , but then encourage people to buy season tickets for valley express, at least people are showing a commitment to going, and you'd have the money up front, even if they can't make every game, unless we already do this and I don't know about it, scraping it seems very short termism imo, but I'm not the one looking at the numbers and paying the bills, but as others have explained how much money has been wasted on poor 'business decisions' such as player aquistitions, answer .... More than enough, Polish Pete and Reza spring to mind.
never fail to understand the screwed up way football operates.
Away from the football side, screw the margin as tightly as possible. Look to end a loss that may run to a few thousand a year but essentially helps bring hundreds of people through the turnstiles every game and act as an advertisement and attraction to the club outside of its catchment area.
Haggling over a few grand, when unsuitable players get dumped upon us (and on our wage) that may be costing the club 200k+ a year, for example.
Always interesting when football clubs, which are probably the worst run business in the country with too often only a passing nod at common sense, start worrying about a few thousand here and there when, as you say, still paying underperforming and too often mediocre players the same in a week as all the coaches lose in a season ...
If Katrien is not prepared to sit down & talk the issue through with AB, I wonder whether she might be persuaded to take some of her valuable time ( no sarcasm intended) to study a "business plan" that he provides ? ie making a case for the continuation/expansion of VEX with facts & figures & the benefit of having been there, done that & wearing the T shirt.
Another option might be to put VEX on the agenda of the next FF meeting, scheduled for 2nd April with a request for AB to be present to present said case /answer questions put by both KM and FF members on behalf of interested supporters.
This could be the way to expanding the Club/fans' dialogue within an existing structure whilst utilising the undoubted expertise of supporters which would otherwise be missed.
never fail to understand the screwed up way football operates.
Away from the football side, screw the margin as tightly as possible. Look to end a loss that may run to a few thousand a year but essentially helps bring hundreds of people through the turnstiles every game and act as an advertisement and attraction to the club outside of its catchment area.
Haggling over a few grand, when unsuitable players get dumped upon us (and on our wage) that may be costing the club 200k+ a year, for example.
Always interesting when football clubs, which are probably the worst run business in the country with too often only a passing nod at common sense, start worrying about a few thousand here and there when, as you say, still paying underperforming and too often mediocre players the same in a week as all the coaches lose in a season ...
Is that not the case in most businesses, where management keep their six figure salaries, the big company cars and lunch on expenses. But the guy working four hours a day twice a week has to go to save the company a few quid?
Comments
In addition, must of the remaining routes overlap with others, so there is potential to pick up slack from one on another. This is what we spent a lot of time planning and more coaches also makes for fewer pick-ups and a better journey, whereas diversions and extra pick-ups can antagonise people.
Nobody would argue that a coach averaging 15 people should be subsidised. However, a coach with 35 people on it will yield 35 x 23 x £8.50 in fares, give or take the discount for season pass holders. That's £6842.50 over the season. If the coach hire is £450 per match that's £10,350 - a shortfall of £3,500 in round numbers.
Divided by 805 journeys, that's £4.35 subsidy per passenger (and this is a worst case scenario based on what I believe is the weakest route). If the average yield per spectator at the stadium is £15 then you'd only need 10 out of 35 people to be dependent on that coach running to attend to make it viable to operate. And most routes operating now will have much better numbers than that and always have had.
2) it brings in profit (eventually) by match ticket sales
3) no matter what is privately thought at the club, by confirming the continuation of Valley Express despite operational losses, the club can come up with a great sound-bite - "we place travelling supporters interests very highly, therefore Valley Express discontinuing has never been considered a possibility, blah, etc". The goodwill attached to messages such as these has a value, and its the kind of stuff supporters like to hear from their club from time to time.
The fact the continuation of the service is up in the air sends out a poor message.
Is there any way of also of also factoring in the amount that these supporters would be spending at the valley, on programmes, food /drink/ etc. There is also the issue that most of these fans would probably come by there own transport, and the parking issue, which at best has been made more difficult by the RBG extending the parking restrictions at the Olympics. Personally I only live in Bexley, and sometimes the traffic congestion is pretty poor. As I help out on the stall before most home matches, I get down there early, but the journey home is not good, especially when the council decide to section off the A2 with roadworks on the night games. So not the best 'green' solution is it CAFC.
Has KM ever tried this service,?
We know she likes a train........
Away from the football side, screw the margin as tightly as possible. Look to end a loss that may run to a few thousand a year but essentially helps bring hundreds of people through the turnstiles every game and act as an advertisement and attraction to the club outside of its catchment area.
Haggling over a few grand, when unsuitable players get dumped upon us (and on our wage) that may be costing the club 200k+ a year, for example.
In all seriousness we have over 8,000 empty seats for 22 of our 23 home games. Making it more expensive or more difficult for 1,000 fans is nuts!
I doubt West Ham will do same when they move. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if they offered a subsidised HS1 train ticket. If you're a football fan in Kent what would you choose? FAPL or championship relegation struggle.
One would hope that after a year Staprix would understand a bit more about CAFC but what I've seen and heard this month suggests otherwise.
Who was worth what £50K ?
Or did RD sack you off as well ? :-) :-)
Using your 3.5K as a guide, that would be recouped in the medium term (5 years) if those coaches attracted a single family to come who previously wouldn't have save for the coach. That's one bod per season who then will likely bring his mates if he has any.
When you are talking about revenue margins then you discount anyone who would have spent the same anyway. What I mean by that is the areas the coach service has traditionally served are exactly where you pick up the new supporters and floating voters.
Much as we were lampooned for it, the drive in the early PL years to get bums on seats from a wider catchment area was a fantastic initiative and brilliantly executed.
Doesn't even take into account that any business would happily pay 20k out of a 15M overhead business if that made a difference to the product and a fuller ground is surely a pretty valuable intangible for the atmosphere.
If you you put it up to £10 that's still half the price of the train from kent
The club's concern is entirely financial. It's been telling people all season that Valley Express lost £19k in 2013/14. But if it's concern is financial it's no good saving that £19k on coaches but losing £50k in ticket sales because fewer people attend.
The missing piece of the jigsaw is that Valley Express has always been about increasing ticket revenue, by enabling people who would not otherwise come, to attend. It is not a charity operation by the club or a favour to supporters who use it and it has always paid its way. Unfortunately the club no longer understands that.
To put it another way, if Valley Express broke even (or was scrapped completely) but only 60 fewer people (60 x £14 x 23 = £19,320) attended matches as a consequence of changes the club would be no better off.
Charlton Life is the best.
Marketeers are much maligned, but we can look at services that in themselves do not present a return and identify attributable contributions and it is not rocket science to realise this with VEX.
So, maybe the answer is SPONSORSHIP. The way we are going, a series of coaches with a company's name on it is likely to be seen by more people on the road than an advert in the ground!
I wonder if this is coming from RD or KM. I suspect that KM has been given a budget for the operational side of the business and needs to find cuts and identified VEX without realising that fans will stop coming, club reach and awareness will be reduced in critical catchment areas at a time when a major marketing campaign will take place for our more illustrious rivals and our long term fan base in those areas will be weakened. This potential decision is so contrary to "building the fan base" "improving the match day experience".
As indicated before, KM is a lawyer by nature they look at cold hard facts not the soft facts of what if. As much as I like KM and how she is trying to show a human face to the fans and integrate, she is not a business person and needs to quickly integrate the new commercial guy into her thinking.
However, in the real world there are only so many firms willing to sponsor Charlton so while this is potentially a different audience you are probably just moving the money from one part of the business to another. Branding is also difficult as above.
The old chestnut that keeps coming up and did at the FF is to sell programmes on board. However, most of that wouid be displaced sales so add nothing overall and that which wasn't would be peanuts and never justify the cost of distribution, even if it could be done.
That said, I'm not arguing nothing can be done, just that the situation is being looked at upside down. It's actually an opportunity to sell more match tickets.
It has to be said that I cannot see anything at all in Katrien Meire's previous career that would have allowed her to learn how to conduct such an analysis. However she is clearly an intelligent person, capable of getting her head around (relatively) complex arguments. She should at the very least sit down and go through the rational business argument, which will be supported by new data from a survey. Ideally it should be presented by Airman himself. It's always best to allow the person who has done the work and crunched the numbers, to present their work in person (not least because they are best able to answer the follow up questions). But if she refuses to do that, somebody from the Trust can present it instead.
I cannot think of any good rational reason why she should refuse the discussion. It's a figures based argument. "Politics" or personal issues, real or imagined, should not come into it.
I can understand for some fans the importance of something like Valley Express, and without it, they probably wouldn't go.
I've used the coach for getting to an away match, and thought it was brilliant, a lot less stressful than driving, and would use it again.why not charge people more for an occasional coach trip , but then encourage people to buy season tickets for valley express, at least people are showing a commitment to going, and you'd have the money up front, even if they can't make every game, unless we already do this and I don't know about it, scraping it seems very short termism imo, but I'm not the one looking at the numbers and paying the bills, but as others have explained how much money has been wasted on poor 'business decisions' such as player aquistitions, answer .... More than enough, Polish Pete and Reza spring to mind.
When I occasionally go on the away coaches, there's usually a football scratch card, which is always full before it reaches the back of the coach.
Many people like a little gamble, with a chance to win.
If you did one on the way and one on the way back, surely you could raise £50 plus.
If they were sold, emphasiing the need, I'm confident they would sell well.
I don't know how many coaches we operate, but if there's 10 coaches x £50 = £500 per match.
£500 x 23 = £11,500. Simple & easy.
Failing that, park up at Gillingham FC, between 12.30 & 13.00 and see if you catch some strays.
Another option might be to put VEX on the agenda of the next FF meeting, scheduled for 2nd April with a request for AB to be present to present said case /answer questions put by both KM and FF members on behalf of interested supporters.
This could be the way to expanding the Club/fans' dialogue within an existing structure whilst utilising the undoubted expertise of supporters which would otherwise be missed.