Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Income from fans

EveshamAddickEveshamAddick
in General Charlton
So, Katrien says the fans are a third of the income stream.

With this in mind, reading this about Everton: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35529337 I was struck by the statement "We need a new stadium to keep pace with the other clubs in this Premier league; you need the revenue that generates" which suggests that a bigger stadium will increase revenue.

So how much do the fans contribute?

Anyone have any idea?

Comments

  • carly burncarly burn
    What are the other two thirds?
  • mogodonmogodon
    edited February 2016
    Few clubs make a large proportion of income from spectators but it makes sense the more people you can bring into a ground, the greater the profit as a lot of the costs of the club are fixed with a relatively small increase in those costs for bigger crowds (discounting the building cost). If we sold out every week we'd be a lot better off, but as crowds fall the % they contribute to overall turnover declines.

    Everton and most PL sides have the potential to expand. So, Man Utd and Arsenal earn a fortune from ticket sales as they have big ground which they can fill. We have a 27,000 stadium we can barely half fill. So we get more money from TV deals, sponsorship etc than we do from football matches.
  • C4FC4L1f3C4FC4L1f3
    why do small teams not make as much as Man United?

    it is perpetual! and it is all baised on number of fans.

    the biggest wealthyest clubs in the world have the biggest global fanbase spending cash.

    Katrien is an idiot!

    100% of clubs income is linked to fans.
  • Henry IrvingHenry Irving
    carly burn said:

    What are the other two thirds?

    Commerical and central income ie TV and League payment.

    She said "only one third" was tickets forgetting that at a club like Charlton most of the small scale but significant commercial is also fans ie shirt sponsorship, food and drink, lounges, even events. Advertising too.
  • mogodonmogodon
    C4FC4L1f3 said:

    why do small teams not make as much as Man United?

    it is perpetual! and it is all baised on number of fans.

    the biggest wealthyest clubs in the world have the biggest global fanbase spending cash.

    Katrien is an idiot!

    100% of clubs income is linked to fans.

    In fairness, clubs rely heavily on TV income. But the money from fans is the difference between being able to fund transfers etc and relying on unfit cut-price Belgian loan players. If we pulled in 27,000 every week we would have another £300,000-£400,000 per match day from tickets only, so another £8-10 million a season. And that would get us some better players (perhaps even some from outside the Katrien's comfort zone)
  • EveshamAddickEveshamAddick
    They don't seem to have twigged yet that despite how "weird" football fans are, there are plenty that will not attend games if the product on offer is of a poor quality. If the club is really serious about Target 20K (all of which seems to have gone rather quiet), they do need to realise that there are also two vital ingredients -1) a capable head coach; and 2) a team of capable players. The successful marshalling of the latter by the former to produce coherent performances on the pitch is vital to achieving positive results, increased "customer" satisfaction, and a growth in attendances.
  • Pedro45Pedro45
    I think in Katrien's mind, it's a third from fans, a third from TV, and a third from sponsorship/other. In reality, it isn't that precise, but it's a good starting point. If we did (near) sell out each week in the Championship and bring in another £8m annually, then our income would be 2/3's fans, and a sixth each from TV and Sponsors/other. In the Prem, it's now 80-90% TV money and 10-20% fans and other stuff. With Everton, they can (by building a bigger stadium) increase the fans proportion by 5-20% in they are lucky.
  • Atletico AddickAtletico Addick
    It's hard to say exactly, but put it this way; to attract young talent they want to be playing in front of crowds at a good level. If they had the choice between an empty Valley or a reasonably packed Craven Cottage, they would choose CC. That will reduce prospective player sales. Match day sales of course will go down, as will media attention or TV time (they want their live coverage to be with a packed stadium if at all possible).. It's a lot more than any computer based figure.
  • seth plumseth plum
    Bradford City want fans in. Don't know how it stacks up as a percentage of their income, or whether they should have lower crowds at higher ticket prices.
    However what they're trying to do is interesting and may be worth learning from.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3150942/Bradford-City-course-18-000-season-ticket-sales-incredible-response-social-media-campaign.html
  • MuttleyCAFCMuttleyCAFC
    She made this point along with the point that she says we mis-understood about us being customers. If she had meant it in a positive way, why make the income point in virtually the same breath? And we all know that if our income drops to nothing, so does all the other income!
  • Sponsored links:


  • EveshamAddickEveshamAddick
    The club should be harnessing the energy that a lot of fans are expending as part of CARD. However, they are clearly too incompetent to work that one out.
  • SolidgoneSolidgone
    edited February 2016
    I guess also the higher number of customers will buy more merchandise that adds to the gate money.
  • Markg2004Markg2004
    Henry Irving said:

    carly burn said:

    What are the other two thirds?

    Commercial and central income ie TV and League payment.

    She said "only one third" was tickets forgetting that at a club like Charlton most of the small scale but significant commercial is also fans ie shirt sponsorship, food and drink, lounges, even events. Advertising too.
    Exactly. Without the 1/3 ticket sales then the 1/3 commercial is almost gone. Why would companies want to be associated with CAFC if there are no fans in the ground to see their adverts, buy their products etc etc etc...

    TV money is irrelevant, we are not LEEDS LEEDS LEEDS!
  • addick05addick05
    Re gate receipts: if we had had a few decent seasons in the Championship and then got relegtated, I'm sure many would renew, in the expectation that we would 'bounce back' automatically.

    However, I fear this will not be the case when we slip into the nether regions come May.

    Many -including me - will think 'enough is enough' and the team could well be playing in front of gates of 5-7,000, probably less if they are struggling as may well be the case if Riga or whoever is in charge is forced to play kids and over-the-hill third rate players.

    Indeed that may be the only way of getting rid of this cancer that has so ruined our club.
  • C.Walsh'sLoveChildC.Walsh'sLoveChild
    I recal hearing that a full house at the Emirares generates Arsenal £4-5million per game
  • mogodonmogodon
    I suspect a number of sponsors will be thinking long and hard about renewing in the current climate, and if we go down the money the club can charge drops accordingly. Attendances do down, ancillary income declines ... it's a spiral and the question is how deep Roland is prepared to dig into his own pockets to make up the shortfall.
  • carly burncarly burn
    edited February 2016
    Henry Irving said:

    carly burn said:

    What are the other two thirds?

    Commerical and central income ie TV and League payment.

    She said "only one third" was tickets forgetting that at a club like Charlton most of the small scale but significant commercial is also fans ie shirt sponsorship, food and drink, lounges, even events. Advertising too.
    Thought so.

    A league drop will mean those two thirds will take a substantial hit, dare I say be almost completely wiped out.
    No fans in the ground either!

    Why are they here?
  • C4FC4L1f3C4FC4L1f3
    edited February 2016
    mogodon said:

    C4FC4L1f3 said:

    why do small teams not make as much as Man United?

    it is perpetual! and it is all baised on number of fans.

    the biggest wealthyest clubs in the world have the biggest global fanbase spending cash.

    Katrien is an idiot!

    100% of clubs income is linked to fans.

    In fairness, clubs rely heavily on TV income. But the money from fans is the difference between being able to fund transfers etc and relying on unfit cut-price Belgian loan players. If we pulled in 27,000 every week we would have another £300,000-£400,000 per match day from tickets only, so another £8-10 million a season. And that would get us some better players (perhaps even some from outside the Katrien's comfort zone)
    Why do tv company's pay so much to do broadcasts? The audience numbers and sponsorship to those viewers. Who are those viewers?

    You got it!!

    FANS!

    How much would sky pay the premier league if only 10 people tuned in to watch the biggest games???

    I sit and watch other teams play because I'm a football fan, I don't know many people who put the football on the tv to watch when they hate the sport and don't follow a team!

    I don't watch tennis but I watch the Wimbledon final! Why is it the biggest prize money in the sport?

    You got it

    FANS!


    Every way you look at football as a business the fans are in the middle of everything.

    If every football fan in the world decided to go and watch something else both on tv and on a Saturday afternoon, what do you think would happen to all these clubs around the world?

    They wouldn't be around long!
  • mogodonmogodon
    C4FC4L1f3 said:

    mogodon said:

    C4FC4L1f3 said:

    why do small teams not make as much as Man United?

    it is perpetual! and it is all baised on number of fans.

    the biggest wealthyest clubs in the world have the biggest global fanbase spending cash.

    Katrien is an idiot!

    100% of clubs income is linked to fans.

    In fairness, clubs rely heavily on TV income. But the money from fans is the difference between being able to fund transfers etc and relying on unfit cut-price Belgian loan players. If we pulled in 27,000 every week we would have another £300,000-£400,000 per match day from tickets only, so another £8-10 million a season. And that would get us some better players (perhaps even some from outside the Katrien's comfort zone)
    Why do tv company's pay so much to do broadcasts? The audience numbers and sponsorship to those viewers. Who are those viewers?

    You got it!!

    FANS!

    How much would sky pay the premier league if only 10 people tuned in to watch the biggest games???

    I sit and watch other teams play because I'm a football fan, I don't know many people who put the football on the tv to watch when they hate the sport and don't follow a team!

    I don't watch tennis but I watch the Wimbledon final! Why is it the biggest prize money in the sport?

    You got it

    FANS!


    Every way you look at football as a business the fans are in the middle of everything.

    If every football fan in the world decided to go and watch something else both on tv and on a Saturday afternoon, what do you think would happen to all these clubs around the world?

    They wouldn't be around long!
    1 Most of the Premier League TV money comes from abroad. It would come in regardless, although agree full grounds help (which they usually get with the teams followed the most overseas)
    2 They have already been testing, with some success, in the USA using CGI technology to show fans in stands when there are none there. What they test today is usually perfected in the relatively near future
    3 Sky have been overdubbing crowd noises to their goals highlights for years. Just listen to the roar when an away side in L1 or L2 scores, despite there only being 25 away supporters. And a lot of the noise is very similar. It's an old trick to make things sound more important.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Airman BrownAirman Brown
    edited February 2016
    mogodon said:

    C4FC4L1f3 said:

    why do small teams not make as much as Man United?

    it is perpetual! and it is all baised on number of fans.

    the biggest wealthyest clubs in the world have the biggest global fanbase spending cash.

    Katrien is an idiot!

    100% of clubs income is linked to fans.

    In fairness, clubs rely heavily on TV income. But the money from fans is the difference between being able to fund transfers etc and relying on unfit cut-price Belgian loan players. If we pulled in 27,000 every week we would have another £300,000-£400,000 per match day from tickets only, so another £8-10 million a season. And that would get us some better players (perhaps even some from outside the Katrien's comfort zone)
    On ticket receipts, we have declared home sales of around the 13-14,000 mark so adding more than 10,000 is problematic and would start to conflict with the away revenue as you'd need JS Stand seats and would incur extra costs.

    The average net value of a ticket sale after VAT is likely to be less than £15 (nearly half of all match sales are concessions, a large majority of them kids) and that's match tickets - with season tickets it's more like £10 and under. Ancilllary income is worth say £2 on average after cost of sale is deducted.

    Even if you assume £15, that's £15 x 10,000 x 23 = £3.5m, and that's pushing it. That's less than the current operating loss.
  • MackleMackle
    mogodon said:

    C4FC4L1f3 said:

    mogodon said:

    C4FC4L1f3 said:

    why do small teams not make as much as Man United?

    it is perpetual! and it is all baised on number of fans.

    the biggest wealthyest clubs in the world have the biggest global fanbase spending cash.

    Katrien is an idiot!

    100% of clubs income is linked to fans.

    In fairness, clubs rely heavily on TV income. But the money from fans is the difference between being able to fund transfers etc and relying on unfit cut-price Belgian loan players. If we pulled in 27,000 every week we would have another £300,000-£400,000 per match day from tickets only, so another £8-10 million a season. And that would get us some better players (perhaps even some from outside the Katrien's comfort zone)
    Why do tv company's pay so much to do broadcasts? The audience numbers and sponsorship to those viewers. Who are those viewers?

    You got it!!

    FANS!

    How much would sky pay the premier league if only 10 people tuned in to watch the biggest games???

    I sit and watch other teams play because I'm a football fan, I don't know many people who put the football on the tv to watch when they hate the sport and don't follow a team!

    I don't watch tennis but I watch the Wimbledon final! Why is it the biggest prize money in the sport?

    You got it

    FANS!


    Every way you look at football as a business the fans are in the middle of everything.

    If every football fan in the world decided to go and watch something else both on tv and on a Saturday afternoon, what do you think would happen to all these clubs around the world?

    They wouldn't be around long!
    2 They have already been testing, with some success, in the USA using CGI technology to show fans in stands when there are none there. What they test today is usually perfected in the relatively near future
    3 Sky have been overdubbing crowd noises to their goals highlights for years. Just listen to the roar when an away side in L1 or L2 scores, despite there only being 25 away supporters. And a lot of the noise is very similar. It's an old trick to make things sound more important.
    So don't believe all you see on a televised game then. Especially if it's at the Valley and the standards are full - and the supporters look like they are straight from Tiger Woods PGA tour (or whatever EA call that game now).
  • Cordoban AddickCordoban Addick
    Could you imagine any other business of whatever size being comfortable with losing even 10% of its income? Senior staff lose their jobs for less.
  • hoof_it_up_to_bentyhoof_it_up_to_benty
    I dread to think how many 'customers' will attend games next season. The Valley is a thoroughly depressing place to visit at present - it really pains me to say this.
  • mogodonmogodon
    hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

    I dread to think how many 'customers' will attend games next season. The Valley is a thoroughly depressing place to visit at present - it really pains me to say this.

    To sample what it will be like, go to The Oval for a County Championship match. All spectators (who aren't members) herded into one small area on the Harleyford Road side (shit view as well) with vast banks of empty seats as a backdrop. Zero atmosphere and hard to enjoy. Closing parts of the ground enables Surrey (and so us in 2016-17) to slash stewarding and catering costs.
  • StigThundercockStigThundercock
    seth plum said:

    Bradford City want fans in. Don't know how it stacks up as a percentage of their income, or whether they should have lower crowds at higher ticket prices.
    However what they're trying to do is interesting and may be worth learning from.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3150942/Bradford-City-course-18-000-season-ticket-sales-incredible-response-social-media-campaign.html

    £149 is the absolute maximum I'll consider paying to renew my season ticket for 2016/17 and even at that price it will probably have to be sweetened by including all league cup and paint pot home matches up to christmas. On the infinitesimally small chance we stay up I'll waive the league cup match seat.
    I want to carry on supporting the football team but not at a price level that makes any significant contribution to mitigating Roly Doeshitalot's losses. It's a tricky balance to find.
  • MuttleyCAFCMuttleyCAFC
    An interesting point, but if you detach yourself from our viewpoint, KM has definitely said things that have incited fans pretty needlessly, where a bit of bullshit might have been better. From my perspective, for the benefit of her own ego. If I was Duchatelet, I wouldn’t be too happy that she was costing me money, but he doesn’t seem to have a problem with it. It begs the question, why?
  • mogodonmogodon
    MuttleyCAFC said:

    An interesting point, but if you detach yourself from our viewpoint, KM has definitely said things that have incited fans pretty needlessly, where a bit of bullshit might have been better. From my perspective, for the benefit of her own ego. If I was Duchatelet, I wouldn’t be too happy that she was costing me money, but he doesn’t seem to have a problem with it. It begs the question, why?

    He's very detached from what's happening. Imagine all you saw was highlights (simply refuse to believe the propaganda that he sees every game on a stream) and all you read was what your underlings fed you. He realises we are struggling for sure, and knows he is not popular and there are protests, but does he know the scale of the situation?

    That aside, he's been in politics and weathered storms at other clubs. His a rich man with a rich man's ego. We might throw in the towel at this point but I suspect to him it's a challenge to win over the scum and show them that he knows best.
  • MuttleyCAFCMuttleyCAFC
    As she does what he says, I assume he has told her to shut up. I don't think that is a leap in the dark. If so, why not just sack her- she can't shut up forever!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!