Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Viking Chat => Topic started by: Copps is Magic on August 16, 2018, 03:06:45 pm
-
From the next part of the interview the FP has been doing with GB. Worth a read. You have to appreciate where the club as a whole has come from in terms of infrastructure in the last 12/13 years. I remember at the beginning when the Club Doncaster idea was criticised very heavily but it speaks for itself now.
The only thing that leaves me scratching my head these days is the organisational structure of the club and what exactly is or isnt producing revenue/profit.
"Off the field, excluding player costs, the net profit from Club Doncaster has gone from quite good six figures to good seven figures, from 2015/16 to this year"
"Essentially with Club Doncaster, it is the stadium which now makes a reasonable profit, the Dons which covers its own costs, the Club Doncaster Foundation which is a charity so invests in itself, and there’s the football club
I guess if you're an ordinary punter like me statements like these can read as a bit confusing. If it is the stadium making a profit, and that profit is now over a million, I would describe that as much better than a 'reasonable' profit. I get a sense what is being described, is actually two different accounting figures.
The point is the club is complicated now due to the way its run. We seemingly have genuine money coming in as revenue, revenue as investment into the charity, and the money that's 'put' into the football club (through club Doncaster). So it is intrinsically confusing, and maybe a simpler message would be welcome.
https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/sport/football/doncaster-rovers/gavin-baldwin-q-a-part-three-how-is-club-doncaster-performing-and-can-doncaster-rovers-become-a-sustainable-championship-club-1-9303669
-
With a structure as it is, I would imagine there is a tax advantage the way it is set up.
-
In simple terms think of club Doncaster as a parent meaning funds are distributed from parents to children as the parent determines. It's fairly simple and standard business practice.
-
I don't think it's a particularly confusing picture, as bfyp states it's common business practice. The company I work for has 4 divisions which always report as individual business's but shareholders and tax authorities always treat it as one.
The only critics of Club Doncaster were those who had a tendency to criticise the current owners and felt that it was a stick to beat them with. I remember Lifelong being abhorrent that CD bought the Dons for example and refused to accept that they could contribute funds to the cause.
-
In simple terms think of club Doncaster as a parent meaning funds are distributed from parents to children as the parent determines. It's fairly simple and standard business practice.
Yes. That is simple enough.
I am questioning here what exactly is reffered to when it is said 'Club Doncaster makes a 7 figure profit'. Because, as you point out, there are a number of different things within the parent organisation (Rovers, Foundation, Dons, stadium etc.). If it is a 7 figure profit for everything other than the football playing budget, I would describe that as much better than reasonable.
-
In simple terms think of club Doncaster as a parent meaning funds are distributed from parents to children as the parent determines. It's fairly simple and standard business practice.
Yes. That is simple enough.
I am questioning here what exactly is reffered to when it is said 'Club Doncaster makes a 7 figure profit'. Because, as you point out, there are a number of different things within the parent organisation (Rovers, Foundation, Dons, stadium etc.). If it is a 7 figure profit for everything other than the football playing budget, I would describe that as much better than reasonable.
That's pretty much it yes. The parent company makes a 7 figure profit if you remove the loss on players. That bit is still being covered by the owners.
And, as I mentioned on here some weeks ago, the football side of it could stand on it's own 2 feet today. We wouldn't be the club we are though and the quality of our players would reflect that.
-
In simple terms think of club Doncaster as a parent meaning funds are distributed from parents to children as the parent determines. It's fairly simple and standard business practice.
Yes. That is simple enough.
I am questioning here what exactly is reffered to when it is said 'Club Doncaster makes a 7 figure profit'. Because, as you point out, there are a number of different things within the parent organisation (Rovers, Foundation, Dons, stadium etc.). If it is a 7 figure profit for everything other than the football playing budget, I would describe that as much better than reasonable.
That's pretty much it yes. The parent company makes a 7 figure profit if you remove the loss on players. That bit is still being covered by the owners.
And, as I mentioned on here some weeks ago, the football side of it could stand on it's own 2 feet today. We wouldn't be the club we are though and the quality of our players would reflect that.
Pretty much all that profit (which isn’t profit) must come from the football side then, although surely any club would make a profit if you didn’t account for players wages! It’s definitly a positive that the Dons break even though.
-
In simple terms think of club Doncaster as a parent meaning funds are distributed from parents to children as the parent determines. It's fairly simple and standard business practice.
Yes. That is simple enough.
I am questioning here what exactly is reffered to when it is said 'Club Doncaster makes a 7 figure profit'. Because, as you point out, there are a number of different things within the parent organisation (Rovers, Foundation, Dons, stadium etc.). If it is a 7 figure profit for everything other than the football playing budget, I would describe that as much better than reasonable.
That's pretty much it yes. The parent company makes a 7 figure profit if you remove the loss on players. That bit is still being covered by the owners.
And, as I mentioned on here some weeks ago, the football side of it could stand on it's own 2 feet today. We wouldn't be the club we are though and the quality of our players would reflect that.
Pretty much all that profit (which isn’t profit) must come from the football side then, although surely any club would make a profit if you didn’t account for players wages! It’s definitly a positive that the Dons break even though.
No. I'm not even sure if football clubs would all make a profit without players wages either, don't forget stadium hire, admin costs, travel etc etc all eat into anything coming through the turnstiles.
Apart from that the club, as Gavin explains, now has partners rather than sponsors, who get involved with Club Doncaster in all different areas. The Foundation itself has been a tremendous success, that drives partners and participants. The commercial arm of the club generates more revenue than ticket revenue, and not many clubs could say that. The DNA card has been a tremendous success too and generates revenue.
So, the football contributes, but there is much more to Club Doncaster than just the football arm.
-
I heard a little rumour that the FA are impressed with this....and also a certain Mr Baldwin.
-
I don't think it's a particularly confusing picture, as bfyp states it's common business practice. The company I work for has 4 divisions which always report as individual business's but shareholders and tax authorities always treat it as one.
The only critics of Club Doncaster were those who had a tendency to criticise the current owners and felt that it was a stick to beat them with. I remember Lifelong being abhorrent that CD bought the Dons for example and refused to accept that they could contribute funds to the cause.
Abhorrent!
Not sure that’s the right word.
And I’m not one who has a tendency to criticise the current owners.
It’s just when I ask legitimate questions (and never get satisfactory answers) I’m accused of being against the current regime, which I am not.
I’m gradually starting to understand the Club Doncaster concept thanks to these articles with Hoden and hope there are more to come.
Just to correct one point though.
You say I refused to accept the Dons could contribute funds to the cause.
As far as I can see, according to Gavin in the article, they don’t.
He says they simply cover their own costs...not contribute anything extra.
-
What I can't understand is the club said we needed 7200 to break even last term but our average crowd was well over the 8000 mark now they tell us we are losing money, just something I can understand at all
-
In simple terms think of club Doncaster as a parent meaning funds are distributed from parents to children as the parent determines. It's fairly simple and standard business practice.
Yes. That is simple enough.
I am questioning here what exactly is reffered to when it is said 'Club Doncaster makes a 7 figure profit'. Because, as you point out, there are a number of different things within the parent organisation (Rovers, Foundation, Dons, stadium etc.). If it is a 7 figure profit for everything other than the football playing budget, I would describe that as much better than reasonable.
That's pretty much it yes. The parent company makes a 7 figure profit if you remove the loss on players. That bit is still being covered by the owners.
And, as I mentioned on here some weeks ago, the football side of it could stand on it's own 2 feet today. We wouldn't be the club we are though and the quality of our players would reflect that.
Pretty much all that profit (which isn’t profit) must come from the football side then, although surely any club would make a profit if you didn’t account for players wages! It’s definitly a positive that the Dons break even though.
No. I'm not even sure if football clubs would all make a profit without players wages either, don't forget stadium hire, admin costs, travel etc etc all eat into anything coming through the turnstiles.
Apart from that the club, as Gavin explains, now has partners rather than sponsors, who get involved with Club Doncaster in all different areas. The Foundation itself has been a tremendous success, that drives partners and participants. The commercial arm of the club generates more revenue than ticket revenue, and not many clubs could say that. The DNA card has been a tremendous success too and generates revenue.
So, the football contributes, but there is much more to Club Doncaster than just the football arm.
I'm with Gaz on this one, player wages represent a huge amount of any clubs costs and I think that the vast majority of clubs would be making a profit if you excluded them.
EDIT Just looked at a couple of clubs' accounts to see if I was way off the mark, turns out that in their latest accounts Shrewsbury & Walsall made a profit regardless, and Bury a £2.8m loss with cost of sales (which I would have thought would be mostly player costs) of £3.8m
-
In simple terms think of club Doncaster as a parent meaning funds are distributed from parents to children as the parent determines. It's fairly simple and standard business practice.
Yes. That is simple enough.
I am questioning here what exactly is reffered to when it is said 'Club Doncaster makes a 7 figure profit'. Because, as you point out, there are a number of different things within the parent organisation (Rovers, Foundation, Dons, stadium etc.). If it is a 7 figure profit for everything other than the football playing budget, I would describe that as much better than reasonable.
That's pretty much it yes. The parent company makes a 7 figure profit if you remove the loss on players. That bit is still being covered by the owners.
And, as I mentioned on here some weeks ago, the football side of it could stand on it's own 2 feet today. We wouldn't be the club we are though and the quality of our players would reflect that.
Pretty much all that profit (which isn’t profit) must come from the football side then, although surely any club would make a profit if you didn’t account for players wages! It’s definitly a positive that the Dons break even though.
No. I'm not even sure if football clubs would all make a profit without players wages either, don't forget stadium hire, admin costs, travel etc etc all eat into anything coming through the turnstiles.
Apart from that the club, as Gavin explains, now has partners rather than sponsors, who get involved with Club Doncaster in all different areas. The Foundation itself has been a tremendous success, that drives partners and participants. The commercial arm of the club generates more revenue than ticket revenue, and not many clubs could say that. The DNA card has been a tremendous success too and generates revenue.
So, the football contributes, but there is much more to Club Doncaster than just the football arm.
I'm with Gaz on this one, player wages represent a huge amount of any clubs costs and I think that the vast majority of clubs would be making a profit if you excluded them.
EDIT Just looked at a couple of clubs' accounts to see if I was way off the mark, turns out that in their latest accounts Shrewsbury & Walsall made a profit regardless, and Bury a £2.8m loss with cost of sales (which I would have thought would be mostly player costs) of £3.8m
Shrewsbury and Walsall made profits off the back of other items though. Didn't Shrewsbury sell land or something? So it's not, in most cases, the actual playing of a game that drives revenue, its the other factors. Anyway that's not the point I was making.
It's clear that Club Doncaster is driving the profits, and from many and varied sources. It's a bit like taking the responsibility away from a club to grow its revenue and profits and handing that responsibility to a management company who know what they're doing.
-
I don't think it's a particularly confusing picture, as bfyp states it's common business practice. The company I work for has 4 divisions which always report as individual business's but shareholders and tax authorities always treat it as one.
The only critics of Club Doncaster were those who had a tendency to criticise the current owners and felt that it was a stick to beat them with. I remember Lifelong being abhorrent that CD bought the Dons for example and refused to accept that they could contribute funds to the cause.
Abhorrent!
Not sure that’s the right word.
And I’m not one who has a tendency to criticise the current owners.
It’s just when I ask legitimate questions (and never get satisfactory answers) I’m accused of being against the current regime, which I am not.
I’m gradually starting to understand the Club Doncaster concept thanks to these articles with Hoden and hope there are more to come.
Just to correct one point though.
You say I refused to accept the Dons could contribute funds to the cause.
As far as I can see, according to Gavin in the article, they don’t.
He says they simply cover their own costs...not contribute anything extra.
I was waiting for you Lifelong, seeing as you do hang around anything I post, or the VSC, like a bad smell.
I could, if I so wish, to go back over your posts of recent times and quote numerous examples, but I'll spare you that embarrassment.
Even in recent weeks you've criticised Club Doncaster; you even criticised Grant McCann (somebody who you didn't want), for mentioning that he'd looked at it prior to his interview. You described it as 'the mysterious Club Doncaster'.
As for the Dons, I remember your criticism of the purchase of them way back, and my attempts to clarify the situation failed as you obviously weren't bright enough to grasp that increasing revenues give you the chance to cut costs. And it seems you still don't. Keep up Dave.
-
Shrewsbury and Walsall made profits off the back of other items though. Didn't Shrewsbury sell land or something? So it's not, in most cases, the actual playing of a game that drives revenue, its the other factors. Anyway that's not the point I was making.
It's clear that Club Doncaster is driving the profits, and from many and varied sources. It's a bit like taking the responsibility away from a club to grow its revenue and profits and handing that responsibility to a management company who know what they're doing.
Yes Shrewsbury made a million off that, but ignoring that their losses would be half a million and the playing staff costs are significantly more than half a million - so obviously still turning a profit if you ignore playing staff costs. I don't want to get too sidetracked off topic as it's great that we have a board who are focussed on making the extra yards where they can which benefits the club overall, I just think it would be unusual for any club to not make a profit when you ignore playing costs.
-
What I can't understand is the club said we needed 7200 to break even last term but our average crowd was well over the 8000 mark now they tell us we are losing money, just something I can understand at all
Quite simple as most things it is just misunderstood. The budget was set for 7200 not that the club would be breaking even
-
But they did say it was a break even figure
-
Likely based on a level of accepted loss. Basically input from other sources. E.g. they say we'll put in 2m make sure we break even on that.
-
Ha ha ha mods on here will change anything to make the board look good, m not bothered till they put a foot wrong, and they did say 7200 was a break even figure not anything elsa
-
Ha ha ha mods on here will change anything to make the board look good, m not bothered till they put a foot wrong, and they did say 7200 was a break even figure not anything elsa
Seriously Dave? Apart from the fact bfyp isn't a mod do you really think that answer was designed to make the board look good? It was a factual answer, simple as.
-
So are you saying Martin they don't say 7200 was a break even figure
-
I've never understood the concept of saying that there is any other motive in a board that puts lots of money in each year. It just makes people look a little silly. It's like everything that is said is turned round to make it sound an issue, get real.
-
So are you saying Martin they don't say 7200 was a break even figure
I'm not saying it wasn't said. But I agree with bfyp that the figure of 7200 would be the figure that they would need for the budget to balance.
The figure for this season is slightly higher, not sure of the exact figure just yet, but the target for the club is for even more bodies through the turnstiles.
-
Contrary to what you think I'm not against the board but if someone says something you take it for gospel, then they forget what they say and change it. That does not give a good light on them
-
I took it as budget when I read it, i suppose i see how you can see it different, but it obviously was not
-
I don't think the club have changed anything Dave. 7200 would be the break even figure once the funds from the owners had been included. They don't wait until the end of the season and see what the club has lost before they raid the piggy bank, they calculate what's required at the beginning of the season and make allowances for it.
-
If they meant budget they should say not break even figure
-
I accept that Martin but that is where backbiting and arguments start
-
I heard a little rumour that the FA are impressed with this....and also a certain Mr Baldwin.
Raggytash won't be happy.
-
Saw next week is talking about the progress with adding the Belles to Club Doncaster. Is there potential for a successful Belles team that makes money or to be successful would they always make a loss?
-
I hope it's a move for the good
-
Realistically for this model to work longer term we need to start disposing of players for top top money. Since Wellens and Mills we haven’t had proper money for anyone - Sharp was robbed from us for pennies.
-
When you take everything in to account how you are going to set your stall out i.e setting ticket prices, estimating revenue based on those prices, you come up with a benchmark which should bring in an amount of income from attendances, which in turn is taken into consideration to set the budget.
Anything above the benchmark is likely to limit the losses based on what the owners are prepared to chuck in each year. Below that figure means the losses would be greater as there's less income than projected.
When they say break even figure, it doesn't mean that literally. It means a figure that, if achieved, they got the sums right!
-
I don't think it's a particularly confusing picture, as bfyp states it's common business practice. The company I work for has 4 divisions which always report as individual business's but shareholders and tax authorities always treat it as one.
The only critics of Club Doncaster were those who had a tendency to criticise the current owners and felt that it was a stick to beat them with. I remember Lifelong being abhorrent that CD bought the Dons for example and refused to accept that they could contribute funds to the cause.
Abhorrent!
Not sure that’s the right word.
And I’m not one who has a tendency to criticise the current owners.
It’s just when I ask legitimate questions (and never get satisfactory answers) I’m accused of being against the current regime, which I am not.
I’m gradually starting to understand the Club Doncaster concept thanks to these articles with Hoden and hope there are more to come.
Just to correct one point though.
You say I refused to accept the Dons could contribute funds to the cause.
As far as I can see, according to Gavin in the article, they don’t.
He says they simply cover their own costs...not contribute anything extra.
I was waiting for you Lifelong, seeing as you do hang around anything I post, or the VSC, like a bad smell.
I could, if I so wish, to go back over your posts of recent times and quote numerous examples, but I'll spare you that embarrassment.
Even in recent weeks you've criticised Club Doncaster; you even criticised Grant McCann (somebody who you didn't want), for mentioning that he'd looked at it prior to his interview. You described it as 'the mysterious Club Doncaster'.
As for the Dons, I remember your criticism of the purchase of them way back, and my attempts to clarify the situation failed as you obviously weren't bright enough to grasp that increasing revenues give you the chance to cut costs. And it seems you still don't. Keep up Dave.
Here we go again.
The problem you have SM is that instead of fighting fires you create them.
I’m trying to be conciliatory and not looking for an argument but here you are ‘waiting for me’, being derogatory and talking about bad smells.
I did describe Club Doncaster as mysterious simply because the concept had never been properly explained, something which GB and Hoden are trying to do with these articles which I welcome.
Whenever I have asked questions about it in the past you have hurled insults instead of explanations and when I asked a simple question of how much it had made for the football club I received no reply.
I may not be the brightest, as you say, but when I have to try and decipher gobbledegook comments like ‘increasing revenues give you the chance to cut costs’ is there any wonder?
When it comes to Grant McCann it’s completely incorrect to say I have been critical of him.
He wasn’t my first choice or that of the overwhelming majority of supporters.
Of course, you would have marked him down as the main man from day one.
Because you are never wrong, are you?
-
If they meant budget they should say not break even figure
I can see your point but budgets like a lot of things in a business change and change again as the financial year develops, storm damage, injuries etc and the business manager has to make adjustments and try to get to the end of the year in profit or at least balanced.
-
Oh Lifelong, what are we going to do with you?
Yet again you make out it's everybody else picking on you whilst you continue to offer your sarcastic opinion on me, the VSC, the board, etc etc and coupled with such a bad memory as well! I actually don't have any problems, and I spend my whole life fighting fires on behalf of others. As Dep Chair of an organisation with a membership in excess of 700,000 I can tell you there's plenty of fires to fight, what causes do you ever fight on behalf of football supporters? Let me guess. Err, none?
My comment about increasing revenues is obviously lost on you. It's a pity, but if you wish a kindergarten kind of explanation for everything you ask questions about then I'm not your man.