AlanSkÃrare Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 So how much is down to SD not paying here? From £27,6m to £13,8m is staggering. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 So how much is down to SD not paying here? From £27,6m to £13,8m is staggering. We dont know, that figure is merchandise, catering, sponsorship etc. Not a case of SD in isolation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Catering, for example, is outsourced so comparisons based on revenue are difficult. NUFC's revenue is their concession fee, which will be only a fraction of the amount that would be classed as revenue if the club carried it out themselves. Of course the club would then also bear the associated costs. If NUFC have outsourced all merchendising to SD then the revenue from this will similarly be much smaller than if the activity was carried out by NUFC. A lot of this is missed in the Deloitte rich list, which for some reason is obsessed with revenue but ignores costs in their headline numbers. It's hard to draw conclusions on these areas. What isn't in doubt though is that we used to have paying sponsors where SD signs now enjoy a free ride. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 We also choose to focus on revenue when debating finances as well to a large extent, while ignoring profit and loss. Always found that really strange. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benwell Lad Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 We also choose to focus on revenue when debating finances as well to a large extent, while ignoring profit and loss. Always found that really strange. Turnover = Vanity. Profit = Sanity. Never truer than in that strangely slanted article. That said a PL team and a stadium like SJP is a very good fit with his core business interests at present. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 So how much is down to SD not paying here? From £27,6m to £13,8m is staggering. The staggering thing is that most of the posts after The Mag article are either sticking up for Ashley or having a go at the article. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinny Green Balls Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 It amazes me how anyone can still stick up for that prick. They actually exist beyond the straw man's world? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinny Green Balls Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 as much as an odious tit NE5 could be, fair play to him for warning everybody, like a bitchy Cassandra on her period. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 It amazes me how anyone can still stick up for that prick. They actually exist beyond the straw man's world? Not one single post since that article sticking up for Ashley but lets not allow facts to stop you posting shit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 He would have said the same about anyone that wasn't Shepherd tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinny Green Balls Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 It amazes me how anyone can still stick up for that prick. They actually exist beyond the straw man's world? Not one single post since that article sticking up for Ashley but lets not allow facts to stop you posting shit. I was referring to what Mick said, thank you Mr Observant. He claimed that some were sticking up for him, and I said that "it", ready?..."amazes me how anyone can stick up for that prick. They exist beyond a straw man's world?" The key phrase here is straw man's world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 It amazes me how anyone can still stick up for that prick. They actually exist beyond the straw man's world? Not one single post since that article sticking up for Ashley but lets not allow facts to stop you posting shit. I was referring to what Mick said, thank you Mr Observant. He claimed that some were sticking up for him, and I said that "it", ready?..."amazes me if anyone sticks up for that prick beyond a straw man's world." The key phrase here is straw man's world. Well good for you for only being half wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinny Green Balls Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 [Edit: Yeah, less of that.] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Catering, for example, is outsourced so comparisons based on revenue are difficult. NUFC's revenue is their concession fee, which will be only a fraction of the amount that would be classed as revenue if the club carried it out themselves. Of course the club would then also bear the associated costs. If NUFC have outsourced all merchendising to SD then the revenue from this will similarly be much smaller than if the activity was carried out by NUFC. A lot of this is missed in the Deloitte rich list, which for some reason is obsessed with revenue but ignores costs in their headline numbers. It's hard to draw conclusions on these areas. What isn't in doubt though is that we used to have paying sponsors where SD signs now enjoy a free ride. Catering is outsourced, it wasn't at the time of those figures in The Mag article. The figures used are up to our relegation season as our finishing position is shown as 20th. Numbers were released at the end of that season claiming XXX number of people had been made redundant due to relegation. The club counter-claimed that only 30 were made redundant due to relegation, the others were due to outsourcing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Well good for you for only being half wrong. He's not wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Catering is outsourced, it wasn't at the time of those figures in The Mag article. The figures used are up to our relegation season as our finishing position is shown as 20th. Numbers were released at the end of that season claiming XXX number of people had been made redundant due to relegation. The club counter-claimed that only 30 were made redundant due to relegation, the others were due to outsourcing. My only point was the difficulty in comparing like for like with other clubs when all you do is look at revenue. Other clubs will do various things in house or outsourced. The key point on the merchendising side is that Ashley is on both sides of the fence and can decide where the profit actually falls (while the club pleads poverty because none of the real profits ever hit the club itself). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Catering is outsourced, it wasn't at the time of those figures in The Mag article. The figures used are up to our relegation season as our finishing position is shown as 20th. Numbers were released at the end of that season claiming XXX number of people had been made redundant due to relegation. The club counter-claimed that only 30 were made redundant due to relegation, the others were due to outsourcing. My only point was the difficulty in comparing like for like with other clubs when all you do is look at revenue. Other clubs will do various things in house or outsourced. The key point on the merchendising side is that Ashley is on both sides of the fence and can decide where the profit actually falls (while the club pleads poverty because none of the real profits ever hit the club itself). I was wrong actually so I have to apologise for that, I was reading it on my phone and the columns didn't line up correctly. The drop in commercial income was £6 million during the first season in which it was omitted/outsourced. The 20th was where we were placed in the world ranking so our commercial drop will have been partially down due to outsourcing catering. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinny Green Balls Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 He would have said the same about anyone that wasn't Shepherd tbh. This is true. He just happened to be right on this one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Can anybody explain a drop of almost £10 million in matchday revenue between 2007 and 2012? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughesy Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Can anybody explain a drop of almost £10 million in matchday revenue between 2007 and 2012? Must have been a fair drop off in corporate hospitality and boxes being taken up etc? But maybe not 10 million... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Can anybody explain a drop of almost £10 million in matchday revenue between 2007 and 2012? Cheaper tickets, surely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Can anybody explain a drop of almost £10 million in matchday revenue between 2007 and 2012? Cheaper tickets, surely. Must be mostly that. We did have a UEFA run in the 2006/2007 season, and didn't in 2011/2012 but that's only going to explain a minor part of it. Generally matchday income has been lower under Ashley, I haven't checked this out but I'd be surprised if there has been a drop in attendance of the size that would explain that sort of fall in revenue. So I think it can only be down to those that do go to matches paying less to do so. Anyone got any other theories? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanji Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Matchday revenue solely tickets? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Can anybody explain a drop of almost £10 million in matchday revenue between 2007 and 2012? Cheaper tickets, surely. Season ticket prices are roughly the same as they were then albeit numbers might be different, more family's that'll be for sure. An average nine per cent reduction with the majority of season ticket prices going back to 2007/08 prices. That means, for instance, a Gallowgate End season ticket being cut to £494, having been £543 this season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Can anybody explain a drop of almost £10 million in matchday revenue between 2007 and 2012? Cheaper tickets, surely. Must be mostly that. We did have a UEFA run in the 2006/2007 season, and didn't in 2011/2012 but that's only going to explain a minor part of it. Generally matchday income has been lower under Ashley, I haven't checked this out but I'd be surprised if there has been a drop in attendance of the size that would explain that sort of fall in revenue. So I think it can only be down to those that do go to matches paying less to do so. Anyone got any other theories? I seem to recall something about the family section being increased in size and obviously that would be lower priced tickets. Also would imagine prices for corporate boxes and other fancy seats would have been lowered to get people into them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts