Jump to content

The New Raith Rovers Thread


Recommended Posts

Would be genuinely interested to hear what makes you think the above.

Yeah, me too,

It's probably down to the fact he didn't pour every last penny he had into the club, leaving his family destitute and on the street, that's what we expect of our chairman right???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the can of worms is opened again.

The large reduction in our squad size can be excused, at least in part, by a big drop in income. However:

1) We had directors putting money into the club last season to keep it afloat.

2) I can neither confirm nor deny this, and I'm not sure if anyone can, but there have been plenty suggestions that a significant part of our running costs the year we were promoted were paid by the cup run money.

3) Matthew Elder suggested in the press that we had budgeted for a crowd of almost 1000 spectators more than came through the gates against Falkirk. Not a good start financially.

4) On a similar note, there has been plenty wailing about attendances from the club over the past season. I think someone at the board got a bit too optimistic.

5) Remaining on the point of attendances, our average increased by 500 last season. With that increase, why were the board harping on about attendances all the time? How much extra were we putting out last season, or was an increase of between 20 and 25 percent on the average just not good enough? If so, why?

I think these are legitimate concerns, as much as some may try and sweep them under the carpet. The club do themselves no favours with the lack of information they release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points

I think the club have made many financial mistakes recently and someone has to take responsibility for them

For example, why were we paying all our released players until the end of July when the season always ends in May?

15 Players receving around 8 weeks of salaries is not effective cash management

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My criticisms of the Chairmans financial stewardship are based on the following facts.

1) He signed off a budget for the 2009-10 season. We pretty much broke even and came in within budget. However as the Chairman has publicly stated "we do not budget for cup runs". So take out the cup run to the Semi final and we actually would have made a very significant loss. ONLY the unexpected cup money kept us afloat in 2009-10

2) He again sanctioned a budget for the 2010-11 season. Our average home crowd increased by 500 but still managed to make a significant loss. We ONLY scraped by because other directors funded the shortfall. The budget was horribly over optimistic and had it not been for these other Directors we would have had the begging bowls out again!

3) This year the budget is cut and he blames the loss of the home gates with Dunfermline. This was a total red herring. What we are actually doing is setting a budget at a level that it should have been in the 2 previous season. The loss of 2 gates to Dunfermline will be offset by losing small gates from Cowden and Stirling being replaced by bigger gates from Hamilton and Livi. Our average attendances will drop this year but only very slightly and not back to the 2009-10 levels.

The Chairman does not need to be pouring money into the club. Indeed the polar opposite is true. No-one should be pouring money into the club. The club should be operating sustainably and within an operating budget based on reasonably easy to predict income and costs.

Fan income is easy to model from historical data and general assumptions. Commercial Income should be known. Wages will be known. Other running costs such as repairs, electricity, fuel, security etc may vary.

How hard can it be to set a budget based on that?

What we have done under the previous Chairman has been to assume pie in the sky attendance figures, then appeal for more fans to turn up and over commit on expenditure. This has left a black hole filled by a one-off cup run and other Directors donations.

We were promised a sustainable well managed financially sound club at the time of Reclaim the Rovers. This absolutely has not been delivered under his Chairmanship.

As I have said before I have met Mr Sommerville on a number of occassions and as others have said he is a very nice guy, very hard working and has a genuine love for the club BUT his record as a Chairman was not good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My criticisms of the Chairmans financial stewardship are based on the following facts.

1) He signed off a budget for the 2009-10 season. We pretty much broke even and came in within budget. However as the Chairman has publicly stated "we do not budget for cup runs". So take out the cup run to the Semi final and we actually would have made a very significant loss. ONLY the unexpected cup money kept us afloat in 2009-10

2) He again sanctioned a budget for the 2010-11 season. Our average home crowd increased by 500 but still managed to make a significant loss. We ONLY scraped by because other directors funded the shortfall. The budget was horribly over optimistic and had it not been for these other Directors we would have had the begging bowls out again!

3) This year the budget is cut and he blames the loss of the home gates with Dunfermline. This was a total red herring. What we are actually doing is setting a budget at a level that it should have been in the 2 previous season. The loss of 2 gates to Dunfermline will be offset by losing small gates from Cowden and Stirling being replaced by bigger gates from Hamilton and Livi. Our average attendances will drop this year but only very slightly and not back to the 2009-10 levels.

The Chairman does not need to be pouring money into the club. Indeed the polar opposite is true. No-one should be pouring money into the club. The club should be operating sustainably and within an operating budget based on reasonably easy to predict income and costs.

Fan income is easy to model from historical data and general assumptions. Commercial Income should be known. Wages will be known. Other running costs such as repairs, electricity, fuel, security etc may vary.

How hard can it be to set a budget based on that?

What we have done under the previous Chairman has been to assume pie in the sky attendance figures, then appeal for more fans to turn up and over commit on expenditure. This has left a black hole filled by a one-off cup run and other Directors donations.

We were promised a sustainable well managed financially sound club at the time of Reclaim the Rovers. This absolutely has not been delivered under his Chairmanship.

As I have said before I have met Mr Sommerville on a number of occassions and as others have said he is a very nice guy, very hard working and has a genuine love for the club BUT his record as a Chairman was not good.

Surely the blame lies with the whole board as opposed to one individual?The only reason directors,well two of them had to fund a shortfall is surely of their own making having agreed to any budget?

Edited by Rovers_Lad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A number of good points well made Graeme P.

The two things I'd  take issue with are the impact of the loss of the Dunfermline games and predicted attendances. 

Losing the Pars games is hugely significant. The revenue generated by the number of Pars fans in the away end, the increased number of fans in the home end, programme sales, catering sales, increased sponsorship and hospitality at a derby is considerable. Multiply it times two and it was a significant part of our income last season. I am sorry but Hamilton and Livingston will not bring significantly more fans than Cowdenbeath or Stirling, they will bring around the same. And even if they do bring more it will be slightly more and nowhere near enough to make up for the loss of revenue from two derbies.

On attendances I think everyone has been taken by surprise by just how much Scottish football has been hit by the recession. I'd have expected a  bigger increase when we went from the Second to the First. Even this season if we'd had a predict the crowd competition versus Falkirk I would have said between 3,500 and 4,000. To not even pass the 3k barrier for an opening day game against one of the biggest teams in the league is incredibly disappointing. If First Division clubs weren't sustainable before then they certainly aren't on that level of crowd.

Your wider points are correct. It's not hard to set a budget but a budget based on our current income would mean either that the money left over for players would be minimal or non-existent. So Dave Somerville and the Board would have been faced with the choice of slash the player budget and live completely within our means or stretch the player budget to be able to compete (by compete I mean stay in the First Division not challenge for promotion to the SPL) and then as a consequence have to rely on cup runs or the contribution of Directors, fan groups etc. They obviously chose this route as going for a completely sustainable model would mean we we'd almost certainly be back in the Second Division and possibly in the Third. That's the harsh reality of the choice - just ask Clyde. 

As I said full time First Division clubs aren't sustainable based solely on income so perhaps this highlights the choice in front of us - bundle along trying to get by or agreeing we balance the books and accept the reality of what that means on the pitch. 

I'd vote for the latter but I'm not sure the rest of the support would and I suspect Dave S and the rest of the board knew that hence their approach. But all things considered they haven't run up huge debts or been tempted to splash the cash just because we've got close to promotion and that has to be applauded. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also forgot to say that under his chairmanship the role of supporters has been recognised and valued, the commercial activities of the club have been transformed from the amateurish stuff we had before and the links between the club and the community which were left to wither on the vine during the Anelka years have been strengthened. They also secured Val McDermid's sponsorship of the North Stand and brought her onto the board. A reasonable record and positively glowing given some of the chancers we have had in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It worries me that this could be the start of some very tricky times off the pitch. We as fans don't know just what has been going on behind the scenes. Dave was a realistic guy when it came to keeping the clubs feet on the ground. Maybe he was off with the budgeting figures but his only motives were to get RRFC back on a level playing field and keep us floating.

It appears that the club has struggled this season to bring business in, low hospitality figures, poor sponsor revenue etc. People everywhere are cutting back and its beginning to take its toll on football clubs around the country. The problem that we have as a club is that how long are directors willing to put their hands in their pockets to cover losses and how much are they going to have available. Its one thing blaming DS for poor budgets and blaming poor attendances, the main problem lies at the business side of the club. Why is Raith Rovers FC worth investing in?? Why pay hospitality for a poor service when there are plenty better options close by? What benefit will my company gain from advertising at Starks Park? If the club can't make the money that way, its an up hill battle from day one of the season.

If this decision from DS to step down and a new chairman was to be put in place, my first question to the board and new chairman would be how can you make this club worth investment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The recession is for me the crucial point. Fuel costs are up massively (this particularly affects away supports), the cost of living in general is up and the price of football is up. It's no surprise that attendance figures aren't what the board may have hoped for. People have less disposable income, and have to watch their outgoings. Can people really justify £34 for two games of football? I bet there are many who can't, particularly if it's an away match.

However, this is a factor which should be taken into account when budgeting. Maybe they have taken it into account, but anticipating a 3,500 crowd against Falkirk was a bit too optimistic IMO. I was disappointed we didn't break 3k, but realistically we got pretty much as I expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No club is worth investing in and that includes our supposed two big clubs. People who put their money into football clubs do so as either an act of benevolence or to boost their own ego. Who was the last person to invest in a scottish football club and make a return on their money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It worries me that this could be the start of some very tricky times off the pitch. We as fans don't know just what has been going on behind the scenes. Dave was a realistic guy when it came to keeping the clubs feet on the ground. Maybe he was off with the budgeting figures but his only motives were to get RRFC back on a level playing field and keep us floating.

It appears that the club has struggled this season to bring business in, low hospitality figures, poor sponsor revenue etc. People everywhere are cutting back and its beginning to take its toll on football clubs around the country. The problem that we have as a club is that how long are directors willing to put their hands in their pockets to cover losses and how much are they going to have available. Its one thing blaming DS for poor budgets and blaming poor attendances, the main problem lies at the business side of the club. Why is Raith Rovers FC worth investing in?? Why pay hospitality for a poor service when there are plenty better options close by? What benefit will my company gain from advertising at Starks Park? If the club can't make the money that way, its an up hill battle from day one of the season.

If this decision from DS to step down and a new chairman was to be put in place, my first question to the board and new chairman would be how can you make this club worth investment?

This is the core of it for me, the problem is less to do with poor quality individuals and their decisions but rather the entire business model throughout Scottish Football - particularly in our league. The perpetual quest for Full Time football and a SPL compliant stadium, along with the higher wage bills and costs that come with it is ultimately unsustainable at this level.

Now, Part Time football doesn't automatically lead to lower wages but it does allow clubs the chance to drive down wages and wage bills - as well as allowing and encouraging players to plan adequately for their future. Every year, we hear about Chairmen threatening to go PT but none of them are willing to be the first to go over the edge and take the risk of trouble on the park. We're long past the point where it's advisable and may I suggest that we be the first to do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the blame lies with the whole board as opposed to one individual?The only reason directors,well two of them had to fund a shortfall is surely of their own making having agreed to any budget?

No in business the Chairman is ultimately responsible just ask Tony Hayward the former Chairman of BP. It wasn't his fault the oil leaked into the Mexican Gulf but it was his responsibility as Chairman to ensure his staff were competant and that the company was run properly.

Living within our means does not necessarily mean going back to the lower leagues.

As a business we have a very stable core income (from the home support) with very little competitive products (very few people change team or stop going because a good film is on TV) so gauging income should be easy. Increasing commercial income should be a priority and it always has been but controlling costs and cash flow are the 2 key factors needed to survive.

Lets not forget that despite knowing we were struggling financially last season (the predicted shortfall was known about in December) we still increased our costs by signing Gary Wales and K McBride. We could afford the wages of neither and we knew it before signing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every year, we hear about Chairmen threatening to go PT but none of them are willing to be the first to go over the edge and take the risk of trouble on the park. We're long past the point where it's advisable and may I suggest that we be the first to do it?

We've had at least some number of part-time players since 2005 yet, for reasons completely beyond me, we appear to be phasing part-timers out. Only McGurn remains and I fully expect him to leave at the end of the season. Players like Campbell and Ferry have been valuable to us since promotion so why we're now turning our backs on that route I'm not sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No in business the Chairman is ultimately responsible just ask Tony Hayward the former Chairman of BP. It wasn't his fault the oil leaked into the Mexican Gulf but it was his responsibility as Chairman to ensure his staff were competant and that the company was run properly.

Living within our means does not necessarily mean going back to the lower leagues.

As a business we have a very stable core income (from the home support) with very little competitive products (very few people change team or stop going because a good film is on TV) so gauging income should be easy. Increasing commercial income should be a priority and it always has been but controlling costs and cash flow are the 2 key factors needed to survive.

Lets not forget that despite knowing we were struggling financially last season (the predicted shortfall was known about in December) we still increased our costs by signing Gary Wales and K McBride. We could afford the wages of neither and we knew it before signing them.

not really. In most big companies the chairman doesn't run the company or have any real influence over the day to day business. The guy in charge is the chief executive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've had at least some number of part-time players since 2005 yet, for reasons completely beyond me, we appear to be phasing part-timers out. Only McGurn remains and I fully expect him to leave at the end of the season. Players like Campbell and Ferry have been valuable to us since promotion so why we're now turning our backs on that route I'm not sure.

Im sure I read somewhere Mcglynn was looking for as much "value for money" as possible from the squad this season. I guess with the style of football he wants to play this year he wants players he can work with every day rather than two or three nights a week.

I would have kept Ferry to be honest but I trust Mcglynns judgement on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've had at least some number of part-time players since 2005 yet, for reasons completely beyond me, we appear to be phasing part-timers out. Only McGurn remains and I fully expect him to leave at the end of the season. Players like Campbell and Ferry have been valuable to us since promotion so why we're now turning our backs on that route I'm not sure.

Indeed we have had those players and we have been phasing them out since promotion. McGlynn has all but acknowledged that the focus on staying FT has cost us in terms of numbers with him being willing to pay more for the benefits that come with FT football. Which is probably understandable from a manager's perspective; if we're gonna have a smaller squad than most other teams anyway...

I have my suspicions though that while it's been working on the pitch, it's not great for our finances. Year on year, we seem to be slowly reducing the number of 'senior' players available to the manager in order to try - and fail - to balance the books. What happens if we still report a loss this year? Do we drop to ten Full Time outfield players, 1 Part Time GK and youths? After that?

The thinking needs to change and we need to go entirely part time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it too much to ask that we get some folk running the show that can get us breaking even, or heaven forbid, making a small profit, while maintaining first division status?

Only if we can find additional investment or additional revenue streams. Both virtually impossible in this economic climate as most individuals and businesses don't have spare cash to throw away with a football club.

The easiest option is to cut wages and playing staff. Whether you can stay in the First Division depends entirely on your managers ability to get more out of fewer players of less quality and/or your competitors willingness to do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...