The New Raith Rovers Thread

[Rovers1992/1993]

Working on the stadium, which may not see fans for a while yet depending on how things go, definitely seems like our big priority right now. 
Unless the maintenance is essential, it should be at the back of the list currently, quite frankly. 

What would be the top of the list?

[Michael W]

3 minutes ago, Rovers1992/1993 said:

What would be the top of the list?

Not having to ask the fans for donations again. 

[Michael W]

18 minutes ago, TxRover said:

Not a smart choice, it needs to be on the list. The use of volunteers to try to spruce things up for minimal investments is an excellent way to find what is wrong and needs fixing now before it gets much more difficult or expensive. Deferring maintenance is the path to crippling expenses that many clubs have followed.

There is the argument about the volunteers are helping SPP vs RR, but the reality is the two are intertwined and reliant upon each other. The good news is the funding in this case appears to be from SPP, but will end up benefitting RR if it improves the match day experience, and thus potentially increases crowds down the road.

Pennywise and pound foolish has been a popular aphorism for a long time for a reason.

Well, yes, I said that essential maintenance should happen. 

Anything beyond that is daft at a point in time when we face an uncertain season and need to conserve cash to make sure we get through it. Our ability to derive income is likely to be severely tested in the light of government restrictions, both in terms of gate income, hospitality income in light of social distancing regulations and also pitch hire (5months without it). Any spend that isn't critical to keep the stadium in working order should be deferred. 

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

Quote

SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster said: “The format of this season’s Betfred Cup remains unchanged, but our agreement with Premier Sports also means that clubs will be able to live-­‐ stream first round matches on a pay-­‐per-­‐view basis via club digital media services, provided the games have not been selected for broadcast by Premier Sports.

https://spfl.co.uk/news/spfl-announces-17-increase-in-betfred-cup-cash

[Rovers1992/1993]

Not having to ask the fans for donations again. 

Have they asked for donations recently?

[Michael W]

1 minute ago, Rovers1992/1993 said:

Have they asked for donations recently?

We haven't gone through an income-deprived season yet; something that there is a very high chance of.  

[Rovers1992/1993]

We haven't gone through an income-deprived season yet; something that there is a very high chance of.  

So you’re moaning about something that may or may not happen in the future, before it even has a chance of happening? [emoji849][emoji23]

 

That’s a new low, even for you. [emoji23]

[Michael W]

17 minutes ago, Rovers1992/1993 said:

So you’re moaning about something that may or may not happen in the future, before it even has a chance of happening?

 

That’s a new low, even for you.

 

17 minutes ago, Rovers1992/1993 said:

So you’re moaning about something that may or may not happen in the future, before it even has a chance of happening?

 

That’s a new low, even for you.

You asked a question and I answered it... 

I am concerned at how the club, and indeed others, will get through the season given the uncertainty we face as a society, yes. Keeping in place a buffer in case we aren't allowed fans or are capped at a percentage of the stadium's capacity (many of whom will have season tickets) or suffer the season being prematurely canned again, is common sense.

Non-essential cost items can wait, quite frankly.

Edited September 1, 2020 by Michael W

[TxRover]

9 minutes ago, Michael W said:

 

You asked a question and I answered it... 

I am concerned at how the club, and indeed others, will get through the season given the uncertainty we face as a society, yes. Keeping in place a buffer in case we aren't allowed fans or are capped at a percentage of the stadium's capacity (many of whom will have season tickets) or suffer the season being prematurely canned again, is common sense.

Non-essential cost items can wait, quite frankly.

I say again...volunteer work and money from SPP, not RR. This work will have allowed a look over the Park to see if there are any of the essential things that need done. Note that Mr. Sim provided some funds for this work.

[Scottydog]

11 hours ago, expatowner said:

Have they turned the seats round to face away from the pitch? 

No but the new netting system to protect the seats could easily be replaced with thick curtains, that'd do the trick 

[Michael W]

5 minutes ago, TxRover said:

I say again...volunteer work and money from SPP, not RR. This work will have allowed a look over the Park to see if there are any of the essential things that need done. Note that Mr. Sim provided some funds for this work.

Money from SPP cannot really be separated from the RR. They might be separate entities but they are both at the behest of one person and are interdependent. The club ultimately supports SPP by providing it with not insignificant income. The club is also heavily in debt to SPP. 

Is Sim funding out his own pocket, or will it appear in the accounts as a debt against either RR or SPP? 

I hadn't realised how bad the financial position of the club is until I looked at the accounts. Contrast this with SPP, which is in a healthy position. 

[Scottydog]

48 minutes ago, Michael W said:

 

You asked a question and I answered it... 

I am concerned at how the club, and indeed others, will get through the season given the uncertainty we face as a society, yes. Keeping in place a buffer in case we aren't allowed fans or are capped at a percentage of the stadium's capacity (many of whom will have season tickets) or suffer the season being prematurely canned again, is common sense.

Non-essential cost items can wait, quite frankly.

ALL (essential and non essential) work being done is money being spent not by the football club but by Mr Sim as the outright Owner of SPP. Any work done so far (new Windows, water main services, floodlight upgrades, exit gate repairs and even cans of paint) has been paid for by the stadium owner to improve the safety, ability to run events or be more aesthetically pleasing on the eye for customers. 

Despite being majority shareholder and interim chairman it appears John Sim does not see it as being within his remit to fund the football club, he wants the football club to be run under its own steam and the stadium to cover it's own costs. RRFC is a tenant of Starks Park properties and pays a monthly rent, if the club pays it's way then the landlord pays for repairs to his property.  A person that rents a cafe would expect his landlord to fix a leaky roof but doesn't ask him to buy him a new kettle or microwave when they break or pay for an operation on a staff member.

What the club does have to pay is staff wages, Income tax, NI contributions, Pensions, Utilities, rates and other services including medical expenses and even legal assistance all of which in the main is hoped to be covered by gate income, hospitality and lottery etc.  The begging bowls came out in March with well over £70,000 wages to pay during a time when without income or any idea of when that income would recommence, the board reckoned the club could survive around another 6-8 weeks.  

As I see it Raith aren't paying for ground repairs but were struggling to cover wages and taxes and without potential away support income will do so again. Just out of curiosity who would you expect should have filled that void then and would you expect them to do so again if required?  

 

Perhaps some of that £100,000 raised quite willingly by the fans is being held in reserve for a future rainy day, it's certainly not being frittered away on nan essentials.

[Michael W]

6 minutes ago, Scottydog said:

ALL (essential and non essential) work being done is money being spent not by the football club but by Mr Sim as the outright Owner of SPP. Any work done so far (new Windows, water main services, floodlight upgrades, exit gate repairs and even cans of paint) has been paid for by the stadium owner to improve the safety, ability to run events or be more aesthetically pleasing on the eye for customers. 

Despite being majority shareholder and interim chairman it appears John Sim does not see it as being within his remit to fund the football club, he wants the football club to be run under its own steam and the stadium to cover it's own costs. RRFC is a tenant of Starks Park properties and pays a monthly rent, if the club pays it's way then the landlord pays for repairs to his property.  A person that rents a cafe would expect his landlord to fix a leaky roof but doesn't ask him to buy him a new kettle or microwave when they break or pay for an operation on a staff member.

What the club does have to pay is staff wages, Income tax, NI contributions, Pensions, Utilities, rates and other services including medical expenses and even legal assistance all of which in the main is hoped to be covered by gate income, hospitality and lottery etc.  The begging bowls came out in March with well over £70,000 wages to pay during a time when without income or any idea of when that income would recommence, the board reckoned the club could survive around another 6-8 weeks.  

As I see it Raith aren't paying for ground repairs but were struggling to cover wages and taxes and without potential away support income will do so again. Just out of curiosity who would you expect should have filled that void then and would you expect them to do so again if required?  

 

Perhaps some of that £100,000 raised quite willingly by the fans is being held in reserve for a future rainy day, it's certainly not being frittered away on nan essentials.

The landlord/tenant relationship in this situation is a bit different because Sim is effectively paying himself here. The stadium will struggle to cover its costs if the club has little/no income. 

In the event that we end up in the situation where the club is short for money again, my first answer is the same place any company should look - its shareholders and seek alternative means of finding when that fails. Clearly Sim feels otherwise about that, as is his right. The fans have done more than enough in the last six months for the club. 

My own view is that it's wrong to prioritise the stadium over the club, but then what do I know. That money spent now might well be needed at some point down the line. 

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

2 minutes ago, Michael W said:

My own view is that it's wrong to prioritise the stadium over the club, but then what do I know.

To cover just one of the points that @Scottydog made regarding the floodlights, they would have failed the Lux test required for this division unless they were upgraded, to this end they had to b done or we couldn't play.

[Rovers_Lad]

The tenancy agreement has obviously changed as used to be a tenants repairing lease and responsibility for pretty much everything lay with the club

[Scottydog]

14 minutes ago, Michael W said:

1, The landlord/tenant relationship in this situation is a bit different because Sim is effectively paying himself here. The stadium will struggle to cover its costs if the club has little/no income. 

2, In the event that we end up in the situation where the club is short for money again, my first answer is the same place any company should look - its shareholders and seek alternative means of finding when that fails. Clearly Sim feels otherwise about that, as is his right. The fans have done more than enough in the last six months for the club. 

3, My own view is that it's wrong to prioritise the stadium over the club, but then what do I know. That money spent now might well be needed at some point down the line. 

1, It is different as Sim sits on the board of both and is majority shareholder of 1 and outright owner of the other but one has the potential to make it's self money and the other loses money, not surprising he choses to invest in one but not the other. RRFC would struggle without getting to play at SP (not too long ago the BOD were asking about playing elsewhere) as to a degree would SPP if they lost RRFC but I think Raith Rovers would be far the worse off of the two.

2, I agree, but Sim is a business man who has made a career of administration and winding up failing companies, he sees them both primarily as businesses through the calculating eyes of an accountant, football clubs don't work like standard businesses, if they did every single club in Scotland would be in it's 3rd or 4th re-incarnation by now.

3, I agree wholeheartedly, but we have no say in the matter. If I have to put my hand in my pocket again I will.

[Scottydog]

7 minutes ago, Rovers_Lad said:

The tenancy agreement has obviously changed as used to be a tenants repairing lease and responsibility for pretty much everything lay with the club

It used to be and f Raith Rovers were sole users of the venue then that may have continued but it's now used by many, RRFC cannot be expected to pay for everything and the landlord to sit back and just take all the profits.

[Skyline Drifter]

5 minutes ago, Scottydog said:

2, I agree, but Sim is a business man who has made a career of administration and winding up failing companies, he sees them both primarily as businesses through the calculating eyes of an accountant, football clubs don't work like standard businesses, if they did every single club in Scotland would be in it's 3rd or 4th re-incarnation by now.

Whit? There are literally hundreds of thousands of businesses (companies even if you want to limit it to those) who have been around in their current incarnation since they started, some of them well over 100 years ago. That's complete gibberish.

I don't disagree with the notion that football is a pretty unique business and doesn't really work like other ones but the notion that other businesses just constantly change and re-start is utter nonsense.

[Scottydog]

When I want your opinion I'll ask for it.

 

Don't hold your breath,

[Michael W]

26 minutes ago, Zen Archer Esq. said:

To cover just one of the points that @Scottydog made regarding the floodlights, they would have failed the Lux test required for this division unless they were upgraded, to this end they had to b done or we couldn't play.

To be fair, necessary spend which I've no objection to. That simply cannot be delayed. 

5 minutes ago, Scottydog said:

1, It is different as Sim sits on the board of both and is majority shareholder of 1 and outright owner of the other but one has the potential to make it's self money and the other loses money, not surprising he choses to invest in one but not the other. RRFC would struggle without getting to play at SP (not too long ago the BOD were asking about playing elsewhere) as to a degree would SPP if they lost RRFC but I think Raith Rovers would be far the worse off of the two.

2, I agree, but Sim is a business man who has made a career of administration and winding up failing companies, he sees them both primarily as businesses through the calculating eyes of an accountant, football clubs don't work like standard businesses, if they did every single club in Scotland would be in it's 3rd or 4th re-incarnation by now.

3, I agree wholeheartedly, but we have no say in the matter. If I have to put my hand in my pocket again I will.

In respect of (1), I largely agree - losing the stadium entirely would screw us. We won't get a better deal than what we have now elsewhere, is the harsh reality there. 

On (2), I guess my (hopefully cynical) worry is that the club appears almost as a vehicle to service SPP, which clearly is the priority. I hadn't realised how bad the club's positionwas until today and, whilst a lot of it is owed to what I assume is SPP or Sim himself directly, it was nevertheless quite a shock to see that. The position is pretty awful to say the least.