By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Using what limited information is publicly available, you can get an appreciation of the black hole in the finances of the Dale.
Since last season we have lost around £650,000 premier league solidarity money and the income from the EFL trophy and EFL cup. Last season the club was losing money even with this funding.
For this season we have kept the full premier league RINGFENCED funding for the academy (£600,000?) and a full EFL league 2 payment (£550,000?). Next season if we do not get promoted these will drop by 50% so the club would lose at least another £500,000 of funding.
I think the chairman in the fans’ forum made a point something like if we didn’t have to pay players’ wages then we might be able to break even.
In other words, if around 2,500 paying fans turned up around 30 times per year and spent money in the bars and on refreshments and sat in the stadium for 2-3 hours watching a well-maintained empty football pitch or maybe an amateur team playing then the club could possibly break even.
The reason why is simple, the costs now of maintaining the ground and hosting football at the stadium for 2,500 fans is greater than the match day income generated from these fans.
For example, just looking at the energy costs as outlined at the last fans’ forum. If the same amount of energy is used this year as last, the bill under the new price deal will rise from around £60,000 to over £200,000.
£200,000 per year with an average attendance of 2,500 gives an energy price of £80 per fan per season. So, if a season card holder pays £100 for their ticket, £20 would go in VAT and the remainder towards the energy bill. Before there are any funds from matchday income to pay towards a a football squad there are also other costs to pay such as business rates, the ground and pitch maintenance and match day security.
There are really only three ways to increase the matchday income, raise entrance prices, get fans to spend more in the ground and increase the number of supporters.
I am hoping that the club can at least renegotiate its energy prices.
I still think that season card prices are too low and have been ever since the Russ Green “experiment”. Next season whatever the outcome I would raise them by £30 across the board for all over 16-year-olds.
The Dale have always used player development and (re)sale as part of the income / revenue of the club.
We currently have George Nevett making an impact at age 17 who is eventually likely to be sold to a club higher up the football pyramid.
In the Dale matches I’ve seen this season I have looked out for opposition youngsters that looked good, could possibly improve the current Dale squad AND be a potential profitable sell on later in their careers.
Two that looked promising to me were.
Oscar Rutherford (19) - Eastleigh. Played 38 matches for Eastleigh last season. He came on as a second half substitute at right back to shore up their defence and played quite well against Sinclair and later Efuye.
Thierry Ricky Everton Latty-Fairweather (20) - York. He came on as a second half substitute for York at left back. Seems to have a fair amount of pace.
Bought a match pass for £9.50. This let me watch live ALL the Tuesday evening fixtures, 9 national league matches and one each from from national league north and south.
Logged in on my phone selected a match and it easily cast to my TV.
I started by watching the first half of Altrincham vs Notts County. Notts County went in at half time with a one goal lead. I didn’t see the goal.
Notts County got a free kick on the edge of the area, Altrincham were busy setting up a wall and the camera was on them. Langstaff off camera asked the referee if he could take the free kick, obviously was told yes and just kicked the ball into the empty net for his 40th goal of the season.
Commentators didn’t see it and were bemused for a while as to how Notts County had scored.
Tyrese Sinclair was playing for Altrincham returning after missing 3 matches through injury.
Altrincham were playing a “weakened” team with 5 regulars missing as they have an Isuzu FA trophy (Non-league Papa John trophy equivalent) semi-final on Saturday against Halifax.
Second half I kept switching between matches. I found I could cast a match to my TV and then simultaneously watch another on my phone. Also found I could login on my laptop and watch a third match.
Camera angles varied a bit between the grounds like on iFollow. Some of the newer grounds like York had better angles and smoother camera work.
Overall, I think the National League TV streaming service is slightly better than iFollow, definitely easier to use.
Didn’t know where to post this so I started a new thread.
I didn’t want to travel all the way down to the Crawley for the yesterday’s match, and I didn’t really want to watch it on iFollow so I decided to do something different and I went to watch Chesterfield vs Halifax two of our possible opponents next season.
I just wanted to watch a football match with no stress, no afternoon of tension followed by disappointment and a hollow feeling in the pit of the stomach.
I also wanted to see if a striker called Quigley could score.
The match was quite good, not much difference in quality to league 2.
I don’t usually comment on individual players, I leave that to others. However ….
For Chesterfield.
Joe Quigley size wise was a like our Quigley, not quite as mobile but won and laid off more balls in the air. He didn’t score.
Ryan Colclough looked one of the more skilful pacy players on the pitch (for this division?).
Jones in midfield repeatedly passed the ball backwards and sideways, was the only player moaned at late on in the match with the fans shouting “forwards” even though they were two nil up at the time.
For Halifax.
Millenic Alli in the early part of the match looked strong, like a cross between Abraham Odoh and Kwadwo Baah but he frequently ran the ball out of play or lost possession and failed to pass a number of times when others were in good positions. Did not run back to help defence.
The overall atmosphere in the ground was positive.
Tickets cost £24 for adults (£2 cheaper if you buy online before the match day). Seemed to be a lot of people buying individual “on the day” match tickets. Season cards are expensive. Adults £378 - £462 depending on stand.
I attend virtually every home game and sit in the main stand. Over this season as I have looked across to the Pearl Street stand there appears to be fewer and fewer fans there. Those in the Pearl Street may look across at the main stand and think the same.
However, when the match attendance figures are announced the home support figure seems to stay steady.
Does anybody know how the attendance / home attendance figures are calculated? Is it actual numbers of people passing through the gates (tallied automatically) or is it the number of season card holders plus the number of match day tickets sold?
Next season, come what may, would it make economic sense to only sell season cards for the main stand and Sandy terrace and potentially mothball the Pearl Street, only to be used if we were to get a massive FA cup tie?
What do current season card holders think of this, in particular those who sit in the Pearl Street stand?
Next season, again no matter what league we are in, there is likely to be a need to reassess the prices of our season cards. I think that the price will have to at least remain the same or even be increased.
In January this year I looked at what the other clubs in league 2 charge for season cards and compared them to the Dale. In general, we were cheaper than all clubs except Salford, although it is difficult to directly compare as each club has its own age categories.
One thing that was evident was that whilst Dale has 5 main age categories, prices shown below for the main stand, most other clubs also have a category of “young adult” between youth and adult categories with a price located between the two.
Dale Prices Main Stand Young children Free Junior 11 and under £35.00 Youth 12 to 21 £85.00 Adult 22 to 64 £310.00 Senior 65 and over £260.00
Our problem is that a young person supporting the Dale when going from 21 to 22 years of age, sees an off-putting massive increase in season card price in a single jump from £85.00 to £310.00 which other clubs avoid.
To encourage our young adult supporters to remain loyal I would suggest that we too need a young adult category (22-25) even if it means slightly higher prices for the other categories. Any thoughts?
PS No, I wouldn’t fall into the young adult category, and it would be at least 7 years before any of my young Dale supporting relatives reach that age.
At the end of October, we change the from British summertime and the clocks move forward by an hour.
With the traditional Saturday 3 o’clock match kick off this means that most football matches are played at least for part of the game under floodlights.
With the price of electricity increasing dramatically and remembering that there is no price cap for businesses, should the EFL investigate the possibility of moving, at least in leagues 1 and 2, matches to an earlier 2 o’clock kick off to save on energy bills?
How much per hour does lighting the stadium cost?
How would this impact on home and away supporters?
Although I read this forum regularly, I only rarely post a comment.
Oddly, as this is Rochdale football club forum, I don’t think I have ever actually posted any comments about football at the COA, the style of play or performance of the team (I would only be repeating other’s remarks).
My comments have all been about off field matters, and this post, though it mentions football in general, is again more about an off-field matter.
As this is going to be a long post, I will try to break it down into readable parts.
Whilst watching a frustrating, boring, poor entertainment football match with lots of annoying and ever increasing “game management” tactics (which I think is just a euphemism for cheating) some of us were discussing what rule changes could be made to stop or at least reduce this.
I was reminded of a discussion on TV a few years back by a panel of football pundits about rule changes that had occurred during their careers that they thought were improvements and the only two they could all agree on were:
1. 3 points for a win (not really a football rule but a change that improved the game.) 2. The back pass rule that stopped keepers from picking up the ball.
They did also mention the rule of a yellow card for taking off your shirt during a goal celebration. Opinion was split on this, but they all agreed that it was clear cut and one of the easiest newer rules to understand. If you took your shirt off you would be booked, no referee interpretation or opinion needed.
I then started thinking what other clear cut rule changes that could be introduced to reduce the irritating so called “game management” tactics employed by clubs including the Dale.
My suggestion would be
If a free kick or throw in has been awarded to a team, then any opposition player (including off field substitutes, team managers and support staff) who subsequently deliberately touches the ball before the free kick or throw in has been taken are to receive an instant yellow card.
This could be a player holding onto the ball, kicking, or throwing the ball away or even “passing the ball” back to the opposing team. Make the rule very simple and clear cut if a free kick / throw in has been awarded against your team you do not touch the ball for ANY reason until after the free kick or throw in has been taken. If you do then it is an instant yellow card, with no interpretation or opinion by the referee.
Does anyone else have suggestions for rule changes they would like to see implemented?
I understand that you may read messages on this forum so perhaps you could answer these questions below.
A basic business rule is that annual income needs to be greater than annual expenditure. If you spend more money than you bring in, then eventually you will go bust Bury style.
In “your” business plan for RAFC you talk about investment from an outside source by selling for £6 a share the remaining unissued and possibly new shares in RAFC.
How did you arrive at the price of £6 a share? This seems overly optimistic for shares in a company that virtually guarantees you zero return on investment. The only people who would be interested in such an investment are ardent RAFC fans with spare cash, and then probably not at that price.
There are currently around 400,000 unissued RAFC shares and the proposal from EGM 2020 is to increase these to 700,000. Using share prices of £2 and £6 a share, this will raise either £800,000 to £1.4m or £2.4m to £4.2m.
This capital raised is then planned to be used to acquire (our own) training facilities, employ a director of football and to improve the playing squad (increase playing budget?).
All these are extra annual expenditures. Where is any increased annual income to offset these going to come from?
Without an increased income, once this capital injection has been spent you will then be left in the situation that you have increased outgoings with no increased income to pay for them.
The only way of then raising the funds needed is looking for another capital investment or by mortgaging the assets, the ground and training facilities (The Bury model).
I understand that the team needs good training facilities, but do we need to actually own these?
By owning the club’s training facilities, are they not another annual expenditure (maintenance, staffing, business rates) or is there something in the plan to raise extra off field income from the club owned training facilities? If so what and how feasible are these?
I have a question about the income from iFollow away matches. I have used two examples and what I understand to be the case.
Example 1. Local away derby: North West FC vs Rochdale. Over previous seasons average away match attendance at North West FC is 1,000 Rochdale fans. Actual number of £10 iFollow passes for away match against North West FC purchased by Rochdale fans on club website is 800 giving an income of £8,000 As the number of iFollow passes purchased on the Rochdale website is less than the usual average away following then all the income goes to the home club, North West FC. Rochdale receive none.
Example 2. Away match : Down South FC vs Rochdale. Over previous seasons average away match attendance at Down South FC is 200 Rochdale fans. Actual number of £10 iFollow passes for away match against Down South FC purchased by Rochdale fans on club website is 800 giving an income of £8,000 As the number of iFollow passes now exceeds the usual away attendance the home club receive £2,000 (200 X £10) and Rochdale F.C. receive the balance of £6,000 (600 X £10).
Is my understanding correct? Are Rochdale more likely to receive a higher away income from distant matches which usually have a low away dale fan following?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
