| The Bigger Cost? 13:10 - Feb 20 with 9444 views | Toffeemanc |
After watching last nights game and the gutting end result I've started thinking about next season. I'm convinced after last night that we will be in League Two next season as no team who defends like we do could ever hope to stay up.
With seemingly more fans than ever prepared to ditch Hill I started to wonder If we are relegated about the financial implications of the drop.
I know dropping into League Two will see us receive significantly less TV revenue than staying in League one and obviously a playing budget to match.
If the board decided to sack Hill we would also need to pay him off which would be a substantial amount for the club.
I'm genuinely left wondering one question, which would cost the club more?
Is the drop in TV revenues big enough for the board to consider sacking Hill now and paying him off in the hope of avoiding the drop and staying in league one and having the higher TV revenues for next season, some of which would no doubt be spent towards Hills payoff.
Or is the cost of paying Hill off going to cost the club more than the drop in TV revenues and therefore the board will stick with him as he would be happy to operate on a further reduced budget in League Two next season.
I've no idea personally of the figures involved so find it hard to make a judgement one way or the other, but was left wondering if anybody else has any knowledge / thoughts on the situation.
|  |
| |  |
| The Bigger Cost? on 18:08 - Feb 21 with 1867 views | kel |
Pats on the head all round
Balls edit - didn’t want to respond to the patronising post directly but as it went to a second page it could possibly be misconstrued as a reply to summat else. [Post edited 21 Feb 2019 18:12]
|  | | |
| The Bigger Cost? on 18:20 - Feb 21 with 1818 views | funkkk |
| The Bigger Cost? on 17:54 - Feb 21 by WhiteyBFC |
Keith Hill has worked wonders for Rochdale AFC, he's had you competing a division higher than you ought to be. You are well-run financially, considering your gates and other revenue streams, it's commendable. But it seems it's become harder the last couple of years to compete, hence the survival battles.
I know Keith can rub folk up the wrong way, but it's awful to read so much negativity about him on here, considering everything he's achieved for you over the years. It screams Wenger and Arsenal. Where you're ignoring all the good and focusing on the bad.
From the outside, but knowing the respective budgets of each club and other factors, you're about where I'd expect you to be, under Keith. With another manager, I fear you'd be worse off.
Your noisy neighbours who get the bigger crowds, better history, more budget, they're generally behind you in terms of division/results in the last decade.
Dare to dream by all means, but remain grounded in reality too. Your club's made progress. Made it under Keith's watch. Right now you're a level above where most would place you. Support the manager, players and club in remaining so.
Then assess everything. |
With all due respect you are, as you say, looking at it from the outside. It's been 2 years of crap. Crap signings, crap long contracts to crap players, crap defence and on top of all this a CRAP attitude from the man who is responsible.
Crappy, crap.
Proper crap 💩💩 |  | | |
| The Bigger Cost? on 18:27 - Feb 21 with 1793 views | rochdaleriddler |
| The Bigger Cost? on 17:54 - Feb 21 by WhiteyBFC |
Keith Hill has worked wonders for Rochdale AFC, he's had you competing a division higher than you ought to be. You are well-run financially, considering your gates and other revenue streams, it's commendable. But it seems it's become harder the last couple of years to compete, hence the survival battles.
I know Keith can rub folk up the wrong way, but it's awful to read so much negativity about him on here, considering everything he's achieved for you over the years. It screams Wenger and Arsenal. Where you're ignoring all the good and focusing on the bad.
From the outside, but knowing the respective budgets of each club and other factors, you're about where I'd expect you to be, under Keith. With another manager, I fear you'd be worse off.
Your noisy neighbours who get the bigger crowds, better history, more budget, they're generally behind you in terms of division/results in the last decade.
Dare to dream by all means, but remain grounded in reality too. Your club's made progress. Made it under Keith's watch. Right now you're a level above where most would place you. Support the manager, players and club in remaining so.
Then assess everything. |
People are supporting the club, whilst being critical on here, nowt wrong with that. |  |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 18:35 - Feb 21 with 1778 views | 442Dale |
| The Bigger Cost? on 17:54 - Feb 21 by WhiteyBFC |
Keith Hill has worked wonders for Rochdale AFC, he's had you competing a division higher than you ought to be. You are well-run financially, considering your gates and other revenue streams, it's commendable. But it seems it's become harder the last couple of years to compete, hence the survival battles.
I know Keith can rub folk up the wrong way, but it's awful to read so much negativity about him on here, considering everything he's achieved for you over the years. It screams Wenger and Arsenal. Where you're ignoring all the good and focusing on the bad.
From the outside, but knowing the respective budgets of each club and other factors, you're about where I'd expect you to be, under Keith. With another manager, I fear you'd be worse off.
Your noisy neighbours who get the bigger crowds, better history, more budget, they're generally behind you in terms of division/results in the last decade.
Dare to dream by all means, but remain grounded in reality too. Your club's made progress. Made it under Keith's watch. Right now you're a level above where most would place you. Support the manager, players and club in remaining so.
Then assess everything. |
There are plenty of good points there: we are certainly roundabout where we should be, and you'd struggle to find any sensible Dale fan who isn't realistic about accepting that we couldn't always look towards the top end of the table. Those same fans would never dismiss what Hill has achieved previously either, it's done with the hope that things will change as they did from February onwards last season and he'll add another achievement to the list.
However it cannot be stressed enough that the current failings on the pitch are down to the manager, to the point where fans are struggling to see what the overall plan is to move forward. I could go on forever but it's summed up by a simple example: we have a squad that was already far too large that now has seven loan players after it had been clearly stated “I don’t want to get caught in the situation where I’ve got six or seven loan signings and two have to sit in the stand. I don’t think that’s good for the vibe of the squad and the Football Club."
I've assessed it, we could and should be remembering what's worked. Collecting so many players who offer the same level of mediocrity is not why we've made so much progress. Nor has been the inability to address problems that have existed over a period of time. That's why there's some perceived "negativity", no arguing that it exists. But the reason it does is not down to fans who expect too much, they just want to see that progess continue and the one person who can change things to do so. |  |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 18:38 - Feb 21 with 1769 views | Cleedale |
Posted this way back when. Think the figures are correct until the end of this season 18/19. They include current payments from TV/League/Solidarity plus a flat-rate across all teams that's about £180,000 for Youth Development per season but will stand corrected.
Almost certain a new deal starts in 2019/20 - again possibly 3 years. Think all it might do is drive a bigger wedge between Championship and the also-rans.
Imho The Championship has become the old Div 1 and Conference the old Div 4 (but the latter only minimally funded through EFL). Prem is almost a separate entity employing many of the world's best players in 'theatre' SKY.
"In terms of overall financial distributions, all League clubs receive a share of what is called 'basic award' which encompasses broadcasting revenue, which for the current 16/17 season is as follows:
Basic Award (per club)
Championship - £2,034,000
League 1 - £702,000
League 2 - £472,000
Each club receives the same amount. There are no ladder payments depending on where clubs finish. However in addition, the EFL and Premier League have a separate agreement with regards to solidarity payments. Currently all clubs in the EFL therefore also receive a share of the solidarity money as follows:
Solidarity (per club)
Championship - £4,300,000
League 1 - £645,000
League 2 - £430,000
Aside from this clubs earn revenue through ticket sales, matchday income and non-matchday income streams. For any further specific information please contact clubs directly". |  | | |
| The Bigger Cost? on 18:43 - Feb 21 with 1738 views | James1980 |
Is there another version to the Ant(i) Hill Mob. Which started with missing out on the playoffs in the 2016/17 season? | |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 19:04 - Feb 21 with 1700 views | macro |
The last 2 years have been abysmal, cup run last year aside. Tactically left behind. Fingers have to be pointed at KH and his coaching team. |  | | |
| The Bigger Cost? on 19:19 - Feb 21 with 1668 views | James1980 |
| The Bigger Cost? on 19:04 - Feb 21 by macro |
The last 2 years have been abysmal, cup run last year aside. Tactically left behind. Fingers have to be pointed at KH and his coaching team. |
Is it budgets in League 1 have increased leading to other clubs having better players and managers? Hill's tactics have been sussed? Dale despite spending more money cannot afford the players to really make a difference? Or combination of all 3 and maybe more? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Bigger Cost? on 19:58 - Feb 21 with 1604 views | sweetcorn |
| The Bigger Cost? on 16:26 - Feb 21 by rochdaleriddler |
All signed by Hill............ |
Yes, thats exactly what I said in my opening line.. |  |
| Leader of the little gang of immature cretins. |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 20:04 - Feb 21 with 1592 views | James1980 |
| The Bigger Cost? on 16:26 - Feb 21 by rochdaleriddler |
All signed by Hill............ |
The best we could afford/attract? | |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 20:11 - Feb 21 with 1581 views | 442Dale |
| The Bigger Cost? on 20:04 - Feb 21 by James1980 |
The best we could afford/attract? |
Sorry James, the budget is the least of our problems. If it was a real issue we wouldn’t be in League One today.
We have attracted and been able to afford a player of the calibre of Zach Clough, twice. Yesterday he was scoring a penalty for our reserves after not being in the squad the night before. | |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 20:48 - Feb 21 with 1540 views | James1980 |
| The Bigger Cost? on 20:11 - Feb 21 by 442Dale |
Sorry James, the budget is the least of our problems. If it was a real issue we wouldn’t be in League One today.
We have attracted and been able to afford a player of the calibre of Zach Clough, twice. Yesterday he was scoring a penalty for our reserves after not being in the squad the night before. |
Hazarding a guess due to Lillis being out Lonergan is the first name on the team sheet leaving 4 loan players. Hamilton and Ebanks- Landell have shown their worth leaving 2 other loanee slots. Left Back has been a bug bear hence Bunney's selection, leaving 1 slot for a loan player. Hill went with Pyke on Tuesday it looked like the right choice after the first half with Reikell scoring and us being 2-1 up. Who knows if Clough had been picked instead we could have been out off sight, but as I am frequently told 'If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.
On a side note is the fact we have reattracted Clough mean Hill is not the ogre some on here have claimed he is and how much is Zach actually costing us in wages? | |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 20:54 - Feb 21 with 1536 views | funkkk |
| The Bigger Cost? on 19:19 - Feb 21 by James1980 |
Is it budgets in League 1 have increased leading to other clubs having better players and managers? Hill's tactics have been sussed? Dale despite spending more money cannot afford the players to really make a difference? Or combination of all 3 and maybe more? |
Put it more simply, has Hill been afforded a bigger budget this season than last? Yes. Have we learnt anything, worked on and improved from last season? No. Is Hill running out of credit on his emotional bank account with Dale fans? Yes. Does his behaviour towards fans / media make anybody like or even respect him? No. Is he going to turn it around...? | | | |
| The Bigger Cost? on 21:09 - Feb 21 with 1515 views | James1980 |
| The Bigger Cost? on 20:54 - Feb 21 by funkkk |
Put it more simply, has Hill been afforded a bigger budget this season than last? Yes. Have we learnt anything, worked on and improved from last season? No. Is Hill running out of credit on his emotional bank account with Dale fans? Yes. Does his behaviour towards fans / media make anybody like or even respect him? No. Is he going to turn it around...? |
Our budget may have increased but how does that compare to the rest of the league? | |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 21:16 - Feb 21 with 1491 views | kel |
| The Bigger Cost? on 21:09 - Feb 21 by James1980 |
Our budget may have increased but how does that compare to the rest of the league? |
We’ll not find out until Whitey pops over again to tell us how lucky we all are. | | | |
| The Bigger Cost? on 21:23 - Feb 21 with 1477 views | richfoad32 |
| The Bigger Cost? on 20:48 - Feb 21 by James1980 |
Hazarding a guess due to Lillis being out Lonergan is the first name on the team sheet leaving 4 loan players. Hamilton and Ebanks- Landell have shown their worth leaving 2 other loanee slots. Left Back has been a bug bear hence Bunney's selection, leaving 1 slot for a loan player. Hill went with Pyke on Tuesday it looked like the right choice after the first half with Reikell scoring and us being 2-1 up. Who knows if Clough had been picked instead we could have been out off sight, but as I am frequently told 'If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.
On a side note is the fact we have reattracted Clough mean Hill is not the ogre some on here have claimed he is and how much is Zach actually costing us in wages? |
Pyke didn't score though? Apart from that I thought he looked promising, gave us an aerial outlet from goal kicks that we might otherwise have lacked without Calvin and looked to take players on. Faded a bit second half and had a 1 on 1 opportunity saved but definitely deserves another chance.
Shame for Holden that he is missing out as he didn't do a lot wrong either and what is going on with Clough is anybody's guess. | | | |
| The Bigger Cost? on 21:23 - Feb 21 with 1471 views | funkkk |
| The Bigger Cost? on 21:09 - Feb 21 by James1980 |
Our budget may have increased but how does that compare to the rest of the league? |
Who the f*** knows? I don't think it's unreasonable to expect progress from last season, seemingly you do? | | | |
| The Bigger Cost? on 21:25 - Feb 21 with 1464 views | 442Dale |
| The Bigger Cost? on 20:48 - Feb 21 by James1980 |
Hazarding a guess due to Lillis being out Lonergan is the first name on the team sheet leaving 4 loan players. Hamilton and Ebanks- Landell have shown their worth leaving 2 other loanee slots. Left Back has been a bug bear hence Bunney's selection, leaving 1 slot for a loan player. Hill went with Pyke on Tuesday it looked like the right choice after the first half with Reikell scoring and us being 2-1 up. Who knows if Clough had been picked instead we could have been out off sight, but as I am frequently told 'If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.
On a side note is the fact we have reattracted Clough mean Hill is not the ogre some on here have claimed he is and how much is Zach actually costing us in wages? |
I get why Clough wasn’t involved, but we were in that situation because of the way the manager chose to recruit. That was my point. | |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 21:35 - Feb 21 with 1436 views | James1980 |
| The Bigger Cost? on 21:23 - Feb 21 by funkkk |
Who the f*** knows? I don't think it's unreasonable to expect progress from last season, seemingly you do? |
Expect and demand are two very different things though. | |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 21:45 - Feb 21 with 1416 views | DaleFan7 |
| The Bigger Cost? on 21:09 - Feb 21 by James1980 |
Our budget may have increased but how does that compare to the rest of the league? |
Can we just opt for relegation to National League North so all this talk of budgets can just stop? We are where we are on merit, due to KH. We'll be where we are next season in League Two because of KH, also. | | | |
| The Bigger Cost? on 21:45 - Feb 21 with 1416 views | SunningDale |
| The Bigger Cost? on 21:25 - Feb 21 by 442Dale |
I get why Clough wasn’t involved, but we were in that situation because of the way the manager chose to recruit. That was my point. |
Absolutely no point trying to make him see that his God-like Keith Hill might possibly have messed up....best to drop it. | |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 22:23 - Feb 21 with 1363 views | 49thseason |
| The Bigger Cost? on 21:09 - Feb 21 by James1980 |
Our budget may have increased but how does that compare to the rest of the league? |
This season we are averaging an attendance of 3414 per game against a league average of 8500, last season we averaged 3503. and had the second-worst attendance figures in League 1. Self evidently clubs with attendances averaging over 10,000 have a huge financial advantage. Lack of money is an ongoing problem as the poor attendance of one season becomes the weaker recruitment of the next.
We are in a downward spiral which will only stop when either the money increases significantly and over many years or we play at a much lower level. Cheaper season tickets have proved only one thing; that there is no appetite for watching Rochdale AFC play football beyond the 3000 diehards and semi irregulars. If we had played in L2 last season we would have had the 9th worst attendance figures.
There are over 80 employees who need paying, there are players on contracts that are too high for their performance levels and players who deserve more money but who will not get a raise. The Hogan windfall has taken away a tranche of debt but the stadium and pitch continually need money spending on their upkeep.
In a nutshell every item of expenditure has to come from a relatively fixed budget. the budget for players simply does not match the sort of money that teams with 10,000+ average attendances have to spend. Relegation may well cost half a million in lost revenues and we will still not be in the top half of attendances in L2 so, in reality, the sums don't change, we can plug some of that shortfall from transfer fees this year but it does not fix the root problem.
Growing our own players is a good idea but it's a bit like owning an allotment, you may well get an occasional glut in terms of a saleable player but it's not every year and it's not entirely predictable. and you still have to go to Tesco to do some shopping.
Without another 2-3-4000 regular supporters, we are locked in a situation we cannot escape from. 5000 fans on Tuesday would have made a huge difference, but as it stands, the ground is funereal, the team is inadequate to the task, and the Board are insufficiently wealthy to throw money at it. Rochdale AFC is moving in the exact opposite direction to the majority of clubs by standing still, we are relatively weaker with each season that passes and yes some teams, even this team, may well have moments in the sunshine, but the truth is that eventually money talks and lack of it results in slow deaths.
As with the town, so with the club . The average annual wage in Rochdale is about £18,600, about £8k less than the national average. in simple terms, there is next to no disposable income and whilst the club has cheap season tickets and gets a lump sum at the start of each season, the occasional football watcher has to pay £17+ on the night and decides that watching Champions League in the pub, a couple of pints and £10 saved is a better prospect... hardly a surprise!
I have stood on these terraces man and boy for sixty years, little has really changed, expectations are regularly dashed, players mostly don't live up to their promise. The board are still butchers and bakers and candlestick makers in the main. It's obvious we will be relegated at some stage, its a matter of when not if. And it may well be easier to put a decent side together in L2 that lasts a couple of good seasons in L1 but then the grind of inevitability sets in and the downward trend is re-established.
KH said some time ago that we need someone to put £2m a year into the club, he should have added: "for the next 25 years". Sadly, unpicking nearly 100 years of dross and failure will take time and money we do not have. |  | | |
| The Bigger Cost? on 22:43 - Feb 21 with 1332 views | D_Alien |
| The Bigger Cost? on 22:23 - Feb 21 by 49thseason |
This season we are averaging an attendance of 3414 per game against a league average of 8500, last season we averaged 3503. and had the second-worst attendance figures in League 1. Self evidently clubs with attendances averaging over 10,000 have a huge financial advantage. Lack of money is an ongoing problem as the poor attendance of one season becomes the weaker recruitment of the next.
We are in a downward spiral which will only stop when either the money increases significantly and over many years or we play at a much lower level. Cheaper season tickets have proved only one thing; that there is no appetite for watching Rochdale AFC play football beyond the 3000 diehards and semi irregulars. If we had played in L2 last season we would have had the 9th worst attendance figures.
There are over 80 employees who need paying, there are players on contracts that are too high for their performance levels and players who deserve more money but who will not get a raise. The Hogan windfall has taken away a tranche of debt but the stadium and pitch continually need money spending on their upkeep.
In a nutshell every item of expenditure has to come from a relatively fixed budget. the budget for players simply does not match the sort of money that teams with 10,000+ average attendances have to spend. Relegation may well cost half a million in lost revenues and we will still not be in the top half of attendances in L2 so, in reality, the sums don't change, we can plug some of that shortfall from transfer fees this year but it does not fix the root problem.
Growing our own players is a good idea but it's a bit like owning an allotment, you may well get an occasional glut in terms of a saleable player but it's not every year and it's not entirely predictable. and you still have to go to Tesco to do some shopping.
Without another 2-3-4000 regular supporters, we are locked in a situation we cannot escape from. 5000 fans on Tuesday would have made a huge difference, but as it stands, the ground is funereal, the team is inadequate to the task, and the Board are insufficiently wealthy to throw money at it. Rochdale AFC is moving in the exact opposite direction to the majority of clubs by standing still, we are relatively weaker with each season that passes and yes some teams, even this team, may well have moments in the sunshine, but the truth is that eventually money talks and lack of it results in slow deaths.
As with the town, so with the club . The average annual wage in Rochdale is about £18,600, about £8k less than the national average. in simple terms, there is next to no disposable income and whilst the club has cheap season tickets and gets a lump sum at the start of each season, the occasional football watcher has to pay £17+ on the night and decides that watching Champions League in the pub, a couple of pints and £10 saved is a better prospect... hardly a surprise!
I have stood on these terraces man and boy for sixty years, little has really changed, expectations are regularly dashed, players mostly don't live up to their promise. The board are still butchers and bakers and candlestick makers in the main. It's obvious we will be relegated at some stage, its a matter of when not if. And it may well be easier to put a decent side together in L2 that lasts a couple of good seasons in L1 but then the grind of inevitability sets in and the downward trend is re-established.
KH said some time ago that we need someone to put £2m a year into the club, he should have added: "for the next 25 years". Sadly, unpicking nearly 100 years of dross and failure will take time and money we do not have. |
But apart from that, why can't we take a decent throw-in? |  |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 05:06 - Feb 22 with 1186 views | James1980 |
Let's get something straight I don't think Hill is a deity. But, I also don't believe that the current malaise is 100% down to him. That changing the manager at this stage will make little or no difference to our league position on 4th May and be a cost the club cannot really afford | |
| |
| The Bigger Cost? on 05:54 - Feb 22 with 1171 views | pioneer |
| The Bigger Cost? on 21:09 - Feb 21 by James1980 |
Our budget may have increased but how does that compare to the rest of the league? |
it’s more than our neighbours to the north and they are playing far better football and getting far better results. it really isn’t about budgets...ask chalky | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
