Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:
Yes, it seems the trust membership part is the only one that led to changes in an effort to raise more money for the running of the club.
Perhaps they didn't get the answers they were looking for elsewhere?

It is only my opinion but for me that's the problem.

If you have a fans owned football club, and if you want those fans to make a financial commitment, whilst some fans might b e willing to fork out their hard earned when every sentence regarding how the club is run has to begin with perhaps, a sizeable proportion won't.

Only my opinion again that sizeable proportion is 80%.

You are right, it is only your opinion.
However, we are getting off the real point.
That point being that the club set themselves a target for revenue raised by the scheme, they surveyed supporters, both members and non-members on how to best achieve this. They took the results from the survey and have reached the target they set themselves. All in all I would say they met their objectives.
I'm not sure doing this again would produce a similar yield.

My point is this, 80% of County supporters are not members of the trust. Now you can take views on this. Firstly that the 20% is the best that can be achieved. Secondly that those supporters who are not paying in are to blame. Or thirdly the club need to engage with the 80%.

Now I am not suggesting my point is the only one, or the only valid one. What I am saying is that in my view the club fail to engage with the supporters and as a consequence miss out.

Seriously, have you noticed how often your response to anything I write is either to not answer by ignoring, or by saying it is irrelevant or not really the point.

I don't think that our club engage with the supporters adequately. Having three monthly meetings is a start in the right direction. But to be effective the club need to engage with the critics not those who think everything is fine.

And that's my view.

Let's not ignore the fact that the club did consult both the 20% and the 80% about 18 months ago, how frequently do you believe the club should be doing this?
By the way, the changes implemented following that consultation saw the number of people contributing fall but the total contribution increase almost three-fold so maybe it is less about how many contribute and more about how much? Ultimately, the club set a target and achieved it.
3 monthly(ish) open meetings, board members available to the public before most home matches, issued (albeit redacted) monthly board meeting minutes, countless hours of work in the community, what else would need to be added for you to be satisfied that the club is adequately engaging with supporters?
What would the club need to do for you to contribute?
How did you reply to the survey?
I do agree that the club needs to engage with critics, it also needs to know when to ignore them. It seems to do both pretty well in my opinion.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: If you can raise £100,000 from 1,000 committed supporters how much could you raise from 2,000 committed supporters?

Quite probably the same £100,000 or thereabouts in my opinion.

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote:Have to admit I missed the bit the club being valued at 5million. When was that valuation announced and by whom?

As I recall it was by Sean at the last open meeting.

Taunton Iron Cider wrote:

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote:Have to admit I missed the bit the club being valued at 5million. When was that valuation announced and by whom?

As I recall it was by Sean at the last open meeting.

Ok. Interesting . Thanks for that.
Of course you can value the club or anything else for as much as you like, but it's only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it.
Which to the best of my knowledge at the moment is precisely nothing.

Taunton Iron Cider wrote:

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote:Have to admit I missed the bit the club being valued at 5million. When was that valuation announced and by whom?

As I recall it was by Sean at the last open meeting.

Take that with a pinch of salt
Sean also said publicly that we made very little from the Wembley Spurs game!
Pluck a number out of the air.

paleale wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:

Frank Nouble 3 wrote:Amber.
Appreciate this is a private conversation between you and Stan again, but you never came back to me on "were the results of the poll made public"
Secondly what was the target that you say they have now reached.
Interested
Regards

Frank, I really should ignore Stan's nonsense but when I do he gets upset. I didn't notice your question about the results of the poll. They were presented at the open meeting in September 2018. The target that has now been reached was £100,000.

I don't get upset.

Just frustrated. If you can raise £100,000 from 1,000 committed supporters how much could you raise from 2,000 committed supporters?

All you can do is insult me. Those who read this board can decide who they think is right and who is wrong.

Get over yourself you big girls blouse.

Behave whoareya.

Frank Nouble 3 wrote:

Taunton Iron Cider wrote:

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote:Have to admit I missed the bit the club being valued at 5million. When was that valuation announced and by whom?

As I recall it was by Sean at the last open meeting.

Take that with a pinch of salt
Sean also said publicly that we made very little from the Wembley Spurs game!
Pluck a number out of the air.

Frank,
If Sean was talking about our cut of the gate money, I can understand why it would be less than some people might expect. From memory the gate was a shade under 39,000 and the ticket price was £10 (with concessions). So the gate receipts were probably £350,000-£400,000. Before we get our 45% cut of that, Spurs are allowed to take out the costs of staging the game which will include the renting of Wembley which I don't for a second imagine comes cheap. I think it likely that the FA got as much, if not more out of the game in rent as we got in our share of the net gate receipts. Compared to a sell out at Old Trafford at full prices, Spurs away that season was probably the least financially beneficial glamour tie available.
Great night all the same and whatever we did get was spent long ago.

Amberexile wrote:

Frank Nouble 3 wrote:

Taunton Iron Cider wrote:

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote:Have to admit I missed the bit the club being valued at 5million. When was that valuation announced and by whom?

As I recall it was by Sean at the last open meeting.

Take that with a pinch of salt
Sean also said publicly that we made very little from the Wembley Spurs game!
Pluck a number out of the air.

Frank,
If Sean was talking about our cut of the gate money, I can understand why it would be less than some people might expect. From memory the gate was a shade under 39,000 and the ticket price was £10 (with concessions). So the gate receipts were probably £350,000-£400,000. Before we get our 45% cut of that, Spurs are allowed to take out the costs of staging the game which will include the renting of Wembley which I don't for a second imagine comes cheap. I think it likely that the FA got as much, if not more out of the game in rent as we got in our share of the net gate receipts. Compared to a sell out at Old Trafford at full prices, Spurs away that season was probably the least financially beneficial glamour tie available.
Great night all the same and whatever we did get was spent long ago.

Do Newport County have to pay extra rent for Cup-ties at Rodney Parade? I don't know.
Do Spurs have to pay extra rent for Cup ties at Wembley? I don't know. If the answer to the above questions is yes, is that a cost which the FA allow to be deducted? Again I don't know.

Do you know for sure the answers to those questions Paul?

One of my memories of that Wembley match was vast number of stewards, programme sellers and general 'helpers' around the outside walkway. I doubt they were volunteering. I'm not in the least bit surprised there wasn't much spare money from ticket sales.

excessbee wrote:One of my memories of that Wembley match was vast number of stewards, programme sellers and general 'helpers' around the outside walkway. I doubt they were volunteering. I'm not in the least bit surprised there wasn't much spare money from ticket sales.

Those people selling the programmes would have been paid from the profits from the sale of programmes. The food vendors outside the ground would have paid a few bob for being allowed to sell their wares there. Wembley Stadium Limited would have had a choice. Standing empty or having 40,000 potential customers for beer at £8 a plastic bottle or a tenner for a sausage, a few fried potatoes and onions if you wanted them.

But as I say I don't know what if anything Wembley Stadium charged Spurs for putting on that game.

Do you?

I remember a large number of stewards and bar staff etc inside Wembley. At £10 pound a head I thought if the directors thought they were going to make any money from the tie they must have worst business sense than a labour politician! Nothing has changed.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:

Frank Nouble 3 wrote:

Taunton Iron Cider wrote:

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote:Have to admit I missed the bit the club being valued at 5million. When was that valuation announced and by whom?

As I recall it was by Sean at the last open meeting.

Take that with a pinch of salt
Sean also said publicly that we made very little from the Wembley Spurs game!
Pluck a number out of the air.

Frank,
If Sean was talking about our cut of the gate money, I can understand why it would be less than some people might expect. From memory the gate was a shade under 39,000 and the ticket price was £10 (with concessions). So the gate receipts were probably £350,000-£400,000. Before we get our 45% cut of that, Spurs are allowed to take out the costs of staging the game which will include the renting of Wembley which I don't for a second imagine comes cheap. I think it likely that the FA got as much, if not more out of the game in rent as we got in our share of the net gate receipts. Compared to a sell out at Old Trafford at full prices, Spurs away that season was probably the least financially beneficial glamour tie available.
Great night all the same and whatever we did get was spent long ago.

Do Newport County have to pay extra rent for Cup-ties at Rodney Parade? I don't know.
Do Spurs have to pay extra rent for Cup ties at Wembley? I don't know. If the answer to the above questions is yes, is that a cost which the FA allow to be deducted? Again I don't know.

Do you know for sure the answers to those questions Paul?

Do me the courtesy of answering my questions first

3 monthly(ish) open meetings, board members available to the public before most home matches, issued (albeit redacted) monthly board meeting minutes, countless hours of work in the community, what else would need to be added for you to be satisfied that the club is adequately engaging with supporters?
What would the club need to do for you to contribute?
How did you reply to the survey?

Amberexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:

Frank Nouble 3 wrote:

Taunton Iron Cider wrote:

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote:Have to admit I missed the bit the club being valued at 5million. When was that valuation announced and by whom?

As I recall it was by Sean at the last open meeting.

Take that with a pinch of salt
Sean also said publicly that we made very little from the Wembley Spurs game!
Pluck a number out of the air.

Frank,
If Sean was talking about our cut of the gate money, I can understand why it would be less than some people might expect. From memory the gate was a shade under 39,000 and the ticket price was £10 (with concessions). So the gate receipts were probably £350,000-£400,000. Before we get our 45% cut of that, Spurs are allowed to take out the costs of staging the game which will include the renting of Wembley which I don't for a second imagine comes cheap. I think it likely that the FA got as much, if not more out of the game in rent as we got in our share of the net gate receipts. Compared to a sell out at Old Trafford at full prices, Spurs away that season was probably the least financially beneficial glamour tie available.
Great night all the same and whatever we did get was spent long ago.

Do Newport County have to pay extra rent for Cup-ties at Rodney Parade? I don't know.
Do Spurs have to pay extra rent for Cup ties at Wembley? I don't know. If the answer to the above questions is yes, is that a cost which the FA allow to be deducted? Again I don't know.

Do you know for sure the answers to those questions Paul?

Do me the courtesy of answering my questions first

3 monthly(ish) open meetings, board members available to the public before most home matches, issued (albeit redacted) monthly board meeting minutes, countless hours of work in the community, what else would need to be added for you to be satisfied that the club is adequately engaging with supporters?
What would the club need to do for you to contribute?
How did you reply to the survey?

I have to say Frank, the chances of Amber' ever answering a question are somewhere between remote and none whatsoever.

I was brought up to believe that it was rude to answer a question with another question. There are exceptions to that. However Answer my questions first, is usually just rude.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

excessbee wrote:One of my memories of that Wembley match was vast number of stewards, programme sellers and general 'helpers' around the outside walkway. I doubt they were volunteering. I'm not in the least bit surprised there wasn't much spare money from ticket sales.

Those people selling the programmes would have been paid from the profits from the sale of programmes. The food vendors outside the ground would have paid a few bob for being allowed to sell their wares there. Wembley Stadium Limited would have had a choice. Standing empty or having 40,000 potential customers for beer at £8 a plastic bottle or a tenner for a sausage, a few fried potatoes and onions if you wanted them.

But as I say I don't know what if anything Wembley Stadium charged Spurs for putting on that game.

Do you?

I have no idea if programme profits pay for those selling them, or even if any profits accrued count towards the pot of money distributed to the clubs. I made no mention of food outlets. The possible drain on the 'pot' of security stewards and the young people offering directions, was my point of reference. That's the bit you have not addressed. In comparison, the number (per head of spectators) to a crowd of 10,000 (can't remember) at Rodney Parade was surely much higher.

Wembley stipulating staff numbers based on the number of tickets put on sale would make most sense. Steward numbers for the playoff final looked ridiculous and the ones we encountered looked bored stiff and couldn't answer simple questions about getting from A to B.

Wembley must have had Spurs over a barrel over usage, where else would they have gone?