Season Card Q&A

[Chizno1]

I'm glad you've got the transcripts, was driving me mad knowing the story that unfolded wasn't how it was originally presented but without going through every single podcast there was no way of proving it.

Like you say, either they've lied from the start or told the truth then lied later down the line. Doesn't paint them in a good light either way.

I'd be more inclined to agree with you given we only have Methven's word from a meeting after they'd told a different story for over a year. But I can't prove that one way or another.

There's been bits and pieces (admittedly on here and on Twitter) from people connected to the other groups who were interested who say the deal SD and CM claim they got wasn't available to them. Plus the £1 Sartori deal. It just doesn't add up.

Haha, no I don't have the transcripts, I have typed the relevant sections (I can type quickly!) whilst listening to them. I did this because it was driving me mad as well.

 

[sksk3021]

Haha, no I don't have the transcripts, I have typed the relevant sections (I can type quickly!) whilst listening to them. I did this because it was driving me mad as well.

Good work!

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Was FL permission given on the understanding the PP money was going straight to ES or did the FL believe at the time of approval that the charlatan triplets were going to pay him from their own pockets? I’m sure that post Glazer/Utd using a clubs own money to buy it was against football rules n regs.

No one knows. They may have seen the sale agreement, I don't know. If the deal was in two parts, one covering the shares, and the other covering the loan element, then there is no question of the club's money being used for the shares. The only way anyone will ever know is if that sale agreement becomes public.

 

[Gaz]

No one knows. They may have seen the sale agreement, I don't know. If the deal was in two parts, one covering the shares, and the other covering the loan element, then there is no question of the club's money being used for the shares. The only way anyone will ever know is if that sale agreement becomes public.

i know you’ve not seen this years accounts, but gut feeling how much damage will a large drop in season card sales be on club income? If they lose say 30-40% from last year how big a problem is it

 

[martinlumley]

Well, the only truth is that nobody knows for certain except those who have seen the sale agreement. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but judging by the actions of the owners it is my opinion that the simplest explanation is they saw a way to use the clubs money to pay off Madrox's financial obligations to Short, and when pulled up on it created the narrative that it was always how the deal was structured.

Why not just say in the beginning when specifically asked about the parachute payments that they were going to Short? Why not acknowledge the purchase price was £15 million, not the £40 million they were claiming to have paid?

Regarding the initial podcasts, I would say that on the whole the story didn't really change. There were more details given each time they were pressed on the structure of the deal, but the message that it was them who owed Short and the club was not on the hook for anything was consistent.

The owners are held in the regard that their actions have warranted. As I have said on here previously, people were still able to ignore all the other issues - the berating of the fans, the poor appointments, the academy issues, the recruitment issues, even the poor finishing positions over the past seasons - and were willing to renew season tickets and forgo refunds for this season until the club released the ST update statements and Q&A. The tone of the statement and the attempt to frame not even offering refunds as a) legal and b) actually doing us a favour means that they have lost the little goodwill they had left.

I would suggest that if the only way to defend the owners is to highlight that they are liars, then maybe they don't deserve your defence.

Surely they wouldn't want to acknowledge the purchase price was £15m, not the £40m claimed, because they knew fine well they were going to flip it ASAP and be asking well over the £40 m for it?

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

i know you’ve not seen this years accounts, but gut feeling how much damage will a large drop in season card sales be on club income? If they lose say 30-40% from last year how big a problem is it

Every 1,000 off season card sales reduces turnover by about £300-350k (allowing for different price bands and deducting VAT). 30% of last years ticket sales is around 7,200 cards, so around £2.5m. That means an reduction of £1.5m in our allowable wage bill (even if there are no changes in the salary cap rules), and most likely a trading loss. It'd a huge problem.

Surely they wouldn't want to acknowledge the purchase price was £15m, not the £40m claimed, because they knew fine well they were going to flip it ASAP and be asking well over the £40 m for it?

Anyone doing due diligence will want to see that agreement if they're doing it right.

 

[Guinness Guzzler]

Every 1,000 off season card sales reduces turnover by about £300-350k (allowing for different price bands and deducting VAT). 30% of last years ticket sales is around 7,200 cards, so around £2.5m. That means an reduction of £1.5m in our allowable wage bill (even if there are no changes in the salary cap rules), and most likely a trading loss. It'd a huge problem.

Bearing that in mind can you see any reason for their current strategy (such as it is?). There seems to be no reason for making an "offer" which means that literally every season card holder will be better off if they cancel and pay stream by stream then renew at a later date. I'd have thought it was vital for them to get people to keep their direct debits in place (even if a bit of it was repaid later) rather than giving them every reason to cancel when they know full well that many will drift away

 

[Gaz]

Every 1,000 off season card sales reduces turnover by about £300-350k (allowing for different price bands and deducting VAT). 30% of last years ticket sales is around 7,200 cards, so around £2.5m. That means an reduction of £1.5m in our allowable wage bill (even if there are no changes in the salary cap rules), and most likely a trading loss. It'd a huge problem.


Anyone doing due diligence will want to see that agreement if they're doing it right.

thanks, makes their statement on season cards even stranger imo.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Bearing that in mind can you see any reason for their current strategy (such as it is?). There seems to be no reason for making an "offer" which means that literally every season card holder will be better off if they cancel and pay stream by stream then renew at a later date. I'd have thought it was vital for them to get people to keep their direct debits in place (even if a bit of it was repaid later) rather than giving them every reason to cancel when they know full well that many will drift away

I can't answer that. To be honest, all they need to do is add away games to the stream, and it becomes cost effective for most card holders (46 games at £10/stream). There's a residual problem with some smaller groups (those who can't stream, multiple card households and premium band card holders), but that's far more manageable.

 

[Sumdumgi]

Bearing that in mind can you see any reason for their current strategy (such as it is?). There seems to be no reason for making an "offer" which means that literally every season card holder will be better off if they cancel and pay stream by stream then renew at a later date. I'd have thought it was vital for them to get people to keep their direct debits in place (even if a bit of it was repaid later) rather than giving them every reason to cancel when they know full well that many will drift away

One thing about this ‘strategy’ struck me. If 20000 cancel then the crowds are back in the latter part of the year people will be buying part-season tickets for cash, not on DD. In terms of a quick cash injection after virtually no income there must be some advantage to the Club ?

 

[Guinness Guzzler]

I can't answer that. To be honest, all they need to do is add away games to the stream, and it becomes cost effective for most card holders (46 games at £10/stream). There's a residual problem with some smaller groups (those who can't stream, multiple card households and premium band card holders), but that's far more manageable.

Yeah, like you say there would still be numerous issues (not least the massive disparity between the prices people would be effectively paying for a stream) but it would have been a start. To turn it down so bluntly just strikes me as a Methven move, looking purely at the money and thinking season card holders will likely be the ones who will also pay for the away streams so he wants that as a separate revenue stream. Its a massive misjudgement because its a simple rule of season cards that (assuming they can watch every match that it covers) no one who commits up front should end up out of pocket compared to those who don't!

One thing about this ‘strategy’ struck me. If 20000 cancel then the crowds are back in the latter part of the year people will be buying part-season tickets for cash, not on DD. In terms of a quick cash injection after virtually no income there must be some advantage to the Club ?

Could be right, although I think the third payment is 1st September so, assuming fans aren't back straight away, they'd have 3/4 of the money by then anyway (the last payment was 1st November iirc) so any advantage would be minimal at best. And obviously any advantage would be offset by having almost no major cash flow until whenever fans can come back which could be months away, and by the fact that many will be annoyed by this move and might well not bother coming back. I've really tried to think of an advantage, just to give them the benefit of not automatically assuming they're a set of muppets, but I'm coming up blank!

 

[samaistonsrightfoot]

I can't answer that. To be honest, all they need to do is add away games to the stream, and it becomes cost effective for most card holders (46 games at £10/stream). There's a residual problem with some smaller groups (those who can't stream, multiple card households and premium band card holders), but that's far more manageable.

46 streams was £110 last year. Not £10 per game mind so still not sure why a ST holder should pay 3-4 times that just for a 'cheap/average' seat.

Yeah, like you say there would still be numerous issues (not least the massive disparity between the prices people would be effectively paying for a stream) but it would have been a start. To turn it down so bluntly just strikes me as a Methven move, looking purely at the money and thinking season card holders will likely be the ones who will also pay for the away streams so he wants that as a separate revenue stream. Its a massive misjudgement because its a simple rule of season cards that (assuming they can watch every match that it covers) no one who commits up front should end up out of pocket compared to those who don't!


Could be right, although I think the third payment is 1st September so, assuming fans aren't back straight away, they'd have 3/4 of the money by then anyway (the last payment was 1st November iirc) so any advantage would be minimal at best. And obviously any advantage would be offset by having almost no major cash flow until whenever fans can come back which could be months away, and by the fact that many will be annoyed by this move and might well not bother coming back. I've really tried to think of an advantage, just to give them the benefit of not automatically assuming they're a set of muppets, but I'm coming up blank!

I normally pay annually so not sure about DD payment dates but didn't they say in the Q&A they will be taking a payment in Jan?

 

[Guinness Guzzler]

46 streams was £110 last year. Not £10 per game mind so still not sure why a ST holder should pay 3-4 times that just for a 'cheap/average' seat.


I normally pay annually so not sure about DD payment dates but didn't they say in the Q&A they will be taking a payment in Jan?

Aye yeah youre right, I normally pay up front as well so I was going off the website but they'll have put all those dates back. Still don't think this approach will benefit them though, it just seems brainless

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

46 streams was £110 last year. Not £10 per game mind so still not sure why a ST holder should pay 3-4 times that just for a 'cheap/average' seat.


I normally pay annually so not sure about DD payment dates but didn't they say in the Q&A they will be taking a payment in Jan?

Only if you were pretending to live overseas.

 

[samaistonsrightfoot]

Only if you were pretending to live overseas.

Because it was illegal over here. It won't be illegal this year if its BCD so why should someone living in Malta pay £110 quid for 46 games and an ST of 30 years pay £300+ (over £1000 for families) for 46 games?

 

[Thurston]

I can't answer that. To be honest, all they need to do is add away games to the stream, and it becomes cost effective for most card holders (46 games at £10/stream). There's a residual problem with some smaller groups (those who can't stream, multiple card households and premium band card holders), but that's far more manageable.

The issue is that at the moment they don’t seem the least bit interested in managing it.

The deadline for cancellation is looming and there is no sign of anything being put on the table to mitigate the potential revenue loss. Worrying.

 

[sksk3021]

Aye yeah youre right, I normally pay up front as well so I was going off the website but they'll have put all those dates back. Still don't think this approach will benefit them though, it just seems brainless

Been trying to come up with a reason why they would do this. Only thing I can come up with is that maybe they will sell streaming tickets separately and then if/when crowds are allowed back sell part season tickets, meaning they get paid twice. Although there would be uproar.

 

[ontap]

What a pathetic post.

The best they can do? They are blatantly trying to rip people off on the back of loyalty to the club. They are forcing many season ticket holders, a lot of whom, have had season tickets for decades to cancel, when they really dont want to.

They could have offered away streams, they could have offered partial discount, but they didnt. It is a disgrace.

It'll also damage the club long term. I suspect there will be quite a few who are cancelling now who will be at a tipping point with it all and wont renew.

The club (first team, youth set ups, now supporter base), if they sold today, has been dismantled and diminished. Their legacy will take years to recover from, yet you continue to stick up for them. Absolutely mental.

You make some important points, this really could be the start of the end for SAFC, as a club that traditionally attracts big crowds.

 

[Deleted member 31333]

Every 1,000 off season card sales reduces turnover by about £300-350k (allowing for different price bands and deducting VAT). 30% of last years ticket sales is around 7,200 cards, so around £2.5m. That means an reduction of £1.5m in our allowable wage bill (even if there are no changes in the salary cap rules), and most likely a trading loss. It'd a huge problem.


Anyone doing due diligence will want to see that agreement if they're doing it right.

Im I right in thinking that the Owners can inject capital into the club to then raise our allowed wage bill.

So if the owners wanted to in theory they could put money into the club and this would then allow us to have a larger wage bill, therefore there’d be no requirement to reduce the wage bill unless they weren’t willing to put that money in to cover the allowed wage bill.

 

[Rep of Seaburn]

Was there a three year deal to freeze black cats bar tickets? If I don't renew and cancel until which point they decide to seel them again, will the deal still be honoured or will it br treated as a new request rather than a renewal? Sorry if this has been asked before. Am not like.