Re: New era at Wimbledon : Tue Feb 01, 2022 6:27 pm  

Honkytonk wrote:

Went over to the club twitter to see if there were any highlights etc.......found myself blocked!!! Guess the few home truths I posted hit a nerve.

Ironic thing is, I was going to head over to the next home game. End my self imposed exile and have a nose of the new ground. Well they can go whistle now.
I'm not even bothering checking the scores now. Club dead to me.

Enjoy chaps

In a nutshell........the above post sums up the rewards being reaped after 15 years stewardship from an enthusiastic amateur.

Harlequins Rugby League 2007 is what he inherited. 4,500 fans in a purpose built Rugby Stadium, with office space for £225,000 year and a top tier place.
London Broncos 2022. 750 fans rattling around a soccer stadium with no office space for £200,000 a year and in a semi-pro comp.

Shame on him, shame on the RFL and shame on lenagan.......

Re: New era at Wimbledon : Tue Feb 01, 2022 6:28 pm  

Honkytonk wrote:

Went over to the club twitter to see if there were any highlights etc.......found myself blocked!!! Guess the few home truths I posted hit a nerve.

Ironic thing is, I was going to head over to the next home game. End my self imposed exile and have a nose of the new ground. Well they can go whistle now.
I'm not even bothering checking the scores now. Club dead to me.

Enjoy chaps

Me too, I will not attend while blocked. If they want to be petty, I can do it too.

Re: New era at Wimbledon : Tue Feb 01, 2022 6:30 pm  

orangeman wrote:

Shame on him, shame on the RFL and shame on lenagan.......

Not Lenegan's fault. He got the chance to own his home town club. Hughes has to take the blame for the demise.

Re: New era at Wimbledon : Tue Feb 01, 2022 7:01 pm  

jbuzza wrote:

Not Lenegan's fault. He got the chance to own his home town club. Hughes has to take the blame for the demise.

I'm not defending Hughes, but all three should have sought a better solution. As usual, small minded clubs blocked lenegan from remaining in an attempt to cover their own arses....15 years on and some of those clubs are still blocking progress whilst playing in slums.
That said. Nobody will buy London Broncos from Hughes. If I had a the money, I'd buy skolars and pat Hughes on the head as we overtook the broncos in all aspects inside 5 years.

Re: New era at Wimbledon : Tue Feb 01, 2022 11:20 pm  

orangeman wrote:

In a nutshell........the above post sums up the rewards being reaped after 15 years stewardship from an enthusiastic amateur.

Harlequins Rugby League 2007 is what he inherited. 4,500 fans in a purpose built Rugby Stadium, with office space for £225,000 year and a top tier place.
London Broncos 2022. 750 fans rattling around a soccer stadium with no office space for £200,000 a year and in a semi-pro comp.

Shame on him, shame on the RFL and shame on lenagan.......

You keep quoting the figures you want rather than trying to find out what is actually correct. You did it with Portsmouth and again here. Your assuming 750 fans, your assuming it is 200K and your assuming no office space.

I haven't got a clue how many AFC Wimbledon fans attended and I was there. Where to you get 500 from? You also assumed everyone of them was paying a pound which I GUARANTEE wasn't true.

The rent is based on attendances and was based on what the Broncos were getting. As you appear to have the figures, what was the average attendances in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021? It's very relevant to the rent charge. I think I have a good idea, but I don't have a reliable source for that.

No permanent office space is correct, but what about occasional desk space? Not quite the same of course, but not everything is necessarily black and white.

As you are aware AFC Wimbledon is a fans owned club and as such requires majority (or greater) voting on key decisions by Dons Trust Members. Accepting the ground share with the Broncos went to a vote. Effectively you have a CEO responsible for running the club, but he is reliant on fans making logical decisions. AFC Wimbledon forums aren't dissimilar to this forum, both will have fans voting against anything. As a result some of the information shared by the club can have a spin. In the same way you choose to paint the worst financial picture for the Broncos and AFC Wimbledon, the AFC Wimbledon CEO is trying to paint a positive picture. For example, he doesn't want the ground share voted out just because fans don't want Broncos branding at their ground.

There was an SGM held in which the vote was made. What was said made it blatantly clear there wasn't a guaranteed 200K. It was dependent on crowds. Two people at that SGM (board level) both referred to the Rugby League season starting at the end of March by the way, implying only a month of a shared pitch pre-summer. Nothing I heard was a blatant lie by the way, including the start date (April start anyone?)

As Mash Tun mentioned, there is a breakpoint. It wasn't shared out of respect to the Broncos but was said to be perfectly reasonable, which suggests too me that will be after two (or one) years.

You appear to be a good ideas man, have some excellent knowledge, but I'm having trouble with the figures you draw into arguments using some very poor sources. I don't claim to have great sources, but I those I have are more accurate.

I'm not suggesting the strategy will work and suspect the marketing budget was badly spent. A week ago I couldn't see anyway the venture would succeed. But looking a bit closer at the numbers there is a chance. What they tell me is that offers can still be made to get fans in (I don't mean £1) especially if the club can maximise the secondary spend.

The Fans Zone offers that. As mentioned get permission for live music, with the beer flowing, food grilling and children's activities running into the summer evenings. Full price ticket with a free beer included for example. Buy one or two more in the sun (hopefully!) and you've probably repaid the discount and covered the beer at cost.

Are they showing signs of being able to do that? Initial thoughts are no, but the key is to improve. The football club have made ongoing changes to improve customer experience, which basically means more income. The Broncos need to build the foundations this year. They appear to have an owner who will initially cover the losses. It was obvious to me (before I saw the first match) that the quality in the squad will need to be improved to give any chance of long term stability. That improvement needs to be made gradually this season and continue next. With my limited experience the second half on Sunday was way better, so there has already been improvement albeit from a position they were never good enough to have a sniff of winning. Some key missing players will help when they return, and I'm guessing maybe one or two future signings if the crowd levels support it.

What I can't comment on is the overall costs to the Broncos. Match day staff, training grounds, player costs etc. I'd assume though that the latter has reduced significantly due to becoming part time. If I'm correct that the Broncos retain the majority of the ticket price, there is a good income per individual spectator. I assume Ealing had rent costs, presumably much smaller, but far greater player costs. Assuming the AFC Wimbledon model is based on ticket revenue, there will be a break point at which the Broncos run as a going concern (or at the same losses per season as at Ealing if income did not exceed expenditure). The key is to hit those numbers, and I accept there MAY be serious flaws in the organisation meaning that won't be achieved. But as an outsider it doesn't appear impossible.

Re: New era at Wimbledon : Wed Feb 02, 2022 2:38 am  

Smithers99 wrote:

You keep quoting the figures you want rather than trying to find out what is actually correct. You did it with Portsmouth and again here. Your assuming 750 fans, your assuming it is 200K and your assuming no office space.

You quoted "between 200 and 500k"....I'm just selecting the bottom figure. A few years back, it was stated that about 65-70% of actual ticketing revenue ever reached the club, but I've simplified it to 750 x 20 quid = 15k x 13 = 195k. If I'm out, I'm out by less than 10%, on that I'll wager money

Before I continue, take on board that I've crossed swords with the club for close to 2 decades, have access to far more information than they would like and I am very rarely wrong when it comes to the club.

Smithers99 wrote:

I haven't got a clue how many AFC Wimbledon fans attended and I was there. Where to you get 500 from? You also assumed everyone of them was paying a pound which I GUARANTEE wasn't true.

Hey. I have gone on record as saying that 450 widnes, 500 dons and 600 freebies to the community will be hard to match on Sunday week.....I said 750-850 was my predicted attendance for the haven game...let's see where I'm at then shall we

Smithers99 wrote:

The rent is based on attendances and was based on what the Broncos were getting. As you appear to have the figures, what was the average attendances in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021? It's very relevant to the rent charge. I think I have a good idea, but I don't have a reliable source for that.

I have every seasons average since the start of SL, but none of them matter. I repeat, you quoted the dons trust claiming "between 200k and 500k"......no matter what went before, if I were the dons trust or a member of the trust, I'd expect 200k

Smithers99 wrote:

No permanent office space is correct, but what about occasional desk space? Not quite the same of course, but not everything is necessarily black and white.

So no office space....but you can plug in a lap top? Stoop version 1 we had a port-a-cabin, stoop 2 we had an office as well as 4 desks in the main office....well, we did until Hughes ruined that relationship.

Smithers99 wrote:

As you are aware AFC Wimbledon is a fans owned club and as such requires majority (or greater) voting on key decisions by Dons Trust Members. Accepting the ground share with the Broncos went to a vote. Effectively you have a CEO responsible for running the club, but he is reliant on fans making logical decisions. AFC Wimbledon forums aren't dissimilar to this forum, both will have fans voting against anything. As a result some of the information shared by the club can have a spin. In the same way you choose to paint the worst financial picture for the Broncos and AFC Wimbledon, the AFC Wimbledon CEO is trying to paint a positive picture. For example, he doesn't want the ground share voted out just because fans don't want Broncos branding at their ground.

The CEO of the London Broncos happened to be the accountant when the African shyster scarpered. He's no more qualified to be a CEO than the kit man. He makes bad decisions and then him and the commercial manager stonewall or banish any dissenting voices. I am sure that AFC and the trust are keen for London Broncos to work, for multiple reasons, but let's face it, be it Rugby League, Gridiron, Lacrosse or any other sport, the main reason for a tenant is to help you with the mortgage...and as you've stated, 200k to 500k is the expected income, so I'll stick to my 15k a game.

Smithers99 wrote:

There was an SGM held in which the vote was made. What was said made it blatantly clear there wasn't a guaranteed 200K. It was dependent on crowds. Two people at that SGM (board level) both referred to the Rugby League season starting at the end of March by the way, implying only a month of a shared pitch pre-summer. Nothing I heard was a blatant lie by the way, including the start date (April start anyone?)

So...to be clear. You've invited a tenant into your new home and accept that they'll only pay what they can afford? Dons Trust and Hughes seem well matched if that is true

Smithers99 wrote:

As Mash Tun mentioned, there is a breakpoint. It wasn't shared out of respect to the Broncos but was said to be perfectly reasonable, which suggests too me that will be after two (or one) years.

I'll be amazed if the Broncos are at Plough Lane in 2023. 2018, the year the side finished 2nd and wo promotion, 919 was the average gate. I predict that 2022 will see a similar average....Hughes and his idiots have form here.....crowds fall, we move......I suspect Wimbledon will break all records for being our shortest stay anywhere.

Smithers99 wrote:

You appear to be a good ideas man, have some excellent knowledge, but I'm having trouble with the figures you draw into arguments using some very poor sources. I don't claim to have great sources, but I those I have are more accurate.

Hmm....you've quoted 200k to 500k, then alleged that it was never assured 200k rent and said apparently we get money per pint, but have no idea how much.....cast iron figures they are not, no matter what you say.
Here's some factual figures leaked to me in 2012. In 2009, the club paid Harlequins £227,850 in Rent, which included 13 League games and a cup tie. 3,486 was the league attendance average and the matchday ticketing income as listed on the P&L was £659.750. That equates to about £50k a game. That income per game dropped to less than £400k in 2012 when Hughes nearly ran us into the ground, but we were still covering the rent.

Smithers99 wrote:

I'm not suggesting the strategy will work and suspect the marketing budget was badly spent. A week ago I couldn't see anyway the venture would succeed. But looking a bit closer at the numbers there is a chance. What they tell me is that offers can still be made to get fans in (I don't mean £1) especially if the club can maximise the secondary spend.

We have an accountant and a kit-wear aggregator in charge, assisted by a student on twitter......Hmmmm

Smithers99 wrote:

The Fans Zone offers that. As mentioned get permission for live music, with the beer flowing, food grilling and children's activities running into the summer evenings. Full price ticket with a free beer included for example. Buy one or two more in the sun (hopefully!) and you've probably repaid the discount and covered the beer at cost.

Now who's pulling figures out of their hat? 60-65% of the full price ticket is the revenue received after various factors come into play (SOFTWARE LICENCE ETC). The beer is already subsidised, but if the brewery aren't playing ball, then that's a non starter. We had bouncy castles, petting zoos, bands, mini rugby at half time......you really are just waxing lyrical about "jumpers for goalposts" in those long summer evenings, except we won't be there for a fair chunk of them, as we're not allowed on the park for nearly 2 months

Smithers99 wrote:

Are they showing signs of being able to do that? Initial thoughts are no, but the key is to improve.

Then it's over before it starts....

Smithers99 wrote:

The football club have made ongoing changes to improve customer experience, which basically means more income. The Broncos need to build the foundations this year. They appear to have an owner who will initially cover the losses. It was obvious to me (before I saw the first match) that the quality in the squad will need to be improved to give any chance of long term stability. That improvement needs to be made gradually this season and continue next. With my limited experience the second half on Sunday was way better, so there has already been improvement albeit from a position they were never good enough to have a sniff of winning. Some key missing players will help when they return, and I'm guessing maybe one or two future signings if the crowd levels support it.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda......the owner will spit his dummy, the fans will not flock back and unless you've found 18 Aussie bar staff with NRL experience, the team will struggle all year. In the last full championship season we ended the season with a +21 points per game and the average number of points in every game we played was 54.....we stuck 42 on Featherstone Rovers, 47 on Toronto and then scored 60+ points the following 3 weeks......this year we will concede more than we score!

Smithers99 wrote:

What I can't comment on is the overall costs to the Broncos. Match day staff, training grounds, player costs etc. I'd assume though that the latter has reduced significantly due to becoming part time. If I'm correct that the Broncos retain the majority of the ticket price, there is a good income per individual spectator. I assume Ealing had rent costs, presumably much smaller, but far greater player costs. Assuming the AFC Wimbledon model is based on ticket revenue, there will be a break point at which the Broncos run as a going concern (or at the same losses per season as at Ealing if income did not exceed expenditure). The key is to hit those numbers, and I accept there MAY be serious flaws in the organisation meaning that won't be achieved. But as an outsider it doesn't appear impossible.

With the current owner, the current staff, the current coach and the current squad, this will be a short sharp death compared to the agony supporters have endured over the last 15 years....

Re: New era at Wimbledon : Wed Feb 02, 2022 6:54 pm  

orangeman wrote:

Indeed it is.
We can deal with the information that is to hand.......

2. The figure most used is £200,000 a year, with a further contribution to floodlights etc if we were promoted to SL. AGAIN....Unless you've read elsewhere that this isn't the case, then by all means share with the group.
5.. The papa Johns cup match video clearly shows that 50% of the stadium wasn't open to the public. It also shows that the away fans numbers 300 at best.....AGAIN...unless you've seen or read elsewhere that this isn't the case, then by all means share with the group.

As requested previously I did indeed share with the group why the 300 fans was vastly underestimated to assist with point 5. I have also decided to now share further info on the 200K. At the time I assumed the figure was also coming from the Broncos, but it appears the only source was the Dons Trust, unless people know otherwise.

The link Mash Tun posted is pre the SGM to vote on the Broncos groundshare. The figure of 200K was directly addressed at that SGM in terms of a guaranteed minimum. It wasn't. It was explained that it wasn't a minimum as it was dependant on attendance numbers. Based on expectations it was thought to be at the lowest end with a strong expectation of it being higher.

The 200K was based on getting the same attendances as currently. But what did "currently" mean. Which is why I asked about recent season attendances. The SGM was March 2021. How many home matches did the Broncos have in 2020 with fans? Two or three? I guess they could have been the baseline, but pre-Spring attendances aren't the most indicative. So was it 2019? That was Superleague I believe. Approx 2,000? 2018 is the best equivalent, but a long way to go back for "currently".

I'm now guilty of using figures to fit the answer, but it begins to feel a bit like 200K equates to 2,000 and 500K equates to 5,000.

So as the Broncos support drop, then so does the rental, importantly below 200K. Of course there is a big caveat. None of us know what was in the final contract, but I can state with confidence at the SGM, 200K was NOT a guaranteed minimum. I have surmised it relates to a 2,000 crowd, that may be wrong. The interesting part though was that 200K wasn't the minimum at the time of the SGM.

200K (I'm using it now!) would of course be very useful to AFC Wimbledon, especially as they are seriously at risk of relegation. But they have many income streams individually greater than 200K in the last six months. Ticket sales obviously. Transfer fee profits. Income from the Arsenal match, Stadium Rights. A new Plough Lane Bond started in December has reached 1.3M (technically a minimum 5 year loan). A possible 2M equity sale in progress (although gone quiet recently) The shop has hugely exceeded targets and the stadium food/drink exceeded targets.. No idea of those last two values mind.

There is of course commission AFC Wimbledon receive for drink and food sales

The Broncos rent is greatly appreciated but I think AFC Wimbledon will be supportive in giving Broncos time to meet the lower target level, and if not may themselves activate the breakpoint if the income isn't worth the disruption (e.g. lost income from Ladies matches, additional pitch maintenance etc)

The reason I referred to beer in my earlier posts is that when the CEO was asked what is the best spend for a fan looking to buy at the ground to benefit the club. The answer was that per unit, that beer was the biggest profit.

Mixing my ideas on profit making whilst trying to address the 200K issue in the same post was probably not a wise choice by me.

Re: New era at Wimbledon : Wed Feb 02, 2022 6:59 pm  

Smithers99 wrote:

I'm now guilty of using figures to fit the answer, but it begins to feel a bit like 200K equates to 2,000 and 500K equates to 5,000.

Without the facts this pure speculation. However, if the 200K was based on a 2,000 average gate and is not a minimum fee then AFC can expect to receive less this season.

Re: New era at Wimbledon : Wed Feb 02, 2022 7:37 pm  

jbuzza wrote:

Without the facts this pure speculation. However, if the 200K was based on a 2,000 average gate and is not a minimum fee then AFC can expect to receive less this season.

Agreed. The numbers are speculation. Feel like they fit, but I don't have the facts to back them up.

All I can say is that the rent related to attendances and it could thus drop below 200K. You'd think this was a minimum, At the same point in the SGM there was discussion about the rental for a lockdown. AFC Wimbledon admitted their requested fee was quite high and that the Broncos would likely choose to play any lockdown matches elsewhere. That suggests to me a likely minimum with attending fans.

As mentioned, the final contract was past SGM.

Re: New era at Wimbledon : Wed Feb 02, 2022 10:17 pm  

Smithers99 wrote: Agreed. The numbers are speculation. Feel like they fit, but I don't have the facts to back them up. All I can say is that the rent related to attendances and it could thus drop below 200K. You'd think this was a minimum, At the same point in the SGM there was discussion about the rental for a lockdown. AFC Wimbledon admitted their requested fee was quite high and that the Broncos would likely choose to play any lockdown matches elsewhere. That suggests to me a likely minimum with attending fans. As mentioned, the final contract was past SGM. London Broncos RLFC, in all it's various guises over the era from SLI to today have ALWAYS struggled to find a home. At every turn, we the fans, who for many years contributed both fiscally and as volunteers, have been assured that: THIS IS THE BEST MOVE FOR THE CLUB I first approached the club in 1999, to pitch a marketing concept that out company had had some success with in Premiership Football and was basically told then, in a port-a-cabin in Twickenham stoop, that there "was no money for marketing" My next dalliance was with Chris Warren. He was the guy tasked with multiple roles when the club rocked up on my doorstep in Brentford. After much cajoling, the club agreed to print flyers if the volunteers would leaflet drop the neighbourhood........to date, Brentford is the only ground the club has left with MORE SUPPORTERS than it arrived with! Once we moved to Harlequins territory, the first year was positive, but once Paul Brown "left' and Lenagan buggered off to buy wigan, the answer to any approach in terms of marketing was "was no money for marketing" 8 seasons of steady decline in both the on and off field product, with the now 100% owner determined to plough his own furrow despite please from all quarters, resulted in him putting the club on the block. A last minute bribe to Barnet FC saw the club move to a soulless hole and relegation......before a seasons average of below 2k. the 100k bribe was supposed to be for marketing.....the opening game saw 1,400 rock up.....there wasn't brass farthing spent on marketing Soon we were off to the wedding venue and other than accidental promotion, the only constant was the continued drop in interest from fans and sponsors......but still, there "was no money for marketing" So fast forward to today. What's changed? I can only guess that Hughes, when faced with the reality that spending SFA on marketing for nearly 2 decades hasn't worked, has decided to cut the playing budget and thrown money at "ADVERTISING'. Like everything he does, it's knee jerk and badly thought out a well as poorly actioned.... ...my point is, regardless of the expected/contracted rent for Plough lane, a number of things will become obvious very quickly. The expected income will not appear.......as such, the trust members will rightly ask why. The food concessions will soon not bother.....the stand options will be reduced an d eventually 400 die hard broncos will watch us labour against Workington. Brightspots will be when Leigh and Bradford bring a thousand down.......but the reality is this is another move to cover up the incompetence of those running the club. If you really think Hughes believes Wimbledon is the answer...have a watch of this... https://youtu.be/Aam3_ld7dzQ

Smithers99 wrote: Agreed. The numbers are speculation. Feel like they fit, but I don't have the facts to back them up. All I can say is that the rent related to attendances and it could thus drop below 200K. You'd think this was a minimum, At the same point in the SGM there was discussion about the rental for a lockdown. AFC Wimbledon admitted their requested fee was quite high and that the Broncos would likely choose to play any lockdown matches elsewhere. That suggests to me a likely minimum with attending fans. As mentioned, the final contract was past SGM. London Broncos RLFC, in all it's various guises over the era from SLI to today have ALWAYS struggled to find a home. At every turn, we the fans, who for many years contributed both fiscally and as volunteers, have been assured that: THIS IS THE BEST MOVE FOR THE CLUB I first approached the club in 1999, to pitch a marketing concept that out company had had some success with in Premiership Football and was basically told then, in a port-a-cabin in Twickenham stoop, that there "was no money for marketing" My next dalliance was with Chris Warren. He was the guy tasked with multiple roles when the club rocked up on my doorstep in Brentford. After much cajoling, the club agreed to print flyers if the volunteers would leaflet drop the neighbourhood........to date, Brentford is the only ground the club has left with MORE SUPPORTERS than it arrived with! Once we moved to Harlequins territory, the first year was positive, but once Paul Brown "left' and Lenagan buggered off to buy wigan, the answer to any approach in terms of marketing was "was no money for marketing" 8 seasons of steady decline in both the on and off field product, with the now 100% owner determined to plough his own furrow despite please from all quarters, resulted in him putting the club on the block. A last minute bribe to Barnet FC saw the club move to a soulless hole and relegation......before a seasons average of below 2k. the 100k bribe was supposed to be for marketing.....the opening game saw 1,400 rock up.....there wasn't brass farthing spent on marketing Soon we were off to the wedding venue and other than accidental promotion, the only constant was the continued drop in interest from fans and sponsors......but still, there "was no money for marketing" So fast forward to today. What's changed? I can only guess that Hughes, when faced with the reality that spending SFA on marketing for nearly 2 decades hasn't worked, has decided to cut the playing budget and thrown money at "ADVERTISING'. Like everything he does, it's knee jerk and badly thought out a well as poorly actioned.... ...my point is, regardless of the expected/contracted rent for Plough lane, a number of things will become obvious very quickly. The expected income will not appear.......as such, the trust members will rightly ask why. The food concessions will soon not bother.....the stand options will be reduced an d eventually 400 die hard broncos will watch us labour against Workington. Brightspots will be when Leigh and Bradford bring a thousand down.......but the reality is this is another move to cover up the incompetence of those running the club. If you really think Hughes believes Wimbledon is the answer...have a watch of this... https://youtu.be/Aam3_ld7dzQ