gutterfax wrote:
I said
you responded...
Waffle that doesn't counter my assertion above....how much DH subs the club is not under discussion, but the level of financial investment from AK in 2014 is.
Ahh but it is, because the reason you are were you are now is that People through the door did'nt even cover admin, rent and marketing costs let alone contributing to the player budget. As you have shown yourself TV and DH were putting over £3m a year in to cover that.
You continue....
What investment?
ah...
Nope...still not sure of the investment you're on about....
New software very much required. Ticketing at Barnet FC has been a bone of contention between the club and the fans....don't lump the software upgrade on us. It was coming anyway.
Nope the software for Barnet to operate was installed last year and cost a pretty packet. The changes to incorporate Broncos will in no way enhance the way they work for Barnet fans and the problems that some have using the scanners will still be in evidence in 2 weeks time.
Again this is purely one example to show there clearly are costs involved in setting up the operation from virtually scratch and it's not as simple as walking into your existing staff and doubling their workload, that you try to pick only operating costs to determine whether TK makes money is laughable when the Broncos turned up on the doorstep with nothing.
I can only guess at these costs but looking from the outside right now and trying to guess some of the problems encountered.
I think it's fairly clear that information that should've been passed onto the Hive hasn't been made available.
That the Bronco website is proving a pig to get permissions and update with the previous people who ran the site gone, it would not surprise me in the slightest if at some point the site is replaced with one that Hive staff are more familiar with and find easier to maintain.
The Hive does not have space for a Broncos shop to sell merchandise so there will be work involved in either bringing in a portacabin next to the ticket office in the car park or restructure the reception and bar.
I understand that you can make up figures to try to justify your argument and try to focus on minutiae to avoid the point of my argument and that is you do not know the figures and can only guess at what level of risk TK is taking, one that a person close to proceedings calls 'considerable' and TK does have a vested interest in maximising the number of fans who come despite your assertions to the contrary.
We clearly view investment in a different light, I don't see what DH has done as investment, that's just throwing money away and has little\no long term benefit. You don't see TK building an infrastructure for Broncos to stay at the hive as investment, but to me that it is money spent to allow Broncos to survive in a sustainable way in the future and therefore is a valuable investment in the Broncos as an entity, Yes TK benefits but so do Broncos and without it Broncos are gone. But I digress again and drop to your level of trying to breakdown an argument to avoid the key point and that is we do not know TK's profit\loss to say that by doing nothing he will make money and therefore does not care if people come.
Does it really matter what you think is success or failure in terms of attendance? The point is whether the money men decide it is a success or not and keep Broncos breathing. This brings me back to the original point that the number of fans that turn up will determine whether Broncos exists and if TK is interested in taking on the Broncos to some degree then he has a keen interest in maximising how many turn up.
I know you like to paint TK as pocketting cash but I think TK's lease conditions for the Hive clearly say otherwise. If TK makes money out of this venture then I repeat it will be to improve the Hive and this will make it more viable as a home for the Broncos. Yes his baby will grow and yes he will take pride in what he has acheived but the Hive remains what it is and the local council check regularly to ensure he isn't breaching the terms of his lease (as a few are already claiming).
The net effect of all this is hopefully both Barnet and Broncos become sustainable and don't need to rely on money men to prop them up.
That the Hive does not have the capacity to hold Broncos largest crowds from last year must be a worry going forwards and will certainly hamper what the average attendances could be if Broncos are to be successful at the Hive going forwards
I will try an analogy from my own work knowledge to show how I see this.
We have 200 customers and for each of those customers part of their role is to receive an admin grant to do work for the government, part of the work they do includes payment for the services offered. Over recent years of austerity the government has been cutting back the grant to the point were our customers have to either reduce their costs and provide a poorer service or find the missing money from elsewhere to cover the cost of maintaining the same or better service.
We offer our customers a managed service where they give us the admin grant and we run the service for them. Providing the service we provide is good they no longer care whether we make money from the grant we receive as they are fulfilling their remit, don't have to find money to prop up the service and don't have to deal with complaints about the service if it isnt working.
We run their service out of 3 datacentres, with automated software doing the bulk of the work and monitoring for faults and problems that require individual attention and the public accessing the system through a cloud based solution. By lowering the cost base and maximising use of the service in order to receive payment for the services offered we are able to make a profit.
As far as I am concerned Broncos have given TK a managed service. It is upto TK to manage the service as efficently and effectively as possible to ensure he doesnt make a loss and that Broncos fans receive the best service he can offer.
You want to claim their is no risk involved and TK is printing money but in our business there are plenty of inital costs, often unforeseen that mean any return on investment is not immediately realised and often we make a loss on a service in the first year.
No.....I observed, you called it advice and have back-peddled nicely. Good on you !
As far as I am concerned you used google to offer ADVICE as to whether the posters travel times were much different.
If you want to argue over something this trivial to avoid the point then go ahead, it just makes you look silly.
Whether you want to call it an observation is no skin off my nose but it clearly grates you as it's obviously more important for you to try and be seen to be correct than be honest and say yep the facts I used to support my point were false because I didn't know what I was talking about..
