In a hand out they could of included the ref's signals to show the new fans why scrums or penalties are awarded. They always had a ref's page in the previous programs.

You might be giving Broncos management too much credit here. I suspect a guaranteed loss per match has been the norm.

They could have left a copy in the ref's dressing room, he looked like he needed it at times.......

Ha Ha. From what I read in the last few months, perhaps I'm being a little generous!

I was partly referring to this generally held view that I don't believe to be correct.

"The club need a 750 average paying the full £22.00 a game to pay just the rent at Plough Lane."

750 spectators paying top price does indeed cover a 200K/13. Of course not everybody will pay top price even with zero offers due to concessions, children, memberships, away fans cheaper seating etc. Certainly sub £20.

So yes we can roughly calculate ticket sales revenue, but I'm very dubious with the belief that 750 is the break even to directly cover the rent. I think the rent figure assumes 2,000 spectators. And probably it's a percentage of ticket revenue so yesterday won't require a circa 15K rent charge.

That was why I'm interested what the Broncos themselves stated about the rent because I'm pretty certain it's not a flat 200K for 13 matches.

Absolutely. I thought I'd easily count the number of tackles, but I was losing count (concentration really as I looked elsewhere such as trying to work out where players were lining up). Then remembered that the referee will signal the fifth tackle which mitigated me expecting a kick when there was no need yet. But that's based on a small exposure to the sport over the years. For many they wouldn't have had a clue to the real reason for a kick, and of course you don't have to kick after the fifth tackle nor do you have to wait until then too kick.

If you could only tell a new spectator one thing, I'd mention the tackle rule and the associated referees signal. Gives the first basic insight to what is happening out on the pitch.

Here is where the 200K figure came from: https://thedonstrust.org/files/London-B ... ion-QA.pdf As you can see from this.... 'The deal would be worth between £200,000 and £500,000 per year - a wide variance largely depending on whether the London Broncos play in the Championship or the Super League. They are currently in the Championship but ambitiously seeking to return to the Super League. This figure will be made up from guaranteed ground rental fees as well as additional commission on matchday income such as tickets and beverages' ....the 200K figure represents the potential value to Wimbledon of the groundshare. We do not in fact know the guaranteed rent.

Here is where the 200K figure came from: https://thedonstrust.org/files/London-B ... ion-QA.pdf As you can see from this.... 'The deal would be worth between £200,000 and £500,000 per year - a wide variance largely depending on whether the London Broncos play in the Championship or the Super League. They are currently in the Championship but ambitiously seeking to return to the Super League. This figure will be made up from guaranteed ground rental fees as well as additional commission on matchday income such as tickets and beverages' ....the 200K figure represents the potential value to Wimbledon of the groundshare. We do not in fact know the guaranteed rent.

That's the only source.

The £200,0000 figure is not guaranteed, correct, but there is a break clause in the groundshare agreement.

I think you might be right to assume the £200-500K figures correlate to 2000 and 5000 crowd figures, as 5000 is the Broncos' stated target within three years.

But the claim made on this thread that the Broncos are paying £200,000 rent is clearly erroneous. It's a revenue-share model - the higher the ticket/food/drink sales, the more Broncos pay on top of the undisclosed minimum rent - and vice versa.

Has anyone asked doddery Dave where the magical 5,000 fan figure came from? Its ringing bells.....
In terms of the rent.....the figure quoted says between 200k and 500k.....if I was asking what something costs and was told that, is assuredly know that 200k was the cheapest option. For that reason, I'll take 15 grand from 750 fans as being enough to pay the rent to the dons, with doddery propping up the clubs other grounds, wages, expences etc ....

Wimbledon is a vanity project. It's like the thousands who live below the poverty line in the UK but who can afford to drink, smoke and 2atch sky on their smart TV's

Ealing as a part time club, Wimbledon as a SL club, but not some hybrid efo trip from our clueless owner

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.......

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

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 s....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.

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.