No

when the stadium was set up it was clear. We have a minimum level of guaranteed income, which "protected the club should gates fall below 7500"

Lower attendances means lower income which means worse squad, less investment in youth, etc. Can't see that maintaining or improving our performance in the league. The logical result is a slide into relegation. Teams with lower attendances that regularly perform better than us do so with additional income streams that we lack - notably a rich owner or board.

It doesn't need 'nobody' to turn up to threaten the club with closure. All it takes is Pearson to run out of cash or get fed up. I don't have the figures to hand but we didn't have 'nobody' watching us when we nearly closed before the merger.

First I've heard of this. Where does this income come from? The council? The SMC?

The only reference I'm aware of to the 7500 attendance figure is how our rent/charges scale.

I think he's saying that we only have to share gate receipts with the SMC if the attendance exceeds 7500. If its less than 7500 we keep all the receipts.

I don't know whether this is correct or not.

I think you'll find the south end at Poorhouse Lane is very very far away from the pitch.

Which reminds me, when is Hudgills leaving do? afterall he cant afford any more for Rovers, not with his expensive move to Larndon town

Didn't we pretty much break even last season? I'm sure that is what the club announced. Add in an extra £600k SKY money and surely we can't be anywhere near as bad as is being made out?

Exactly, it's not footballers wages, super league as a salary cap for a good reason! Business mistakes, bad calls are the problem. Make good business decisions , get a team playin consistently well, and Pearson won't have a problem. To easy to blame the fans and previous regimes

... and too easy to blame AP ??

We are very lucky enough to have a core support that can maintain income levels at a level good enough to stay in SL, I don't think anyone can argue with that tbh. Obviously if we can't afford to spend full cap because we don't have the gates then so be it, where other teams have found difficulty is because their owners have tried to 'fill the void' and then had it back fire on them. That's the sort of mis-management I doubt Pearson will be involved in.

I think saying things like 'financial problems' & 'crippling the club' are scaremongering statements when you don't clarify what it means.

It would appear so.

I think the most significant thing AP said was "a large batch of supporters for whatever reason, are not renewing their pass next season".
It sounds like he is just being realistic. Income from pass sales is decreasing year on year, and needs highlighting.

Maybe those that jumped on the FC bandwagon after the move to the KC and the subsequent small taste of success of 2004/05/06 have jumped on to the City bandwagon?

I think that is very close to the truth IMO,plus the quality of rugby has not been great.

I suggest you read the accounts, then. FC’s direct costs are reported as £1.2m. Poor effort.


They’re not the same things, clearly. But they are the same number.


Well, actually they do. You know we’re talking about “direct” costs, and not the separately reported overheads/expenses line, right?

Sure. Mainly in the separate £1.9m expenses/overheads line you’d think.

Direct costs varying in line with activity you’d say.


I have no idea what that comment means.


City service around 450k customers a year, us just 130k. That’s a ratio of 3.5 to 1. The direct costs of the clubs are £1.812m and £1.224m respectively. That’s a ratio of 1.48 to 1. I take the point on part fixed/variable costs, but that’s still a very significant disparity in my opinion. Like you, I can’t comment on the accuracy. But I do find it odd that if you look back to the 2010 accounts, the P&L schedule showed FC’s direct costs were £0.2m. Assuming like for like definitions that would be a six-fold increase in our direct costs on reduced gates. Or going from a positive direct contribution to the SMC in 2010 of +£0.4m to causing them a net loss of -£1.2m in 2014. Have the underlying finances really shifted that much? Perhaps the basis of cost allocation/reporting definition has changed…