Thetownend.com

SWINDON TOWN: Club present their vision to businesses and sponsors
           
           


  AROUND 50 local business owners and sponsors were present in the Legends Lounge last night as Swindon Town presented their aims for the club’s future.

           

http://www.thisisswindontownfc.co.uk/news/headlines/10536421.SWINDON_TOWN__Club_present_their_vision_to_businesses_and_sponsors/?ref=rss
           
           
           

Could anybody in attendance tomorrow please try to make some sense of this and help the numbers add up?

The 300k makes (some) sense. But what is the 1.8M all about? How is that even remotely possible?

My take is that the cg is rented out and then stfc are paid an additional headage fee on attendance

If they manage to get in 15,000 people a night on both nights, the average spend would need to be 60 quid per person (including tickets) to hit the 1.8M.........

Minus considerable expenses.

I think they're planning on somewhat more than 2 concerts a year going forward.

Didn't they say 6-7?

Jed actually originally said the £1.8m was profit from the concerts. But I think he was confused.

Could be that there are more than 2 concerts per year

I would guess that there will be more than just 2 concerts a year.

Might be going out on a limb here, but maybe there might be more than 2 concerts per year?!

Just a thought.

Jed was originally talking about up to 8 concerts per year. So do you all think that would net £1.8m profit?

I was going to attend the event tonight but after following the coverage last night I think I have heard most the key points. I also have a feeling that most the questions are going to resolve around the Legends lounge again, which I have no interest in at all.

Don't see why not if we're just renting space with some kick back on sales.

Well, you're the financial expert, but it sounds an extraordinary amount if that's all we're doing, and the promoter also needs a margin. I wonder if we'll get any more gigs if Rice is no longer involved anyway.

Very good evening tonight, well done to Steve Murrell and Marc Isaacs.

Only just got back as it was a very long presentation with all the questions and I'm sure there will be a lot of contributions on here and social media about it.

Main points for me:

1) Football budget of £2.4m would see us break even. We're currently at £2.9m spend. This is based on attendances of 7500 average per game. Steve stressed that whilst looking to bring down to £2.4m it probably won't happen this season and if there is a need for more in the short term the funding is there. Not looking to ship out loads of players for the sake of it.

2) Concerts - Up to 6 a year. It is a 10 year contract and the promoter is renting the space from the club. Minimum of £300k per year income to us (no costs, all profit) even with no concerts. If all the concerts were sell outs it would bring in £1.8m per year. Steve felt that the potential uplift would be more like £900k per year and for 2013/14 £750k was the conservative budget.

3) Catering - 10 year contract with Lindley worth £4m to the club. £200k additional revenue per annum and £200k in cost savings.

4) Other additional income will be made from sponsorship, stfcmyworld and other activities. Also cost savings with ticketmaster compared to previous ticket administrator. Total additional revenue (not full financial benefit) is £2m for 2013/14 based on conservative forecast.

5) The Legends Lounge will not be cut in half now. Steve didn't realise the Supporters Club had put in money previously to refurbish it. Instead, the club will allow fans to book tables with a full waiting service for food and drink. Any tables not booked will operate as they do now.

6) Possibility of putting a roof on the stratton bank, awaiting planning permission and would cost £150k.

7) New training facilities are necessary as the current facility has loads of kids around which causes problem. The owners of the current facility are also expanding and thus there will be even more kids around. The pitches aren't that great and the new facility will be cheaper to rent than currently. Has needed investment but this is reflected in the lower rent.

8) Ticketing improvements will also mean that when phoning it will cost a maximum of 10p a call. Previous telephone costs and booking fees have been necessary to cover costs. Negotiated a better deal with ticketmaster and passed onto fans.

Loads of other really good points raised and intelligent questions. And I mean loads.

Also Murrell was quite open that the idea for the current board is to set up the club on sound footing and the potential gain for them is if they did that and opened a way for someone else to take the club further forward at a later stage.

Cheers Si, sounds very promising.

Thanks Si Pie, appreciate it, was unable to go tonight (actually turns out I could but that's not the point).

Sounds pretty promising. I get the feeling the board members are really starting to get to grips with what it means to run a football club now and are beginning to make positive inroads. Maybe the past 6 months (from January) should be forgotten and from this season forth there is a clean slate for Jed and co?

Hope this shuts up the doom mongerers now

Hopefully the Trust will publish something as they were there too. I had a 3.5 hour business plan meeting at work this afternoon so I was fairly shot by the time the presentation even started this evening.

Only negative is putting a roof on the Bank - a shite stand which is falling apart. Get rid of it all together.

And replace it with what? Where would the money come from?

So with regard to ground redevelopment, they're sticking with the tried & tested strategy that has served the Club for the last 100 years or so: piecemeal upgrade.

One step at a time, I suppose.  But like it or not, the North Stand (I'm being old fashioned) and the Town End are reaching the end of their natural lives.  You can't keep putting this one off for ever.  A wholesale redevelopment has to happen sooner or later.  The County Ground is an asset that has now been sweated to the point of dessication.

Leave it as it is then when re-development comes up again it should be the first to go.

Very rarely used - in the regular league season wasn't it only one club (Portsmouth) who had it last season? It is awful.

Perhaps if they put a roof on SB (at a great price) that opens up the possibility of doing up the TE at some stage?

Ground redevelopment was discussed but isn't in the short term plans. Longer term there is an option for a 99 or 999 year lease.

Expansion if we get to the championship (to £20k capacity) was a definite plan though.

The question which raised this point (which was not part of the presentation) was the fact the stand looked shit, pathetic and empty when we were on telly.

There will be incentives to fill the ground e.g. for soldiers/army to purchase tickets at a fiver but only if uptake was 500+. It was recognised that filling the ground has much more than a financial gain.

Oh and almost forgot, they are looking into putting an area outside the town end to go for a drink and a smoke at half time. Not sure they'll get planning permission but they are looking at it.

Sounds very positive. Got to say I have been impresed with the new board lately.

Well I am just in and the Pieman covered the meeting just as it was said.  One or two "awkward" questions but the feelings I got were that they were answered honestly and openly.  Steve Murrall did say on a couple of occasions he was not able to answer some points instead of faffing around the issue.  Jed was there but did not add anything to the evening and just to upset some people even further was drinking coffee!!  This was the first occasion I have had to meet them and listen to their ideas - they are definitely not cowboys or asset strippers as some would have us believe.  One thing that was mentioned was they are going to get a new coach for transporting the first team in October, it will be far more luxurious than the present one and will have medical and treatment facilities on board.  Also I got the impression that they were not too impresssed by the fact that just about every single away game involved an overnight stop regardless of the distance travelled and it seemed that PDC insisted on5-star accommodation at Champneys spas!!  The underlying theme to me was that the club was just days away from going under and some very hard decisions had to be made.  Didn't see all those famous Mercs around either!!

I'd forgotten all about that. Are we still on some sort of short term rolling lease contract then. Why would we not commit to something long term, just in case the CG isn't where we end up?

In any case if they can turn the club into a success story and pass it on to someone with more financial grunt that can redevelop the ground that's fine. But Ardiles is right, its a long overdue project so I hope its sooner rather than later.

The difference a bit of communication makes is immense.

You've hit the nail on the head.

Haha flawed logic, all good con artists are believable :)

Yes, we are actually on a month-by-month lease with the council.  The club has been offered a 99-year lease and a 999-year lease, still making their minds up which way to go with it and the FL are happy with the current arrangements.  They will redevelop but only if it is sustainable - and they are looking for a sponsor to do up the SB.

Cool,  assuming the council don't chuck us out and offer the CG to Coventry.

There's a smoking area in the town end already, back of the stand or in the toilets haha

Bang on Batch. The ground needs a major overhaul but these things have to be funded from somewhere. If Jed, Murrall and co have to spend a year, two years or whatever doing what Fitton couldn't and making the club self sustainable and alleviate any immediate financial peril then the prospect of taking the club over with a view to developing the CG will look much more attractive.

Although still very early days they do seem to be focusing their efforts on the off field activities and revenue streams, and leaving Power and MacDonald to do their best to give us a good product on the pitch. Seems like the right way to go about it, and given recent history having the man at the top as little involved as possible with team affairs may be no bad thing.

 At least now we've a better idea of what this Board are about...in fact just it's composition is a help. So no Hooper, Rice, King, Crouch, Hall....but Power and Shah added to McCrory and Murrall.

Power is an interesting one...as far as I know we've never had an ex player on the Board, obviously got good links to Sherwood, but presumably a bit of a pariah in the rest of football, which he'll have to go a long way to overcome. Good news that they've stepped back from pissing off the SC.

The die is now just about cast, aside from some squad tweaking...so it's all a bit into the unknown as far as the season goes. Let's hope it turns out better than what many fans expect.

As regards to Power it was stated that he has so many links in football that the club expect to benefit from it was "untrue!".  Shah has worked closely with Jed in the past apparently at a high level and it is expected that she is going to bring in much needed extra sponsorship through her links to blue chip companies.  Only time will tell if those statements turn out to be correct!!

I was a decided agnostic prior to the meeting.....but - in spite of having had to leave before the end, because the free-flowing discussion meant that the presentation went on well over an hour - I was impressed by Steve Murrall.  And the primary reason for being impressed was that so far as I could tell, he was open, did not try to give answers to questions he couldn't answer, and was entirely at ease with being interrupted and having unknown people (and one or two known) throw at times quite random questions at him.  He was not the 'smooth operator' I was expecting - indeed he was obviously not particularly at ease with 'presenting', which made his willingness to 'discuss' rather than 'lecture' all the more impressive.

At the end of the day, I thought the most telling statement was that the directors did not want to upset the supporters, that to do so would be completely mad and made no sense, since the business could not run without them.  That implies that they know the communication has been poor and they intend to put it right.  However I would lime to think that they might yet accede to a request to have a supporters' representative at least present for board meetings, even if, when, for instance, decisions on staffing matters are taken, that person is asked to leave the meeting ( a quite normal practice).  He admitted to no particular football experience or passion, and that Jed's was for football in general, not for STFC; to have a fan's voice in the decision-making - someone who has the wisdom and sensitivity to make a positive and creative contribution as opposed to one which will simply be confrontational - would affirm that intention to be responsive to the fans in a significant way.

But all told, I am more than ready to suspend my agnosticism and go into the new season with anticipation....

Clearly a lot of positives from the recent meetings, which means this thread probably won't get past 4 pages.

The Lee Power links thing is interesting. If we continue to be able to bring players with the calibre of Pritchard (based on what Spurs fans have said) in to the club, this can only be a good thing.

Was it made clear what had happened to Crouch? Why didn't that go through?

Eh? On what basis do you presume that?

On the basis that there must be a little bit of negative in anything. Seriously though I assume its based upon the collapse of the programme company although I thought i read that Power was not involved with that company by that stage?

It appears the make up of our squad is the only thing we need to be concerned about then at the moment... glad the meetings were a success!

Well, whether he was or was not, I could see that might make a few commercial directors a bit reluctant to deal with him again if he came trotting up offering a fantastic deal on programmes, but hardly "a pariah in the rest of football, which he'll have to go a long way to overcome"

No it wasn't mentioned.

Seems encouraging then. This aside there have definitely been some positive steps in the last few weeks: clearing out the hangers on from the board being the main one, as well as dodging Hall (albeit I still don't buy the claim that this was by choice).

There are still some reservations and it's still early days, as has been said, but at least there is a settled boardroom and a clearly communicated vision now. Plus the fact that they aren't proceeding with the legends plans (regardless of whether its the 'right' or 'wrong' decision) suggests they're willing to listen to the fans.

My outlook has been upgraded to cautiously optimistic.  :)

Can any one who attended give a brief summary of what came up in the 'Q+A', I presume it moved away from the corporate annexing of half the Legends that dominated the previous night?

Does this renewed slight optimism from some mean we can retire the Harbinger of Doom Monkey^TM yet?

Upgrade him to a Messenger of Mediocrity at least?

There was no Q & A as such....questions were being asked throughout the presentation.  In fact it too about 40 mins to get off the first slide!!  Steve Murrall made it clear from the outset that he wanted to answer questions about anything and everything, and he would like people to feel free to interrupt....which they did, freely!!

About changes in the boardroom...there was a sideways comment that simply said changes were made when it became clear that particular individuals had nothing in particular to offer; and they are now happy with the four board members they have.

Four? Including Crouch then one presumes!

Jed, Murrell, Shah, Power?

Ah, I missed one

Blimey. I was working all day yesterday so couldn't check in to see what was going on, then conked out when I got home last night.

To look on here this morning and find positivity is fucking weird. You're all scaring me.

Appears positive but it was always going to be. We've been here before too. Time will tell

Or do away with it completely and have Chang's Chat or Chang (go)-ri-la?

I am a little more optimistic as people have seen the whites of their eyes when presenting the documents and attended an event where it appears a lot of questions were answered and not dodged.

Ultimately I (and any others who didn't attend) cannot really comment as we didn't get the context, but does seem a little pleasing and positive.

Thanks, did fan representation on the Board come up?

looking forward to Frigby Daser's thoughts.

Pleasantly surprised at the reaction to be honest. It sounds as if they genuinely think the concerts will make money, and that there's stacks to be made via myworld. I hope they haven't overestimated it. I'm disappointed there aren't plans to redevelop properly - the only real catalyst to move the club forward, and I'm still bemused by the spending on Byrne.

Edit: and still concerned that we're dodging bullets by luck rather than judgment: Ian Wright, Gregory Hall et al. It's not out of line to be a bit worried about that.

The general impression I get is of a board that got off to a chaotic start, but which is slowly now getting its act together.  Biggest step forward during recent weeks is that there appears to be a strategy.  To a lot of our fans, it's not a particularly exciting one.  But at least we know it exists.

I'd like to think that now the board is Jed, Murrell, an economic expert and a football insider these bullets will be less frequent than when it was Jed, Murrell and their drinking buddies.

Was Steve wearing a tie?

Nobody seems to have picked up on why we may have paid a fee for Byrne.

Remember what happened with Collins and Archibald-Henville? At least this fixes the price.

Steve did admit as much in that they had not done due diligence before taking over.  It was, I believe, a case of do it now or the club goes down, literally, administration was the only other option and that would have meant a relegation to the Conference as a minimum.  The atmosphere last night was positive, the sceptics appeared not to have turned up, so the glass half full people need to remember that Black and Di Canio have gone and we all should move on together.  Incidentally, talking after the meeting to Mark Isaacs  it would appear that the walk-out by PDC left an extremely bad taste in the mouth as he never bothered to contact anybody, including the people who had worked hard for him, even to say goodbye!!

Hardly surprising is it? Blokes a selfish money grabbing petulant cunt.

Hopefully after a little more time the board will realize the ground needs to be redeveloped/built new elsewhere for the club to really move forward. Frustrates me that this never gets going, and just means we fall further behind everyone else

Tans, for once, you are correct!!  As Mark said to me last night, with PDC it was all me, me, me!!  He made a big thing about loyalty to the players, office staff and fans yet run away when it didn't suit him without as much as a goodbye!!

But they were established first teamers, but yes its a lottery. However I thought the centre of debate was whether he was worth a(n alleged) six figure sum.

That's for the manager to decide. I guess us fans can doubt him though.

Got to be better value than the likes of Atiku, whom I recall never played in a competitive match and we undoubtedly had to pay off to release from his 2 year contract.

Ha, subtle, I like it  :toocool:

I would agree with you Ardiles.  That's the impression from last night...and significantly, Steve was entirely realistic in saying that they could only take the club so far, and he wasn't going to make promises he couldn't keep (including on redevelopment of the ground.


We would not have got an answer on that, as Steve was clear that managing the playing budget was the task of KMac and Lee Power.  He did not try to get into footballing matters, except to say, rather obviously, that success on the field is the key part to building a sustainable club.


And that is a view which would be reflected by many people within the club structures....whatever the successes of the PdC era, a happy atmosphere in the club was not one of them.

Positive from last night, I went not knowing what to expect and came away pleasently surprised and feeling more confident that they do have a plan and are not just winging it, some interesting ideas and as said Steve was willing to talk and give answers.

Yes! Kim Hieselberger was good value compared to Atiku.  I don't think he's a bad player (Byrne).

My guess is we dropped a bollock on that one. His contract was up and we made it public that we wanted him, so Spurs signed him up to make sure they, rather than a transfer tribunal got to decide the fee.

..... or that Spurs wanted something tangible in exchange for some of their best young talent and the Byrne transfer money facilitated that.

The roof over stratton bank is a good idea IMO as it can be used to house away fans which means we can have the north stand back.Also gives the ground a better appearance and will increase atmosphere .the terracing which the seats are bolted too is in good condition as it was rebuilt around the same time as the DR stand as the old Bank was crumbling ,just needs some new toilets and the area behind the stand needs clearing of debri and weeds etc.however the cost of 150000 the club said it would cost seems very low! You can just about build a family  home for that!

It is a good idea, but very much of the seeing is believing type. I remember when the bogs and the back of the Bank was last upgraded about 50 years ago....don't think it's been touched since...the corrugated fencing is now starting to rust away.

I was thinking that too that £150k seems very low for a temporary/permanent roof structure, I personally would have thought nearer the £300k to 400k might be more realistic.

That was the price quoted, I think it was just for a roof and nothing else.  They are also seeking sponsorship for it - perhaps that's where the new board member will come to the fore.  When not going to be used for away fans they are looking to do special offers for schools, armed forces etc. to keep it in use and create a better atmosphere.

Quite agree.  For all the stick we give Oxford about having a three sided ground, we have effectively had the same for a long time now.  The Stratton Bank is where I first stood when I started coming to football and where I had my season ticket during the Premier League season.  When the Bank was packed, the feel of the ground changed.  It must be 15 years or so since it's been used week in, week out.

If we are going down the piecemeal redevelopment route, it's clearly the two ends that need sorting first.  Not ideal, but if we can do a decent job at both ends the feel of the ground will change for the better...no doubt about it.

One other thing.  (Probably a question for Reg or one of the other old 'uns.)  How long has the Stratton Bank been known as that?  And why is it called the Stratton Bank anyway when Stratton is a good couple of miles away?

I would imagine it will be of a similar structure to Inverness Cally South Stand roof.

Basic and does the bare minimum but it does tidy that end of the ground up and at the CG would also allow for the away fans to be seated there for every game rather than in the Arkells corner allowing for that to be freed up to Town fans again and also a reduced need for segregation thereby freeing stewards/police to be deployed elsewhere in the ground.
(http://www.arenagroup.com/images/europe/products/seating/large/custom-design-thumb-03.jpg)

The Arena group put that one up.

Perhaps they could put the concert stage up a bit higher and kill two birds with one stone.

I'm young enough that I don't remember the Stratton Bank being used to any great extent. I think the only two instances of it being full that I remember are the Reading Friendly before the 2010/11 season, the Wigan cup match the same season, and when they had that Excalibur sponsorship drive thing towards the tail end of last season. I don't get along as much as I'd like to mind, so I could have missed some (but I doubt it).

Sticking a roof on it is a very sound idea for all sorts of reasons. It frees up the Arkells/North Stand for home fans, means there's not as much as a problem with security for that reason (not saying that there was in the first place...), gives the board room to expand in terms of average attendance, and makes the place look a bit more high-end. It'll improve the atmosphere no end as well, with the noise being bounced off the roof and back towards the spectators just like in the town end. £150,000 does sound a little cheap mind. I'd rather they overestimated the cost. Then again, perhaps they've had the surveyors in already with a quote, or Jed's going to stick a conservatory up.

I personally think there's nothing wrong with piecemeal improvements. Surely it's more financially sound taking small steps you can afford by yourself than big ones where you may have to get other parties involved- we've all seen what's happened to Coventry with regards to that. If JedCo go around the ground, improving on what we've already got, putting in better facilities (*cough new Town End, cough*) and keeping the place up to date, then we'll retain the history of the ground and our financial security. Okay, we may not have a brand-spanking new, state of the art bowl of a ground with a cinema next to it and four casinos built in, but we'll have a modernised CG, and I do think a lot of fans would prefer that.


If they're fiddling about with the Stratton Bank anyway, and they want to have regular concerts, perhaps they could also do some work to have some kind of structure built in to facilitate a stage going up on the Stratton Bank itself? I'm no expert mind, but perhaps a 'base' for them to erect the stage off of quickly would be a sensible addition.

What Honkytonk said. Redeveloping the CG will retain an element of character.

New fangled, flat pack stadiums like Franchises place or Wembley etc. have no soul.

I Imagine, the work needed on the Stratton Bank will be quite minimal in terms of erecting a roof, there is a height issue with the houses behind, and something about blocking the sun, I beleive (although I could be wrong) that this idea was looked into by Mark Devlin when he was Chief Exect.

If its going to be a temporay structure, then the roof can be easily removed to make room for the staging for the summer concerts. This is why it will prob be so cheap to do. I dont think we will get a semi permanent structure there for that price.

It's been the Stratton Bank for as long as I can remember...think it goes back to the origins of the ground. In the early days the CG was pretty much on the edge of town...out the back of the Bank in the 20's you had a bunch of sidings, and not much else...by then Swindon itself had only been incorporated for 20 years, so Stratton was still an important place...up until relatively recently there was a big old place name board along the end of Shrivenham Road...Stratton St Margaret, the sort which greeted you on entering sizeable places. This was the boundary by the footbridge over the railway, so not that far from the CG, and nothing much else in between. Further, Shrivenham Road didn't exist, it was called Stratton Road.

Stratton Bank would make an epic home end with a roof on as long as it didn't have any or too many fillers. It does need some upgraded facilities to it though. Maybe the club could look at building just a little bit behind for a drinking area or something.

Then long term you could look at knocking and rebuilding The Town End, which would probably help with the concerts and getting the really big acts here that have been to Ashton Gate like The Who and Bon Jovi.

The North/Arkells Stand is seriously hagered now, it always shocks me when people choose to sit there over The Don Rogers Stand.

I don't like board members interfering but Fitton had a decent record scouting. Caddis, Ferry and Charlie Austin.

The complaints were from a handful of old fogies who are probably dead or moved on by now. The other option is you could take out a few rows at the back of the bank so it's not as high.

Make it completely out of clear perspex, everyones a winner.

Unfortunatly that wouldnt be possible because you will be blocking access to the toilets at the back. Plus the roof will have to have an angle for drainage. The 'Old fogies' who complained, will have been replaced with 'new fogies' plus its a planning permission criteria to not block out a percentage of sunlight or something like that into a garden.

It will be interesting to see how the roof is done. My guess would be a semi permanent strut/supports with a removable roof level with the top of the railings at the back of the bank with a slight angle. Nothing to Glam, but will do the job on the cheap

We can already go up as high as the flag poles, that should suffice.

We could buy Bristol Rovers' circus tent of them, they won't need it where they're going.

Well it hasn't got planning permission yet, so if it doesn't happen don't be surprised.

May be wrong, but I thought that the toilets at the back of the Bank were deemed unsafe/unusable last summer and have since been unused.

As I said before without elaborating too much, I wouldn't bother putting a roof on the Bank, especially for the figures quoted.

The argument that it 'frees up space in the Arkells for home fans'. For as long as we remain in League 1, this makes no difference what so ever. Look at the Brentford play off match for an example. Not needed - any time a big club visits they will be given the full allocation. The reason that the club put the away fans in the Arkells and not the Bank is simple, £££. They can charge away fans £25 to sit in the Arkells when I believe the Bank would be equivalent to the town end, £19?

How often is it needed by away fans, and how often is it used by home fans? Last season, only Portsmouth had it in the regular League season. Why aid the atmosphere and comfort for away fans by giving them a roof.

While most fans will realise that ground redevelopment won't happen any time soon, spending money putting a roof on the Bank will be the biggest indicator yet not to expect any movement on the redevelopment side for a quite a while.

And, well, the main reason I wouldn't bother doing anything to it is simple. It's a shithole that is falling apart and should be first to go when redevelopment starts.

Look at the state of it. An expensive roof won't stop it falling apart.

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/57751000/jpg/_57751264_57751243.jpg)

The Trust's take on the meeting :

http://www.truststfc.com/trust-notes-from-stfc-business-plan-meeting/

I quite like the fact it's a bit grim though. If we built a new Town End and a new Arkells complete with executive boxes and all that crap, an old school stand like Stratton Bank just with a roof and a few licks of paint would retain character.

That's fine as long as you don't want a piss

Thanks, seems the folk on here gave a good representation as it seems to pretty much match what was said in this thread. The Trust have to be a bit more careful with publishing the facts.

It does sound very positive, but the proof will be in the pudding.

Under FL rules the club has to offer travelling fans a % of under cover seating, which is why they use the Arkells. There are exceptions, the club can ask visiting teams if they are happy to accept all open air seating, however this rarely happens.