Season tickets 09/10 - Page 5

cashman · 26-02-2009, 11:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEFF

Have you noticed the cut off date for the cheapest tickets - 4th April. A lot of company's financial year end and the tax year end is 5th April. If it's Stanley's financial year end then the income generated from the early season ticket sales will contribute towards this year's turnover. This will allow us to have a bigger wage budget for next season.

nice idea Jeff, dont add up to me though, if 500 take offer up before April 4th, only gives em £7000 extra, spread oer next season aint much.

lancsdave · 26-02-2009, 11:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

nice idea Jeff, dont add up to me though, if 500 take offer up before April 4th, only gives em £7000 extra, spread oer next season aint much.

Not spread over next season though, will be added to this years turnover, and salaries are capped to a percentage of turnover. So the bigger the turnover the more they are allowed to pay in players wages. Could be the difference between two washers a week and three washers a week

JEFF · 26-02-2009, 11:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

nice idea Jeff, dont add up to me though, if 500 take offer up before April 4th, only gives em £7000 extra, spread oer next season aint much.

We are only allowed to spend 65% of our previous year's turnover on wages. An extra £7000 turnover gives us an extra allowance of £4550 - not a lot - but every little helps. Both Chester and Morecambe have been wage capped this season and we don't want that to happen to us. Probably never will though as Eric only pays with washers. Then again that also depends on our previous year's turnover of washers.

cashman · 26-02-2009, 14:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEFF

We are only allowed to spend 65% of our previous year's turnover on wages. An extra £7000 turnover gives us an extra allowance of £4550 - not a lot - but every little helps. Both Chester and Morecambe have been wage capped this season and we don't want that to happen to us. Probably never will though as Eric only pays with washers. Then again that also depends on our previous year's turnover of washers.

simple fact is Erics got it right, much as some don't like it. the old saying of- ya cut yer cloth,springs to mind.

Redash · 26-02-2009, 15:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by lancsdave

Not spread over next season though, will be added to this years turnover, and salaries are capped to a percentage of turnover. So the bigger the turnover the more they are allowed to pay in players wages. Could be the difference between two washers a week and three washers a week

I heard Eric on the radio a couple of years ago, talking about Bishop. He was happy to come to us, but Eric couldn't afford the extra £200 per week that Bishop wanted.
As Dave says above, the difference between 2 and 3 washers, is the same as giving the extra money to the likes of Bishop. Good strikers don't come cheap, and we badly need one.

JEFF · 26-02-2009, 16:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redash

I heard Eric on the radio a couple of years ago, talking about Bishop. He was happy to come to us, but Eric couldn't afford the extra £200 per week that Bishop wanted.

If you can't afford something you cannot buy it, simple. Look at the clubs who buy things they cannot afford - Darlington, Luton, Bournemouth, etc. in administration with points deduction. Is that what you want? If Stanley cannot afford something they do not buy it.

VALAIRIAN · 26-02-2009, 17:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

simple fact is Erics got it right, much as some don't like it. the old saying of- ya cut yer cloth,springs to mind.

Spot on Cashman

We have had it in`62 and others are feeling it now

We may have poor facilities and small crowds but at least we do not owe millions and are not going into administration every other season and dropping divisions

Well done Eric

Keep it up

maccawozzagod · 26-02-2009, 19:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

nice idea Jeff, dont add up to me though, if 500 take offer up before April 4th, only gives em £7000 extra, spread oer next season aint much.

oo er Cashy - ya missed a 0 off the figure, it's really £70,000

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEFF

We are only allowed to spend 65% of our previous year's turnover on wages. An extra £7000 turnover gives us an extra allowance of £4550 - not a lot - but every little helps.

it's now a little bit more - £45,500. Nearly a grand a week, £200 a week extra for five players - see below

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEFF

also depends on our previous year's turnover of washers.

we'd be alright if we were Currys or Comet

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redash

I heard Eric on the radio a couple of years ago, talking about Bishop. He was happy to come to us, but Eric couldn't afford the extra £200 per week that Bishop wanted.
As Dave says above, the difference between 2 and 3 washers, is the same as giving the extra money to the likes of Bishop. Good strikers don't come cheap, and we badly need one.

difficult to get the balance right sometimes aint it? Would Bishop have gained us any extra points? would he have put an extra 15 bums on seats? would we have sold him by now for £300k?

Whilst I fully agree that we should be prudent (and have been) with our money, sometimes you have to take a punt on the good 'uns and hopefully you can look at a big fat transfer fee a little later on - even though it's never guaranteed. Apparently we fell £200 a week short on Bishop (later valued at £300k, we were close on Aaron McClean but couldn't agree personal terms (since valued at anywhere from £600k to £2m), missed out on McCombe who then went to Hereford, couldn't match Morecambe on personal terms for Carl Baker who later went for over £200k.

Whilst I agree that you have to have limit and stick to it, we have been close to some good 'uns over the last three years. Another 300-400 on our average crowd might see us get even closer to them.

p.s. that's why I am excited at the signing of McConville. He is highly rated and we got him

Redash · 26-02-2009, 20:05

Reply no longer needed, as macca posted a better response whilst I was typing.

VALAIRIAN · 26-02-2009, 20:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccawozzagod

oo er Cashy - ya missed a 0 off the figure, it's really £70,000

it's now a little bit more - £45,500. Nearly a grand a week, £200 a week extra for five players - see below

we'd be alright if we were Currys or Comet

difficult to get the balance right sometimes aint it? Would Bishop have gained us any extra points? would he have put an extra 15 bums on seats? would we have sold him by now for £300k?

Whilst I fully agree that we should be prudent (and have been) with our money, sometimes you have to take a punt on the good 'uns and hopefully you can look at a big fat transfer fee a little later on - even though it's never guaranteed. Apparently we fell £200 a week short on Bishop (later valued at £300k, we were close on Aaron McClean but couldn't agree personal terms (since valued at anywhere from £600k to £2m), missed out on McCombe who then went to Hereford, couldn't match Morecambe on personal terms for Carl Baker who later went for over £200k.

Whilst I agree that you have to have limit and stick to it, we have been close to some good 'uns over the last three years. Another 300-400 on our average crowd might see us get even closer to them.

p.s. that's why I am excited at the signing of McConville. He is highly rated and we got him

In answer to this Macca, I believe that yes he would have gained us more points, just by the virtue of the fact that he would have stuck it into the net

Would he have put more feet in the stands

I believe that this goes hand in had with goals and points. Would we have sold him on for a good profit, well you would have hoped so but if not :- goals = points and points equal better gates, happier fans and possibly play off places

So that would be as good as a sell on fee in my opinion

shakermaker · 26-02-2009, 20:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by VALAIRIAN

In answer to this Macca, I believe that yes he would have gained us more points, just by the virtue of the fact that he would have stuck it into the net

Would he have put more feet in the stands

I believe that this goes hand in had with goals and points. Would we have sold him on for a good profit, well you would have hoped so but if not :- goals = points and points equal better gates, happier fans and possibly play off places

So that would be as good as a sell on fee in my opinion

Having pronoun trouble here. Who is 'him'? Bishop or one of the other players mentioned by Macca?