Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Understood, although if the deal on the table had a lot more affordable housing and a proposal to make the club fan owned and sustainable going forward, there's got to be a possibility that Southwark would be prepared in return to include some element of Greendale.

That is never going to happen Siduhe. Southwark have had the money set aside for the Greendale renovation for over a year now and are rightly set on not losing that facility. It will be overhauled quite rapidly now.


Meadow?s only chance would be to build, or keep, the statium and any housing on the land that they actually own. A previous developer submitted plans for sixty flats on the carpark out front. But of course sixty if far fewer and less profitable than five hundred so I suspect that they will just try to sell it on. They will have to take a haircut but a big health and fitness chain might be interested.

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And Meadow are withholding full information about

> bar profits, which is a huge moneyspinner ? never

> mind taking into account the monies that could be

> earned from a properly-run gym, venue hire,

> astroturf pitch etc etc.


I'm sure the bar does very well, but is it profitable to the tune of tens of thousands per year which is what DHFC need? I struggle to believe it's *that* profitable. Exeter's income from "associated businesses" (including their bars but also other companies) was ?156k. They average almost three times the number of fans that DHFC do, so unless DHFC fans drink three times as much as ECFC fans I think you're overestimating the ability of the bar to provide sufficient revenue.


Perhaps if all those revenue streams were up and running at full capacity then it would be a different story. But even then they would bring associated costs which DHFC don't currently incur. For example, do you know how much it costs to install and maintain a 4G pitch? They're not cheap, at all, and they wear out after 10 years(ish) which means a replacement at the same price of a new installation.

Plural bars and businesses only generate an income of ?156000? Is that profit after overheads ,costs wages whatever or just an income ?


Even if the latter it seems very low to me ,not that I have any facilty at all with numbers .Not entered for O level Maths because I'd be a "waste of the entrance fee" Me ,bitter Miss Gibbs ? Noooooo.

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If the average gate is 1500 and a pint costs ?4,

> each spectator would need to drink 25 pints a

> season to generate ?150,000 of revenue.


If 816 people drink two pints at all 23 home games, then they would hit the ?150,000 mark. And that's before you consider crisps, soft drinks and pork scratchings.

> If 816 people drink two pints at all 23 home games, then they would hit the ?150,000 mark. And that's before you consider crisps, soft drinks and pork scratchings.


I'm beginning to confuse this thread with the coach parking in Townley Rd one ,everything is starting to sound like those complex maths questions .


But ,seriously I wish there were a clear set of figures somewhere showing income ,expenditure ,input from Meadows .

Smething to answer Ruffers questions above .

When considering club finances do please remember that bar, health club etc. headline revenues are not the same as contributory profits. I don't know how profitable the bar itself is, but once wholesale costs of consumables, staff payments and other overheads are taken into consideration, net profit (which could be used to support the club) may be as low as 5%-7% of till receipts. A key issue here is what the beer etc. can be bought-in at. Even assuming a 100% mark-up on till prices there will still be significant overhead to take account of. Health clubs tend to depend on sign-ups with no real follow through after month 1. If the club is actually popular (i.e. people really use it) then the profits tend to plummet.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...