Club's Accounts ending June 2023

[Red & White]

This feels like a weirdly negative take. As we know, our model depends on transfer income, and as Rosencrantz says, if we for whatever reason didn’t make these sales we would cut our cloth accordingly. Cash at the bank didn’t ’take a hit’ - we invested (spent) it because we had it, to improve the club’s long term health.

If you could point me to any club anywhere near our level doing as well on the pitch with accounts like these, I’d be very interested.

It wasn't meant to be a negative take, more so looking at the figures and considering their meaning. We have invested in the training ground and I prefer this to spending the same amount on a player who may be injured for the whole of their contract.

 

[Fareham Grecian]

It wasn't meant to be a negative take, more so looking at the figures and considering their meaning. We have invested in the training ground and I prefer this to spending the same amount on a player who may be injured for the whole of their contract.

Ah, ok, sorry, I misjudged your tone

 

[denzel]

One thing that strikes me is the absolute pathetic amount received for TV money. 55k this year, 15k last. I bet the likes of Derby and Portsmouth were significantly more than that. Though I guess ifollow income is under commercial income, be nice to see this broken down a bit more.
And it says that player sales income are listed elsewhere but I couldn't see them.

 

[malcolms]

Bearing in mind there was a threefold increase in the operating loss, it emphasises the absolute need to continue to produce players who can be sold on. We don’t seem to have the quality coming through from the academy that we have previously had, so the ability to spot a player from another club, who could be developed into a saleable asset becomes more important…

 

[sign of the chimes]

One thing that strikes me is the absolute pathetic amount received for TV money. 55k this year, 15k last. I bet the likes of Derby and Portsmouth were significantly more than that. Though I guess ifollow income is under commercial income, be nice to see this broken down a bit more.
And it says that player sales income are listed elsewhere but I couldn't see them.

I'd assume that's money outside of the standard TV payment for L1 clubs - i.e. additional on top if you're a featured live game. I think the home team typically gets the lions share of such payments for league games as it's they who take the hit on the gate receipts.

Unless it's changed for iFollow the clubs get something like £7 (maybe £7.50) for each £10 match pass sold. It goes to the club through who the pass is purchased (I remember there was some disquiet about this from Andy Holt at Accrington [I think understandably]). Presumably this is shown elsewhere in the accounts (it's not, technically, TV money). All change with that next season, I guess - as the new TV deal means Sky will be showing all games outside 3pm on a Saturday - and I think clubs will have to opt-in and pay for a central streaming service as well as no longer receiving the 'free' EFL template websites.

 

[denzel]

I'd assume that's money outside of the standard TV payment for L1 clubs - i.e. additional on top if you're a featured live game. I think the home team typically gets the lions share of such payments for league games as it's they who take the hit on the gate receipts.

Unless it's changed for iFollow the clubs get something like £7 (maybe £7.50) for each £10 match pass sold. It goes to the club through who the pass is purchased (I remember there was some disquiet about this from Andy Holt at Accrington [I think understandably]). Presumably this is shown elsewhere in the accounts (it's not, technically, TV money). All change with that next season, I guess - as the new TV deal means Sky will be showing all games outside 3pm on a Saturday - and I think clubs will have to opt-in and pay for a central streaming service as well as no longer receiving the 'free' EFL template websites.

Isn't there also the money for the TV highlights, I know it's gone downhill but surely ITV paid a pretty penny for it.

Not sure I agree with Andy Holt, if Accrington play Bolton 90% of the sales are going to be from Bolton so they should take most of the money. When I pay for an ifollow away game it's nice to know the money is going to ECFC, I'd be less inclined if it went to someone else

 

[Fareham Grecian]

Isn't there also the money for the TV highlights, I know it's gone downhill but surely ITV paid a pretty penny for it.

Not sure I agree with Andy Holt, if Accrington play Bolton 90% of the sales are going to be from Bolton so they should take most of the money. When I pay for an ifollow away game it's nice to know the money is going to ECFC, I'd be less inclined if it went to someone else

If you buy an iFollow pass for an ECFC away match, my understanding is that the home club keep the cash. Which is AH’s issue.

(But maybe I am very confused)

 

[denzel]

If you buy an iFollow pass for an ECFC away match, my understanding is that the home club keep the cash. Which is AH’s issue.

(But maybe I am very confused)

No, its the opposite. Holt thinks that if you host a big club you should get all the money, like you would do for people coming through the gate, but Accrington were losing out as they had no fans buying passes compared to the bigger clubs in league one.

 

[Colesman Ballz]

One thing that strikes me is the absolute pathetic amount received for TV money. 55k this year, 15k last. I bet the likes of Derby and Portsmouth were significantly more than that. Though I guess ifollow income is under commercial income, be nice to see this broken down a bit more.
And it says that player sales income are listed elsewhere but I couldn't see them.

The 55k was for last season, the accounts are for 2022/23, and the 15k for 2021/22 when we were in League 2 remember.

 

[sign of the chimes]

Isn't there also the money for the TV highlights, I know it's gone downhill but surely ITV paid a pretty penny for it.

Not sure I agree with Andy Holt, if Accrington play Bolton 90% of the sales are going to be from Bolton so they should take most of the money. When I pay for an ifollow away game it's nice to know the money is going to ECFC, I'd be less inclined if it went to someone else

Presumably the highlights money is in the 'football league' payment alongside the main payment from Sky?

Definitely an argument on either side. I just think if the principle was applied consistently so the home club got the money it would be of more benefit to the smaller clubs and have a (ableit limited) levelling effect.

I suspect we'll have sold a four figure number of iFollow passes for our game at SJP in December. Think it would be far fairer for you to get the money for that - and for us to have taken money for any ECFC passes sold for the game at FP in August. End result would have been in ECFCs favour. I'm a bit of an outlier though, as I'd split gate receipts to some extent in order to level things up a bit.