An existential crisis at our club

cityregular

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
141
Agree post of the year. But will not be read by the people we need to read it--& IF they did-- won't do a thing.

Having got that off your chest(and I compleatly agree with all that was said) We can all sit here and moan but

WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT????? If we go down we won't come back again---the league is different now
you need to buy yourself out -- ask Forest Green & Dagenham & latterly Cheltenham
 

rightwing

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
5,907
Location
Plymouth
They will declare revenue to HMRC not attendance numbers - the faux numbers are about face saving and hiding a terminal decline.

So the non attending season ticket holders represent revenue not attendance, kids come free represent attendance not revenue.

I found myself in the stands surrounded by very young kids with at best only a partial interest in the game.
When the Trust was at its most effective point, statistics on match attendances were produced, the most useful of which was 'average revenue produced per seat.' This gave a general indication of the numbers of freebies granted (or in a worst case scenario the possibility of fraud at the gates). This should be reintroduced and the number of freebies should be clearly shown (if only to justify VAT returns).
 

globegrecian

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
6,311
Location
Disbelief...
Why do people think the club misrepresent the attendance figures upwards? All that does is tells HMRC that we're taking in more revenue and thus paying more tax. Why on earth would we want to do that?
HMRC only care about revenue, not absent st holders or blocks of free tickets to kids
 

Egg

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Apr 6, 2004
Messages
7,411
This seemed to be the thrust of their argument at the AGM??? But I'm only hearing this second hand as I was stuck on the m5 at the time
While you make some good points in your opening post, you're very wrong about this. Neither the club, nor the Trust, said any such thing. Rather one individual, who voted in favour of the motion, mooted this as a possibility.

For what it's worth, Taggy said the club's league position was 'unacceptable' and, this being the case, the club board had met with the manager five times in the last three months.
 

globegrecian

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
6,311
Location
Disbelief...
While you make some good points in your opening post, you're very wrong about this. Neither the club, nor the Trust, said any such thing. Rather one individual, who voted in favour of the motion, mooted this as a possibility.

For what it's worth, Taggy said the club's league position was 'unacceptable' and, this being the case, the club board had met with the manager five times in the last three months.
Hopefully that will very soon be six times in three months
 

Antony Moxey

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
41,323
Location
Exmuff
They will declare revenue to HMRC not attendance numbers - the faux numbers are about face saving and hiding a terminal decline.

So the non attending season ticket holders represent revenue not attendance, kids come free represent attendance not revenue.

I found myself in the stands surrounded by very young kids with at best only a partial interest in the game.
But that doesn't work though. If you say you've had 3,000 in and only 2,000 actually turned up then you're telling HMRC that your revenue is £20k higher for that match than it actually was. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to multiply attendance by ticket price to come up with a reasonable income stream. Plus they won't be telling HMRC that the club's revenue was 'x' and that's it, there will be a breakdown of how those figures were achieved and if HMRC think something fishy's going on then they'll be examining all those figures. Why, for the sake of supposedly saving face, would you risk a full blown tax audit?
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2014
Messages
534
Location
Exeter
While you make some good points in your opening post, you're very wrong about this. Neither the club, nor the Trust, said any such thing. Rather one individual, who voted in favour of the motion, mooted this as a possibility.

For what it's worth, Taggy said the club's league position was 'unacceptable' and, this being the case, the club board had met with the manager five times in the last three months.
Fair point and as I wasn't there happy to take this as sound evidence BUT I think you may well find this line has been trotted out by Tagg and other members of the board. I guess we could ask one of the Trust members of the board? Oh wait they have been effectivelŷ been gagged by the Trust / Board agreement haven't they ???
 

malcolms

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Messages
10,370
While you make some good points in your opening post, you're very wrong about this. Neither the club, nor the Trust, said any such thing. Rather one individual, who voted in favour of the motion, mooted this as a possibility.

For what it's worth, Taggy said the club's league position was 'unacceptable' and, this being the case, the club board had met with the manager five times in the last three months.
"5 times in the last three months"? They make this sound radical... Considering the club's league position a couple of meetings should have been enough to come to a conclusion...I guess we can look forward to another 15 meetings over the next nine months with the same outcome.
 

richard_portland

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
12,880
Location
Backing Matt Taylor
When the Trust was at its most effective point, statistics on match attendances were produced, the most useful of which was 'average revenue produced per seat.' This gave a general indication of the numbers of freebies granted (or in a worst case scenario the possibility of fraud at the gates). This should be reintroduced and the number of freebies should be clearly shown (if only to justify VAT returns).
A question was raised yesterday about getting financial information put into the programme. The explanation given was that it had been found difficult to put accurate information on a game by game basis as it wasn't easy to determine what some of our costs were on a match by match basis.

I would have thought it should easy enough to detail income taken per match from those who paid to get in, and programme revenue etc. Also surely the club should know roughly how much it costs to put on a home game?
 

globegrecian

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
6,311
Location
Disbelief...
But that doesn't work though. If you say you've had 3,000 in and only 2,000 actually turned up then you're telling HMRC that your revenue is £20k higher for that match than it actually was. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to multiply attendance by ticket price to come up with a reasonable income stream. Plus they won't be telling HMRC that the club's revenue was 'x' and that's it, there will be a breakdown of how those figures were achieved and if HMRC think something fishy's going on then they'll be examining all those figures. Why, for the sake of supposedly saving face, would you risk a full blown tax audit?
Ok, fair enough, then the club should applaud the fans for staying so loyal despite the utterly appalling home form, because under previous managers who guided us to 91st in the pyramid - never mind the home form - gates quickly fell to sub-3k and remained there, hence my cynicism
 
Top