jbuzza wrote:
orangeman wrote:
Benny Profane wrote:
RfE wrote:
(Sent from Parkshot House in Richmond. Do we have an office there now?)
On the topic of IMG & London. A blind man can see that there's "potential" in London, but who will pay for it?
I wonder if a better run, more competitive club attracting more fans would cost much more ?
The legacy of Hughes inept recruitment as well as his refusal to accept that he is 100% WRONG in terms of his marketing strategy (Field of Dreams just doesn't work) is that we had a competitive side with 4,000+ regulars back in 2007 and that was costing £4,000,000 a year to bankroll. Sky paid about 1.8 of that, leaving £2,200,000 to find. I was told the income per entrant was approximately £14.00, so 50,000 over the season delivered £700,000 of that and Hughes to oft quoted £1,500,000.
As the years went by and he eroded the side and fans through mismanagement and neglect, he continued to bankroll the club at the same level but for a diminishing return until in 2014, his opus (part 1) was completed and we were relegated with 1 win under his belt. 2015 saw him continue to bankroll the side, which continued to underperform. I genuinely think that Covid gave him the perfect excuse to cut back his level of funding back, but the reality is, this has been a slow death and so as to answer your question, regeneration of London back to a competitive side playing to 4,500 fans would cost considerably more than it did on 2007. I'd guestimate nearer to £10,000,000 per year over 2 decades and you'd get a 10K average delivering £3,250,000 on the gate, the same in residuals with SKY and sponsors covering the rest, but until you get it up and running, there's the matter of another source covering the missing £6.5 million on the gate and merch/beers, as well as the Sponsors.
I'll say it again. IMG should bankroll it if they think it's a "sleeping giant", but Hughes should be allowed nowhere near it.
If it were me. I'd return to trailfinders as an investment partner, helping underwrite the new stand they need, but on a long term lease, with full and equal distribution of the match day costs and incomes. I hardly recall a single "offer" to entice me into the corporate area at Trailfinders, the Hive or the Stoop, whilst before that, Stripes was never anything but rammed!
It would seem to me that Loubser championed corporate income as a key fact in the farcical move to PL and Hughes called his bluff by saying if he was that confident, he could pay his wages from the corporate takings
......Oh how I wish that were true
It would show that a lesson about consequences of failure was being taught!