|
Post by PaperSaint on Feb 19, 2015 7:55:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jj123 on Feb 19, 2015 9:20:06 GMT
Not sure what they were really expecting when the took over - did they not see the long list of previous chairman who tried and failed to move us to a new ground.....
Can see all the big names leaving in the Summer - Frendo / Comley etc - we may as well extend Frendo / Comley contract and get a fee for them.
|
|
|
Post by notsorecentconvert on Feb 19, 2015 10:48:07 GMT
Interesting and, for those who have followed the club closely (even just over the past year or so, as I have) probably not surprising.
But what is surprising is how out of the blue it seems to have a dramatically-worded 'Save Our Saints' campaign being launched by the local paper.
Save Our Saints from what? They have a secure stadium – okay, it may not be ideal and there are serious restrictions on development and generating additional revenue, but they're not about to be locked out of Clarence Park. The team is more or less safe from relegation and there hasn't (yet) been a fire sale of the players.
So the reality is that we're being asked to Save Our Saints from a pair of owners who don't want to continue with a sustained investment unless they begin to see the possibility of a significant return on that investment.
I really can't see that capturing the public's imagination.
Mr McGowan's quotes at the end of the Herts Ad piece are at least honest. Unless there's a chance to make money from a stadium and retail or housing development, he's off. Fair enough, that's his prerogative because it's his money and I am sure all Saints fans are grateful for all the money that's been pumped in to restore the team to Conference South level.
But I think that in order to get what they want, they may need to be cleverer, cuter and more PR savvy than this.
An additional point – the break-even point is like tomorrow in that it never comes. Mr Archer said it was 750. Now the owners say it's 1,000. I am afraid that if your break-even point is 1,000, your gate prices are £15 and your team is lower mid-table and out of all the cups relatively early, the sums just don't add up.
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Feb 19, 2015 11:24:45 GMT
Sigh.
|
|
oldgeezer
Saints Youth Team Player
Posts: 248
|
Post by oldgeezer on Feb 19, 2015 11:44:38 GMT
Sadly inevitable. Football clubs are not a good investment at this level. It really needs some of the millions paid to the FA for TV rights to filter down. But that wont happen.
I hope it wont be curtains, and if I win the lottery I'll donate (not invest obviously!), but otherwise make the most of the club whilst we still can.
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Feb 19, 2015 11:49:32 GMT
Is it also not potentially a means of drawing the council's attention to their ideal plans - no doubt, they have been trying to get the council to work with them on their future plans but it can be hard to get a council to progress at any speed. I've seen it before where sometimes the only way to move things forward is to get the press / community involved to get matters moving forward. Ideally, I'd like to see the council invest in Clarence Park as it could not only boost the club but also local community/local business. I know there is a restrictive covenant but that can be balanced with a bit of innovation - I used to work in planning related areas and have seem similar issues overcome before.
|
|
|
Post by notsorecentconvert on Feb 19, 2015 12:09:01 GMT
Absolutely, AppySaint, but I don't get the impression that's what Mr McGowan and Mr Levy really want. They want a new stadium and the huge potential of a housing or retail development that would go alongside it.
I have to say, I don't think their approach is going to play too well with people. This is two rich men saying that unless they get what they want, they'll walk away. Their main play has to be more sophisticated than that. I'm not sure that the local authority will be swayed by that. Nor do I think committed fans will want to be manoeuvred into a position whereby they are being used to generate significant wealth for a couple of men. And other residents who may be impacted and who do not have an interest with the football club will not be interested in the slightest.
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Feb 19, 2015 12:27:31 GMT
I also would have liked to have gone along to the Fans Forum but only heard about it this week so is going to be difficult to make it along...
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Feb 19, 2015 14:06:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Feb 19, 2015 14:07:44 GMT
Exactly what I was going to suggest! Please everyone make sure you share this as widely as possible... twitter, Facebook, where ever you are...
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Feb 19, 2015 14:10:35 GMT
It's strange to me how there's not yet been any official comment on the club website, or even on the club twitter (Which has over 5,600 followers, one of the bigger following in the division) and instead, it's all coming through a local paper... Even clarifying the situation and then posting the campaign on the club twitter would see a lot more signatures I suspect.
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Feb 19, 2015 14:35:16 GMT
One of the first to tweet the petition link was John McGowan...
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Feb 19, 2015 14:36:18 GMT
One of the first to tweet the petition link was John McGowan... Even more reason to see it posted by the club!
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Feb 19, 2015 14:43:32 GMT
Agree - that was the point of my message. However, good to see that the Twitter Saints are getting active on this
|
|
|
Post by jj123 on Feb 19, 2015 15:07:11 GMT
The Saints twitter is shocking - even on Match day - hardly any detailed updates - really poor - even the Hemel / Wealdstone twitter is better
|
|
|
Post by ad43footsoldier on Feb 19, 2015 15:17:41 GMT
Not sure what they were really expecting when the took over - did they not see the long list of previous chairman who tried and failed to move us to a new ground..... Can see all the big names leaving in the Summer - Frendo / Comley etc - we may as well extend Frendo / Comley contract and get a fee for them. I think they would have been aware of the previous struggles but probably thought after 4 years they might have at least seen some progress. I don't think it's unreasonable to at least get a definitive answer after 4 years.
|
|
|
Post by ad43footsoldier on Feb 19, 2015 15:25:05 GMT
Interesting and, for those who have followed the club closely (even just over the past year or so, as I have) probably not surprising. But what is surprising is how out of the blue it seems to have a dramatically-worded 'Save Our Saints' campaign being launched by the local paper. Save Our Saints from what? They have a secure stadium – okay, it may not be ideal and there are serious restrictions on development and generating additional revenue, but they're not about to be locked out of Clarence Park. The team is more or less safe from relegation and there hasn't (yet) been a fire sale of the players. We have a secure stadium but not even close to a secure position in this league, after this season anyway. We might have the stadium but do we want to be back watching the team there in the division below or even two below?So the reality is that we're being asked to Save Our Saints from a pair of owners who don't want to continue with a sustained investment unless they begin to see the possibility of a significant return on that investment. The reality is that THEY are saving our Saints. Why is it reasonable to invest such large amounts of money especially at this level for no return at all and no sight of any resolution in the future? I really can't see that capturing the public's imagination. Mr McGowan's quotes at the end of the Herts Ad piece are at least honest. Unless there's a chance to make money from a stadium and retail or housing development, he's off. Fair enough, that's his prerogative because it's his money and I am sure all Saints fans are grateful for all the money that's been pumped in to restore the team to Conference South level. But I think that in order to get what they want, they may need to be cleverer, cuter and more PR savvy than this. Agree with this. I don't have a problem with John wanting to build a stadium for profit then leaving. By that point theoretically we won't need big money ownership if all goes to plan we will be more self sufficient. It's nice to have owner truly interested as I hope Lawrence is, but that's just my opinion. As you say though John has played his hand now and confirmed what most people thought, and I can't see that going down well with some people.An additional point – the break-even point is like tomorrow in that it never comes. Mr Archer said it was 750. Now the owners say it's 1,000. I am afraid that if your break-even point is 1,000, your gate prices are £15 and your team is lower mid-table and out of all the cups relatively early, the sums just don't add up.
|
|
|
Post by Canary Saint on Feb 19, 2015 15:36:04 GMT
Interesting and, for those who have followed the club closely (even just over the past year or so, as I have) probably not surprising. But what is surprising is how out of the blue it seems to have a dramatically-worded 'Save Our Saints' campaign being launched by the local paper. Save Our Saints from what? They have a secure stadium – okay, it may not be ideal and there are serious restrictions on development and generating additional revenue, but they're not about to be locked out of Clarence Park. The team is more or less safe from relegation and there hasn't (yet) been a fire sale of the players. So the reality is that we're being asked to Save Our Saints from a pair of owners who don't want to continue with a sustained investment unless they begin to see the possibility of a significant return on that investment. I really can't see that capturing the public's imagination. Mr McGowan's quotes at the end of the Herts Ad piece are at least honest. Unless there's a chance to make money from a stadium and retail or housing development, he's off. Fair enough, that's his prerogative because it's his money and I am sure all Saints fans are grateful for all the money that's been pumped in to restore the team to Conference South level. But I think that in order to get what they want, they may need to be cleverer, cuter and more PR savvy than this. An additional point – the break-even point is like tomorrow in that it never comes. Mr Archer said it was 750. Now the owners say it's 1,000. I am afraid that if your break-even point is 1,000, your gate prices are £15 and your team is lower mid-table and out of all the cups relatively early, the sums just don't add up. Thank you recentconvert, you've put into words what I was in my mind. I'm also need to have a little think about the reasons for the petition. Excuse my ignorance but who is Jack Kearney.
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Feb 19, 2015 15:41:21 GMT
Canary Saint- Just a random city fan I think who wishes to help somehow.
|
|
|
Post by Canary Saint on Feb 19, 2015 16:45:25 GMT
Canary Saint- Just a random city fan I think who wishes to help somehow. Cheers Saint. So hopefully, the idea is coming from a good place.
|
|
|
Post by notsorecentconvert on Feb 19, 2015 16:57:23 GMT
All fair points, ad43footsoldier.
Yes, they may well be *saving* our Saints but let's just step back and examine all this shall we.
All the PR I've seen over the past year has been about how the ticket prices need to be higher to cover the increased budget, so the supporters have been charged with contributing towards the shortfall. Now it's the council's fault. Nothing significant has changed either about St Albans City FC or non-league football since they bought the club.
I am not saying I am not appreciative of Mr McGowan and Mr Levy's efforts and expenditure – far from it – but the club as a whole has an inconsistent approach to communication.
Statements get made that we are expected to accept as facts but there's very little transparency. If someone wants to make a political case based on how much money they have sunk into the club then they need to be more open about a number of aspects of how the club is run. If they want to say they have sunk £450,000 in, fine, but let's make that information easy to access and verifiable, shall we?
Let's look at this from the outside, shall we. A club that currently attracts 500 to 900 people for a regular Conference South game wants to build a stadium on the outskirts of town. That stadium will need good transport links or plenty of space for car parking. It will need to attract more significant numbers than the club is currently attracting at a more convenient city centre location.
If you were the council, would that look like a good bet? A local authority is not, or should not be, there to facilitate wealth generation for the few. The community needs to be considered.
And if you were the council, what incentive is there to let the football club vacate Clarence Park? What would it be used for? Who would maintain it? Would it be allowed to fall into ruin?
My issue is not with the campaign, nor with the very laudable calls by supporters for the council to be more supportive but this needs a rounded, considered, professional approach.
I don't know either Mr McGowan or Mr Levy but I know their lines of business. I would have thought that Mr Levy, perhaps more so than Mr McGowan, would have got some expertise on board to draw up a plan and publicise that plan. They need to wage a PR campaign as well as a political one and, generally, it takes expertise and money to do that effectively.
I am not being critical for the sake of it, but giving some quotes to the Herts Ad – particularly ones that appear to be so self-serving – was not the ideal way to kicks things on, purely in my opinion, of course.
|
|
euclid
Saints Reserve Team Player
Posts: 456
|
Post by euclid on Feb 19, 2015 17:34:18 GMT
Yet another PR guff from the owners. Don't think that article is going to win much public sympathy. Just confirms what many fear that Levy & McGowan are only concerned with their own business interests rather than their love for the Club !! I don't know either of them personally, so I don't know whether that is true or not?
Also don't understand why the Herts Ad failed to get anyone from the Council to comment on their story, even if they were to say 'No comment'.
|
|
|
Post by Hatboy on Feb 19, 2015 17:58:28 GMT
Absolutely, AppySaint, but I don't get the impression that's what Mr McGowan and Mr Levy really want. They want a new stadium and the huge potential of a housing or retail development that would go alongside it. I have to say, I don't think their approach is going to play too well with people. This is two rich men saying that unless they get what they want, they'll walk away. Their main play has to be more sophisticated than that. I'm not sure that the local authority will be swayed by that. Nor do I think committed fans will want to be manoeuvred into a position whereby they are being used to generate significant wealth for a couple of men. And other residents who may be impacted and who do not have an interest with the football club will not be interested in the slightest. And as I've said before if the club aren't transferred over to the trust if they get planning permission to build a ground and houses it doesn't matter how much money they pocket they or any future owners could and probably would still sell of the ground to build more houses or as in most cases in non league football a supermarket !
|
|
|
Post by ad43footsoldier on Feb 19, 2015 19:14:15 GMT
All fair points, ad43footsoldier. Yes, they may well be *saving* our Saints but let's just step back and examine all this shall we. All the PR I've seen over the past year has been about how the ticket prices need to be higher to cover the increased budget, so the supporters have been charged with contributing towards the shortfall. Now it's the council's fault. Nothing significant has changed either about St Albans City FC or non-league football since they bought the club. I agree with what you're saying regarding how they word things. They blamed the price rise on the playing budget but I think they just wanted to recover a little bit of their losses with the view of just not losing too much, and that soon enough it would be worth it as the council would grant them permission. I think today's statement is just borne out of frustration at the lack of progress and is just part of a strategy to force the council's hand and try to speed the process up. I agree that the SOS statement is a bit of an exaggeration as the club will always have a ground, however playing potentially two divisions down would be a huge hit for the club as this is it's natural level. I am not saying I am not appreciative of Mr McGowan and Mr Levy's efforts and expenditure – far from it – but the club as a whole has an inconsistent approach to communication. Statements get made that we are expected to accept as facts but there's very little transparency. If someone wants to make a political case based on how much money they have sunk into the club then they need to be more open about a number of aspects of how the club is run. If they want to say they have sunk £450,000 in, fine, but let's make that information easy to access and verifiable, shall we? Agree and think that figure is hugely exaggerated.Let's look at this from the outside, shall we. A club that currently attracts 500 to 900 people for a regular Conference South game wants to build a stadium on the outskirts of town. That stadium will need good transport links or plenty of space for car parking. It will need to attract more significant numbers than the club is currently attracting at a more convenient city centre location. I disagree with that. Can't count how many grounds I've been to out in the middle of nowhere, sometimes not even in the town/city the club is named after. I Don't believe that needs more numbers through the gate. Isn't that the whole point of the move? That the new ground would have new facilities that could be used to generate money 7 days a week? And that it would eliminate the need for money men sustaining the club and paying the bills?If you were the council, would that look like a good bet? A local authority is not, or should not be, there to facilitate wealth generation for the few. The community needs to be considered. You make a good point here. It's a good argument if they only want to build a football stadium. I think that's why they always try to tie housing projects into. But I don't know whether they're trying to do that, so I can't comment.And if you were the council, what incentive is there to let the football club vacate Clarence Park? What would it be used for? Who would maintain it? Would it be allowed to fall into ruin? Should the club then be forced to stay there then? To the detriment of the club ?
My issue is not with the campaign, nor with the very laudable calls by supporters for the council to be more supportive but this needs a rounded, considered, professional approach. I don't know either Mr McGowan or Mr Levy but I know their lines of business. I would have thought that Mr Levy, perhaps more so than Mr McGowan, would have got some expertise on board to draw up a plan and publicise that plan. They need to wage a PR campaign as well as a political one and, generally, it takes expertise and money to do that effectively. I am not being critical for the sake of it, but giving some quotes to the Herts Ad – particularly ones that appear to be so self-serving – was not the ideal way to kicks things on, purely in my opinion, of course. Agree. Being blatant that you're only in it for the money will never get people onside, whether we all suspected it or not, and now he's said it there's no going back.
|
|
|
Post by Canary Saint on Feb 19, 2015 21:11:43 GMT
......for the club as this is it's natural level. As much as I love the team (and enjoy the rare successes). I am not so sure if City are actually at their natural level. Over the last 40 years City have spent many seasons at lower levels (I cannot be bothered at the moment to find out how many). City also have the "honour" of being the first club to be relegated from the Isthmian league as the table below shows. It could be argued that the club have in fact overachieved, which may explain the times it has nearly gone bust. 1 Wycombe Wanderers (C) 42 27 9 6 96 34 90 2 Hendon 42 25 13 4 63 20 88 3 Bishop's Stortford 42 26 9 7 78 26 87 4 Dulwich Hamlet 42 22 11 9 71 38 77 5 Leatherhead 42 23 6 13 81 44 75 6 Walton & Hersham 42 20 12 10 68 50 72 7 Woking 42 22 6 14 63 55 72 8 Leytonstone 42 20 9 13 63 44 69 9 Ilford 42 20 8 14 60 44 68 10 Hayes 42 17 14 11 65 43 65 11 Oxford City 42 15 16 11 45 47 61 12 Sutton United 42 13 16 13 51 52 55 13 Hitchin Town 42 15 10 17 68 73 55 14 Barking 42 14 12 16 57 58 54 15 Kingstonian 42 12 15 15 47 46 51 16 Tooting & Mitcham 42 14 9 19 57 62 51 17 Enfield 42 13 11 18 50 57 50 18 Walthamstow Avenue 42 11 13 18 46 62 46 19 Bromley 42 7 9 26 37 81 30 20 Clapton 42 8 3 31 36 128 27 21 St Albans City 42 4 7 31 30 92 19 Relegated to Division Two 22 Corinthian Casuals 42 3 4 35 31 107 13 None of this makes me happy, but it is interesting to note where the majority of surviving clubs from that time are now.
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Feb 19, 2015 21:30:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Canary Saint on Feb 20, 2015 0:03:50 GMT
Ah! but as somebody else mentioned it's not about support is it? For success, apparently you need all weather pitches and wedding/conference facilities. Please prove me wrong, but it appears to me that the future will either mean dropping down to a sustainable level of football or teetering on the edge of possible financial oblivion. Football can be so depressing at times.
|
|
|
Post by Canary Saint on Feb 20, 2015 0:04:04 GMT
Ignore
|
|
|
Post by EFMTFTV on Feb 20, 2015 1:15:55 GMT
Excuse my ignorance but who is Jack Kearney. Just a supporter, I know him quite well, one of the younger lot I understand 500 signitures and the council have to debate it
|
|
|
Post by bob666 on Feb 20, 2015 2:18:35 GMT
I think important not to conflate what are two separate questions. (1) Should the council do more to support the club? Yes (2) Should the council support the particular plans that Levy/McGowen propose? Need more information. As others have said in the past, the fact St Albans do not own their ground has been a source of resilience over the years (helped the club survive crisis) and their would be important questions concerning ownership structure if the club moved. If the club are to get council support for a move I have thought it was first necessary was to present a attractive transparent plan to supporters that addresses these issues. Before selling the plan to St Albans as a whole you need to insure the club's own fans support the move.
I have no idea how much longer the owners are willing to hold on without the prospect of a new stadium but if they plan to stay beyond this season it seems to me that announcement makes running the club harder. Surely the threat of a sudden withdrawal will hamper season ticket sales and I do not see how it can help with player/staff recruitment/retention. Would you join a firm that could see budget slashed at any moment?
I seem to be the only person who thinks this but given that we live in such a football rich area could a out of town ground not be dangerous? Watford only 8 miles up the road, their a host of premiership teams within 20 miles or so. For me personally, in terms of logistics, it would be easier for me to get to Watford on the abbey flyer than some of the sites proposed. No one starts out as a hardcore fan and is their not a danger that with a out of town ground when faced with a car/train journey either way causal/floating fans (some of whom could develop in regulars) will naturally graviate towards the higher standard of football? It is interesting to note that Leamington are trying to move back into the centre because of the effect a out of town ground is having on attendances. Personally, I watched St Albans as a kid but lost touch with team when I when away to university. I started watching them again when I returned to the City two years ago. I recently bought a half season ticket and get to 95% of home games but if we had a out of town ground two years ago then I think I would have just started going to Watford and never reconnected with the club. Of course very low attendances would be in the best interest of anyone who eventually planned a 'supermarket conversion'
|
|