The New Raith Rovers Thread

[Broken Algorithms]

Apparently theres gonna be a big bit in the press tomorrow saying that raiths finaces are getting worse.Hutton is gonna have his tuppence worth so i expect him to have a go at the fans for not going to home games.I know who is to blame for this and its not he fans.

I'm pretty sure we've got the lowest goals scored at home of any team in Scotland, if not the lowest. Things are improving with the returns of Casa and Clarke, but we still need to see the working going in. We have, frankly ridiculous prices for the standard of football which, not matter how much fundraising fan groups do, will not help the numbers which come to the games every other Saturday.

I don't think the fans can be blamed at all here. We've had some frankly outright brutal home performances this season where the players have not put in enough effort. You can't expect fans to go to games at a ridiculous price when they have to spend their money on the necessities of life.

Edit to add: Matthew Elder saying on twitter he isn't having a go at the fans, but still

Edited February 9, 2012 by rw89

[Michael W]

We're already forecasting an £80k loss, allegedly, so expect that to be thrown out in Hutton's interview..

The blame lies solely with those who set the budgets: they lost £80k last year despite vastly improved attendances, and they're doing the same this season. I don't know what sort of fantasy island figures they base our attendances on, I really don't.

There are obviously other retorts too - if our finances really are as bad as you say, why did we bring in Clarke on loan and Casalinouvo until the end of the season? That's a pretty clear gamble, and it angers me that our finances have suddenly become the fans' fault when the board are moaning about losing money, then going out and spending more. Yes, it's trying to solve the part of our problem that results in fans staying away (us being pish), but it's irresponsible when we're already on track to posting a big loss.

If they really wanted to sort our finances, they would waken up and realise that full-time football is not sustainable for us, and cut the cloth accordingly. That's the harsh reality I'm afraid.

I see Matthew Elder has been reading PnB/FT tonight, then.

Other edit: Apparently attendances are down 30%. Not playing Dunfermline is probably a big part of that.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Michael W

[Poet of the Macabre]

Sorry guys, we'll try and sort out your finances in a few months. Just hang on until August, aye?

[honeyboy edwards]

Sorry guys, we'll try and sort out your finances in a few months. Just hang on until August, aye?

OK, see ya soon!!!

[CALDERON]

I think the reduced prices/packages were a gamble that perhaps didn't pay off, as performances were so poor that attendances didn't really increase that much, if at all.

[Rover the Moon]

We're already forecasting an £80k loss, allegedly, so expect that to be thrown out in Hutton's interview..

The blame lies solely with those who set the budgets: they lost £80k last year despite vastly improved attendances, and they're doing the same this season. I don't know what sort of fantasy island figures they base our attendances on, I really don't.

There are obviously other retorts too - if our finances really are as bad as you say, why did we bring in Clarke on loan and Casalinouvo until the end of the season? That's a pretty clear gamble, and it angers me that our finances have suddenly become the fans' fault when the board are moaning about losing money, then going out and spending more. Yes, it's trying to solve the part of our problem that results in fans staying away (us being pish), but it's irresponsible when we're already on track to posting a big loss.

If they really wanted to sort our finances, they would waken up and realise that full-time football is not sustainable for us, and cut the cloth accordingly. That's the harsh reality I'm afraid.

I see Matthew Elder has been reading PnB/FT tonight, then.

Other edit: Apparently attendances are down 30%. Not playing Dunfermline is probably a big part of that.

With the Hearts boys going back and Reynolds returning to St J, don't think Clarke and Casa's arrivals will have eaten too much into the budget. Tough one for the board as they and McGlynn have tried to address the entertainment value issue by bringing in some strikers but it's not been reflected in results (so far) or crowds.

I agree that not playing the Pars has hit crowds but the FFP is reporting a £115k slump in gate receipts compared with last season and there's still a long way to go before May. If it continues down that route I don't think it's sustainable. The crowds for the Falkirk and Dundee games have been well below what I would consider realistic, even with us struggling.

If we get through this then we'll just have to throw the kids in next season and hope for the best - no matter what league we're in. Doubt McGlynn would be kept on either. Part-time football it is but how much cheaper is that in any case? Sure Sparky was getting travelling expenses being P/T which, when added to his actual wage, would be similar to a full-timer.

Depressing times.

[Ro Sham Bo]

Just read the article in the FFP.

According to Hutton the situation is now "hugely worse" than in September when the open meeting was held and crowds are down on even the revised estimates set by the board. In addition the £80k loss projected in September is likely to be doubled come the end of the season.

I'm really not sure how can this be. Since the meeting our crowds haven't gotten any worse as far as I can see so I'd love to see what rationale the board use when calculating their crowd projections. The majority of the 11,500 drop in attendances is due to losing the Pars games, the rest of this will be due to a combination of poor,poor football and entertainment and also the recession - the drop in away supports this season has been pretty noticeable.

Can any of this have been that hard to predict? The board knew Dunfermline were in the SPL this season, they knew there is a recession and people have less expendable resources, and they knew we had cut back our squad and it was likely results and performances would suffer (although admittedly maybe not as much as they actually have).

It's not good enough and the Board and FFP can point the finger at the floating fans all they like but when you combine the current economic climate with the sort of crap we've served up this season you're never going to tempt any of them to come along on a regular basis.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Martin Nelson

[pub car king]

They run a business whose sole purpose is entertainment there business represents poor value for money in a tough economic climate stop whingeing about customers because you will only piss off even more people who could be paying to get in on a Saturday. The club has been poorly run for years by various people

[Rover the Moon]

sole purpose is entertainment

Really? If we were losing 4-3 every week at home and rooted to the bottom of the league, would there be more fans than if we were playing one up front, lumping long balls into the box, scraping 1-0 wins and sitting top?

[Raith Against The Machine]

I think it's difficult to argue with the majority of the article, and I'd like to back Turnbull Hutton in this instance. The directors stepping in and paying wages is admirable, and turning that money into shares instead of "soft loans" even more so. Christ knows how much money is being pished away there.

It's a very difficult situation. Actually starting the season with a budget that would allow the club to break even would be a self-defeating spiral. The players would have to be well below the standards required, and the team would be hammered so badly each week that nobody would turn up, and the whole thing would probably have to be repeated next season, in the Second.

I think they've made the right choice in giving John McGlynn the lowest "competitive" budget they could, and hoping the team overachieves under a talented manager. I still believe that will happen, and the team will stay up. Next season will probably be the same, with the highest earning players out of contract either being released or asked to take pay cuts, as we saw at the end of last season. Hopefully the Pars will be back down again and the average crowd figure will lift and provide a little relief.

As much as the club "don't rely on cup runs" they probably do account for a pessimistic "average income" based over the last 5 seasons or so from each of the cup competitions and you'd have to assume that this season is probably the lowest total cup income we've had in that period of time.

Like everyone else, though, I do have an issue with the whole "crowds are lower than our estimation" business. If you make an estimate, and the actual figure is different, it's the estimate that's incorrect, not the reality.

[geo1234]

Turnball Hutton really knows how to piss off fans

Can't work out a budget- blames fans

80k loss blames the fact we won too many games

Away ye go!

[yoda]

Alastair Campbell's tweeting a few things concerning Raith Rovers, what's going on?

[Raith Against The Machine]

Alastair Campbell's tweeting a few things concerning Raith Rovers, what's going on?

It would appear that someone is arranging a benefit match in London on the 19th, some sort of Pro-Am thing. Looks like Gordon Brown has had a wee word with Alastair Campbell, who's got the ear of some in the footballing world.

[Paco]

Just read the article in the FFP.

According to Hutton the situation is now "hugely worse" than in September when the open meeting was held and crowds are down on even the revised estimates set by the board. In addition the £80k loss projected in September is likely to be doubled come the end of the season.

I'm really not sure how can this be. Since the meeting our crowds haven't gotten any worse as far as I can see so I'd love to see what rationale the board use when calculating their crowd projections. The majority of the 11,500 drop in attendances is due to losing the Pars games, the rest of this will be due to a combination of poor,poor football and entertainment and also the recession - the drop in away supports this season has been pretty noticeable.

Can any of this have been that hard to predict? The board knew Dunfermline were in the SPL this season, they knew there is a recession and people have less expendable resources, and they knew we had cut back our squad and it was likely results and performances would suffer (although admittedly maybe not as much as they actually have).

It's not good enough and the Board and FFP can point the finger at the floating fans all they like but when you combine the current economic climate with the sort of crap we've served up this season you're never going to tempt any of them to come along on a regular basis.

Well that's saved me some typing. I appreciate the difficulties involved in running us for this season with no derby gates, but seriously... I could have told Turnbull Hutton those problems at the start of the season. Why has it taken until February for him to realise that?

Fair play to the board for covering wages - that's very, very good of them. Kind of like covering their own backs though, I'd have to say.

It remains absolutely disgraceful that we lost money last season. A child could have ran us at a profit.

[RoversMad]

It remains absolutely disgraceful that we lost money last season. A child could have ran us at a profit.

That's a tad harsh,

IIRC we had about 8 weeks without a home game (therefor no income) due to horrendous weather, we didn't sell any players, crowds were poor at tail end of season, less than 2000 for last game at home against Queens was shocking IMO. We also lost a huge home gate & hospitality v Dundee due to *coughNeil Lennon* the refs strike. And we definately won a lot more games than we were expected to last season, so as laughable as it sounds, the win bonus argument is a valid one, these are all factors that couldn't be accounted for.

Apart from that I agree with everything else you say.

[Paco]

That's a tad harsh,

IIRC we had about 8 weeks without a home game (therefor no income) due to horrendous weather, we didn't sell any players, crowds were poor at tail end of season, less than 2000 for last game at home against Queens was shocking IMO. We also lost a huge home gate & hospitality v Dundee due to *coughNeil Lennon* the refs strike. And we definately won a lot more games than we were expected to last season, so as laughable as it sounds, the win bonus argument is a valid one, these are all factors that couldn't be accounted for.

Apart from that I agree with everything else you say.

It's old ground that we all went over in the summer but we had an extra nine thousand people in over the course of the season. NINE thousand. Five hundred per game, on average. The equivalent of six or seven extra home matches, to put that into context. The budget was set in full knowledge that the Cup run had covered our losses the season beforehand - something we totally failed to address - and we "hoped" for a top four finish. So what kind of fantasy crowds were we actually aiming for, on average? 3000? For "hopefully" a top four finish? When in reality we got 2708 on average for a bloody close title push. I accept crowds were a bit disappointing in the run-in but that should've been negated by the fact that the club didn't expect to be pushing for the title, surely?. Were they hoping for 3000 to show up to roar us to a third placed finish? Incredibly it actually seems they were.

Despite the difference in our seasons we actually only won six more league matches in 10/11 compared to 09/10. If win bonuses are the same for Cup matches as league matches we won just three - that's three - more matches overall. The Dundee fiaso would've been a bit of a hit, sure - only 350 more at the Saturday game a few weeks later than the midweek one, though. You're not looking at a huge loss in reality. A small contributory factor though, I acknowledge. We did have a long gap without a home match between November and January but not too sure how that really affected the overall loss? Cash-flow, yes, but we still played eighteen home matches. Maybe the Cowdenbeath match being moved to midweek lost £5k or so if we're generous. We also had decent income from Cup matches with East Fife, Hamilton, and Aberdeen. The Scottish Cup was its usual disaster but cup money is "unbudgeted" money, apparently. So in reality those ties should just about cover the offset from the Dundee/Cowden games. If we lost £80k from three extra win bonuses it's little wonder Gregory Tade ran about like he was being chased by a leopard.

[Raith Against The Machine]

There is a potential benefit to being part-time. With the greatest of respect to other part-time times, you could argue that (if the Rovers stay up this season) that by going part-time next season they'd be the "biggest" part-time team in Scotland. Although there would obviously be severe financial restraints, you would hope that the best and brightest in part-time football could be persuaded to join.

Footballers, as much as football clubs, must be realising that being full-time is less of an option. I'd love the Rovers to be a home for footballers who could be full-timers but choose to work outside of football for the sake of their futures.

[Michael W]

With the Hearts boys going back and Reynolds returning to St J, don't think Clarke and Casa's arrivals will have eaten too much into the budget. Tough one for the board as they and McGlynn have tried to address the entertainment value issue by bringing in some strikers but it's not been reflected in results (so far) or crowds.

I think the fact our projected loss has increased shows that we're actually over budget on our already poor outlook. If we're continuing to lose money, we shouldn't be signing more players. I appreciate this is highly annoying, but we're digging ourselves into deeper holes.

I agree that not playing the Pars has hit crowds but the FFP is reporting a £115k slump in gate receipts compared with last season and there's still a long way to go before May. If it continues down that route I don't think it's sustainable. The crowds for the Falkirk and Dundee games have been well below what I would consider realistic, even with us struggling.

A couple of very rough calculations by myself points to our income from a Dunfermline match being in the £60k region. That's a pessimistic estimate as well, so you can immediately see where the problem is.

The other crowds haven't helped, admittedly.

If we get through this then we'll just have to throw the kids in next season and hope for the best - no matter what league we're in. Doubt McGlynn would be kept on either. Part-time football it is but how much cheaper is that in any case? Sure Sparky was getting travelling expenses being P/T which, when added to his actual wage, would be similar to a full-timer.

That's one case in point, though I've no doubt there were numerous others who were a fair bit cheaper. Pretty much every club in Scotland beneath the 1st division would go bust if part-time football was no cheaper than full-time.

The board have 3 options as I see it:

1) If they are interested in sustainability, they will look at going part-time or reverting to the mixture that we had previously.

2) Accept that they have to subsidise the club if it's to survive on it's current set up.

3) Do none of the above and the club will go bust.

[Ebanda's Handyman Services]

I'll support the Rovers vocally, financially and fundraising wise for as long as I, or they, are alive but I have to say that it's fucking soul destroying reading about this constant struggle to stay afloat.

If my family was struggling as bad as this financially and we were on the verge of bankruptcy I'd cut everything down to the bare bones. Aye, fair enough, we'd get sick of playing Monopoly every night due to getting rid of the tv and I'd miss getting humped by super-fast fingered Chinese geniuses at Pro Evo online on the PS3 but at least we'd have a bit of money about us to provide an even footing for replenishing our luxuries through time.

Raith Rovers need to go to the bare bones, part time throughout until we have a wee bit of money to be adventurous enough to push on a wee bit and bring in a few luxuries. If that means dropping down to the 3rd division and getting pumped off Montrose 4 times a season then so be it. At least we would still have the foundations in place to build on again. The way the club's finances are going at the moment, these foundations are in grave danger of crumbling beneath our feet and some serious action needs taken one way or the other before we find ourselves with nothing left to work with.

[Broken Algorithms]

Does any other team except for Dundee rent their stadium from elsewhere. I think that is undoubtedly one of our most significant problems. We can bring in too much revenue on top of the mortgage, we can't upgrade the stadium as it isn't ours, but we can't move elsewhere with no alternative.