Dartford Chairman in KM

[Deleted]

The following is a quote from the Dartford Chairman in the KM

"They've already banked £30,500 for getting this far in the competition.

Mr Skinner said: "That’s basically the difference between making a loss and breaking even at the end of the season. It’s that important."

When are these morons gonna realise that you can't include cup runs in your main budget. For a club to admit they'd make a loss if the get knocked out of the cup is sheer lunacy.

[Deleted]

How many football clubs have you run

[Deleted]

You don't need to have run a football club (or any other business) to realise that relying on non-guaranteed income to break even isn't sustainable.

[jt]

I'm with you Dave.

[Deleted]

Nov 25, 2014 13:24:24 GMT daveu said:

You don't need to have run a football club (or any other business) to realise that relying on non-guaranteed income to break even isn't sustainable.

   That applies to most businesses but not football. A football business hasd an additional 'glamour' premium attached to it, which varies depending on which level it's at. Chelsea's is maybe £10-75M per annum...?
   For Dartford and other Confrence clubs this premium may be about £50K per annum on average, which can be calculated as the average annual amount an (ego-driven) chairman will be willing to sink into the club. It is on average (not all clubs are equal here) always positive because football clubs are not like manufactureres of steel casing or toothpaste tubes cos they give publicity and glamour to directors. If Dartford are run on an average £30K deficit that does not surprise me and is ^probably sustainable....Look at Margate and Ebbsfleet as extreme examples...The Stones are unusual at present in that it's profitable but then there's been a hell of alot of initial investment...

[Deleted]

I'm with you jt.

[Deleted]

Nov 25, 2014 17:46:21 GMT @preciousstone said:

Nov 25, 2014 13:24:24 GMT daveu said:

You don't need to have run a football club (or any other business) to realise that relying on non-guaranteed income to break even isn't sustainable.

   That applies to most businesses but not football. A football business hasd an additional 'glamour' premium attached to it, which varies depending on which level it's at. Chelsea's is maybe £10-75M per annum...?
   For Dartford and other Confrence clubs this premium may be about £50K per annum on average, which can be calculated as the average annual amount an (ego-driven) chairman will be willing to sink into the club. It is on average (not all clubs are equal here) always positive because football clubs are not like manufactureres of steel casing or toothpaste tubes cos they give publicity and glamour to directors. If Dartford are run on an average £30K deficit that does not surprise me and is ^probably sustainable....Look at Margate and Ebbsfleet as extreme examples...The Stones are unusual at present in that it's profitable but then there's been a hell of alot of initial investment...

You seem to know what you are talking about. So, what about our "initial investment" - presumably we're only making a profit because we're not paying off loans needed for these investments? In other words, Terry, Oliver, etc put their own money in to set up the club, but not as a loan to the club?

[Deleted]

Nov 25, 2014 21:10:02 GMT @johndaubneyslegs said:

Nov 25, 2014 17:46:21 GMT @preciousstone said:

   That applies to most businesses but not football. A football business hasd an additional 'glamour' premium attached to it, which varies depending on which level it's at. Chelsea's is maybe £10-75M per annum...?
   For Dartford and other Confrence clubs this premium may be about £50K per annum on average, which can be calculated as the average annual amount an (ego-driven) chairman will be willing to sink into the club. It is on average (not all clubs are equal here) always positive because football clubs are not like manufactureres of steel casing or toothpaste tubes cos they give publicity and glamour to directors. If Dartford are run on an average £30K deficit that does not surprise me and is ^probably sustainable....Look at Margate and Ebbsfleet as extreme examples...The Stones are unusual at present in that it's profitable but then there's been a hell of alot of initial investment...

You seem to know what you are talking about. So, what about our "initial investment" - presumably we're only making a profit because we're not paying off loans needed for these investments? In other words, Terry, Oliver, etc put their own money in to set up the club, but not as a loan to the club?

   Nobody ever accused me of that before ;-)
   It wouldn't be unusual for owners of a small business not to pay back loans for quite a while and also not take interest on their loan. So yes you could say part of profit the club is making is only interest not being paid

[Deleted]

I would say that there is probably a definite plan to get the ground investment paid off as quickly as possible balanced against a plan to ensure maximum revenue gain through ground expansion, proper facilities, meeting of ground standards etc etc. To that extent I agree with Preciousstone that part of profit is loans/interest on loans not being repaid. If these loans/interest were to be paid then it would simply take the club longer to become properly profitable. When the club does become properly profitable I would guess directors would be able to start making drawdowns from that profit and start to experience the gains of their investment. They would, of course, also hold the fully paid asset of the ground, fixtures and fittings.

[Deleted]

I'm with stupid.