Cost of relegation .

Talk about anything to do with Cheltenham Town, CTFC 500 Club, League 1, ex players & Managers

Moderators: Admin, Ralph, asl, Robin

everyman
Posts: 2067
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 09:11
It appears that relegation is costing Ctfc a large amount of money before we start playing.
Every League Two side is given a base fee of £472,000 no matter where they finish, as well as a £430,000 solidarity payment from the Premier League. However, promotion to League One brings huge financial benefits, with those figures rising to £677,000 and £642,000 in the third division.6 May 2024.
It remains to be seen if we spend our limited income wisely ?
Jerry St Clair
Posts: 1763
Joined: 15 Aug 2011, 16:40
I remember the Lincoln chairman a few years back saying that the jump from L2 to L1 was the hardest in the league because income rises a little bit, but costs go up much more.

The question for me is do we have a net gain or loss associated with relegation?

Income
Gate money - down
Commercial revenue - down
TV/prize money - down

Costs
Wages - down?
Matchday costs - down
Si Robin
Posts: 5582
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 10:29
This is exactly why those idiots saying the board wanted relegation are talking out of their ass.
bigdavejambo
Posts: 948
Joined: 27 Nov 2009, 22:46
think there is more TV revenue for League Two teams this coming season due to the new TV deal but dont know exact figures
User avatar
longmover
Posts: 2943
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 18:55
So is there 'less' pressure on the club now to have to find money now we are in league two as costs have reduced?

I would like to know what the difference is in commercial revenue from being in league 1 to league 2?
User avatar
Shade
Posts: 17125
Joined: 27 Sep 2010, 13:02
Location: Cheltenhamshire
The way I see it, if every club is getting paid the same amount, it isn’t much of a benefit. Yes, it helps pay the bills, but I’d assume players/agents will want a bit more money, knowing all the clubs are receiving more, etc. Inflation, and all that. The more well off clubs are still the more well off clubs.
Robin
Posts: 16140
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 11:19
Jerry St Clair wrote: 17 May 2024, 08:51 I remember the Lincoln chairman a few years back saying that the jump from L2 to L1 was the hardest in the league because income rises a little bit, but costs go up much more.

The question for me is do we have a net gain or loss associated with relegation?

Income
Gate money - down
Commercial revenue - down
TV/prize money - down

Costs
Wages - down?
Matchday costs - down
Will match day costs really go down? The difference of say 500 less people attending each week can't be much.
Robin
Posts: 16140
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 11:19
Shade wrote: 17 May 2024, 10:17 The way I see it, if every club is getting paid the same amount, it isn’t much of a benefit. Yes, it helps pay the bills, but I’d assume players/agents will want a bit more money, knowing all the clubs are receiving more, etc. Inflation, and all that. The more well off clubs are still the more well off clubs.
You've nailed it Shade once TV money goes up so will player wage demands. The clubs who are generating off the field revenue and have owners pumping money in will cope the sides who are making no progress off the field will feel the pinch.

I'm assuming our wage budget will remain reasonably flat or a small decrease with the TV revenue off setting the cost of 500 or so less fans attending each week but with player demands increasing the reality will be different.
Jerry St Clair
Posts: 1763
Joined: 15 Aug 2011, 16:40
Robin wrote: 17 May 2024, 10:27 Will match day costs really go down? The difference of say 500 less people attending each week can't be much.
Lower crowds = fewer stewards.
Fewer away fans = lower policing bills (Swindle will likely be the only game next season requiring a large police presence)

Those are both offset by less ticket revenue, less income from food and drink, hospitality etc.

I don't know the answer. I'm just suggesting that the net loss/gain may not be as clear as we think it is.
Jerry St Clair
Posts: 1763
Joined: 15 Aug 2011, 16:40
In 2019, when we were in L2, of course, we paid just under £31000 to Gloucestershire Constabulary for policing costs.

I don't know what we paid in L1 as I can't find more recent figures. In that same season, of the comparable L1 clubs, Oxford and Milton Keynes both paid £115000 while Shrewsbury paid £252000. Burton only paid £28000 but they are a real outlier. Most clubs paid north of £100k.
ctfc-fan
Posts: 1988
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 12:00
What about parachute payments?
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29880
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
ctfc-fan wrote: 17 May 2024, 12:18 What about parachute payments?
“Clubs relegated from EFL League One receive 12.6% of the Basic Award payment to League One clubs for one season.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier ... relegation.
User avatar
Horteng
Posts: 3193
Joined: 25 Nov 2009, 22:57
Location: Heart of the Forest, Glos
Wouldn't of thought costs will go down anywhere near as much as the income will. Presumably the playing budget will be the same (Can it go any lower?), Much smaller gates due to lack of travelling fans but cant see stadium running costs dropping much with smaller away support.
Fuller
Posts: 2815
Joined: 27 Jun 2012, 09:23
Horteng wrote: 18 May 2024, 07:33 Wouldn't of thought costs will go down anywhere near as much as the income will. Presumably the playing budget will be the same (Can it go any lower?), Much smaller gates due to lack of travelling fans but cant see stadium running costs dropping much with smaller away support.
Pretty sure the playing budget will be cut, same as it was after relegation in 2003 and 2009. 2015 was different because we had the money from the passing of Bryan Jacob, and everything was put into getting us straight back up into the EFL at the first attempt. Which thankfully we did.
Doubt we’ll see any new signings until late July/early August, plus the usual trialists looking to earn a deal.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29880
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Do the numbers suggest we lose more revenue than the £250k we got for May? We don’t know of course if asking him to honour his contract would have kept us up or not. Some might ask the same about Goodwin.
ctfc-fan
Posts: 1988
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 12:00
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:Do the numbers suggest we lose more revenue than the £250k we got for May? We don’t know of course if asking him to honour his contract would have kept us up or not. Some might ask the same about Goodwin.
What’s Goodwin done for Oxford since he went there??
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29880
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
ctfc-fan wrote: 18 May 2024, 12:00
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:Do the numbers suggest we lose more revenue than the £250k we got for May? We don’t know of course if asking him to honour his contract would have kept us up or not. Some might ask the same about Goodwin.
What’s Goodwin done for Oxford since he went there??
No idea. I was just suggesting some people might ask whether he would have got the goal or two we needed to stay up. I don’t really have a view either way.
paperboy
Posts: 2809
Joined: 05 Jul 2011, 22:56
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote: 18 May 2024, 10:01 Do the numbers suggest we lose more revenue than the £250k we got for May? We don’t know of course if asking him to honour his contract would have kept us up or not. Some might ask the same about Goodwin.
All of Alfie's goals didn't fire Charlton to promotion or the play offs but hypothetically could have saved them from relegation. 😉
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29880
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
paperboy wrote: 18 May 2024, 12:11
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote: 18 May 2024, 10:01 Do the numbers suggest we lose more revenue than the £250k we got for May? We don’t know of course if asking him to honour his contract would have kept us up or not. Some might ask the same about Goodwin.
All of Alfie's goals didn't fire Charlton to promotion or the play offs but hypothetically could have saved them from relegation. 😉
And hypothetically saved them from a big loss in revenue?
bigdavejambo
Posts: 948
Joined: 27 Nov 2009, 22:46
ctfc-fan wrote: 18 May 2024, 12:00
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:Do the numbers suggest we lose more revenue than the £250k we got for May? We don’t know of course if asking him to honour his contract would have kept us up or not. Some might ask the same about Goodwin.
What’s Goodwin done for Oxford since he went there??
kept the medical staff busy
horlickfanclub
Posts: 4019
Joined: 04 Aug 2011, 11:02
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote: 18 May 2024, 12:15
paperboy wrote: 18 May 2024, 12:11
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote: 18 May 2024, 10:01 Do the numbers suggest we lose more revenue than the £250k we got for May? We don’t know of course if asking him to honour his contract would have kept us up or not. Some might ask the same about Goodwin.
All of Alfie's goals didn't fire Charlton to promotion or the play offs but hypothetically could have saved them from relegation. 😉
And hypothetically saved them from a big loss in revenue?
They paid £275,000 to save them from a big loss if you expand that hypothesis.
User avatar
Shade
Posts: 17125
Joined: 27 Sep 2010, 13:02
Location: Cheltenhamshire
Fuller wrote: 18 May 2024, 08:09
Horteng wrote: 18 May 2024, 07:33 Wouldn't of thought costs will go down anywhere near as much as the income will. Presumably the playing budget will be the same (Can it go any lower?), Much smaller gates due to lack of travelling fans but cant see stadium running costs dropping much with smaller away support.

Pretty sure the playing budget will be cut, same as it was after relegation in 2003 and 2009. 2015 was different because we had the money from the passing of Bryan Jacob, and everything was put into getting us straight back up into the EFL at the first attempt. Which thankfully we did.
Doubt we’ll see any new signings until late July/early August, plus the usual trialists looking to earn a deal.
It's been mentioned before that the Bryan Jacobs money wasn't used for Operation Bounceback. It was all parachute payment. £800k.
User avatar
Lord Elpuz
Posts: 714
Joined: 20 Jul 2011, 19:35
While the skies are bright and/or the Sun is shining, the solar panels will be coughing up some extra revenue, as well as keeping electricity costs at the stadium to zero or very minimal. I have 18 solar panels on an east/west orientation and I made about £600 from Feb 2023 to Jan 2024, and had my hot water for free from June to October. I wonder if we will get to hear what the Club is generating from their panels?

Also, as Alfie May was League 1’s top scorer, we get another payout from Charlton … and if they sell him - we might get a bit more 😉

Actually, back to the solar money generation, depending on the tariff, I doubt whether the Club is getting more than about £4,000 per year for selling back to the grid - but at least it will reduce some of the outgoings.
User avatar
Shade
Posts: 17125
Joined: 27 Sep 2010, 13:02
Location: Cheltenhamshire
A gain of £4000 as opposed to a loss of probably what...£80+k a year? The electricity bills must be massive for football clubs, especially ones without LED floodlights.
horlickfanclub
Posts: 4019
Joined: 04 Aug 2011, 11:02
Two o'clock kickoffs would save some electricity money if brought in after the clocks change. Also more chance of getting home safely in winter. Something Fans organisations should consider.
User avatar
Lord Elpuz
Posts: 714
Joined: 20 Jul 2011, 19:35
Shade wrote: 19 May 2024, 14:20 A gain of £4000 as opposed to a loss of probably what...£80+k a year? The electricity bills must be massive for football clubs, especially ones without LED floodlights.
We wish ! Problem is CTFC didn’t go for battery backup afaik, so in winter months plus evening games, there is no sunlight so no solar charging - therefore the cost of running the floodlights remains pretty much the same as always.
Jerry St Clair
Posts: 1763
Joined: 15 Aug 2011, 16:40
Shade wrote: 19 May 2024, 14:20 A gain of £4000 as opposed to a loss of probably what...£80+k a year? The electricity bills must be massive for football clubs, especially ones without LED floodlights.
Didn’t David Bloxham say on the Robins Report a few months back that we were investing in LED floodlights this season?
ctfc-fan
Posts: 1988
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 12:00
Lord Elpuz wrote:
Shade wrote: 19 May 2024, 14:20 A gain of £4000 as opposed to a loss of probably what...£80+k a year? The electricity bills must be massive for football clubs, especially ones without LED floodlights.
We wish ! Problem is CTFC didn’t go for battery backup afaik, so in winter months plus evening games, there is no sunlight so no solar charging - therefore the cost of running the floodlights remains pretty much the same as always.
Battery backup for an array that size would be mage bucks
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29880
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Lord Elpuz wrote: 19 May 2024, 14:57
Shade wrote: 19 May 2024, 14:20 A gain of £4000 as opposed to a loss of probably what...£80+k a year? The electricity bills must be massive for football clubs, especially ones without LED floodlights.
We wish ! Problem is CTFC didn’t go for battery backup afaik, so in winter months plus evening games, there is no sunlight so no solar charging - therefore the cost of running the floodlights remains pretty much the same as always.
Not strictly true. Power can still be sold to the grid when it is generating during daylight hours in the winter.

I don’t think the PV array will directly be powering the floodlights anyway, right? So the maths are simple: Add up the value of power sold to the grid during a year. Subtract that amount from our annual energy bill. That’s what we save in a year.
ctfc-fan
Posts: 1988
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 12:00
Add to that solar is more efficient when it’s cooler.
asl
Posts: 6822
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 09:37
Some people still believe they require a hot sunny day, unfortunately. The reality now is that they're so efficient, they will generate at least some charge at night, if there's a particularly bright moon.
User avatar
Shade
Posts: 17125
Joined: 27 Sep 2010, 13:02
Location: Cheltenhamshire
asl wrote: 20 May 2024, 10:59 Some people still believe they require a hot sunny day, unfortunately. The reality now is that they're so efficient, they will generate at least some charge at night, if there's a particularly bright moon.
Anyone with solar lights in their garden should know you don't need a sunny day to charge them - they still come on at night if it's been raining all day, albeit not for as long.
User avatar
Lord Elpuz
Posts: 714
Joined: 20 Jul 2011, 19:35
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote: 20 May 2024, 06:47
Lord Elpuz wrote: 19 May 2024, 14:57
Shade wrote: 19 May 2024, 14:20 A gain of £4000 as opposed to a loss of probably what...£80+k a year? The electricity bills must be massive for football clubs, especially ones without LED floodlights.
We wish ! Problem is CTFC didn’t go for battery backup afaik, so in winter months plus evening games, there is no sunlight so no solar charging - therefore the cost of running the floodlights remains pretty much the same as always.
Not strictly true. Power can still be sold to the grid when it is generating during daylight hours in the winter.

I don’t think the PV array will directly be powering the floodlights anyway, right? So the maths are simple: Add up the value of power sold to the grid during a year. Subtract that amount from our annual energy bill. That’s what we save in a year.
I think you have slightly missed the point about winter months and evening games. Not much power, if any, is going to be generated by the solar panels after about 3pm in winter, and definitely not in the evenings either, as it’s dark. Solar panels generate electricity in the light - it doesn’t have to be sunny, it doesn’t have to be warm as has been correctly stated - but it has to be light. I agree the array won’t be powering the floodlights, but that’s obvious as floodlights only need to be on in poor light/darkness, so there is no solar power then, anyway.

The point of the above, therefore, is that as Football is generally a winter game, I don’t think we are going to be seeing much of a saving in the football related electricity costs, as the stadium will, for a large chunk of the time, be running in poor light or darkness.

We don’t know how much the Club will be able to sell back to the National Grid, but that is where a saving on electricity costs will be made, but per my reasoning above, it will only offset in real terms, any electricity used when the floodlights aren’t needed, when it will be pure profit. The point being, the large electricity costs of running the stadium for its main professional football purpose over the course of the autumn and winter months, will remain unchanged. But we won’t really know, unless the Club tell us.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29880
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Lord Elpuz wrote: 20 May 2024, 16:35
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote: 20 May 2024, 06:47
Lord Elpuz wrote: 19 May 2024, 14:57

We wish ! Problem is CTFC didn’t go for battery backup afaik, so in winter months plus evening games, there is no sunlight so no solar charging - therefore the cost of running the floodlights remains pretty much the same as always.
Not strictly true. Power can still be sold to the grid when it is generating during daylight hours in the winter.

I don’t think the PV array will directly be powering the floodlights anyway, right? So the maths are simple: Add up the value of power sold to the grid during a year. Subtract that amount from our annual energy bill. That’s what we save in a year.
I think you have slightly missed the point about winter months and evening games. Not much power, if any, is going to be generated by the solar panels after about 3pm in winter, and definitely not in the evenings either, as it’s dark. Solar panels generate electricity in the light - it doesn’t have to be sunny, it doesn’t have to be warm as has been correctly stated - but it has to be light. I agree the array won’t be powering the floodlights, but that’s obvious as floodlights only need to be on in poor light/darkness, so there is no solar power then, anyway.

The point of the above, therefore, is that as Football is generally a winter game, I don’t think we are going to be seeing much of a saving in the football related electricity costs, as the stadium will, for a large chunk of the time, be running in poor light or darkness.

We don’t know how much the Club will be able to sell back to the National Grid, but that is where a saving on electricity costs will be made, but per my reasoning above, it will only offset in real terms, any electricity used when the floodlights aren’t needed, when it will be pure profit. The point being, the large electricity costs of running the stadium for its main professional football purpose over the course of the autumn and winter months, will remain unchanged. But we won’t really know, unless the Club tell us.
You misunderstood my point. Look at it annually in the round and it doesn’t matter when we sell electricity vs when we consume it.

For hypothetical purposes, say during the six months of using floodlights and power the energy bills are £100,000. And during the rest of the year it is £25,000. That’s an annual cost of £125,000 for our electricity.

Then, for hypothetical purposes, say during the year we generate electricity from the PV array which we sell for £75,000.

Our annual net electricity costs are reduced to £50,000. I.e. we have recouped - or saved - £75,000.
ctfc-fan
Posts: 1988
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 12:00
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Lord Elpuz wrote: 20 May 2024, 16:35
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote: 20 May 2024, 06:47 Not strictly true. Power can still be sold to the grid when it is generating during daylight hours in the winter.

I don’t think the PV array will directly be powering the floodlights anyway, right? So the maths are simple: Add up the value of power sold to the grid during a year. Subtract that amount from our annual energy bill. That’s what we save in a year.
I think you have slightly missed the point about winter months and evening games. Not much power, if any, is going to be generated by the solar panels after about 3pm in winter, and definitely not in the evenings either, as it’s dark. Solar panels generate electricity in the light - it doesn’t have to be sunny, it doesn’t have to be warm as has been correctly stated - but it has to be light. I agree the array won’t be powering the floodlights, but that’s obvious as floodlights only need to be on in poor light/darkness, so there is no solar power then, anyway.

The point of the above, therefore, is that as Football is generally a winter game, I don’t think we are going to be seeing much of a saving in the football related electricity costs, as the stadium will, for a large chunk of the time, be running in poor light or darkness.

We don’t know how much the Club will be able to sell back to the National Grid, but that is where a saving on electricity costs will be made, but per my reasoning above, it will only offset in real terms, any electricity used when the floodlights aren’t needed, when it will be pure profit. The point being, the large electricity costs of running the stadium for its main professional football purpose over the course of the autumn and winter months, will remain unchanged. But we won’t really know, unless the Club tell us.
You misunderstood my point. Look at it annually in the round and it doesn’t matter when we sell electricity vs when we consume it.

For hypothetical purposes, say during the six months of using floodlights and power the energy bills are £100,000. And during the rest of the year it is £25,000. That’s an annual cost of £125,000 for our electricity.

Then, for hypothetical purposes, say during the year we generate electricity from the PV array which we sell for £75,000.

Our annual net electricity costs are reduced to £50,000. I.e. we have recouped - or saved - £75,000.
The array is 77,000kWh I believe, assume 50% exported to the grid (38,500kWh) and an export tariff of £0.20 and that gives you £7,700 per year income.
Post Reply