Business question.

Forum to discuss everything that is Tigers related

Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster

jgriffin
Super User
Super User
Posts: 8074
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:49 pm
Location: On the edge of oblivion

Re: Business question.

Post by jgriffin »

Not a jock wrote: Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:57 am
Coops wrote: Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:15 am Income from ticket sales (the rugby income) only accounts for 26% of the total income:

Rugby income £5,391k
Premier Rugby Limited income £6,097k
Commercial income £8,923k
Total Income £20,411k

I don't know if the PRL income is exactly the same for all 12 clubs (is the PRL pot equally split?) but let's assume it is - we have a really good fan base and therefore probably have one of the largest rugby incomes. If that's case, it's really easy to see how other clubs are struggling to operate.
Yes, it'd be very interesting to see the corresponding figures for other clubs, especially the (current) near neighbours.

My brother sometimes goes to Sandy Park and tells me that Exeter Chiefs ticket prices are teh highest in the Premier League so that might compensate for a smaller crowd to some degree.
Chiefs have lots of income streams including rich people. Wage bill is kept tight.
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
ellis9
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4187
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:44 pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Business question.

Post by ellis9 »

jgriffin wrote: Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:34 am
ellis9 wrote: Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:26 am I'd be happy to pay an extra £20 for my season ticket. If all season ticket holders paid an extra £20, that would give Tigers £280,540.
The bean counters should be able to roughly estimate an increase that would preserve sales. My guess is about 5%.
Beyond that we are at the mercy of behavioural factors as well as economic swings. My view is to sit tight while the latter resolves itself, as we may see unpredictable changes.
£20 would be fine. It's £1.25 a game. Surely people would be ok with an increase of £1.25 per game?!
Not a jock
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 350
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: Somerset

Re: Business question.

Post by Not a jock »

JGRIFFIN,

"Chiefs have lots of income streams including rich people. Wage bill is kept tight." is that tight as in secret and/or tight as in strict adherence to budget?
Coops
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:59 pm
Location: Coalville

Re: Business question.

Post by Coops »

^^ bit of both I think.

They will start to come under pressure now I think with their wage bill. The player profiles have drastically improved since they got promoted, moved through the premiership and won silverware, some gaining international honours along the way. Their agents will be wanting to get their pound of flesh.

Does that mean some players will leave because Exeter can't match their demands (of other clubs)? Maybe so. I wonder what their long term strategy is for this? It's sustainable short term as players are already locked into their 3/5 year contracts but when they expire it opens up a problem IMO
Alandrin75
Tiger Cub
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2015 10:14 am

Re: Business question.

Post by Alandrin75 »

A more interesting way to look at the business is to look at the EBITDA.

This is earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation. It shows the underlying profitability of the business before deprecation of assets etc.

I would be far more concerned if this was negative than if the operating profit was negative.
jgriffin
Super User
Super User
Posts: 8074
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:49 pm
Location: On the edge of oblivion

Re: Business question.

Post by jgriffin »

Not a jock wrote: Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:55 am JGRIFFIN,

"Chiefs have lots of income streams including rich people. Wage bill is kept tight." is that tight as in secret and/or tight as in strict adherence to budget?
Stuff used to happen through SW Comms, the boss's firm. Assume the shenanigans still occurs.
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
Coops
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:59 pm
Location: Coalville

Re: Business question.

Post by Coops »

jgriffin wrote: Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:00 pm
Not a jock wrote: Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:55 am JGRIFFIN,

"Chiefs have lots of income streams including rich people. Wage bill is kept tight." is that tight as in secret and/or tight as in strict adherence to budget?
Stuff used to happen through SW Comms, the boss's firm. Assume the shenanigans still occurs.
Neither them or their holding company look particularly profitable. Margins of less than 2%.
jgriffin
Super User
Super User
Posts: 8074
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:49 pm
Location: On the edge of oblivion

Re: Business question.

Post by jgriffin »

That's interesting! Wonder if the new money is where it's now at, although SW Comms never bankrolled the club as much as suggested, more a conduit for investors. The club is Rob, if he went a lot of loyal support would evaporate.
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
h's dad
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:19 pm
Location: In front of pc

Re: Business question.

Post by h's dad »

Coops wrote: Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:49 pm
jgriffin wrote: Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:00 pm
Not a jock wrote: Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:55 am JGRIFFIN,

"Chiefs have lots of income streams including rich people. Wage bill is kept tight." is that tight as in secret and/or tight as in strict adherence to budget?
Stuff used to happen through SW Comms, the boss's firm. Assume the shenanigans still occurs.
Neither them or their holding company look particularly profitable. Margins of less than 2%.
Take out the hefty directors' remuneration and you're on over 10%, after tax.
I am neither clever enough to understand nor stupid enough to play this game
Post Reply