The Great Escape

[SonkORLY?]

Dixie, if you have managed to deduce as much from the annual accounts, what are the fundemental differences between the way Tranmere and Walsall operate?

 

[DixieDean]

Dixie, if you have managed to deduce as much from the annual accounts, what are the fundemental differences between the way Tranmere and Walsall operate?

Obviously there are certain things that are difficult to know or find out without having direct links to the clubs, but from data that the man on the street can collect, let's see:

A couple of major factors pop-out straight away.

Factor 1:
The Bescot stadium (or Banks's stadium as it is now known) was only built in 1990, compared to our stadium originally built in 1912. I would say our ground has higher upkeep costs (despite the fact much of it was rebuilt not so long ago). But I would guess (and it is a guess) that the upkeep costs of the offices etc are much higher than a 19 year old stadium.

Factor 2:
Perhaps the most important one here is that Walsall have 'sold out' to sponsors, renaming the ground "Banks's Stadium" in a deal with Marston's Brewery. They have also renamed every stand in separate sponsorship deals. They now have some very interesting stands:
West Bromwich Building Society Stand
Floors 2 Go Stand
Txt 64446 Health Stand
Dains Stand (they are Chartered Accountants if you're interested!)

The next thing to look at is admission prices.
This is where it gets very complicated, due to all the different costs and concessions in different stand etc, but to simplify things:
Walsall:
adult = £18,
OAP/Kids = between £8-£13
In the family areas, 1 adult and 1 child costs a total of £20, with £7 per additional child.

Tranmere:
adult = between £13 and £22
OAP/Under 23s = between £8.50 and £13.50
Under 17s = £5

Let's say 1 adult takes 2 kids to the games:
Walsall = £27
Tranmere = between £23 and £32

Let's say 3 kids go on their own:
Walsall = between £24 and £39
Tranmere = £15

It should also be noted that if you buy your walsall tickets on the day of the game they can cost £2 more each, which again pushes up their revenue.

Due to the amount of kids that go to tranmere I think it's quite significant that Walsall pull in more money from them.

Also, if you look at season ticket prices, the differences become even more obvious.

At Tranmere, a junior can get a half season ticket for £35 (£20 for under 7s)
At Walsall a junior's half season ticket costs £77

So I blame the kids :razz:

Both clubs have VIP lounges, but Walsall also have 13 executive boxes, each costing upwards of £450 per match or £7,250+ for a season ticket, which obviously generates the sort of cash that tranmere miss out on altogether.

 

[DixieDean]

One thing I missed there is that at Walsall, fans aged between 18 and 23 pay FULL PRICE, whereas we give them a reduced price which can be almost £10 less per person than walsall charge. That is one heck of a difference!

 

[OneNightInGayParis]

It would be interesting to know the proportion of young fans attending Walsall matches as opposed to Rovers. We may be losing up to a tenner but may be ensuring full fare paying spectators when they are older and (hopefully) earning. Walsall's junior pricing may be too short-termist - especially when you bear in mind the number of larger clubs competing for support in their vicinity. I suspect that there is a probably a middle ground, though, where there could be a justification for a slight increase in junior pricing at Rovers.

 

[Davidchallinor]

after last night's 3-3 we've only lost one in five games....precisely the form we need to stay up, with nine or ten wins included of course. Saturday's game versus Brentford (my first match was TRFC 6-2 Brentford in 1973....) is another vital match points-wise...we simply must win games like this, if, as I guess we will, go down fighting against teams in the top 8 later in the season....Brentford (CAPS NOW....) HAVE NOT WON AWAY SINCE AUGUST 8.
I HOPE LES MAKES SURE THE LADS KNOW THIS AND SENDS THEM OUT AT 3PM ON SAT WITH TWO WORDS: "BOSS 'EM!"

 

[DixieDean]

IWalsall's junior pricing may be too short-termist - especially when you bear in mind the number of larger clubs competing for support in their vicinity.

Yes, Walsall have 4 (big) clubs Birmingham, Villa, Wolves and West Brom all roughly within 8 miles of them.
Tranmere have the obvious 2 sitting 5 miles away across the Mersey.

Walsall regularly get around 1,000 supporters less than us (looking at 2007 through to 2009). But when you consider they have FOUR clubs competing for supporters, are they doing well getting as many as they do? Should we be getting much more than Walsall?
I imagine Liverpool & Everton's domination of English football in the 80s hasn't helped us at all.

Another thing to factor in is the populations of the areas.
Walsall's population is some 180,000 - compared to Tranmere's local population of some 12,000 :?

Maybe that's it. Do the people of Walsall see themselves as having a football club? Probably yes.

Do the people of Wirral (population 300,000) think of themselves as having a football club? Hmm. They probably think of Liverpool and Everton in all honesty. It wasn't that long ago that someone I worked with asked me if Tranmere were a professional club. "Do they play in a league like Liverpool and Everton?" was what followed. Yes, it was a women. But she knew of the "Big 2".

If we rebranded as Wirral FC, would that not give the Wirral people their own football club? Would people in Heswall, Caldy, Meols, Hoylake relate more to Wirral FC or Tranmere Rovers? I realise that we have many supporters from those areas, but just how much does the name of a football club matter?

Port Vale get very small crowds in comparison with Stoke, but is that purely down to Stoke's 'success' or perhaps that people ok Stoke can relate to them more than a club that isn't even named after a place!

 

[Boz]

I doubt that changing our name would make much impact on attendance. Port Vale seem to get a better average attendance than most L2 sides, maybe even than us (haven't checked the stats). Wonder why that is.

 

[DixieDean]

I doubt that changing our name would make much impact on attendance. Port Vale seem to get a better average attendance than most L2 sides, maybe even than us (haven't checked the stats). Wonder why that is.

Under 9s get in free at Port Vale, hence them averaging around 5,500 last season. The 2 previous seasons when in league 1 they averaged around 4,600 at home.

They don't have anything like the competition for support the way we do. They don't have a very successful club on their doorstep. Stoke City are the only other half decent club in the entire County. Then the next nearest prem clubs are in Manchester, Merseyside or Brum. None are particularly close.

So, with a population of 250,000 in Stoke, you could perhaps expect more fans to turn up at Port Vale considering they only have Stoke as competition.
When Stoke were in League 1 last (around 7-8 years ago, they consistently pulled in over 10,000 fans in every home game), around double that of Port Vale.

 

[TRFC_Ian]

Txt 64446 Health Stand

Hahaha! I love a snappy name! Is that sponsored by some kind of clap helpline?!

 

[TheBunnyBellEnd]

Who says selling out is embarassing:-D

 

[Davidchallinor]

Leap-frogging across the cup replay, the trip to Southampton is another chance to prove to the teams around us of Rovers' never-say-die attitude ....in my Nov 24 message on this thread I did say wins v Southend and Brentford were vital in the rocky road to safety, but I didn't factor in a spirited draw at Huddersfield. ANYTHING positive on our table stats from the trip to the south coast will be a massive boost to our chances and should trigger an early christmas present for Les and his team....what about it PJ?!

 

[Boz]

Primary aims for Southampton game are keeping the score respectable and avoiding a glut of cards or injuries that will see players out of action over the Christmas period. The 3 games then, a trip to Oldham sandwiched between home matches with Bristol Rovers and Carlisle are crucial. Get at least 5 points and our prospects of staying up improve.

 

[Davidchallinor]

Now to concentrate on the league and our quest for safety....51 points should do it, 30 more points: here's a model of how... v Gillingham DRAW, V Yeovil WIN, V Oldham WIN, V Southend DRAW, V orient WIN, V Huddersfield WIN,
V Brentford DRAW, Bristol Rov v DRAW, V Hartlepool WIN, Brighton v DRAW, V Norwich DRAW, v Walsall v DRAW, V Wycombe WIN,V Exeter WIN, V Colchester v DRAW, V Stockport v DRAW.

 

[bring back the cowshed!]

It's still possible but difficult.

Stockport look doomed. They can't afford to invest in players.

Wycombe are reviving under new manager Gary Waddock. A great draw at Leeds and an narrow defeat against Charlton shows their potential, but they have now played four more games than us, are still two points behind and have even managed to get a worse goal difference!

There are currently about a dozen other relegation candidates above us. They will be playing each other regularly and most will be dropping points. If we can play consistently to the end of the season - no better than in recent weeks, we can stay up.

The main dangers are:
1. Injuries - always likely at this time of year, particular the older players. The squad is wafer thin.
2. Suspensions - we have a better disciplinary record than under Barnes, but players often reach the points limit in the spring.
3. Loss of form - if we start to lose a couple of games, will the players lose heart? This month is really tough. If we can survive it, we must have a chance.

I am optimistic and think we will do it, but the sooner we get out of the bottom four the better.

 

[Boz]

We apparently have funds to get a couple of loans in, which may assist with the injuries/suspensions. How the current management team would cope with a bad run both in terms of changing tactics and maintaining morale remains to be seen. We desparately need to start picking up some points on our travels and put together a decent run of results to stand a chance of holding onto our L1 place.

 

[bigmart]

stockport are certain to go down i would say but they signed 4 players yesterday for the rest of the season and hope to bring in another on loan today.
Its good news that we will be able to bring in a loan signing to boost the squad, hopefully we may be able to move a couple out on loan and bring another player in.

 

[Tartantranmere64]

20 games left. 53 points should see us safe. That's 28 points from the remaining games. We can get these by 7 wins, 6 draws and 7 defeats.

7 wins: Oldham, Orient, Hartlepool, Wycome, Exeter (all home), Brighton, Stockport (away).

6 draws: Huddersfield, Leeds, Millwall (all home), Wallsall, Southend, Colchester (away).

7 Defeats: Charlton, Gillingham, Brizzle, Brentford, Swindon (all away), Southampton, Norwich (home).

Easy (although don't really want to go to Stockport on the last day having to win). Thoughts....

 

[Boz]

I'd agree that we should be capable of winning the 5 you've highlighted at home, but Rovers have a poor record at Brighton since they moved to the Withdean and would do well to get anything out of that one. I don't think Southend or Colchester have been happy hunting grounds for us generally and therefore we have to take something from the games at Gillingham/Bristol/Brentford to be in with a chance of escaping the drop.

I'd hope that we are safe by the time of the Stockport game as if it were a "must win" match I doubt we'd do it.

 

[Tartantranmere64]

we drew at brighton last season and look at their home form this year. We won at colchester last season. Maybe happier hunting grounds than u thought?

 

[OneNightInGayParis]

To be honest we probably won't need 53 points to escape (just as well!). Over the past 7 seasons the most needed to survive has been 52. The following would have done it: 50, 49, 48, 51, 52, 51, 49. So it looks like we'd be really unlucky to need more than 51 - at least it turns one "must win" into a draw ...

"If we set a bench mark of around 50 points, we'll be there or there-a-bouts. Fifty points should be ok" - ITM on BBC.