[Albion] Have a look at this brilliant bit of writing

[sussex_guy2k2]

Maybe it is Seagulls Travel, but that doesn't affect the travelzone which is still from Eastbourne to Worthing and up to Haywards Heath.

It's all coaches/buses that arrive at the ground from outside of the immediate train travel zone. At least that's the case for next season. It's likely to be that subsidy for all is stopped soon after.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Bit penny pinching, perhaps we can get £50 off of our season tickets then

Well that's the biggest kick in the balls element of it all. We already pay more to see games as we have to pay for the extra travel. We also pay higher ST prices in order to allow for the subsidised travel for everyone else.

What things means in reality is either that more people will go and use the free car parking in places like Mill Road, which are not in any way set up for an increase in numbers, or people will have to cut out purchasing things from the club. If our coach/bus prices go up next season, alongside a drastic ST hike (which is rumoured), then I'd imagine there will be a fair number who will reconsider whether they can afford to be ST holders, which is a real shame.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Here's a bit of extra information that may be relevant.

The bonus was agreed by the EPL remuneration committee, which is chaired by Bruce Buck I believe. They felt that giving RS £5m over three years was in the best interests of the Premier League as the money comes with a proviso that he cannot work for a competitor or headhunt PL staff to work with him in a new position. Clubs do not vote on RS's pay, they delegate this to the remuneration committee.

The payment is made from central funds, which reduces the amount available for distribution to clubs by £83,000 a year. If a club is relegated during that period the cost is effectively picked up by the club promoted from the Championship.

The PL's concern was that Scudamore could have gone to a broadcaster such as Sky and use his knowledge to negotiate a much lower deal for forthcoming TV rights, which would have cost individual clubs far more than £83,000 per season. They therefore took a view that the payments to Scudamore were a form of insurance policy to prevent this happening. It's fairly common in other businesses, and football, whether we like it or not, is a business.

The story that was fed to the press was very emotionally charged, and aimed at stirring a reaction, classic click bait. It would be interesting to know whether this came from a club source or someone at the PL itself, and they may have an agenda in relation to Bruce Buck, or be a club that is so desperate for cash that even £83,000 was considered too high an insurance policy.

Good business. Scudamore was worth it, for sure. I admit personal envy, and will wring my socialist hands over how many starving children could have been fed for a year with the money. But later I'll trot off to the Amex and watch the Albion play in the PL.

For actual ****'s sake, people!

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It's all coaches/buses that arrive at the ground from outside of the immediate train travel zone. At least that's the case for next season. It's likely to be that subsidy for all is stopped soon after.

The public transport subsidy was a big part of the travel plan when we got permission for the stadium.

 

[The Large One]

Totally agree. Especially as the club've taken away the subsidies for fans' travel for fans outside of the Brighton area making it even more expensive for us lot to travel to games. For me this seems totally in bad taste and leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Especially as we haven't exactly been benefiting from this money for a long time.

Last week. They've not yet done it for those within the Brighton band, but it looks likely to happen within the next year or so.

For me personally, it means I'm penalised twice as I'm also paying a higher ST price so that the club can subsidise travel for those closest to the stadium... which in simple terms is not fair and seems rather illogical. It also seems like another stab in the back for match going fans. But hey ho, they don't care.

No, it's for those that get buses/coaches to the ground due to us living too far out. We already pay for the travel, but apparently the club part subsidised this up to this point, albeit not by much, as it was a part of their contractual agreement in building the stadium. This agreement term is, as far as my understanding goes, running out. This means that, as of next season, those that travel the furthest to get to Albion games will have to pay more, due to Barber's decision. There is a distinct possibility that the season after will lead to travel subsidy being halted across the board.

It's all coaches/buses that arrive at the ground from outside of the immediate train travel zone. At least that's the case for next season. It's likely to be that subsidy for all is stopped soon after.

Well that's the biggest kick in the balls element of it all. We already pay more to see games as we have to pay for the extra travel. We also pay higher ST prices in order to allow for the subsidised travel for everyone else.

What things means in reality is either that more people will go and use the free car parking in places like Mill Road, which are not in any way set up for an increase in numbers, or people will have to cut out purchasing things from the club. If our coach/bus prices go up next season, alongside a drastic ST hike (which is rumoured), then I'd imagine there will be a fair number who will reconsider whether they can afford to be ST holders, which is a real shame.

In the words of the new Deputy Chairman... 'absolute nonsense'.

 

[blue-shifted]

We didn't though. And, seemingly, neither did we vote for the Premier League to make the payment.

For those that missed it, this is the email that Paul Barber sent to [MENTION=31]El Presidente[/MENTION] and myself on the back of the NSC thread and general furore:

As is usual, several people have made me aware of the thread concerning Richard Scudamore’s remuneration on NSC.

To be clear, and to correct a number of inaccuracies currently being presented and discussed as “fact”:

- Richard Scudamore’s remuneration is determined by the Premier League’s board and audit committee - not by individual clubs or via a vote;

- as such, clubs were not required to vote to determine Richard Scudamore’s remuneration (or that of any other league executive);

- therefore it is not true that 5 clubs “abstained” from a vote that did not, and was not required to, take place;

- our club has not been asked “to write a cheque” or “to divert club funds” to pay for Richard Scudamore’s remuneration (or anyone else’s remuneration at the Premier League);

- by definition, the costs of the remuneration of the Premier League’s staff and executives are met from the league’s central costs (just like the EFL - and many other sporting organisations or governing bodies of a similar type);

- finally, our club’s budgets are determined by our own commercial revenue streams and also by the revenues we receive from the league (from TV rights, licensing, and sponsorship income). As is entirely normal each season, our share of the league’s revenues is paid to us taking in to account the league’s central costs.​

The Premier League has now issued a statement on this subject - and it is not for our club to comment on the specific remuneration of individual Premier League executives (just as we wouldn’t comment on the specific remuneration of our own staff, executives, coaches or players).

We will however say - again - that Richard Scudamore has done an outstanding job for the Premier League - and for the Football League before that - for almost 20 years. All of us at this football club thank Richard for what he has done for football - at all levels - and we all wish him well for the future.​

So who makes up this audit committee then? Independent is it? Hmm. We know Bruce Buck, chairman of Chelsea is and i'm guessing the others are mostly other club chairmen or senior club officials so in effect it is the clubs who are voting or agreeing to it. Barber's seeking to draw a distinction which isn't there between the clubs and their chairmen.

Also, I find it a little odd that the only evidence (correct me if i'm wrong) that the media has widely misreported this story is Barber's email. Have the Premier League or any other club chairmen put out a statement to this effect? Are you the only person to have put this information in the public domain?

In any case it doesn't matter. Barber could have quite easily out out a statement voicing the clubs opposition to this "audit committee" decision. If not to make a difference, then to stand for a principle. Simple choice, speak for the fans or speak for the millionaires. I don't blame Barber. He is what he is. I just don't like it

 

[The Large One]

So who makes up this audit committee then? Independent is it? Hmm. We know Bruce Buck, chairman of Chelsea is and i'm guessing the others are mostly other club chairmen or senior club officials so in effect it is the clubs who are voting or agreeing to it. Barber's seeking to draw a distinction which isn't there between the clubs and their chairmen.

Interesting. You're guessing who is on the committee - without knowing - and then making the rest of your assertions on the back of that inherent lack on knowledge (or guesswork).

Also, I find it a little odd that the only evidence (correct me if i'm wrong) that the media has widely misreported this story is Barber's email. Have the Premier League or any other club chairmen put out a statement to this effect? Are you the only person to have put this information in the public domain?

No reason for you to find it odd on Barber's behalf. Paul Barber himself is being about as open as he can be without betraying what was going on behind closed doors. His openness has been discussed before in the Premier League with the Football Supporters' Federation.

In any case it doesn't matter. Barber could have quite easily out out a statement voicing the clubs opposition to this "audit committee" decision. If not to make a difference, then to stand for a principle. Simple choice, speak for the fans or speak for the millionaires. I don't blame Barber. He is what he is. I just don't like it

He didn't speak for anyone - fans, millionaires or the club. He merely explained what was going on in a way that no-one else was prepared to say. His statement neither approved nor disapproved of the outcome - in fact, he makes a point of saying that.

 

[The Large One]

Quite a bit of shit-stirring on this thread. Not sure what that's all about...

 

[Stat Brother]

Quite a bit of shit-stirring on this thread. Not sure what that's all about...

Boredom?

 

[dazzer6666]

Here's a bit of extra information that may be relevant.

The bonus was agreed by the EPL remuneration committee, which is chaired by Bruce Buck I believe. They felt that giving RS £5m over three years was in the best interests of the Premier League as the money comes with a proviso that he cannot work for a competitor or headhunt PL staff to work with him in a new position. Clubs do not vote on RS's pay, they delegate this to the remuneration committee.

The payment is made from central funds, which reduces the amount available for distribution to clubs by £83,000 a year. If a club is relegated during that period the cost is effectively picked up by the club promoted from the Championship.

The PL's concern was that Scudamore could have gone to a broadcaster such as Sky and use his knowledge to negotiate a much lower deal for forthcoming TV rights, which would have cost individual clubs far more than £83,000 per season. They therefore took a view that the payments to Scudamore were a form of insurance policy to prevent this happening. It's fairly common in other businesses, and football, whether we like it or not, is a business.

The story that was fed to the press was very emotionally charged, and aimed at stirring a reaction, classic click bait. It would be interesting to know whether this came from a club source or someone at the PL itself, and they may have an agenda in relation to Bruce Buck, or be a club that is so desperate for cash that even £83,000 was considered too high an insurance policy.

So, a reasonable (relative to his salary and the organisation's income) 'non-compete' retainer then to protect the 'brand', that will be paid from the EPL, not the clubs. In other words, nothing to see here (accepting the money in the higher levels of the game is obscene anyway)

 

[El Presidente]

So, a reasonable (relative to his salary and the organisation's income) 'non-compete' retainer then to protect the 'brand', that will be paid from the EPL, not the clubs. In other words, nothing to see here (accepting the money in the higher levels of the game is obscene anyway)

Which neatly summarises in two lines what I spluttered over in twelve.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

The public transport subsidy was a big part of the travel plan when we got permission for the stadium.

But for how long?

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

In the words of the new Deputy Chairman... 'absolute nonsense'.

Well he would think that. It's his decision to impact fans. But which bit do you think is nonsense?

 

[The Large One]

Well he would think that. It's his decision to impact fans.

For a start, it's not what he thinks - it's what he knows. Bearing in mind it hasn't been discussed, nor is it due to be, which decision to 'impact the fans' are you talking about?

But which bit do you think is nonsense?

Seriously?

Put it this way, even if the period of the public transport subsidy does expire at the end of the (fairly arbitrary) eighth season at the Amex - and we only have your word for it that that's the case - you've taken the unilateral decision to tell everyone that it won't be renewed, and therefore won't exist next season.

Could you provide some first-hand, peer-tested evidence for that, please? Thanks.

 

[The Large One]

But for how long?

According to you - eight years.

Can you show us where that was written in to the terms of the stadium use? Thanks.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

For a start, it's not what he thinks - it's what he knows. Bearing in mind it hasn't been discussed, nor is it due to be, which decision to 'impact the fans' are you talking about?



Seriously?

Put it this way, even if the period of the public transport subsidy does expire at the end of the (fairly arbitrary) eighth season at the Amex - and we only have your word for it that that's the case - you've taken the unilateral decision to tell everyone that it won't be renewed, and therefore won't exist next season.

Could you provide some first-hand, peer-tested evidence for that, please? Thanks.

No I haven't. I've taken the decision to tell everyone that the coaches' subsidy is stopping. That is a fact. As I stated, it's rumoured from meetings that the subsidy elsewhere i.e. for train travel, is likely to stop. That isn't a fact, it's a rumour based on conversations had at meetings.

And it obviously has been discussed because subsidies for coach travel has been cut. Do you honestly think they had one conversation about stopping subsidies for coach travel but didn't discuss stopping it for train travel?

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

According to you - eight years.

Can you show us where that was written in to the terms of the stadium use? Thanks.

You struggle with comprehension, don't you.

 

[The Large One]

No I haven't. I've taken the decision to tell everyone that the coaches' subsidy is stopping. That is a fact. As I stated, it's rumoured from meetings that the subsidy elsewhere i.e. for train travel, is likely to stop. That isn't a fact, it's a rumour based on conversations had at meetings.

So you admit you're posting a rumour as fact? Got you.

And it obviously has been discussed because subsidies for coach travel has been cut. Do you honestly think they had one conversation about stopping subsidies for coach travel but didn't discuss stopping it for train travel?

It's not what I think that's important. You're leaping to assumptions based - as you have said - on rumour.

You struggle with comprehension, don't you.

You said that the subsidised travel contract is ending this season, and furthermore won't be in place next season. All I asked for was first-hand, peer-tested evidence. Can you provide that?

Thanks.

 

[Easy 10]

This is warming up nicely.

#Pringles

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

So you admit you're posting a rumour as fact? Got you.



It's not what I think that's important. You're leaping to assumptions based - as you have said - on rumour.



So I ask a question, and you can't answer, then accuse me of lack of comprehension? You said that the subsidised travel is ending this season. All I asked for was first-hand, peer-tested evidence. Is that too much to ask for - because the best we've had so far is that it's a rumour?

Thanks.

What bit are you struggling with? THE COACHES SUBSIDY IS STOPPING - this is a fact. There was a meeting a couple of weeks ago where the coach companies were told this by the club. It has been confirmed. So for all of us that get a coach to the ground from outside of the Brighton travel subsidy area, our prices are going up next year and that's even before potential price rises from the coach companies themselves. So this isn't crap. It isn't a rumour. It is fact. Do you understand this simple point or are you still debating it?

In your post where you quoted everything I've said on this thread, the only reference I made to the inner Brighton subsidy stopping was this quote: -
"They've not yet done it for those within the Brighton band, but it looks likely to happen within the next year or so."

That isn't a rumour, nor is it me claiming it to be fact. It just means it was discussed informally with those at the meeting. Obviously, from the club's point of view, it's a bad PR exercise to come out and tell all fans that they suddenly have to pay for travel expenses too. So maybe it won't happen next year. But the little informal discussion I've heard is that it could do. So no, I have no evidence of this specific element other than the discussion that I've seen happening, but nor have I ever claimed it to be fact. Does this clear this one sentence up, as I'm guessing it's the one you're taking such umbrage with?

Ultimately, my big issue here isn't with what happens to those within the Brighton subsidy area other than that I pay more for my ST (£50 a season) to subsidise their travel. As someone outside of this area, we have to not only pay for travel to the games on top of our STs where most fans don't (albeit with a slight subsidy helping the last few seasons), but we also have to pay this aforementioned £50. As of next season, we won't be getting this subsidy towards our coach travel. This is a fact. And this seems deeply unfair as it's essentially double taxing us as fans outside of the Brighton travel subsidy area. If you think that's okay, then so be it, but I don't think it's fair and the club have lost a fair bit of goodwill in my eyes for this move.