Seeing the back of Charlesworth

Will you back MC to the end?


  • Total voters
    39
  • Poll closed .

Wombat

Well-Known Member
Let's take a moment to reflect on how poor the reporting is from The Roar.

"Following Mike Charlesworth’s announcement that he will be selling the Central Coast Mariners, it seems their fate is now sealed. The next question is – who could replace them?"

Someone please shut these pork chops down

Queensland muppets.
 

Wombat

Well-Known Member
Dwindling Mariners crowds leaves Central Coast Stadium haemorrhaging
Richard Noone, Central Coast Express Advocate
August 7, 2020 12:00am

Central Coast Council will consider seeking expressions of interest for the management and naming rights for the region’s premier stadium after a new report found the under-utilised asset was losing money and may never `break even’.

It comes after Mariners CEO Shaun Mielekamp emailed councillors with the club’s unsolicited proposal for management rights for 30 years and concept plans to activate the southern side seven days a week with cafes, licensed restaurants, shops and a catering school.
The council is expected to put its own draft Central Coast Stadium Strategy on public exhibition after its meeting on Monday.

Council is expected to put it draft stadium strategy on public exhibition.
Council is

The strategy reveals for the first time how much the iconic venue, with breathtaking views of Brisbane Water, is costing ratepayers.
“Modest returns have been generated from Mariners’ games, driven mostly by recent lower attendances,” the strategy states.

“With around half of all events provided by Central Coast Mariners, the success of the stadium is related to the team’s ability to attract crowds.”

The draft strategy found dwindling crowds at Mariners games has driven “modest returns”. Photo: Tony Feder/Getty Images)


The strategy states “in summary” the challenging financial performance reflects a “relatively common theme for regional venues with a single tenant”.

“The stadium has not been able to achieve `break even’ financial performance since its return to council management in 2014,” the strategy states.
“Currently the stadium represents a net financial cost to council, with annual operating losses between $841,000 to $1.4 million. Ongoing capital expenditure requirements are estimated in excess of $1 million per annum on average.”

Mariners fans show their support. (Photo: Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)


The strategy states the 13 Mariners games in 2017-18 increased gross regional product (GRP) by around $2.1 million, or about $161,538 per game.
However the three NRL games held at the stadium that season delivered increased GRP of about $287,300 per event for a total of about $861,900.
The strategy reveals total attendance at Mariners games fell from 174,310 in 2017-18 to 101,215 in 2018-19, a drop of nearly 42 per cent.
“The stadium is under-utilised with a relatively limited event calendar both in quantity and diversity of events,” the strategy states.

Just three NRL fixtures generated almost half as much gross regional product (GRP) as 13 home games. (Photo: Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)


Just three NRL fixtures generated almost half as much gross regional product (GRP) as 13 home games.

The strategy found the stadium’s food and beverage facilities were limited and it needed a large function centre to host up to 400 people, which could be improved by an onsite commercial kitchen.
It could also use a “BBQ deck” for general admission.
The strategy found it needed to replace the existing static signage with LED signage, provide Wi-Fi or mobile apps for event days, video walls, electronic menu boards and a merchandise shop.
The plan also calls for council to develop complimentary opportunities such as hotels, gyms, pools, retail and training facilities to “further activate the stadium precinct and generate economic returns”.

The strategy wants council to attract more diverse events such as the Nitro Circus.


A report to councillors about the strategy document states: “The stadium is reliant on a single tenant hirer and finds it difficult to compete as a stand-alone venue in attracting content to the Central Coast”.
The strategy outlines several priorities for the stadium including expanding the event calendar, activating the precinct on both event and non-event days and increase revenues.
“The strategic elements, once implemented, will improve the financial impact of the stadium to council by improving revenue streams, reducing operational costs and mitigating risk,” the report to council states.
“However, it is unlikely that the stadium will ever be a profit generating asset for council. This is common across Tier 2 venues in NSW and stadiums generally.”
The strategy also calls for council to establish a defined budget so the stadium can attract more high profile events such as NRL games
Opened in 2000, the strategy reveals council was going to host 20-year anniversary activities but this has been placed on ice because of COVID-19 and instead plans to hold 21st birthday celebrations next year.
Wow. These morons get paid how much?
 

style_cafe

Well-Known Member
. well it seems that the Council didn't just through the Mariners proposal in the bin ... they used it to create a 'Stadium Strategy' ... how innovative

. despite all that, the most frustrating thing is comparing GRP (whatever that is and however it is calculated) for two different types of events ... it shows the level of thinking - it is like comparing the weekly rent for holiday letting vs. the weekly rent on long term leases

. they may as well have said Lionel Richie generated lots or income for the region so our new strategy is to have Lionel perform every night ... we'll make a fortune!
Book Lionel in for a residency... good thinking BG...:popcorn:
 

Big Al

Well-Known Member
Not sure how the number of fans had any impact at all.
CCM rent the venue. Doesn’t matter who turns up you income is the same.
Isn’t the food also outsourced now unless they receive a % of sales.

It’s true the drop in crowds effects the spend in the community but that is impossible to qualify and irrelevant to the profit or loss of the stadium it self.

The better question is why the drop in numbers. The figures used are before the upgrade of the sound system and scoreboard etc.

Are the council supporting there main tennant?

It’s also a worry when they keep copying Charlesworth proposals
 

pjennings

Well-Known Member
Takeover target: A-League owners fund could buy out battling clubs
Vince Rugari
By Vince Rugari
August 9, 2020 — 7.30pm

The richest club owners in the A-League could pool funds and buy battling rivals like the Central Coast Mariners and the Newcastle Jets as part of a plan to put the competition on a stronger financial footing.
A-League sources have confirmed preliminary discussions have taken place between some owners over the establishment of a central hardship fund, which could be used as a safety net to rescue clubs in danger of collapse.

Mike Charlesworth has put the Central Coast Mariners on the market - and the buyer could end up being one of his fellow A-League chairman.


Both the Mariners and Jets are on the market, with chairmen Mike Charlesworth and Martin Lee keen to divest themselves of their respective A-League licences as soon as possible.
If no suitable new owners are found, then those licences could end up being bought by the likes of the City Football Group, Sydney FC chairman Scott Barlow, Victory chairman Anthony Di Pietro or any other A-League chairman or ownership groups who wish to contribute to the cause.
Advertisement

The proposed trust would be funded by the members of the Australian Professional Football Clubs Association, the umbrella body representing the current owners of the soon-to-be 12 A-League clubs.
Prior to the A-League's independence vote, licences would traditionally revert to Football Federation Australia control when an owner was no longer able to fund the operations of a club, or when FFA moved to strip an owner of their licence for legal breaches.

Chinese lighting magnate Martin Lee is keen to offload the Newcastle Jets to a new owner.


The APFCA fund would potentially serve that same purpose as a licence holder of last resort - or, as sources say has also been mooted, it could purchase licences from wantaway or underperforming owners, nurse those clubs back to full health, and then on-sell the licence at a profit to a new owner.
The idea is reminiscent of what occurred during the early years of Major League Soccer in the United States. MLS was on the brink of extinction two decades ago but the future of several troubled clubs was secured when other owners agreed to take them over and foot the bill to keep them running.

Philip Anschutz, founder of global entertainment behemoth AEG, owned as many as six MLS franchises at once, while the late Lamar Hunt owned three and Robert Kraft two. Those three businessmen have since been credited with saving the competition, which is now thriving and will expand to 30 teams in 2023.
FIFA, Asian Football Confederation and FFA rules prohibit any one person from controlling or influencing more than one club in a competition for integrity reasons. The establishment of an arms-length fund or trust could provide a workaround, while the FFA constitution states that FFA itself is able to hold more than one A-League licence at a time for an interim period.
The chairmen behind the idea recognise that the growth of their own clubs is intrinsically tied to the health of the smaller clubs and the A-League as a whole, which is why they are open to taking on a greater financial burden if required - although it does raise questions as how any APFCA fund-run clubs could be managed independently.
History has proved there is money to be made in rehabilitating struggling A-League teams. For example, FFA stripped Nathan Tinkler of Newcastle's licence in 2015, then sold it for a reported $5.5 million to Lee a year later.

Despite the pressures of the COVID-19 pandemic, several groups are interested in buying an A-League licence - but most of them are keen to start up teams in new geographies such as Canberra rather than taking over small-market teams like the Mariners and Jets, whose futures remain uncertain.
The Herald revealed last week that there is at least one consortium - headed by Australian businessman Abdul Helou, who owns a third of Spanish club Rayo Vallecano - in discussions with Charlesworth over buying the Mariners, keeping them on the Central Coast and rebuilding their reputation as a development club

 

Insertnamehere

Well-Known Member
Takeover target: A-League owners fund could buy out battling clubs
Vince Rugari
By Vince Rugari
August 9, 2020 — 7.30pm
The richest club owners in the A-League could pool funds and buy battling rivals like the Central Coast Mariners and the Newcastle Jets as part of a plan to put the competition on a stronger financial footing.
A-League sources have confirmed preliminary discussions have taken place between some owners over the establishment of a central hardship fund, which could be used as a safety net to rescue clubs in danger of collapse.

Mike Charlesworth has put the Central Coast Mariners on the market - and the buyer could end up being one of his fellow A-League chairman.


Both the Mariners and Jets are on the market, with chairmen Mike Charlesworth and Martin Lee keen to divest themselves of their respective A-League licences as soon as possible.
If no suitable new owners are found, then those licences could end up being bought by the likes of the City Football Group, Sydney FC chairman Scott Barlow, Victory chairman Anthony Di Pietro or any other A-League chairman or ownership groups who wish to contribute to the cause.
Advertisement

The proposed trust would be funded by the members of the Australian Professional Football Clubs Association, the umbrella body representing the current owners of the soon-to-be 12 A-League clubs.
Prior to the A-League's independence vote, licences would traditionally revert to Football Federation Australia control when an owner was no longer able to fund the operations of a club, or when FFA moved to strip an owner of their licence for legal breaches.

Chinese lighting magnate Martin Lee is keen to offload the Newcastle Jets to a new owner.


The APFCA fund would potentially serve that same purpose as a licence holder of last resort - or, as sources say has also been mooted, it could purchase licences from wantaway or underperforming owners, nurse those clubs back to full health, and then on-sell the licence at a profit to a new owner.
The idea is reminiscent of what occurred during the early years of Major League Soccer in the United States. MLS was on the brink of extinction two decades ago but the future of several troubled clubs was secured when other owners agreed to take them over and foot the bill to keep them running.

Philip Anschutz, founder of global entertainment behemoth AEG, owned as many as six MLS franchises at once, while the late Lamar Hunt owned three and Robert Kraft two. Those three businessmen have since been credited with saving the competition, which is now thriving and will expand to 30 teams in 2023.
FIFA, Asian Football Confederation and FFA rules prohibit any one person from controlling or influencing more than one club in a competition for integrity reasons. The establishment of an arms-length fund or trust could provide a workaround, while the FFA constitution states that FFA itself is able to hold more than one A-League licence at a time for an interim period.
The chairmen behind the idea recognise that the growth of their own clubs is intrinsically tied to the health of the smaller clubs and the A-League as a whole, which is why they are open to taking on a greater financial burden if required - although it does raise questions as how any APFCA fund-run clubs could be managed independently.
History has proved there is money to be made in rehabilitating struggling A-League teams. For example, FFA stripped Nathan Tinkler of Newcastle's licence in 2015, then sold it for a reported $5.5 million to Lee a year later.

Despite the pressures of the COVID-19 pandemic, several groups are interested in buying an A-League licence - but most of them are keen to start up teams in new geographies such as Canberra rather than taking over small-market teams like the Mariners and Jets, whose futures remain uncertain.
The Herald revealed last week that there is at least one consortium - headed by Australian businessman Abdul Helou, who owns a third of Spanish club Rayo Vallecano - in discussions with Charlesworth over buying the Mariners, keeping them on the Central Coast and rebuilding their reputation as a development club

As I've said to a couple people today, not a bad idea for short term. But you don't want a situation where half the league is owned by the trust. You also don't want the trust involved in management decisions unless there's systemic issues.
HAL can't afford to alienate large population bases like CC, just to move a licence US franchise football style. The league needs to be at 16 teams without 10 of those being Sydney and Melbourne based.
 

fruitbat

Active Member
Over the years much has been made about club loyalty, but loyalty cuts both ways. We renew memberships each year and get bugger all in return. I had already decided not to renew my 3 platinum memberships before Charlesworth’s recent press release. I decided that if I renewed them I am effectively going into business with someone like Charlesworth.

We have blindly accepted the assertions that “there is light at the end of the tunnel” “these hard decisions are needed to set up the club for the future” etc for many years now. As the yanks say “Fool me once, shame on you: Fool me twice, shame on me”. We fans need to accept some responsibility for enabling Charlesworth. We shouldn’t blame the Council-the stadium is ITS asset to do with as it wishes. I park my car for 22 hours a day; it doesn’t justify someone coming along and demanding favourable access to it because they think it’s being underutilized. Let’s be honest, the stadium is a distraction from the real problem. THE REAL BLAME FOR OUR CURRENT POSITION LIES WITH THE CHRONIC UNDERFUNDING OF THE PLAYING ROSTER.

Rate payer assets should not be wasted in the black hole of a failed business, even if some of its passionate customers are also ratepayers.

The long painful decline in the health of relatives and pets often overshadow our fond memories of them. Some relatives stubbornly and loudly resist the inevitable, insisting for their own reasons that life support should be maintained when the kindest thing for all involved is to turn it off.

Our club has struggled for many years now. I wish the Mariners had folded in 2014 and left us with those wonderful memories of the small club that achieved the impossible instead of years of embarrassment.
 

pjennings

Well-Known Member
Over the years much has been made about club loyalty, but loyalty cuts both ways. We renew memberships each year and get bugger all in return. I had already decided not to renew my 3 platinum memberships before Charlesworth’s recent press release. I decided that if I renewed them I am effectively going into business with someone like Charlesworth.

We have blindly accepted the assertions that “there is light at the end of the tunnel” “these hard decisions are needed to set up the club for the future” etc for many years now. As the yanks say “Fool me once, shame on you: Fool me twice, shame on me”. We fans need to accept some responsibility for enabling Charlesworth. We shouldn’t blame the Council-the stadium is ITS asset to do with as it wishes. I park my car for 22 hours a day; it doesn’t justify someone coming along and demanding favourable access to it because they think it’s being underutilized. Let’s be honest, the stadium is a distraction from the real problem. THE REAL BLAME FOR OUR CURRENT POSITION LIES WITH THE CHRONIC UNDERFUNDING OF THE PLAYING ROSTER.

Rate payer assets should not be wasted in the black hole of a failed business, even if some of its passionate customers are also ratepayers.

The long painful decline in the health of relatives and pets often overshadow our fond memories of them. Some relatives stubbornly and loudly resist the inevitable, insisting for their own reasons that life support should be maintained when the kindest thing for all involved is to turn it off.

Our club has struggled for many years now. I wish the Mariners had folded in 2014 and left us with those wonderful memories of the small club that achieved the impossible instead of years of embarrassment.
Let's look at it as a a ratepayer (not as a fan). We should blame the Council for it losing money on an asset that it should be able to make money from. How is it that Singo could make a profit before he moved to the Racecourse because they had a function room. Bear in mind that the opening match of the Northern Eagles drew over 16,000. the same fixture 2 years after drew just over 8000 and they had lower crowds than that as well. BTW they reportedly had a better deal than CCM.
 
Last edited:

FFC Mariner

Well-Known Member
Happy to be corrected but I think the bowls club was part of the original planning consent.
They were already there and I think they had to be accommodated.
The water views of people living behind it were also guaranteed I believe.
Making a roof tricky
 

fruitbat

Active Member
Let's look at it as a a ratepayer (not as a fan). We should blame the Council for it losing money on an asset that it should be able to make money from.
Council, like most other government organisations do not exist to turn a profit with their assets. Child care centres, Libraries, sporting fields, sports centres/swimming pools, road plant and other equipment, zoning/planning services/ garbage dumps (the list goes on and on) all fail to make money. (But they COULD if charges increased or were operating under increased hours, or offered to the private sector under lucrative conditions).
Why not take issue with these? I think blaming Council is Charlesworth's last desperate throw of the dice. As a ratepayer I dont want our resources committed to his failed business model. Before he takes his ball and goes home he should take responsibility for his failure to adequately fund a competitive playing roster.
 

Ancient Mariner

Well-Known Member
Council, like most other government organisations do not exist to turn a profit with their assets. Child care centres, Libraries, sporting fields, sports centres/swimming pools, road plant and other equipment, zoning/planning services/ garbage dumps (the list goes on and on) all fail to make money. (But they COULD if charges increased or were operating under increased hours, or offered to the private sector under lucrative conditions).
Why not take issue with these? I think blaming Council is Charlesworth's last desperate throw of the dice. As a ratepayer I dont want our resources committed to his failed business model. Before he takes his ball and goes home he should take responsibility for his failure to adequately fund a competitive playing roster.
Councils do not make money on services they provide to the community.
Graham Park is not a service to the community, only to a select few private organisations and it is costing the ratepayers a packet. Must be outsourced to at least break even and preferably make a few bob.
 
Last edited:

pjennings

Well-Known Member
At the end of the day if we have such a strong proposal then it will succeed in the tender process. A process that should be more open, responsible and transparent then approving one on an ad hoc basis.
No problem at all with this Mick. But the Council position is that we are running this and we aren't opening it up for tender. We are happy to lose money on it for limited access to a community asset and the ratepayer can pay for it.

CCM had to push to get them to create a process to accept adhoc bids. Now that that bid has been accepted they have virtually been shamed into going into an open tender process.

This Council and it's Gosford predecessor have been known for wasting money in areas that they have no expertise, this is just another example.

The question of whether CCMFC has/or will obtain the expertise is a moot point at the moment, but also one that should be asked.
 

fruitbat

Active Member
Councils do not make money on services they provide to the community.
Graham Park is not a service to the community only to a select few private organisations and it is costing the ratepayers a packet. Must be outsourced to at least break even and preferably make a few bob.
The stadium is a Council asset, just like playing fields, child care centre etc. If a businessman comes along and says "If you give me a deal on the road plant that is unused at night/on weekends I can run a business. If you don't I'll go bust and blame Council instead of my own poor decisions" I would turn it down too.
 
Top