• Join ccmfans.net

    ccmfans.net is the Central Coast Mariners fan community, and was formed in 2004, so basically the beginning of time for the Mariners. Things have changed a lot over the years, but one thing has remained constant and that is our love of the Mariners. People come and go, some like to post a lot and others just like to read. It's up to you how you participate in the community!

    If you want to get rid of this message, simply click on Join Now or head over to https://www.ccmfans.net/community/register/ to join the community! It only takes a few minutes, and joining will let you post your thoughts and opinions on all things Mariners, Football, and whatever else pops into your mind. If posting is not your thing, you can interact in other ways, including voting on polls, and unlock options only available to community members.

    ccmfans.net is not only for Mariners fans either. Most of us are bonded by our support for the Mariners, but if you are a fan of another club (except the Scum, come on, we need some standards), feel free to join and get into some banter.

Turbulence (then calm sailing, then turbulence) thread.

Bladesman

Well-Known Member
All very simple and very climate change denier in assigning cause and effect. i.e. looking at effect then hunt for evidence that best suits your argument rather than looking at all the evidence.

To play devil's advocate:
Just as valid:
I'm a much simpler person with my analysis - Lose grand final and major draw card, John Aloisi to SFC lost 3k off the average which was over 10k the previous season. Rebuilding back, have Arnie come back to Australia and go to Sydney, lose Ibini to Sydney, lose Wee Mac to Wellington and play like shit with no one able to hit the back of the net, andhave lost 2k off the gate. The 7.5k mark seems to be about what we average as supporters who will follow through the bad times.

Just saying. :angel:

Would be a good argument if you weren't a season out, we averaged the 10k the season after the grand final loss and Aloisi.
 

Paolo

Well-Known Member
Mariners owner Mike Charlesworth says branching out into Sydney is about ambition
CCM v MVC: Match preview

2:57

THE Mariners host Melbourne Victory at North Sydney Oval on Friday night, but why is the Central Coast club creeping into the northern Sydney region?

The club’s owner, Mike Charlesworth, says there are two simple answers: financial necessity and pure ambition.

When Charlesworth took over ownership of the club 18 months ago the Mariners were, “roughly in $4 million worth of debt from the previous administration”.

“We’re losing less money today than we were a year ago,” Charleworth said.

“The business model is there, but we can’t lose more money - no business can continue if it’s losing money.”

Last season the Mariners played one game at North Sydney Oval, this season they will add a game at Manly’s Brookvale Oval, but going forward Charlesworth says the club will play a maximum of four matches in northern Sydney.

The average crowd at Central Coast Stadium this season is just 7619 and Charlesworth says it’s crucial for the club to build a new supporter base that will ensure the Mariners stick around for years to come.

He insists the move is not at the expense of the Central Coast community, but admits there is a danger of isolating the club’s local fans.

“We’re investing heavily in the Central Coast,” he said.

“We’re building the Centre of Excellence up in Tuggerah and we’re investing huge amounts of money in local jobs. We’re willing to commit 10, 11 games a year to be played at Central Coast stadium.

“Of course they’ve got questions and so they should, they’re football fans of the club and long may they continue to be, but from a purely commercial point of view we need to broaden our supporter base.

“We need more people attending the games and watching on TV. To really make the club financially viable we have to do something and that means doing a job in the northern Sydney region, where there are 50,000 registered players with no real affinity to any club and we’d like them to be Mariners supporters in years to come.”

But how realistic is it to expect those based in northern Sydney to adopt a Central Coast club?

“It’s a process and I think it will take several years and a lot of hard work, but it’s something we need to do,” Charlesworth said.

We don’t want to be pigeonholed into an area that’s got a 100,000 people - 100,000 people in the Gosford area doesn’t sustain a professional sporting club of any particular sport.

Charlesworth, who says he is “totally, 100 per cent committed” to the Mariners, says branching out is also all about ambition.

The Mariners have punched above their weight for years - now it’s time to compete financially with the top clubs in the A-League.

“We don’t want to be sitting on the table with all the small clubs,” he said.

“We’re very ambitious. We want to be competing financially with Sydney FC and Melbourne Victory, and why not? We’ve got the opportunity to do it. In years to come we want to have top marquee players coming to the club. But we can’t do that unless we’ve got a financial model in place that actually sustains.” [\QUOTE]

Once again we get a different story and this time it's 4 games not 3. And the 10 or 11 homes appears to be a cap should comp structure change and additional fixtures go elsewhere.

I think he should read the vision and mission statement again to see who the club represents, because I thought the logo was a dead giveaway that the club represents the CENTRAL COAST not just Gosford. How he can pigeonhole the support here so flippantly yet identify the 50000 registered players in a northern sydney spread over 2+ associations and a few hundred square kilometres is baffling.
 

elevated position

Well-Known Member
good article.
I want to go back to the government grant given to for the development of the site including the Medical Clinic, can be recalled if Charlesworth does not complete said parts of the project.
Also what would make MC wake up one Monday morning and have this vision that he needs to buy a football club and a football club on the right side of the globe, one with no money and a small fan base except for a piece of land the Government bought??
The lack of FFA voice on the matter is the big problem for me.
 

midfielder

Well-Known Member

Also on the news site

http://www.news.com.au/sport/footba...s-link-to-sydney/story-fnk9a3dc-1227145375319

With Muskie saying he is withdrawing 3 players I think now and not playing at full pace MC is finding he may own the club and can tell fans what to do but his media influence and influence with other clubs and FFA is not as strong...
 

dibo

Well-Known Member
OK, there's another angle to this. If FFA and the football community generally wants to see CCM survive and thrive, it's not unreasonable to expect that FFA might assist. This goes for Newcastle too, for what it's worth!

These markets are important, but they aren't structurally profitable (yet). There's a dividend that accrues to the game as a whole in their presence continuing as competitive entities in a decent sized league.

FFA should now consider offering assistance, even if it's in return for equity rather than just a grant. Keep the clubs at home and keep them strong. Build the league.

In the MLS, at one point Phil Anschutz's AEG owned six MLS clubs and Lamar Hunt's Hunt Sports owned three clubs (thanks Wikipedia) and MLS changed some basic structures to make owning clubs more profitable. The league turned the corner and it's now a growing behemoth.

FFA should consider at least keeping the small clubs going until the new TV deal. It's worth it if they're thinking about how to grow rather than what to cut.
 

midfielder

Well-Known Member
OK, there's another angle to this. If FFA and the football community generally wants to see CCM survive and thrive, it's not unreasonable to expect that FFA might assist. This goes for Newcastle too, for what it's worth!

These markets are important, but they aren't structurally profitable (yet). There's a dividend that accrues to the game as a whole in their presence continuing as competitive entities in a decent sized league.

FFA should now consider offering assistance, even if it's in return for equity rather than just a grant. Keep the clubs at home and keep them strong. Build the league.

In the MLS, at one point Phil Anschutz's AEG owned six MLS clubs and Lamar Hunt's Hunt Sports owned three clubs (thanks Wikipedia) and MLS changed some basic structures to make owning clubs more profitable. The league turned the corner and it's now a growing behemoth.

FFA should consider at least keeping the small clubs going until the new TV deal. It's worth it if they're thinking about how to grow rather than what to cut.

HE SAYS SCREAMING .... AND SCREAMING LOUDER... so very true..

Consider this and the FFA media deal...remember they want a 12 team competition.

12 teams 3 rounds * 6 games is 198 games + finals...

Without Mariners & the Jerks they will only have a 10 team competition ... so 135 games + finals..

198 games less 135 games is 63 games less .... 63 games divided by 135 games is 47% ...

Aside from the message of a constant build and success of the A-League and the clear message it would sent ... a 47% increase in games which should make the FFA Cup more interesting and any lead to an extra ACL spot .. this is the one hundred million dollar media deal... take it away the media falls apart and all the help from Fox would more than likely go. [PS read how Fox and Gallop are working together to help Football [ http://www.adnews.com.au/news/fox-sports-chases-an-endless-summer]

Also the Nix's are the unknown, they have smaller crowds, only hold the licence until 2016 with AFC issues... If they had to or their owners withdrew it would be a huge headache ..

So an extra grant to keep us afloat is very much in the interest of FFA.
 

Ancient Mariner

Well-Known Member
Would be a good argument if you weren't a season out, we averaged the 10k the season after the grand final loss and Aloisi.

Not meant to be an argument, just an example of cherry picking evidence to support an argument. The evidence may not even be accurate but can appear to be convincing (see Daily Telegraph journos or shock jocks).

If I were presenting an argument I would gather as much relevant information about all the variables that may influence crowd numbers analyse then draw conclusions.

The conclusions would be based upon the evidence and not be influenced by my biases.
 

Ancient Mariner

Well-Known Member
OK, there's another angle to this. If FFA and the football community generally wants to see CCM survive and thrive, it's not unreasonable to expect that FFA might assist. This goes for Newcastle too, for what it's worth!

These markets are important, but they aren't structurally profitable (yet). There's a dividend that accrues to the game as a whole in their presence continuing as competitive entities in a decent sized league.

FFA should now consider offering assistance, even if it's in return for equity rather than just a grant. Keep the clubs at home and keep them strong. Build the league.

In the MLS, at one point Phil Anschutz's AEG owned six MLS clubs and Lamar Hunt's Hunt Sports owned three clubs (thanks Wikipedia) and MLS changed some basic structures to make owning clubs more profitable. The league turned the corner and it's now a growing behemoth.

FFA should consider at least keeping the small clubs going until the new TV deal. It's worth it if they're thinking about how to grow rather than what to cut.

I think this argument makes sense but you have hit the nail on the head with "if FFA wants to see CCM survive".

The most likely answer and my gut feeling is yes, of course.

But, there is this SMALL niggle at the back of my mind as to whether or not the FFA see us as a problem child and if it were to their advantage drop us like a hot potato.

At the birth of the A-League we were the runt of the litter and needed life support. We surprised everyone and thrived but still needed special care. The rest of the litter have all grown and have owners who can cater for all their needs (exception Jets). Their was a time when it appeared our owners could no longer support us and we were very sick (player payments, court cases etc).Our current owners are supporting us, but struggling to provide what we need.

What happens if when the new tv deal is due we are on life support from the FFA and they have 3 solid bids for teams from areas to which they wish to see the League expand.

Easy, start 2 new ones plus the Burley Griffin Mariners.

Very unlikely I know. But this is my nightmare.
 

dibo

Well-Known Member
A nightmare scenario for sure, but the simple fact is that when the league expands, we're going to have new Central Coasts rather than new Western Sydneys.

FFA has an expansion bias at the moment, but to make that work they are going to have to work out how to keep clubs of our size going.

If a club has to average over 10k across its lifetime to survive, we are down to only 6 of our current crop - Adelaide, Brisbane, Victory, Jets, Sydney and Wanderers. That's it. And Jets are iffy, as we know.

If they want to move to new markets, they simply can't afford to abandon the Central Coast. Even now, we're averaging about twice what NZ Knights, North Queensland or Gold Coast were averaging when they died.

If a long term average of 9.3k and a dip to 7.6k is enough for FFA to give up, then potential investors in new clubs will head for the hills and we'll never expand.
 

Paolo

Well-Known Member
If a long term average of 9.3k and a dip to 7.6k is enough for FFA to give up, then potential investors in new clubs will head for the hills and we'll never expand.
What i still cant wrap my head around is how MC can spout numbers such as 10,000 to break even. Last years avg. Was 9300, and its accepted that most teams only get about 70% of members each match. So that means we actually had closer to 11000 people paid for each match.

That seems to exceed the break even figure which means any deficiencies in the business are at an operational level
 

Ancient Mariner

Well-Known Member
What i still cant wrap my head around is how MC can spout numbers such as 10,000 to break even. Last years avg. Was 9300, and its accepted that most teams only get about 70% of members each match. So that means we actually had closer to 11000 people paid for each match.

That seems to exceed the break even figure which means any deficiencies in the business are at an operational level

It is not just money earned directly from the bums on seats.
The money you can get from sponsors is proportional to the number attending your home games and the numbers watching when you are on tv.
We have struggled to find sponsors unlike MV, SFC and WSW who also would be able to charge heaps more simply by having a bigger base.
This is not just shirt and short sponsors but also ground advertising and corporate boxes and others.
 

Paolo

Well-Known Member
It is not just money earned directly from the bums on seats.
The money you can get from sponsors is proportional to the number attending your home games and the numbers watching when you are on tv.
We have struggled to find sponsors unlike MV, SFC and WSW who also would be able to charge heaps more simply by having a bigger base.
This is not just shirt and short sponsors but also ground advertising and corporate boxes and others.
I get that, my point was more indicative of MC throwing out figures which do not represent a clear picture of whats required and where key issues are, namely commercial capitalisation
 

adz

Moderator
Staff member
It is not just money earned directly from the bums on seats.
The money you can get from sponsors is proportional to the number attending your home games and the numbers watching when you are on tv.
We have struggled to find sponsors unlike MV, SFC and WSW who also would be able to charge heaps more simply by having a bigger base.
This is not just shirt and short sponsors but also ground advertising and corporate boxes and others.

It would help if someone was out there trying to get sponsors, rather than waiting for sponsors to come to them.
 

RichardB43

New Member
I've no insight into what is really in Charlesworth's mind. But I can read his performance.
  • Pitiful communication with the supporters. Both in giving information and in listening.
  • Marketing to the community is way down on previous years when crowds were bigger.
  • An Englishman that is floundering in understanding the Coast recruits a very suspect "Consultant" who clearly knows absolutely nothing about the coast, probably nothing about Australia, and was a big factor in almost sinking another club, Portsmouth. http://overthelinesports.com.au/index.php/bad-news-storrie-mariners-fans
  • Is there any evidence of any Market Research to back up his assertions about the benefit of moving to Northern Sydney, that 20% of the supporters already come form there. I for one live in Hornsby, and he probably quotes me as one of those Northern Sydney fans. But I much prefer coming to Gosford Stadium, supporting a "Local" club. How many more of the quoted 20% actually want the games moved ?
I could perhaps support the idea of marketing to Northern Suburbs, and the greater potential for Sponsors from there, by playing the odd game there. Preferably pre-season games (when the NSO is not in cricket season and the surface might be better for football).

But why should we trust him to get that right when
  • he's utterly failed in marketing to the coast
  • he's spurned the local football association
  • he's alienated the best supporters he could have, Lawrie McKinna and John Singleton.
His performance seems to be close to a complete fail. Time for FFA to step in and protect it's interests.
 

VicMariner

Well-Known Member
when the league expands, we're going to have new Central Coasts rather than new Western Sydneys.

FFA has an expansion bias at the moment, but to make that work they are going to have to work out how to keep clubs of our size going.
Exactly right!
There are precious few areas with millions of people. A model where smaller regions work opens up many opportunities including Tasmania and the Northern Territory entering and even a second division down the track.
Saturating Sydney and Melbourne will diminish the draw of Derbies, they have them every week in the NRL and AFL and who notices?
 

Ancient Mariner

Well-Known Member
Exactly right!
There are precious few areas with millions of people. A model where smaller regions work opens up many opportunities including Tasmania and the Northern Territory entering and even a second division down the track.
Saturating Sydney and Melbourne will diminish the draw of Derbies, they have them every week in the NRL and AFL and who notices?

You are exactly right they definitely need small clubs like the CCM to make a second division.

I knew there had to be another reason for all the opposition from many on this forum to trying to expand the club.
 

Jaundice

Well-Known Member
Jaundice, this league is very successful. We've had the trophies shared around widely, it's competitive top to bottom and so most games are good contests. You're missing the point that salary floors mean clubs have a responsibility to recruit up to a standard as well as down to a standard. If some clubs pay big whacks for certain players blame the clubs' management, not the system.

I understand the point perfectly well, whilst good in theory its not turning out as well in practice. If the local talent isn't there, which could be argued, we are essentially paying state league players outrageous wages with no significant lift to standards.
Don't get me wrong id like to see Australian professional footballers payed well. It just doesn't make good business sense at the present though with small regional teams dropping like flies in a developing sport that hasn't quite cracked the mainstream yet.

To put it into perspective our players are on similar money to nrl which is well established with solid corporate backing and has nearly a billion dollar TV deal. Our very own Mitch Duke a mediocre player at best was shown on fox last night to be on a quarter of a million dollars. With money like that in a short season no wonder the kids have no desperate hunger or desire to want to make it in overseas leagues like they used to.

Hell, our socceroos cant even turn a profit anymore unless its the world cup with the bargaining agreement the PFA arranged.

The way I see it this is just one way of reducing costs that may see us through until there is more money and financial stability, improve investor confidence and possibly even encourage growth of expansion.
 

Online statistics

Members online
22
Guests online
272
Total visitors
294

Forum statistics

Threads
6,793
Messages
396,059
Members
2,746
Latest member
Brandnwreta
Top