Quote ="Adeybull"Without the Pledge scheme, the crowds would almost certainly have fallen a lot further. the club knew this. What you should compare is what the Pledge scheme raised compared with the likely gate receipts for the next season, not the last.
the pledge scheme brought a load of cash inw hen it was most neeed - the very lean last quarter, where most of the other income has been spent or run out.
The Bulls had around 4,000 memberships before. now they have over 10,000 - that is 250% of before. I suspect at full price they may have had a lot less than 4,000.
Memberships tend to bring in a lot more ancillary income than walk-ins.
The much higher membership base makes generating sponsorship and commercial income very considerably less difficult.
There is no "loss-leading" involved, since a large part of gate income remains as contribution - the variable costs attributable to each additional attendee are not high. Do you actually understand what "loss-leading" means?
Quite the opposite; all ways round, the Pledge scheme is a brilliant win-win for a club in our particular situation.'"
i totally dissagree with you on how brilliant this bulls pledge scheme is adey
<as i have posted previously>
how can a club without a sugar daddy be expected run a successful club and on these meagre season ticket sales long term?
i would love to see the clubs balance sheet to see what turnover last seasons first pledge season actually produced cash wise
if the bulls continue with it's present downward spiral for much longer,and with spectators paying very little for the priviledge too,then how could the club ever charge more for supporters to buy season tickets or pledges?
if reports that the bulls have spent the full cap this season are to believed then i am astounded at what some mediocre players must be getting paid
i personally think that the rfl's intervention this week is just the tip of the iceberg regarding the precarious position of the bulls long term i'm afraid
