Excellent point.

I had an issue with getting tickets for the Wigan playoff as a season ticket holder living 25 miles away.

A couple of emails bounced back and forth between myself and Mike Smith regarding the systems for purchasing on line. ( no facility for West stand online).

As nice as the ticket office and retail staff are Rovers seriously need to get their act together when it comes to ticket selling in the thousands.



It was a farce which could in the future come back to bite.

Obviously I would rather beat them, but if we lost to FC twice but still got a top 4 finish I would prefer that to tonking them and finishing 9th

Facilities at the KC are superb and we don't really get many away fans. Maybe a few more than you but not enough to make much difference to the financial position

Great post mate, and already FC are after copying our club idea after many of their fans mocked Rovers for doing it, just as they tried to copy us with the Junior Robins with the Junior Airlie Birds which hasn't really taken off.

The ticketing/merchandising side of the club has to be a priority IMO. The amount of times I've gone into the shop and there's no stock, or I've tried to buy tickets online and it hasn't worked etc is silly which has resulted in lost revenue for the club.



If I was Rovers I would focus on maximising spend per-head on the existing base and getting the foundations right which has to be cheaper then building facilities to accomadate more fans.



For example if Rovers focus on getting another £20 out of each of their 8000 fans per-season (through buying an additional piece of merchandise, a programme or an extra beer each game etc) in revenue per-season this is equal to adding an average of 1000 fans per game to the attendance.

I think the issue here is that Leeds, FC and the Bulls have implemented rigid pay structures. Leeds let Calderwood go as they wouldn't break the structure. FC are pretty much the same.



The question for me is whether Rovers have implemented a similar system, otherwise it may prove difficult to retain players in the longer term as they will naturally compare their salaries to those of others. The example to illustrate this is Michael Dobson - hull offered a value within structure, but can you be certain that Rovers offered a structured payment, or paid what they wanted to ensure they got him.



Decisions like that can be the difference between turning a profit or not.

Clubs can only spend to the limit set by the RFL, so in effect we all have a pay 'structure' in place, its just implemented differently. TBH, I think all clubs do the same thing, we will have paid Dobson more than most of our squad because he is a young and very good scrum half, which we needed. Its the same with FC, you will be paying O'Meley, Fitzgibbon and Long a lot of money compared to the rest of the squad (with good reason to), if you think Long is at the KC for the same or similar pay to Briscoe or Hall you are mistaken. Giving a cap of 1.8 million and a squad of 25, its highly unlikely that they are all on 72k, there will be some on 150k in FC's squad and some on 30k, the structure will only state a limit to what can be paid and I think your limit for individuals will be higher than ours, otherwise you are unlikely to get the likes of O'Meley (and Crocker had he turned up).

By making it too inflexible you can create problems and cause players to leave as well - like Calderwood in your example. Not a problem for Leeds, who have an excellent pipeline and need to let players go to keep under the cap. There has to be a strategy in place, of course, and no club can be held to ransom. Despite a limited pedigree the Dobson signing has worked out well and I'm sure his team mates recognise his value to the team. It is more important the structure is sensible, rather than rigid. In wage cap discussions on your board I've seen [iformer[/i internationals described as high earners because of caps they won during an earlier contract, which seems silly. I suspect the quality you have brought in this year represents a less rigid adherance to policy that I think may have contributed, just slightly, to your 'too many average players' squads of the last couple of years.

You've missed the point. It's not a matter of paying everyone equally, its about coming up with a valuation of a player and not paying more than that valuation. It's easy to get sucked into a bidding war and end up paying more than you should have done.

It's easy and also sometimes necessary. A whole range of external factors can influence a player's worth. Say a club really needs, for example, a centre and a hooker. There are a few good centres about, so you can afford to play the field, bide your time and try to grab a bargain (I'm paid by the cliche). There is only one adequate hooker available though, he isn't brilliant but it is him or nobody. So you pay slightly over the odds - well I would at least.



If I were designing a wage structure, I'd borrow from championship manager and have a wage range for: Key players, regular 1st team players, squad players and development players (the last two overlapping). And that'd be it.

From a Rovers business point of view I think the pertinent question is what total spend is affordable?, rather than the details of how the pie is divided (kerching).

makes you wonder how much fc have invested in long,o'meley and fitzgibbon....we have released a fair chunk of last years squad and only brought in 4 players, one of which cant be on alot(turner)....agar stated we have room on the cap IF another player is needed mid-season, so it will be interesting to see what pans out at the kc....

also player up grades to both briscoes, moa, kent, lyne, tuffour, burnett, whiting i think.