SC&T Survey Results: Fans Call for Refunds

[Blagdon red]

Just sent by e-mail to everyone on the SC&T database (around 8,000):

As you know, we recently carried out a survey on a small number of issues relating to the coranavirus crisis. I would now like to share with you the survey results.

Over 2,000 Bristol City supporters took part. One of the key findings was that as a result of changed financial circumstances at least 15% would now welcome a refund of their 2020/21 season card payment.

As you know, Bristol City put season cards on sale for next season some time ago, with a ‘Lose Your Seat Deadline’ of March 16th, one week prior to the March 23rd lockdown.

As a result, many of us paid out substantial sums, which, for example, for a family of four in the South Stand will have totaled nearly £1,000, at a time when the financial impact of the lockdown was not understood.

In our survey we asked you to respond to this statement: ‘Bristol City should offer supporters who have paid for a 20/21 season ticket and are now suffering financial hardship the option of a refund (with their seat reserved for them to buy up until 14 days before the start of the season, whenever that may be)’. 83.8% of respondents either ‘Agreed’ with it or ‘Strongly agreed’.

We then asked: ‘If the Football Club were to offer a refund of your season ticket in this way, would you want to take up the offer?’ The options for the answer were framed to discourage respondents from saying yes, but while 84.5% responded ‘No, personally I’m OK so wouldn’t need this help’, 15.5% answered ‘Yes, that would be a great help given my current situation’.

Commenting on this in a press release today, SC&T Vice Chair Miles Hendy said:

“The impact of the lockdown has hit many businesses and individuals hard, and professional football clubs like Bristol City are amongst the most deeply impacted. As a supporters’ group we want to stand up for our club, to rally behind it and to help it bounce back. As representatives of our supporters, we also stand by those fans who, for reasons outside their control, now have severe buyer’s regret, finding that the early commitment they made for their cherished seats at Ashton Gate has unexpectedly left them hardly able to get by.”

In the light of this survey response the Supporters Club & Trust has asked Bristol City to make a refund available to supporters in need. We have also asked for clarity on refunds for the season that should have just ended and where there is now no prospect of being able to watch these matches in the stadium.

Bristol City have not commented.

We call on them again now to please support your most loyal supporters in their time of need, like they have supported you.

Elsewhere in the survey, 83.3% of respondents either ‘Agreed’ or ‘Strongly agreed’ that ‘Bristol City / Ashton Gate Ltd should not take advantage of the taxpayer-funded government furlough scheme whilst higher paid executives and playing staff continue to receive their full salaries’. And 72.8% of respondents either ‘Agreed’ or ‘Strongly agreed’ that ‘Bristol City / Ashton Gate Ltd should continue to pay all casual / match day staff for the remaining games of the current season as though the games were played as scheduled’.

Subsequent to the survey Bristol City announced that they were using the furlough scheme, that staff not furloughed had accepted a temporary salary reduction and that players had deferred a percentage of their wages for three months.

The survey also asked for a view on which of a list of charities the Club & Trust should support at this time and based on the responses a decision was taken to support all four. Initial donations of £500 each have thus been made (in one case spread, at the organisation's request, over 10 months) to Refresh Bedminster, Feed the Homeless Bristol, Victoria Park Baptist Church Foodbank and the Trussel Trust.

Stay safe!

Regards,

Stu Rogers

Bristol City Supporters Club & Trust

[Bristol Rob]

But players have deferred money. They aren't on 100%.

 

[Bristol Rob]

Few other comments - more on the press release than anything.

15-odd% are barely getting by. Is that an accurate bit of data analysis, or is it 15-odd% who would feel more reassured if there was a refund option?

You released this on a bank holiday and it includes a rather bleak sentence;

Bristol City have not commented.

Which seems to have an underlying tone of menace about it, they had a day off. If they have had the data for a week, fair enough, but that isn't clear.

I thought the survey was conducted following a request from the club to gauge how people were coping, but the overall tone of the press release seems rather different to that.

[Sir Geoff]

Thanks for the feedback, I agree with Bristol Rob that some of it seems a bit negative towards the club.

A couple of points that may be relevant.

1. From what I understand, Furloughing of staff isn't a bad thing for a club of our size as it actually helps to protect jobs that may otherwise be under threat.

2. EFL clubs have 'jumped' too soon in deferring players wages etc. We have lost income from 5 home games (which in the scheme of things isn't a lot). BCFC as a football club would have no income for the next 3 months in any case, so this would already be budgeted for. Things will be worse in 3 months time when the new season was due to start and players start asking for the deferred part of their wages to be returned to them. August was the time for EFL clubs to start deferring wages etc.

[t_b]

57 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

But players have deferred money. They aren't on 100%.

 

They are guaranteed to get it still, there’s no risk to their incomes / jobs overall (which incidentally we are contractually required to do).

[elhombrecito]

56 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

But players have deferred money. They aren't on 100%.

 

"players had deferred a percentage of their wages for three months"

[City Rocker]

31 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

Thanks for the feedback, I agree with Bristol Rob that some of it seems a bit negative towards the club.

A couple of points that may be relevant.

1. From what I understand, Furloughing of staff isn't a bad thing for a club of our size as it actually helps to protect jobs that may otherwise be under threat.

2. EFL clubs have 'jumped' too soon in deferring players wages etc. We have lost income from 5 home games (which in the scheme of things isn't a lot). BCFC as a football club would have no income for the next 3 months in any case, so this would already be budgeted for. Things will be worse in 3 months time when the new season was due to start and players start asking for the deferred part of their wages to be returned to them. August was the time for EFL clubs to start deferring wages etc.

Agree, use of the furlough scheme is surely a good and positive thing to do, and hopefully protects the future job security of staff, particularly for a business that is already operating at a huge loss. Perhaps this point wasn't really understood at the time the survey was raised?

[Dollymarie]

1 hour ago, Bristol Rob said:

You released this on a bank holiday and it includes a rather bleak sentence;

Bristol City have not commented.

Which seems to have an underlying tone of menace about it, they had a day off. If they have had the data for a week, fair enough, but that isn't clear.

I thought the survey was conducted following a request from the club to gauge how people were coping, but the overall tone of the press release seems rather different to that.

The club have been aware of the survey results for some time and have decided not to comment. They’ve had the results for a while and have had time to respond. 

[Bristol Rob]

3 minutes ago, Dollymarie said:

The club have been aware of the survey results for some time and have decided not to comment. They’ve had the results for a while and have had time to respond. 

Doesn't make that clear in the statement, just sounds negative towards the club.

And given that none of us know how this season will end, let alone know how next season will start, it all seems a bit premature to be suggesting the club should act in any particular way on receipt of the survey.

 

[shelts]

Personally I think season tickets holders should be refunded the last home games if we aren’t allowed to watch or the season is ditched . I don’t want money off next seasons Season ticket as Im not renewing 

[A Horse With No Name]

Can I just ask why, in this survey you offer 2 alternatives "strongly agree" and "agree" and then for the analysis , lump them all in one category. Just have an "agree" option.

[The Humble Realist]

The club are just playing for time until there is a resolution on what happens with THIS season and in many ways they're entitled to do so. 

It is a nice idea for them to 'reset' the clock with regards to next season but ultimately the club will be delighted to have so much money in the bank and will utilise it until it needs to be returned to supporters (if indeed it does as even less is known about the 2020/21 season.

What's very frustrating is the radio silence from many clubs and authorities. Realistically refunds for this season are going to have to be issuedif games are behind closed doors. 

A statement from the club confirming 'if games are played without fans we will be haopy to issue refunds 'might be helpful,  liverpool and man u have announced that so dont know why we and others cant follow suit in a bit of communication. 

[Abraham Romanovich]

1 hour ago, City Rocker said:

Agree, use of the furlough scheme is surely a good and positive thing to do, and hopefully protects the future job security of staff, particularly for a business that is already operating at a huge loss. Perhaps this point wasn't really understood at the time the survey was raised?

Sorry I can't agree with this ,we have a billionaire chairman who is among the 1000 wealthiest individuals on the planet who chooses to reside in Guernsey to minimise tax , to then ask UK taxpayers to pay 80% of ancillary staff wages is morally wrong.

[Blagdon red]

54 minutes ago, The Horse With No Name said:

Can I just ask why, in this survey you offer 2 alternatives "strongly agree" and "agree" and then for the analysis , lump them all in one category. Just have an "agree" option.

Like a lot of surveys, there were 5 options:

Strongly agree

Agree

No opinion

Disagree

Strongly disagree

[thatcham red]

The survey results were passed to the football club via the SLO on the 24th April.

[Blagdon red]

3 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

But players have deferred money. They aren't on 100%.

 

As the statement indicates, the survey went out before the deferral was announced ... partly in order to give the club a steer on what fans would think if the furlough scheme was used and the players were kept on full pay.

The announcement that the furlough scheme was being used and the players would continue to be paid in full, albeit with an element of it paid at a later date, was made only after the survey had been out for several days.

(Defer = put off to a later time, postpone.)

BTW, the club were sent the survey findings on 24th April, with an offer to work together on appropriate messaging.

[Bristol Rob]

28 minutes ago, Abraham Romanovich said:

Sorry I can't agree with this ,we have a billionaire chairman who is among the 1000 wealthiest individuals on the planet who chooses to reside in Guernsey to minimise tax , to then ask UK taxpayers to pay 80% of ancillary staff wages is morally wrong.

I can see both sides of the argument.

Most profit making retailers are owned by billionaires, but there isn't the same outcry.

We are entirely propped up by the Lansdown family, so you could argue that they already put more than enough in as a loss making enterprise (okay, we recorded a profit recently, but that was a player trading profit).

Steve doesn't have a 9-5 role at the club, he employed people to run it for him, so they make the commercial decisions, probably against a pre agreed budget.

Might be that SL would have considered making up the difference/paying himself, but i haven't seen anything to suggest FFP rules have been changed/relaxed.

Just to play devils advocate.

[Bristol Rob]

8 minutes ago, Blagdon red said:

As the statement indicates, the survey went out before the deferral was announced ... partly in order to give the club a steer on what fans would think if the furlough scheme was used and the players were kept on full pay.

The announcement that the furlough scheme was being used and the players would continue to be paid in full, albeit with an element of it paid at a later date, was made only after the survey had been out for several days.

(Defer = put off to a later time, postpone.)

BTW, the club were sent the survey findings on 24th April, with an offer to work together on appropriate messaging.

And in that time, nothing much has changed. We don't know what will happen to the remaining games this season, let alone what will happen next.

Let's assume (for the sake of argument) we finish this season, get to the play off final and win promotion... how many of the 15.5% do you think would take a refund if offered? Or would they try and cut their cloth to save money in a different way....

[NickJ]

2 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

But players have deferred money. They aren't on 100%.

 

Furloughed employees will receive a minimum of 80% of their wages, the employer can claim this from the government to a maximum of £2,500 per month for each employee.

So, employers have a choice from 3 where highly paid employees are unable to work:

- continue paying their normal salaries
- pay the amount which will be reimbursed by the government, £2,500
- make them redundant rather than furlough them

Needless to say, very few employers will opt for the first option, so most higher paid employees unable to work are being paid £2,500 per month.

Some owners of what were profitable businesses are being hit even harder, some will go under through no fault of their own, but best case scenario is they will lose out on substantial profits.

 

"Players have deferred money".

If the implication of this is that players salaries of what, around £100k per month, continue to be paid the majority of wages, and/or will be fully paid eventually, I would suggest that this is something of a piss take. Not talking just about City players, football generally.

[Bar BS3]

37 minutes ago, The Humble Realist said:

The club are just playing for time until there is a resolution on what happens with THIS season and in many ways they're entitled to do so. 

It is a nice idea for them to 'reset' the clock with regards to next season but ultimately the club will be delighted to have so much money in the bank and will utilise it until it needs to be returned to supporters (if indeed it does as even less is known about the 2020/21 season.

What's very frustrating is the radio silence from many clubs and authorities. Realistically refunds for this season are going to have to be issuedif games are behind closed doors. 

A statement from the club confirming 'if games are played without fans we will be haopy to issue refunds 'might be helpful,  liverpool and man u have announced that so dont know why we and others cant follow suit in a bit of communication. 

I think Liverpool & Man Utd might have a bit more cash in the bank to issue refunds, that Championship clubs. 

A fairer comparison would be - which Championship clubs have already stated that they are refunding the remaining home games..? 

This seasons money will have been spent long ago. We (most clubs) lose millions. I doubt the funds are there to just issue a refund and they are waiting for clarity on what's actually happening first. Then I would imagine they'll be hoping that people aren't going to want to cause us further financial problems and will accept access to match streams, instead of being refunded. 

[Bar BS3]

16 minutes ago, Blagdon red said:

As the statement indicates, the survey went out before the deferral was announced ... partly in order to give the club a steer on what fans would think if the furlough scheme was used and the players were kept on full pay.

The announcement that the furlough scheme was being used and the players would continue to be paid in full, albeit with an element of it paid at a later date, was made only after the survey had been out for several days.

(Defer = put off to a later time, postpone.)

BTW, the club were sent the survey findings on 24th April, with an offer to work together on appropriate messaging.

Has receipt of the findings been acknowledged..? Do we know that they've even been received, whilst I'm sure most people aren't working at the moment..? 

Missing emails is easily done whilst skimming an inbox, at the best of times. 

[Bristol Rob]

8 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Furloughed employees will receive a minimum of 80% of their wages, the employer can claim this from the government to a maximum of £2,500 per month for each employee.

So, employers have a choice from 3 where highly paid employees are unable to work:

- continue paying their normal salaries
- pay the amount which will be reimbursed by the government, £2,500
- make them redundant rather than furlough them

Needless to say, very few employers will opt for the first option, so most higher paid employees unable to work are being paid £2,500 per month.

Some owners of what were profitable businesses are being hit even harder, some will go under through no fault of their own, but best case scenario is they will lose out on substantial profits.

 

"Players have deferred money".

If the implication of this is that players salaries of what, around £100k per month, continue to be paid the majority of wages, and/or will be fully paid eventually, I would suggest that this is something of a piss take. Not talking just about City players, football generally.

Re the players, they are (I'm guessing) an asset on a balance sheet, so it's understandable they are treated differently.

If someone who works in the match day office says, 'I want to leave, I'm hoping to get a move to the Bristol Hippodrome to sell ticket for them' the club aren't going to demand 20million quid and a 30% sell on if they then move to the Old Vic.

If a player says they want a move, they dynamic changes.

[Blagdon red]

4 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

Has receipt of the findings been acknowledged..? Do we know that they've even been received, whilst I'm sure most people aren't working at the moment..? 

Missing emails is easily done whilst skimming an inbox, at the best of times. 

We know they have been received. Jerry, who is still working, took receipt of them.

[The Humble Realist]

11 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

I think Liverpool & Man Utd might have a bit more cash in the bank to issue refunds, that Championship clubs. 

A fairer comparison would be - which Championship clubs have already stated that they are refunding the remaining home games..? 

This seasons money will have been spent long ago. We (most clubs) lose millions. I doubt the funds are there to just issue a refund and they are waiting for clarity on what's actually happening first. Then I would imagine they'll be hoping that people aren't going to want to cause us further financial problems and will accept access to match streams, instead of being refunded. 

The funds must be there to issue refunds as next seasons season ticket money is already in. We are in a much better position than others in this regard.

 

I dont think the club need to issue a refund yet, but they (and other Championship clubs ) could just reassure that 'if the games are behind close doors,  refunds for this seasons games will be issued or put towards a season ticket for next year '

Surely realistically they will have to at least offer this as an option for supporters ? There is an elderly gentleman who sits near me who doesn't have the internet , he can't stream anything so they'll need to be that option for fans .

[Bar BS3]

6 minutes ago, Blagdon red said:

We know they have been received. Jerry, who is still working, took receipt of them.

OK, thanks. Although, in fairness, that's quite different to the people who'd provide the answers having had them and having arranged to discuss them. Especially when they probably don't know yet and are waiting for replies and decisions themselves. 

[Redandproud]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the club state that when it's safe to do so, games will resume, but only behind closed doors, then the club would offer refunds for the remaining games or offer free to view matches on mobile or other means, they would make a statement when EFL make a decision, if season goes ahead, 

[Bar BS3]

5 minutes ago, The Humble Realist said:

The funds must be there to issue refunds as next seasons season ticket money is already in. We are in a much better position than others in this regard.

 

I dont think the club need to issue a refund yet, but they (and other Championship clubs ) could just reassure that 'if the games are behind close doors,  refunds for this seasons games will be issued or put towards a season ticket for next year '

Surely realistically they will have to at least offer this as an option for supporters ? There is an elderly gentleman who sits near me who doesn't have the internet , he can't stream anything so they'll need to be that option for fans .

I don't know the answers. But I don't think our club, or any other club, do wither, yet. 

The whole situation needs some clarity before decisions can be made. 

One thing for sure is that football, along with every other industry, will be looking for ANY alternative possible first, before issuing refunds - which could be crippling for them. 

[Blagdon red]

13 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

OK, thanks. Although, in fairness, that's quite different to the people who'd provide the answers having had them and having arranged to discuss them. Especially when they probably don't know yet and are waiting for replies and decisions themselves. 

The decision makers do have the results.

[NickJ]

17 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Re the players, they are (I'm guessing) an asset on a balance sheet, so it's understandable they are treated differently.

If someone who works in the match day office says, 'I want to leave, I'm hoping to get a move to the Bristol Hippodrome to sell ticket for them' the club aren't going to demand 20million quid and a 30% sell on if they then move to the Old Vic.

If a player says they want a move, they dynamic changes.

I appreciate that, but it doesn't make the principle of my point any less valid.

The wages are being paid, ultimately the supporters are paying them. 

 

[The Humble Realist]

17 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

I don't know the answers. But I don't think our club, or any other club, do wither, yet. 

The whole situation needs some clarity before decisions can be made. 

One thing for sure is that football, along with every other industry, will be looking for ANY alternative possible first, before issuing refunds - which could be crippling for them. 

Agree. 

It is very worrying for league one and two clubs in particular for who season tickets will be a massive proportion of their income.

Let's say tranmere as an example , normally they'd have a load of season ticket money in for next year about now. Instead they probably have ZERO and are looking at refunding 5 games worth of season ticket money for this year. Is worrying times