Tom Gorringe - The Business of Sport

[Swans Jack]

About to watch it now.

 

[magicdaps10]

Sounded like a typical CEO, which I guess is a good thing!

Personally I’d rather the stadium stay with the council, but I’d never have bought out stadco. Not that I know enough about the realities for that to be much but a visceral reaction.

100% regards a CEO, first tick is a good talker and he certainly ticks that box.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

An interesting interview.

Several things stood out for me.

One, the failure to mention the Trust when discussing history, authenticity, fan engagement. Speaks volumes.

Secondly the stadium purchase. Unlike comments made on this thread, the club already has full control over the stadium, including all ‘extra’ revenues, ability to expand (subject to planning, which wouldn’t change if the stadium was bought), sponsorship deals etc etc. they pay £300k per annum (so negligible for PSR purposes) and took out a 37 year lease in 2018 (so about 30 years still left).

The ONLY benefit is on naming rights. At the moment, the council have rights to a percentage of stadium naming rights (don’t think the percentage is publicly announced, but may be wrong). So if a new naming deal is an option (and they’d have to buy out the current deal) then it may be beneficial for the club. It does, however, leave a risk for us all that doesn’t currently exist.

Thirdly, I’m surprised no one has picked up on him stating that the strategic plan sees us as, effectively, a media content company with a football club attached. It’s not an outlier in this market, Wrexham obviously is a TV show with a club attached, clubs like Man Utd have long been a marketing brand with a club attached. Outside football, it’s a common structure - Uber etc are tech companies with taxis / deliveries / bikes attached.

It’s obvious that the plan is that the ‘club’ itself focuses on local support and player trading while the ‘company’ focuses on content creation, brand awareness and marketing collabs through multiple channels each of which focus on different market segments. I guess it doesn’t much matter to an extent to most supporters as it will, if successful mean increased chance of on field success but it’s not Kansas anymore.

It is striking though, imo, that there doesn’t appear to be a belief that we can possibly succeed on field without the same budget as others. It’s not so long ago that our club differentiated itself by achievement despite being underdogs. The strategy now is to change the commercial situation to mean we aren’t underdogs. (One of the reasons this struck me was the discussion about being attractive to Snoop because we were underdogs).
It’s the whole Wrexham thing I guess. They still pretend to be a small club despite having had the largest budget in every division so far in their rise. It’s interesting to see how long that pretence lasts before people realise that it’s actually no different to clubs like Man City etc.

Obviously it’s a matter of personal choice ultimately and most fans genuinely won’t care, but there is a part of me that shudders a little when listening to such a discussion. For me, our roots are important in their own right, not just as a marketing story.

 

[tardylum]

Thirdly, I’m surprised no one has picked up on him stating that the strategic plan sees us as, effectively, a media content company with a football club attached. It’s not an outlier in this market, Wrexham obviously is a TV show with a club attached, clubs like Man Utd have long been a marketing brand with a club attached. Outside football, it’s a common structure - Uber etc are tech companies with taxis / deliveries / bikes attached.

It’s obvious that the plan is that the ‘club’ itself focuses on local support and player trading while the ‘company’ focuses on content creation, brand awareness and marketing collabs through multiple channels each of which focus on different market segments. I guess it doesn’t much matter to an extent to most supporters as it will, if successful mean increased chance of on field success but it’s not Kansas anymore.

It is striking though, imo, that there doesn’t appear to be a belief that we can possibly succeed on field without the same budget as others. It’s not so long ago that our club differentiated itself by achievement despite being underdogs. The strategy now is to change the commercial situation to mean we aren’t underdogs. (One of the reasons this struck me was the discussion about being attractive to Snoop because we were underdogs).
It’s the whole Wrexham thing I guess. They still pretend to be a small club despite having had the largest budget in every division so far in their rise. It’s interesting to see how long that pretence lasts before people realise that it’s actually no different to clubs like Man City etc.

Obviously it’s a matter of personal choice ultimately and most fans genuinely won’t care, but there is a part of me that shudders a little when listening to such a discussion. For me, our roots are important in their own right, not just as a marketing story.

I agree. That topic is where the shorts guy came alive and was trying to pick at Tom's words. It is a bit shameless and does not sit entirely right with me but I am not sure if I care enough to fight it. When he mentioned if the Death Row collaboration actually had any synergy or was just throwing two congruent brands together and cashing in, it was telling that Tom did not have a great answer and shorts guy had a wry smile because he knew he was right. He has clearly been around a lot of salesman and marketing people who will say anything to make sales. That being said, even if my personal opinion is that it is a bit of a cash grab or replicating the Wrexham formula which is not something I have any interest in, I can see the argument for it being the smart way the club has to go for financial reasons. It is a little sad but maybe that is just where football is in 2025.

 

[FearOfAJackPlanet]

The bit that stood out the most for me was in the talk about Modric and Snoop and their social media reach, and one of the interviewers says something like 'I'd exploit the sh*t out that' and Gorringe replied 'That's essentially our business model' and I remember thinking...er...that doesn't sound great to me...but what do I know.

The other was: 'We aim to balance the books in 3 years...'

Yeah...good luck with that (without promotion to the Prem)

 

[magicdaps10]

I agree. That topic is where the shorts guy came alive and was trying to pick at Tom's words. It is a bit shameless and does not sit entirely right with me but I am not sure if I care enough to fight it. When he mentioned if the Death Row collaboration actually had any synergy or was just throwing two congruent brands together and cashing in, it was telling that Tom did not have a great answer and shorts guy had a wry smile because he knew he was right. He has clearly been around a lot of salesman and marketing people who will say anything to make sales. That being said, even if my personal opinion is that it is a bit of a cash grab or replicating the Wrexham formula which is not something I have any interest in, I can see the argument for it being the smart way the club has to go for financial reasons. It is a little sad but maybe that is just where football is in 2025.

The guy in shorts knew his stuff despite his appearance and his facial expressions to some of the answers told plenty.
It was a decent interview but there was plenty to be a little uneasy about if you could see it.

Lisa's post has certainly opened upy eyes a bit more and I think a second listen is needed.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

I agree. That topic is where the shorts guy came alive and was trying to pick at Tom's words. It is a bit shameless and does not sit entirely right with me but I am not sure if I care enough to fight it. When he mentioned if the Death Row collaboration actually had any synergy or was just throwing two congruent brands together and cashing in, it was telling that Tom did not have a great answer and shorts guy had a wry smile because he knew he was right. He has clearly been around a lot of salesman and marketing people who will say anything to make sales. That being said, even if my personal opinion is that it is a bit of a cash grab or replicating the Wrexham formula which is not something I have any interest in, I can see the argument for it being the smart way the club has to go for financial reasons. It is a little sad but maybe that is just where football is in 2025.

The shorts guy, although an irritating posh boy, has a venture capital fund which is why he was sceptical. He literally spends his time listening to pitches for investment so will have a sense of what’s real and what’s froth. He made a few incisive comments. One was about ‘reach’ in response to Gorringe’s somewhat ludicrous point about adding our following together with that of Snoop and Modric to come up with a ‘reachable’ audience in comparison to that if PL teams.

Another was about authenticity.

It’s fairly obvious that authenticity is just a slogan. Unless anyone can think why it is genuinely authentic to think ‘we would like an audience in India, let’s find a famous cricketer’ when discussing a Welsh football club.

It is what it is. Just say ‘ we are going to use famous people with a huge social media presence to generate as much income as we can through advertising and sponsorship deals and it doesn’t matter whether they even know who Swansea are’. Don’t pretend it’s authentic.

 

[magicdaps10]

The shorts guy, although an irritating posh boy, has a venture capital fund which is why he was sceptical. He literally spends his time listening to pitches for investment so will have a sense of what’s real and what’s froth. He made a few incisive comments. One was about ‘reach’ in response to Gorringe’s somewhat ludicrous point about adding our following together with that of Snoop and Modric to come up with a ‘reachable’ audience in comparison to that if PL teams.

Another was about authenticity.

It’s fairly obvious that authenticity is just a slogan. Unless anyone can think why it is genuinely authentic to think ‘we would like an audience in India, let’s find a famous cricketer’ when discussing a Welsh football club.

It is what it is. Just say ‘ we are going to use famous people with a huge social media presence to generate as much income as we can through advertising and sponsorship deals and it doesn’t matter whether they even know who Swansea are’. Don’t pretend it’s authentic.

The funniest thing is that people are going with it and thinking he came across as a messiah.
I don't want to be critical of him but it was clear that it was a lot of front and the guy in shorts was just playing with him on times.

 

[Pacemaker]

The explanation for purchase of the stadium is that currently we have a debt against our PSR together with the training ground at Fairwood which isn’t an asset. If we owned both we would put those assets on our benefit rather than a deficit which holds us back on the PSR rules.

I can see both the benefit on our PSR account but the danger of over stretching or an owner at some stage using the stadium as some asset for leavening loans and placing the club in danger.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

The explanation for purchase of the stadium is that currently we have a debt against our PSR together with the training ground at Fairwood which isn’t an asset. If we owned both we would put those assets on our benefit rather than a deficit which holds us back on the PSR rules.

I can see both the benefit on our PSR account but the danger of over stretching or an owner at some stage using the stadium as some asset for leavening loans and placing the club in danger.

We currently pay £300k per annum which counts as a cost against PSR. That’s not moving the dial much.

Don’t think that can be the reason to be honest. Must be naming rights. On,y other possibility is if there is some strange feature with PSR where infrastructure spending is only classed as exempt if you own t(e asset rather than have a long term lease (which affects the spending in the fan zone thing). But that would be odd as it would be contrary to accounting rules where both would be treated as capital.

 

[magicdaps10]

Also, Gorringe said that Montague was brought in by the previous regime!
I thought he came in February.

 

[Swans Jack]

Also, Gorringe said that Montague was brought in by the previous regime!
I thought he came in February.

He was sighted by Coleman in late 2004. After learning about him from Williams I believe. And was brought in under Coleman.

 

[magicdaps10]

He was sighted by Coleman in late 2004. After learning about him from Williams I believe. And was brought in under Coleman.

So it was under our current regime.
He was wrong what he said.

 

[Swans Jack]

So it was under our current regime.
He was wrong what he said.

Yes and No. Yes owners but Coleman was pushing for it. So I think Tom was getting at he wants really in the position or role to make that decision.

 

[Smurph]

So it was under our current regime.
He was wrong what he said.

When he was initially brought in his role existed. When we had a re org his role no longer existed and he was paid off.

This happens every year at the majority of multi million pound business.

It really isn’t that hard to understand, unless your surname is Mulder.