Business Advantages of Supporter Community ... - Supporters Direct

More documents

Recommendations

Info

to generate comparative information about supporter community owned clubs and clubs of equivalent size and status that are privately owned. The survey method was: l An open online survey l Publicised via official club websites, fan forums and programmes l Based on ‘pairs’ of clubs, which corresponded to the best possible degree in terms of the following factors: – League status – Location (e.g. one club town or two/multi-club city) – Size of attendances Supporter Trust Majority Owned Non Supporter Owned or Major Shareholder Clubs Brentford (FL1) Exeter (FL1) Lincoln City (FL2) AFC Wimbledon (BSP) AFC Telford United (BSN) FC United of Manchester (NPL) Colchester (FL1) Torquay United (FL2) Luton Town (BSP) Boston (BSN) Clubs Surveyed for Supporter Satisfaction Survey Halifax Town (NPL) In the survey we asked supporters to rate their satisfaction against a range of areas of club operation using the following ratings: Very unsatisfied; Unsatisfied; Neither unsatisfied nor satisfied; Satisfied; Very satisfied. The categories of business operations surveyed were: Off-pitch satisfaction; On-pitch satisfaction; Owners; Club Services; Membership Scheme; Merchandise; Supporter Consultation; Team Management; Trust. In total over 1700 supporters responded to the survey. However, there were significant variations in terms of responses, ranging from just 25 (Torquay) and 45 (Boston) at the lower end, to 398 (FC United) and 380 (AFC Wimbledon) at the upper end. Given the open ‘self selected’ nature of the survey as well as the variance in response rate, we must provide a caveat to the findings: namely that they cannot be taken as statistically representative of fans of all clubs, especially those with lower response rates. However, on the whole we have provided averages between supporter community owned and other clubs to offset differences in response rate of individual clubs. 8 Supporters Direct Briefing Paper No.4
The report is structured to include both elements of the research under the following 11 headings: 1 Strategic Partnerships 2 Finance 3 Sponsorship 4 Facilities 5 Resilience 6 Co-operative Added Value 7 Volunteering and Participation 8 Match Day Spending 9 Donations 10 Transparency 11 Supporter Satisfaction Business Advantages of Supporter Community Ownership 9
Page 1 and 2: SUPPORTERS DIRECT BRIEFING PAPER NO
Page 3 and 4: Contents Introduction 4 1 Strategic
Page 5 and 6: Since its formation in 2000, Suppor
Page 7: l AFC Wimbledon l AFC Telford Unite
Page 11 and 12: At Exeter City, they have been able
Page 13 and 14: 2 Finance Key Question: Has support
Page 15 and 16: model, but to football governance a
Page 17 and 18: 3 Sponsorship Key Question: Has com
Page 19 and 20: Over the seven years that the fans
Page 21 and 22: 4 Developing Facilities Key Questio
Page 23 and 24: whilst supporters raised £30,000.
Page 25 and 26: There was a greater understanding t
Page 27 and 28: 6 Co-operative ‘Added Value’ Ke
Page 29 and 30: community club can be an advantage
Page 31 and 32: at a “normal” football club, yo
Page 33 and 34: Exeter City - Valuing Supporter Vol
Page 35 and 36: FC United of Manchester do not curr
Page 37 and 38: the area of donations. Many clubs w
Page 39 and 40: with specific skills - in areas suc
Page 41 and 42: costs and the additional ‘buy in
Page 43 and 44: goodwill within the wider community
Page 45 and 46: Category Average Score of Average S
Page 47 and 48: ● 73% of respondents from support
Page 49 and 50: community ownership, the community
Page 51 and 52: The Supporters Direct Briefing Pape

Business Advantages of Supporter Community ... - Supporters Direct

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?