The Latest............. (3 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
dongonzalos said:
So you would think after they agreed the 2 by 2 they would be looking for a new owner?
I was rather hoping the new deal would have opened up far more access to revenues. I assume that would have been the compromise for commiting longer term.
Click to expand...

Nope.
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
stupot07 said:
Yep, plus you could argue that rolling 2+2's is advantageous as it provides flexibility, especially for a prospective buyer now the option to buy into the acl has gone, obviously the FL arent keen on shirt term deals.

Like you say the big problem with long term deals is whether there are breakout clauses. I had heard another whisper saying that wasps didn't want one including. I'm not sure how advantageous a 20 year deal would be in terms of sponsorship, etc, things like shirt sponsors, pitchside advertising,etc is usually short term. Things like stadium sponsorship, etc tend to be longer term, but that doesn't affect us.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

All kinds of people considering doing business with us would think twice in the current climate.
Shorter term contracts do not do a great deal to calm that uncertainty about us.
You sign a 20 year contract, with break clauses or without them.
It provides far more certainty and stability about the club.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
skybluetony176 said:
Then the club need to be negotiating a deal on the same sort of arrangement that West Ham have at the Olympic stadium. Where it's recognised that West Hams tenancy brings value to the stadium sponsorship and West Ham take a cut of the sponsorship money because of that giving them extra income.
Click to expand...

West Ham are the only sports tenant and their landlord has different priorities to ours.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
dongonzalos said:
Pantomime time again. I like this

Yep
Click to expand...

The only increase proposed was around the 23 days we are at the stadium.

The suggestion is the proposed increase suggested in rent far outweighed that increase and that was only for the period of rent that was visible. No severance clause either which no one would agree to has also been suggested.
 
olderskyblue

olderskyblue

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
Also must be a coincidence that, at the point CCC asked Sport England to support a new pool, they stated there was no site in mind and not actually one within the city.
Click to expand...

Is that true chief? There was an article last November that said the talks about the pool at Higgs had been going on for months.... When did CCC ask Sport England to support a new pool?
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
The only increase proposed was around the 23 days we are at the stadium.

The suggestion is the proposed increase suggested in rent far outweighed that increase and that was only for the period of rent that was visible. No severance clause either which no one would agree to has also been suggested.
Click to expand...

A full answer much better thanks.
How close is your source to the talks?
 
italiahorse

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
dongonzalos said:
Why did the club only want 2+2.
Are we still saying we are going to build a stadium?
I would have thought getting a 20 year agreed. With some stability would allow us to improve in all sorts of things such as sponsorship.
Whilst we carrying on trying the legal action.
Agreeing it would then have helped our cause a bit with the academy.
Click to expand...

How about a compromise of a 10 year rolling deal?
It will take the best part of 10 years to plan, approve and build a new stadium
 
italiahorse

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
The only increase proposed was around the 23 days we are at the stadium.

The suggestion is the proposed increase suggested in rent far outweighed that increase and that was only for the period of rent that was visible. No severance clause either which no one would agree to has also been suggested.
Click to expand...

You have no way of knowing any of that so why quote it as fact?
If it's your opinion then state it, if its fact then quote your source.
Confusing statements like this are just divisive. (Which I assume is the aim)
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
italiahorse said:
You have no way of knowing any of that so why quote it as fact?
If it's your opinion then state it, if its fact then quote your source.
Confusing statements like this are just divisive. (Which I assume is the aim)
Click to expand...

Who is telling you that Wasps are taking over? Names :)
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
West Ham are the only sports tenant and their landlord has different priorities to ours.
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant really and I would say that both landlords have the same priority. Making money.

If our committed presence at the Ricoh makes stadium sponsorship more valuable I don't think it's unreasonable to negotiate a cut of the difference, the same way West Hams owners have been capable of doing.
 
R

Red Hills Cov Kid

Member
Nick said:
New user in coming on and spouting that shocker...
Click to expand...

There are the usual three options: -

Either any new users who dont agree with the party line are a plant by Wasps or the council and have signed up with an agenda

or

New users are thick and stupid and don't really understand the issues

or

New users quickly see for themelves the truly bizarre way that the few try to discredit and ridicule the many who have the audacity to disagree with them.

I guess people can (and will) decide for themselves where the truth lies.
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
Red Hills Cov Kid said:
There are the usual three options: -

Either any new users who dont agree with the party line are a plant by Wasps or the council and have signed up with an agenda

or

New users are thick and stupid and don't really understand the issues

or

New users quickly see for themelves the truly bizarre way that the few try to discredit and ridicule the many who have the audacity to disagree with them.

I guess people can (and will) decide for themselves where the truth lies.
Click to expand...

The same way that you sign up and try to discredit people who disagree with you by trying to make out they work for them? Nice one.
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
If I were SISU I would try and negotiate a long term sliding rent scale.
The sliding rent though doesnt just increase in terms of the rent itself but also the access.
So as attendances and league position rises the rent rises.
However the importance of CCFC to the Ricoh in terms of profile will also rise and so access to revenues should also rise in a staged process.
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
I suggested a similar thing when we were trying to buy ACL and were not trusted by the council.
We should have had a staged purchase in line with meeting the criteria the council were demanding.
Each time we achieve the criteria we buy 20% at a bit of a discount.
(The suggestion was shot down by those on here who know better )
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
dongonzalos said:
All kinds of people considering doing business with us would think twice in the current climate.
Shorter term contracts do not do a great deal to calm that uncertainty about us.
You sign a 20 year contract, with break clauses or without them.
It provides far more certainty and stability about the club.
Click to expand...
A 20 year contract without a break clause would be a disaster waiting to happen


Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
dongonzalos said:
If I were SISU I would try and negotiate a long term sliding rent scale.
The sliding rent though doesnt just increase in terms of the rent itself but also the access.
So as attendances and league position rises the rent rises.
However the importance of CCFC to the Ricoh in terms of profile will also rise and so access to revenues should also rise in a staged process.
Click to expand...
All depends on the values. With the compass deals the actual profit and usable cash on F&B's is relatively small. The difference between rent and revenue access has to be worth it. Also in all of this it has to be worth it to wasps. This is a completely different landscape now, for all the flannel about wasos understanding a sports clubs needs, the bonds, the interest and their own aims mean that wasps will have to be far more selfish than the previous owners of acl.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
O

oldfiver

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
Exactly. It's the pool that's the main problem. It's costing £20 million and even council projections (which are always optimistic) is that it will lose money.

The aim will be that the City of Rugby initiative will sponsor this nonsense along with wasps development.

Even the council admit it will hardly be used by local residents - so they will pay a huge amount of taxpayers money on it but have the gall to bleat about a missing £325,000 they have no entitlement to.
Click to expand...

They need Sport England on side to help funding a new pool
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top