Playing devils advocate here. (6 Viewers)

[coundonskyblue]

I was just reading about the Liberty Stadium and Swansea City. Swansea moved to the Liberty at the same time as we moved to the Ricoh.

Swansea are regarded as being one of, if not the best run football club in the country. Yet they rent their stadium, not own it.

The Liberty Stadium is owned by Swansea City Council, and is operated by a SSMC (their equivalent of ACL). Swansea City pay a variable rent based on their attendences (it would seem 10% of ticket sales), which would roughly work out as follows:

Season Atten. Rent Div
2005–06 14,155 488347 Lg 1
2006–07 12,720 438840 Lg 1
2007–08 13,520 466440 Lg 1
2008–09 15,186 523917 Champ
2009–10 15,407 531541 Champ
2010–11 15,507 534991 Champ
2011–12 19,946 538542 Prem
2012–13 20,367 549909 Prem

Every year they have played there they have been paying more than we could have been paying (£400k if we had accepted the last offer), and it also blows Mr Fisher's idea that league 1 clubs should be paying £150k, and Swansea were paying £300k over that.

Does it not suggest that if a club is well run it can cope with having to pay rent?

 

---

[dongonzalos]

I was just reading about the Liberty Stadium and Swansea City. Swansea moved to the Liberty at the same time as we moved to the Ricoh.

Swansea are regarded as being one of, if not the best run football club in the country. Yet they rent their stadium, not own it.

The Liberty Stadium is owned by Swansea City Council, and is operated by a SSMC (their equivalent of ACL). Swansea City pay a variable rent based on their attendences (it would seem 10% of ticket sales), which would roughly work out as follows:

Season Atten. Rent Div
2005–06 14,155 488347 Lg 1
2006–07 12,720 438840 Lg 1
2007–08 13,520 466440 Lg 1
2008–09 15,186 523917 Champ
2009–10 15,407 531541 Champ
2010–11 15,507 534991 Champ
2011–12 19,946 538542 Prem
2012–13 20,367 549909 Prem

Every year they have played there they have been paying more than we could have been paying (£400k if we had accepted the last offer), and it also blows Mr Fisher's idea that league 1 clubs should be paying £150k, and Swansea were paying £300k over that.

Does it not suggest that if a club is well run it can cope with having to pay rent?

If the club was well run and business relationships conducted professionally

If SISU are telling the truth about what they have invested I have a feeling we would be in a West Brom Scenario and own half the Ricoh.

SISU chose a different route.

Unfortunately it seems the bullying route didn't work

 

[fernandopartridge]

I was just reading about the Liberty Stadium and Swansea City. Swansea moved to the Liberty at the same time as we moved to the Ricoh.

Swansea are regarded as being one of, if not the best run football club in the country. Yet they rent their stadium, not own it.

The Liberty Stadium is owned by Swansea City Council, and is operated by a SSMC (their equivalent of ACL). Swansea City pay a variable rent based on their attendences (it would seem 10% of ticket sales), which would roughly work out as follows:

Season Atten. Rent Div
2005–06 14,155 488347 Lg 1
2006–07 12,720 438840 Lg 1
2007–08 13,520 466440 Lg 1
2008–09 15,186 523917 Champ
2009–10 15,407 531541 Champ
2010–11 15,507 534991 Champ
2011–12 19,946 538542 Prem
2012–13 20,367 549909 Prem

Every year they have played there they have been paying more than we could have been paying (£400k if we had accepted the last offer), and it also blows Mr Fisher's idea that league 1 clubs should be paying £150k, and Swansea were paying £300k over that.

Does it not suggest that if a club is well run it can cope with having to pay rent?

What point are you making? They pay a variable rent based on their income. Coventry City have had a fixed high rent despite diminishing income.

What do they get for that rent?

 

[dongonzalos]

What point are you making? They pay a variable rent based on their income. Coventry City have had a fixed high rent despite diminishing income.

What do they get for that rent?

Coventry city were offered the variable rent and declined it

 

[coundonskyblue]

<p>

What point are you making? They pay a variable rent based on their income. Coventry City have had a fixed high rent despite diminishing income.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What do they get for that rent?

My point being that Swansea were paying in excess of £400k whilst being in league 1.

 

[lordsummerisle]

<p>

My point being that Swansea were paying in excess of £400k whilst being in league 1.

Nowhere near £1.2million at any time though.

 

[Grendel]

<p>

My point being that Swansea were paying in excess of £400k whilst being in league 1.

And so what! What did Swansea pay in championship - a fraction of the £1.2 million we have had and would have continued to had unless the club went on rent strike.

Excellent analysis - further evidence that this council have treated the club shamefully.

Great you've seen the light.

 

[shy_tall_knight]

Its not just the rent paid that's the issue its access to the other income streams, I'm sure Swansea got all the car parking etc..

 

[stupot07]

I was just reading about the Liberty Stadium and Swansea City. Swansea moved to the Liberty at the same time as we moved to the Ricoh.

Swansea are regarded as being one of, if not the best run football club in the country. Yet they rent their stadium, not own it.

The Liberty Stadium is owned by Swansea City Council, and is operated by a SSMC (their equivalent of ACL). Swansea City pay a variable rent based on their attendences (it would seem 10% of ticket sales), which would roughly work out as follows:

Season Atten. Rent Div
2005–06 14,155 488347 Lg 1
2006–07 12,720 438840 Lg 1
2007–08 13,520 466440 Lg 1
2008–09 15,186 523917 Champ
2009–10 15,407 531541 Champ
2010–11 15,507 534991 Champ
2011–12 19,946 538542 Prem
2012–13 20,367 549909 Prem

Every year they have played there they have been paying more than we could have been paying (£400k if we had accepted the last offer), and it also blows Mr Fisher's idea that league 1 clubs should be paying £150k, and Swansea were paying £300k over that.

Does it not suggest that if a club is well run it can cope with having to pay rent?

What do they get for that rent? Do they get access to all match day income, F&B's, etc? Is it like renting a house that they hold the lease hold 365 days a year with the ability to sublet out for conferences, weddings, events, etc?

 

[coundonskyblue]

And so what! What did Swansea pay in championship - a fraction of the £1.2 million we have had and would have continued to had unless the club went on rent strike.

Excellent analysis - further evidence that this council have treated the club shamefully.

Great you've seen the light.

Grendel, why didnt the club accept the offer of variable rent?

Why did they not accept the offer of £400k rent?

How are Swansea so well run despite not owning their own ground?

Typical that your usual tunnel vision stops you from being able to see the point being made.

 

[stupot07]

Nowhere near £1.2million at any time though.

They're only paying £550k in the premier league.

 

[coundonskyblue]

What do they get for that rent? Do they get access to all match day income, F&B's, etc? Is it like renting a house that they hold the lease hold 365 days a year with the ability to sublet out for conferences, weddings, events, etc?

They may get something from F&B's and parking, that I don't know.

They certainly don't get anything from non matchday events (conferences etc).

 

[coundonskyblue]

They're only paying £550k in the premier league.

We could have only been paying £400k.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Coventry city were offered the variable rent and declined it

The rent is only a headline though, isn't it?

 

[fernandopartridge]

We could have only been paying £400k.

Which is terrible considering the huge differential in income. We don't earn 72% of what Swansea City do.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Grendel, why didnt the club accept the offer of variable rent?

Why did they not accept the offer of £400k rent?

How are Swansea so well run despite not owning their own ground?

Typical that your usual tunnel vision stops you from being able to see the point being made.

It's your tunnel vision. Your little bit of research has backfired as it has identified that the rent Coventry City FC were charged from 2005 to 2012 was clearly excessive.

 

[coundonskyblue]

Which is terrible considering the huge differential in income. We don't earn 72% of what Swansea City do.

You agree then that the variable rent that ACL offered would have been fairer then?

 

[coundonskyblue]

It's your tunnel vision. Your little bit of research has backfired as it has identified that the rent Coventry City FC were charged from 2005 to 2012 was clearly excessive.

Yes, £1.2m was a high rent.

 

[fernandopartridge]

You agree then that the variable rent that ACL offered would have been fairer then?

No - I can't agree as I don't know the terms of the Swansea agreement. I think the principle of a variable rate is agreeable, though.

 

[tisza]

The Swansea case has two significant differences from ours.
1. They were successfully able to develop an industrial park alongside the stadium.
2. There are two tenants - the football club and the rugby club.

 

[Grendel]

I was just reading about the Liberty Stadium and Swansea City. Swansea moved to the Liberty at the same time as we moved to the Ricoh.

Swansea are regarded as being one of, if not the best run football club in the country. Yet they rent their stadium, not own it.

The Liberty Stadium is owned by Swansea City Council, and is operated by a SSMC (their equivalent of ACL). Swansea City pay a variable rent based on their attendences (it would seem 10% of ticket sales), which would roughly work out as follows:

Season Atten. Rent Div
2005–06 14,155 488347 Lg 1
2006–07 12,720 438840 Lg 1
2007–08 13,520 466440 Lg 1
2008–09 15,186 523917 Champ
2009–10 15,407 531541 Champ
2010–11 15,507 534991 Champ
2011–12 19,946 538542 Prem
2012–13 20,367 549909 Prem

Every year they have played there they have been paying more than we could have been paying (£400k if we had accepted the last offer), and it also blows Mr Fisher's idea that league 1 clubs should be paying £150k, and Swansea were paying £300k over that.

Does it not suggest that if a club is well run it can cope with having to pay rent?

Are you sure this is right -- looks like Swansea have a real bargain!;

Opposition councillors in Swansea want the city's football club to pay more rent for their home ground.

Swansea City moved to the £27m Liberty Stadium in 2005 after the council paid most of the money to build it.

The new Premier League club pay a peppercorn rent to a loss-making management company running the stadium but the council has received nothing.

But Swansea council said it is "sad" that such a demand is being made when the club is "at the peak of its glory."

Swansea City declined to comment.

The Liberty Stadium is run by Swansea Stadium Management Company (SSMC), an arms-length body which is a partnership between the council, Swansea City and the Ospreys rugby team.


If only our council viewed things this way.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

It's your tunnel vision. Your little bit of research has backfired as it has identified that the rent Coventry City FC were charged from 2005 to 2012 was clearly excessive.

No it hasn't! He wasn't arguing that it wasn't excessive in the past, he was arguing that SISU's notion of what is fair is skewed whereas the offer made made ACL is reasonable.

 

[Grendel]

No it hasn't! He wasn't arguing that it wasn't excessive in the past, he was arguing that SISU's notion of what is fair is skewed whereas the offer made made ACL is reasonable.

Swansea pay very little looking at the article above.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

No it hasn't! He wasn't arguing that it wasn't excessive in the past, he was arguing that SISU's notion of what is fair is skewed whereas the offer made made ACL is reasonable.

Unfortunately though NLHWC it's fantastic that Coundon did the research for the post, but there are so many differences in the two scenario's that the fact the Liberty Stadium and the Ricoh Arena is council or partly council owned is literally as far as I can see any similarities..

 

[coundonskyblue]

Swansea pay very little looking at the article above.

They pay a % of ticket sales

 

[skybluesam66]

in 8 years at the Ricoh - we have probably
a) Paid £6m more than a fair rent
b) Lost out on maybe £2m + of other income streams - directly related to matchday

ie £1m a year

If each season we had invested an extra £1m on the pitch each season............

 

[coundonskyblue]

Unfortunately though NLHWC it's fantastic that Coundon did the research for the post, but there are so many differences in the two scenario's that the fact the Liberty Stadium and the Ricoh Arena is council or partly council owned is literally as far as I can see any similarities..

My original point (which seems to have got lost along the way), was to challenge this idea that a club needs to own a ground to be successful.

Swansea are a very well run club yet have as many assets as we do.

I can't help but think that the stadium situation is a smokescreen to hide poor CCFC management.

 

[coundonskyblue]

The Swansea case has two significant differences from ours.
1. They were successfully able to develop an industrial park alongside the stadium.
2. There are two tenants - the football club and the rugby club.

Arena shopping park?

 

[Grendel]

They pay a % of ticket sales

What's your source. Their are loads of articles that say they pay a peppercorn rent - see the BBC item above

Loads of articles where the council are trying to prevent the opposition from increasing a peppercorn rent but the council say they are proud of the club and don't want it to pay anymore.

What a difference to our lot

Council paid far more of the construction cost than ours

Thanks for alerting me to this. It is more evidence of how a council that truly cares for its club should operate and how one totally uninterested continues to operate.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

My original point (which seems to have got lost along the way), was to challenge this idea that a club needs to own a ground to be successful.

Swansea are a very well run club yet have as many assets as we do.

I can't help but think that the stadium situation is a smokescreen to hide poor CCFC management.

No I absolutely see your original point CSB, CCFC need to own the Ricoh Arena to be a success. Swansea are benefitting from a very tidy rent deal IMO and are breeding success from it.

They spend within their means and keep to a philiosophy which has brought them very far, investing in the squad and the way they play Football. All clubs could learn from Swansea.

It's a bit both, this situation should have never arisen and why someone at CCFC didn't elude to the deal on the Ricoh at the beginning just doesn't make sense, to pay 1.2 Mil a year for the Ricoh just could have not been right not mentioning all the financial implications that CCFC has had with the Ricoh since.

 

[covboy1987]

I was just reading about the Liberty Stadium and Swansea City. Swansea moved to the Liberty at the same time as we moved to the Ricoh.

Swansea are regarded as being one of, if not the best run football club in the country. Yet they rent their stadium, not own it.

The Liberty Stadium is owned by Swansea City Council, and is operated by a SSMC (their equivalent of ACL). Swansea City pay a variable rent based on their attendences (it would seem 10% of ticket sales), which would roughly work out as follows:

Season Atten. Rent Div
2005–06 14,155 488347 Lg 1
2006–07 12,720 438840 Lg 1
2007–08 13,520 466440 Lg 1
2008–09 15,186 523917 Champ
2009–10 15,407 531541 Champ
2010–11 15,507 534991 Champ
2011–12 19,946 538542 Prem
2012–13 20,367 549909 Prem

Every year they have played there they have been paying more than we could have been paying (£400k if we had accepted the last offer), and it also blows Mr Fisher's idea that league 1 clubs should be paying £150k, and Swansea were paying £300k over that.

Does it not suggest that if a club is well run it can cope with having to pay rent?

Swansea City FC urged to pay more Liberty Stadium rent

By Tom Singleton BBC Wales News

The Liberty Stadium is run by a partnership between the council, the football club and the Ospreys
Continue reading the main story

• Win will 'raise profile' of Wales
• Reading 2-4 Swansea
• Championship play-off final as it happened
• Fans ecstatic at Swans promotion

Opposition councillors in Swansea want the city's football club to pay more rent for their home ground.
Swansea City moved to the £27m Liberty Stadium in 2005 after the council paid most of the money to build it.
The new Premier League club pay a peppercorn rent to a loss-making management company running the stadium but the council has received nothing.
But Swansea council said it is "sad" that such a demand is being made when the club is "at the peak of its glory."
Swansea City declined to comment.

 

[Grendel]

A lot of this happened when the club entered the Premier League.

Coundon - what is your source -- research suggests the club were paying nothing like these figures prior to 2011.

I cannot see 1 item that supports your claim.

 

[Grendel]

They may get something from F&B's and parking, that I don't know.

They certainly don't get anything from non matchday events (conferences etc).

Again can you please advise your source. The management company is described as a 3 way partnership between the football club, the ospreys and the council;

"The sports teams pay a peppercorn rent and contribute to the running costs of the stadium, with any profit made being returned to the teams and the local authority"

 

[Black6Osprey]

My original point (which seems to have got lost along the way), was to challenge this idea that a club needs to own a ground to be successful.

Swansea are a very well run club yet have as many assets as we do.

I can't help but think that the stadium situation is a smokescreen to hide poor CCFC management.

Swansea made an £8m loss the year they gained promotion to the Premier League.

Is this being a well run club or taking a punt?

 

[torchomatic]

Thanks for that. More proof of the greed of ACL and the Council.

I was just reading about the Liberty Stadium and Swansea City. Swansea moved to the Liberty at the same time as we moved to the Ricoh.

Swansea are regarded as being one of, if not the best run football club in the country. Yet they rent their stadium, not own it.

The Liberty Stadium is owned by Swansea City Council, and is operated by a SSMC (their equivalent of ACL). Swansea City pay a variable rent based on their attendences (it would seem 10% of ticket sales), which would roughly work out as follows:

Season Atten. Rent Div
2005–06 14,155 488347 Lg 1
2006–07 12,720 438840 Lg 1
2007–08 13,520 466440 Lg 1
2008–09 15,186 523917 Champ
2009–10 15,407 531541 Champ
2010–11 15,507 534991 Champ
2011–12 19,946 538542 Prem
2012–13 20,367 549909 Prem

Every year they have played there they have been paying more than we could have been paying (£400k if we had accepted the last offer), and it also blows Mr Fisher's idea that league 1 clubs should be paying £150k, and Swansea were paying £300k over that.

Does it not suggest that if a club is well run it can cope with having to pay rent?