Really? what's the difference? SISU knew the cost of everything when they did their due diligence and decided it was a workable business model, or did they just take over with the hope that they could reduce the rent? Ok if they did, but to behave like they have in trying to get it reduced is deplorable.
Their tactics at the end were all wrong, everyone agrees on that.
The analogy doesn't work because it is too simplistic. The club are not purchasing goods, it is a complex tenancy arrangement in which both sides have a vested interest in making it work.
To use your analogy though, if the customer buying the chocolate bar was your best customer and you relied on that customer to keep your business viable, you surely wouldn't want to overcharge them to the point that they walked out of the door and went elsewhere?
The rent being charged was obscene. Upwards of £1.5 million per year not to operate the facility and profit from it 365 days a year (as is the case at other clubs - so Walsall pay 400K but then profit from a Sunday market that makes all that back and more); no, it was to simply have use of it 25 times a year, and even then we didn't get to pocket the revenues generated from that use. It was a double whammy.
It was never viable, and yes, it should have been dealt with much earlier, and the way it was eventually handled was a disgrace and both sides must shoulder the blame for that.
Its my analogy and im sticking with it.
