So essentially we are saying the measure of success is based on foot fall which is what brings in the sponsorship, the hotel rooms, the restaurants, the shopping.
Whilst undoubtedly there is a loss because CCFC are not at the Ricoh call it £20m if you like (i tend to disagree with that figure but no matter) that is based on a foot fall of 300K, is that a balanced assessment of what is going on?
That equates to a weekly foot fall of 5770 lost. So the question is has the stadium been able to replace that foot fall over a year? Would seem they are working on it eg the Easter gaming event. Football brings in perhaps 11000 people for say 5 hours in the main and with it their spending potential. Yes some will stay the weekend, but most are from the area and wont need hotel rooms. If most are from the area then they still have the same spending potential whether football is here or not, they just choose to spend differently. So what is for example the equivalence of 10000 gamers from all over the country at the Ricoh over the 4 days of Easter weekend when they stay there all day and night?
The loss to economy argument works as a leverage to sell if there is no alternative or replacement of income. We have been told that the ACL turnover has increased since CCFC left the stadium, that they had reduced the dependence on CCFC. If that is true the £20m loss is only one side of the argument. People who attend exhibitions, conferences, trade fairs, concerts etc etc have a spending power to and largely are from outside the area. If largely from outside the area does that mean such income brings more to the local economy than CCFC? Is the spending power of people at such exhibitions etc greater than the average football fan? Is the income available to traders, hotels, restaurants in the area more evenly spread rather having peaks and troughs every two weeks and nothing in the summer? Will such visitors look at Coventry in a different way and think Coventry is a place to do business not a place just to watch football?
Another thought is the longer CCFC is away from the Ricoh the more events will be booked in (maybe not in the Stadium bowl at first but the football club impacted on the other areas too), that will make it harder for CCFC to come back but also will keep knocking holes in the perceived £20m loss and associated argument of loss to the economy of Coventry
Business people are much more likely to bring business to Coventry than the average fan. In a crowd of 11000 how many are from outside the area? From the same size foot fall for exhibitions, conferences etc how many are from outside the area and what spending power do they represent.
The Ricoh wasnt set up as just a football stadium like so many other stadiums. Most other grounds have conference and restaurants tagged on to them their prime space is the stadium. The Ricoh is not like that, the stadium bowl doesnt actually form 50% of the available floor space at the site. Most of the income would not be from football.
Certainly the ideal is to have both sources in Coventry and preferably at the Ricoh. As keeps being said it is important to stay balanced when considering these claims.
Not sure these one sided claims are a good basis for "sell the Ricoh". Surely if the stadium is profitable without CCFC there is no "burden" and there is no evidence to suggest the Ricoh doesnt and will not continue to attract business to Coventry that benefits local traders
Would I want to see CCFC benefit from all this ...... of course i would........... but it has to be CCFC and not some unsubstantiated notion that giving SISU the stadium at a knock down price (if that was legal in the first place) would somehow be a catalyst to a change of ownership
