The idea that SISU will charge us an extortionate rent and give us no revenues is scaremongering at its finest to try and scare people into believing the Ricoh is the best choice.
Why would it benefit SISU to charge the club money they can't afford? Bearing in mind any shortfall because of this arrangement would have to be picked up by SISU themselves. Borrowing money to the club so you can pay yourself, genius.
Surely it would make sense for the club to keep the revenue earned to help us achieve our goals, then SISU can sell a club with genuine ambitions to return to the premier league (if we hadn't already in that time) and also a stadium with 100% ownership. That makes sense than your proposed idea that SISU would use the stadium to drive the club into oblivion and then SISU have nothing left and will have lost all their cash.
If you want to discuss how or whether a 20k seater without the facilities of the Ricoh is going to make enough 365 day revenue for what we want to achieve, then that may very well be a worthwhile discussion but don't just spew nonsense.
Your kidding yourself and ignoring basic finance. Also you seem to remain blind to wanting to see some actual figures.
If Sisu spend £50M on a new stadium we will either be landed with that debt in the club or Sisu will take the hit and then the rent charged will need to cover their financing costs.
Either way using current loan rates (5%) that is £2.5M a year. F&B and other income profits at this out of town stadium will not cover that. Couple that with the loss of potential incomes in a 15000 seater stadium you can come up with a figure.
Compare that to £100K rent at Ricoh and access to some incomes you will be able to see which of the 2 options is better financially for the club.
Yes, neither get us into the PL but which is best?
But hey we hate Wasps and the Council so let's build a new stadium.
Wake up and drink the coffee!!!