chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Why? We are told we are insignificant to Wasps finances and they don't need us there. Why then would they need to jack the rent up?
Why? We are told we are insignificant to Wasps finances and they don't need us there. Why then would they need to jack the rent up?First and foremost ,like it or not ,the rent demanded has to be acceptable to Wasps - given the situation does any one seriously think they wont seek to increase it?
Why? We are told we are insignificant to Wasps finances and they don't need us there. Why then would they need to jack the rent up?
is it 23 days for starters...... what about cup games for example - are they extra rent or just extra match day expenses? That is £4347 per game plus match day expenses
What are the hours that the stadium is available to CCFC? and what is included in the £100k which areas?
Is £100k commercial rent or a discounted or concessionary rent? I have no idea if it is one and the same but it would seem to imply not. If its the latter how does CCFC argue it should be the same when claiming at the same time it should be a commercially acceptable rent? - that means commercially acceptable to both sides. It is also a short term rent which tend to be more expensive
First and foremost ,like it or not ,the rent demanded has to be acceptable to Wasps - given the situation does any one seriously think they wont seek to increase it? The rental figure to be paid is not CCFC's to control.
Add to that Wasps need to improve profitability. I think Wasps were paying significantly more than that in rent for a deal similar to what CCFC are paying when they were at Wycombe - likely to colour their thinking you would guess.
If it is a rise of say £200k pa in rent i don't think the EFL will be saying "we understand if you want to reject it"
is it 23 days for starters...... what about cup games for example - are they extra rent or just extra match day expenses? That is £4347 per game plus match day expenses
What are the hours that the stadium is available to CCFC? and what is included in the £100k which areas?
Is £100k commercial rent or a discounted or concessionary rent? I have no idea if it is one and the same but it would seem to imply not. If its the latter how does CCFC argue it should be the same when claiming at the same time it should be a commercially acceptable rent? - that means commercially acceptable to both sides. It is also a short term rent which tend to be more expensive
First and foremost ,like it or not ,the rent demanded has to be acceptable to Wasps - given the situation does any one seriously think they wont seek to increase it? The rental figure to be paid is not CCFC's to control.
Add to that Wasps need to improve profitability. I think Wasps were paying significantly more than that in rent for a deal similar to what CCFC are paying when they were at Wycombe - likely to colour their thinking you would guess.
If it is a rise of say £200k pa in rent i don't think the EFL will be saying "we understand if you want to reject it"
We were paying £1.2m and approx £400K a year in additional charges while in the Championship. That was for use of the Ricoh with primacy as well as the club offices, club shop and ticket office all being based permanently at the Ricoh. I don't think there is anyone who still claims that wasn't far too high.
Compared to that would £300K and approx £850K a year in additional charges while in League One (or hopefully the Championship) for rental of the stadium bowl approx 25 days a year for a few hours with no primacy be a good deal?
Is £1.15m for matchday use of the stadium really a significantly better than what we got previously for £1.6m?
Its the figure from last season given by the club and confirmed by my contact at ACL.
Amazing people still believe that. Or that the rent now can be compared to the rent previously.It still can’t be true. We only pay 100k.
I'm sure the courts have received an application for costs incurred thus far.Just a thought. I'm not sure it will be in the CCC's interest (or tax-payers) if SISU call off the hounds. Would that mean that CCC (if they won) would not be able to claim costs back from SISU? Do you think this might have any weight?
As I've already posted even if you want to completely discount that, although I'm not sure those who have signed contracts with Wasps would agree that the loss of over quarter of a million customers over 23 event days should be discounted, you're still have a much higher total figure than people claim.Not saying the club wont question a rent rise, they just have little control over it other than moving out
Think the council were awarded £330K costs for JR1 and the council & Wasps have already been awarded some costs for JR2.I'm sure the courts have received an application for costs incurred thus far.
And of course both figures discount the other value having CCFC adds for the leaseholder. As one example do we really the companies who have entered into contracts with Wasps with this uncertainty going on haven't put in clauses relating to us no longer being there?
Somewhat concerning that talk of a large rent increase is coming at a time people are hearing rumours of Wasps backing down on their no deal without dropping the legals stance.
Heres one example:What companies are you suggesting have entered contracts with these types of clauses chief?
What rumours of Wasps backing down? Have I missed this on one of the threads?
What companies are you suggesting have entered contracts with these types of clauses chief?
What rumours of Wasps backing down? Have I missed this on one of the threads?
I'm not talking about it voiding it, I'm talking about there being a change in the value of the contract and a financial penally for Wasps associated with that.There is no way that a contract would contain a clause that voided a contract due to the actions of a third party out of the control of either party to the contract.
Will Wasps be able to claim costs? After all they are only an "interested party" and as such freely chose to have representation without direct involvement.Think the council were awarded £330K costs for JR1 and the council & Wasps have already been awarded some costs for JR2.
I suppose there's always the prospect of them not being paid but I suspect the FL would treat it in the same manner as the debt to ACL if SISU went down the administration route.
I'm not talking about it voiding it, I'm talking about there being a change in the value of the contract and a financial penally for Wasps associated with that.
An example. Lets say you're the car park management company. You pay Wasps up front for the rights to run the car park which includes 23 Cov matches, lets say that's a short contract so only 5 years. The potential revenue is £2.3m. The loss of that revenue would be significant.
So either Wasps have sold the contracts on the basis CCFC won't be there. Unlikely as they'd be depriving themselves of revenue. Or they have sold them on the basis the club will be there. Even the slightest amount of due diligence by the company taking on the contract will show there is a clear risk and that would be covered by the contract.
Again, I don't think Wasps would sell contracts on that basis, but equally it would decrease the value of the contracts because of it.
Heres one example:
https://www.thecaterer.com/articles...-wins-20-year-deal-with-coventrys-ricoh-arena
There's been a few rumours, on here, social media etc, that a deal has been agreed behind the scenes. Not from any source I'd say was particularly reliable but you never know.
In that case do you want to buy a contract off me to sell your goods at some events I have scheduled that may or may not happen. You have to pay up front and you don't get anything back if the events never take placeAgain, I don't think Wasps would sell contracts on that basis, but equally it would decrease the value of the contracts because of it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?