Why the feck are we paying anything towards it though? End of July and there is even grass on the parks pitches so what are we actually paying for, thicker grass, a deeper shade of green, grass that tickles your balls when you tackle or just more bullshit to try and force peoples hands. I'm afraid Waggot is cut from the same cloth as the other lying turds.
No they are just contracted and I imagine the contractor is the football league which is why they attract NI and tax at source. If they were employed you could sack Adam Barton for example and owe him nothing. Sadly you sack him and you pay off his contract and he can get a job tomorrow in the same industry without returning the money to his prior employer. I've never seen any company that employs people on that basis.
Possibly, however when you have previous Councillors stating things like "Hell will freeze over before Sisu own the Ricoh" and the other previous actions of idiocy you can see why it hasn't happened.
Sisu did make an offer we have been told however the sticking point was Matchday revenues, those on this forum that state they are irrelevant are mistaken I am afraid.
Possibly, however when you have previous Councillors stating things like "Hell will freeze over before Sisu own the Ricoh" and the other previous actions of idiocy you can see why it hasn't happened.
Sisu did make an offer we have been told however the sticking point was Matchday revenues, those on this forum that state they are irrelevant are mistaken I am afraid.
They are irrelevant for a short term deal while the new stadium is built. This is what SISU tell us they are doing.
If they want to drop that plan (or as some might suspect, admit it was never going to happen), and try to negotiate for a long term deal or a purchase of the stadium - at which point match day revenues become very relevant - they first have to try to undo the damage their confrontational approach of recent years has brought.
Can a leopard change it spots, or perhaps more pertinently, can it persuade people that it can?
So the fact that FA rules say that players are employees, has no bearing on your view that they are not ?No they are just contracted and I imagine the contractor is the football league which is why they attract NI and tax at source. If they were employed you could sack Adam Barton for example and owe him nothing. Sadly you sack him and you pay off his contract and he can get a job tomorrow in the same industry without returning the money to his prior employer. I've never seen any company that employs people on that basis.
So the fact that FA rules say that players are employees, has no bearing on your view that they are not ?
Possibly, however when you have previous Councillors stating things like "Hell will freeze over before Sisu own the Ricoh" and the other previous actions of idiocy you can see why it hasn't happened.
Sisu did make an offer we have been told however the sticking point was Matchday revenues, those on this forum that state they are irrelevant are mistaken I am afraid.
So the fact that FA rules say that players are employees, has no bearing on your view that they are not ?
Possibly, however when you have previous Councillors stating things like "Hell will freeze over before Sisu own the Ricoh" and the other previous actions of idiocy you can see why it hasn't happened.
Sisu did make an offer we have been told however the sticking point was Matchday revenues, those on this forum that state they are irrelevant are mistaken I am afraid.
BFRSBA, DTD & KOK, You all have stated the importance in your opinion with regard to Matchday revenues, I personally I don't understand the view you make, for instance if we were a two Club City and we played fixtures at a Ground that we were renting for whatever reason, you would want to gain access to Matchday Revenues on the day your Club plays in that Stadium?
The Club would also have to pay Matchday expenses as well, so why are the Club not entitled to Matchday revenues?
Now without being dim, please explain to me why some of the customers based expenditure that is being invested into watching the Football Club is an irrelevant stream of revenue for the Football Club.
I am sorry I just don't see it..
I am sure you have read about my thoughts and how many agree with me as their thoughts are similar. But here we go yet again.
Someone's views might not be what would be what would be the best for our club. But it is what is realistic for our club to achieve.
What would be best for our club would be to have the freehold handed to it with all contracts paid off. All revenue streams put into out club. The freehold put out of reach of SISU so it would secure our clubs future. But none of this can happen. It won't happen whatever we do. So why waste time and legal fees trying to make it happen?
SISU need to negotiate with Higgs for the 50% share they paid for. The legal costs and lower income from one year at Northampton would have paid for this. Higgs paid 6.5m for it and agreed to sell it to SISU for 5.5m, but we all know what happened there. Why should SISU get for free what Higgs paid for? And the fact of there being no rental contract anymore is a poor excuse.
Why should CCC pay off all contracts and hand the freehold over? Councils normally keep hold of all freeholds. But there could have been a deal to be made if SISU had done the right thing. But they never have and there is no debate on the matter.
And on the matter of the freehold being safe for our club if it was given to SISU after CCC gave state funding which SISU are so much against. SISU have proved plenty of times that they are not trustworthy. We know that they would hold the arena separately to our club. It would be for the benefit of their shareholders. Would this benefit the future of our club?
It isn't easy to decide the best of what could happen for the future of our club. But it is easy to figure out what can't and won't happen. And it is a waste of time wanting it to happen.
We just have to keep laughing otherwise we'll all be bloody barmy.Words fail me!! 500 season tickets maximum. Possibly 100 paid for vs. 8,000 at Ricoh should we return. The SISU muppet show just don't get it!! Always quoting the same old bull shite!
I may forward this for the Q&A session with TF tonight.
OK, once more with feeling.....
1. SISU's position is that they are going to build a new stadium.
2. It will take a minimum of 3 to 4 years (in my opinion) to do this.
3. That leaves an interim period where it seems fair to assume that the only options are to play in Northampton or at the Ricoh.
4. Looking to maximise revenue over that period, it is I think uncontrovertial to state that revenue at the Ricoh without food and beverage income would massively exceed any income that we could reasonably expect at Northampton.
That is why I consider "match day revenue" to be a trivial/irrelevant/unimportant matter in the larger context of the discussions that may (we hope) soon take place.
The above comments of course ignore the massive benefit to the club of keeping and hopefully growing a support base if we come back to the Ricoh as opposed to destroying it if we stay in Northampton.
So that's Aspurgers and Torrettes covered in one day
But again, you are happy to consider the revenues "trivial/irrelevant/unimportant" however the Football Club wants to benefit from revenues it generates itself, this is not unreasonable, I think this is very fair, problem being is they can't and some people feel it's not the sticking point, it's one of the many reasons we left the Ricoh in the first place so I'd consider it quite a sizeable one..
We all hope discussions between both parties should soon start, but if the Club returns to the Ricoh irrelevant of the length of time, it must benefit from all the revenues it generates like any other business.
How this can be deemed irrelevant to the overall matter is beyond belief.
I've not read the article so I could be way off. But why aren't those Northampton bellends paying for it.
They must be laughing their tits off.
But again, you are happy to consider the revenues "trivial/irrelevant/unimportant" however the Football Club wants to benefit from revenues it generates itself, this is not unreasonable, I think this is very fair, problem being is they can't and some people feel it's not the sticking point, it's one of the many reasons we left the Ricoh in the first place so I'd consider it quite a sizeable one..
We all hope discussions between both parties should soon start, but if the Club returns to the Ricoh irrelevant of the length of time, it must benefit from all the revenues it generates like any other business.
How this can be deemed irrelevant to the overall matter is beyond belief.
Here we go again.
Our club was moved away from Coventry because the rent was too high. Fisher shook on 400k a year. Joy overruled him. Then they were offered free then 150k for the next two seasons. Perfect to see them through with this new stadium build they keep telling us about. They have even shown us a couple of pictures. Not bad for two years of planning.
Oh dear. Rent less than being in Northampton. It is all about the pie money. Always has been although never mentioned until now.
Or do you agree with the judge that it was all about the freehold for a pittance and no less? Are you going to make up reasons for not dropping the JR appeals now you know there isn't a smoking gun?
Robbo you're mixing two ideas here mate.
1) SHORT TERM - we're better at the Ricoh than Sixfields even without extra revenue. Fact. The finances back this up. It's not arguable.
2) LONG TERM - the club need extra revenue to be competitive. This is arguable. F&B would've brought in less than 5% of our turnover. It's possible that we can create other revenues if we own our own ground.
I am Shmmeee but the length of term is irrelevant, what's to say that if a deal wasn't offered with these revenues in the short term, then it could not lead to a longer deal being agreed?
We all know a new Stadium isn't being built, our long term future is at the Ricoh Arena..
I am Shmmeee but the length of term is irrelevant, what's to say that if a deal wasn't offered with these revenues in the short term, then it could not lead to a longer deal being agreed?
We all know a new Stadium isn't being built, our long term future is at the Ricoh Arena..
but it needs access to Matchday revenues on the Clubs behalf, this is revenue that the Club generates, it's entitled to these!
But again, you are happy to consider the revenues "trivial/irrelevant/unimportant" however the Football Club wants to benefit from revenues it generates itself, this is not unreasonable, I think this is very fair, problem being is they can't and some people feel it's not the sticking point, it's one of the many reasons we left the Ricoh in the first place so I'd consider it quite a sizeable one..
We all hope discussions between both parties should soon start, but if the Club returns to the Ricoh irrelevant of the length of time, it must benefit from all the revenues it generates like any other business.
How this can be deemed irrelevant to the overall matter is beyond belief.
I think it's worth noting that although it's gone unsaid a lot, the real aim is the development land around the arena. How much this would help the club is debatable.
They are irrelevant for a short term deal while the new stadium is built. This is what SISU tell us they are doing.
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?