Details of Wasps' Ricoh Arena deal with council revealed (1 Viewer)

chiefdave · Feb 5, 2015

Is there not a risk Wasps have same the same basic mistake BR made? We started the whole Arena 2000 project on the basis we would be in the top division for years to come. How do things stack up for Wasps if they don't qualify for Europe in future seasons or get relegated from the top flight?

There doesn't seem to be much new information in this story today but it would seem, with two stories in two days, CCC are on a PR offensive. The most interesting point from today for me is that CCC were talking to other interested parties. Blows out of the water the argument that CCC couldn't offer us the same deal they offered Wasps due to any sort of exclusivity period Wasps were enforcing.

Rusty Trombone · Feb 5, 2015

Simon, are you sure about this bit?

'The amount of the loan has not been reduced and the council will receive the same return over 20 years that it would have done if the previously agreed interest rate of five per cent had accrued over the original 41 year term.'

Seems an unrealistically expensive deal to me, what was the actual quote?

tisza · Feb 5, 2015

2 major factors in wasps success or failure will be they do have access to all revenue streams & there is apparently much more Tv money coming into rugby. also i would imagine they will be able to attract better sponsorship deals on the back of the tv deals & having "upgraded" to the Ricoh.

Jack Griffin · Feb 5, 2015

tisza said:
2 major factors in wasps success or failure will be they do have access to all revenue streams & there is apparently much more Tv money coming into rugby. also i would imagine they will be able to attract better sponsorship deals on the back of the tv deals & having "upgraded" to the Ricoh.

I suppose they may pick up some big games by virtue of the fact they have the biggest stadium outside Twickers & the Millennium (which are big stadia).
The Madjeski, Franklin Gardens, Welford Road & Liberty Stadium are all smaller than the Ricoh (I just checked their capacities).

Not that I have any idea what the big games in Rugby are, never been to a game or ever intend to, zilch interest.

CCFCSteve · Feb 5, 2015

duffer said:
Sorry Steve, I see your point but when you're talking about risking money 'what-ifs' are critical. You can't confidently make the right decision without those analyses. It's why I used to work in a bank in an area called Credit Risk (it wasn't as exciting as it sounds).

m

I accept that duffer but there were probably even more 'what ifs' that relate to not doing the deal. What if sisu build their new stadium and there is no longer term tenant, what if sisu continue their litigious ways against us, what if we sell to sisu and they milk the stadium with little regard to the football club.

I just think the council were backed into a corner and have ended up doing something none of us are happy with, my point is the decision was a culmination of the pressure put on them over the preceding couple of years.

We as fans are left to pick up the pieces !

Ps I'm sure the jobs better than it sounds !!!

wingy · Feb 5, 2015

Rusty Trombone said:
Simon, are you sure about this bit?

'The amount of the loan has not been reduced and the council will receive the same return over 20 years that it would have done if the previously agreed interest rate of five per cent had accrued over the original 41 year term.'

Seems an unrealistically expensive deal to me, what was the actual quote?

Did wonder if this was tool to guarantee the CCC a far larger share over time than their HIGGS counterparts when compared to a complete settlement and splitting the remainder

tisza · Feb 5, 2015

it does seem higgs are getting far less stick than ccc.
what i don't get is that for years we had been told that there was a formula they had to follow to reach their sale price - which was implied to be in excess to what they had put in. it does seem remarkable that a charity can justify a 4m loss on their investment.

Rusty Trombone · Feb 5, 2015

wingy said:
Did wonder if this was tool to guarantee the CCC a far larger share over time than their HIGGS counterparts when compared to a complete settlement and splitting the remainder

Do you mean when the Council gave the original loan to ACL?

Rusty Trombone · Feb 5, 2015

tisza said:
it does seem higgs are getting far less stick than ccc.
what i don't get is that for years we had been told that there was a formula they had to follow to reach their sale price - which was implied to be in excess to what they had put in. it does seem remarkable that a charity can justify a 4m loss on their investment.

I'd have thought the formula would be used to set a maximum price, surely they would be free to sell at a lower price, like when they agreed to sell to SISU.

oldfiver · Feb 5, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
Unless those watching initially have all been attending either CRFC (charitably, let's include them), or Wasps at Wycombe, then the change in gates suggests an unequivocal yes.

It's not like Coventry hasn't offered the opportunity to watch a Rugby team with a proud heritage and tradition, after all. It's also been a team that may have hit hard times over the past 25 years, but has still had the occasional moment in the sun.

2000 paid tickets at last game - similar to CRFC !

oldfiver · Feb 5, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
Thanks OSB.

So why wouldn't Wasps go out and get a commercial loan over a longer period of time, end up still paying the same amount but over a longer period reducing their annual overheads? Surely a 250year lease is good security to obtain a loan? I can't really see why they wouldn't take that route.

That's an open question by the way. Not specifically aimed at OSB.

They are trying to raise funds but getting no where - perhaps waiting for a Chinese investor?

skybluetony176 · Feb 5, 2015

oldfiver said:
They are trying to raise funds but getting no where - perhaps waiting for a Chinese investor?

More likely an India given the major sponsorship deal they signed with JLR.

fernandopartridge · Feb 5, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
More likely an India given the major sponsorship deal they signed with JLR.

The Rugby club has, not ACL

wingy · Feb 5, 2015

Rusty Trombone said:
Do you mean when the Council gave the original loan to ACL?

No, but I do recall the council seemed to think HIGGS were over valued during the discussions prior to bailout

italiahorse · Feb 5, 2015

CCFC said:
Don't think so. Wasps attendances since they arrive 28k, 15k, 23k, 9k up from there average of about 6k, add onto that all the revenue take from the football there is no doubt that the club and the people of Coventry are subsidising what was a declining Rugby club. To make out its the Rugby club who are finanically supporting the football side is something only you could come up with.

Hilarious how you are trying to twist it around now making out as if CCFC have got a fantastic deal at the Ricoh and its Wasps who are the ones who have been hard done by and being screwed over. I guess you want us to pay 1 million a year with no revenues so Wasps don't lose out.

You really are something else.

It's a good deal at £4.5K per match plus some revenues (TF)
The ticking time bomb if we don't get in with Wasps is in 2/4 years when Wasps are established.
Ostrich syndrome ?

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Feb 5, 2015

italiahorse said:
It's a good deal at £4.5K per match plus some revenues (TF)
The ticking time bomb if we don't get in with Wasps is in 2/4 years when Wasps are established.
Ostrich syndrome ?

How is it a good deal, the current deal restricts us to being a L1 club or lower? How is that good? It's only good for Wasps who get 100k a year and take the majority of the revenues, I suppose you won't be happy until we are paying 5 million a year.
Idiot syndrome?

italiahorse · Feb 5, 2015

CCFC said:
How is it a good deal, the current deal restricts us to being a L1 club or lower? How is that good? It's only good for Wasps who get 100k a year and take the majority of the revenues, I suppose you won't be happy until we are paying 5 million a year.
Idiot syndrome?

Access to the revenues is something different as you need to buy into them to get them.
I'm not disputing the L1 argument but the rent alone is good even in this league.
I think you are looking at it like Sisu and trying to get something for nothing.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Feb 5, 2015

italiahorse said:
Access to the revenues is something different as you need to buy into them to get them.
I'm not disputing the L1 argument but the rent alone is good even in this league.
I think you are looking at it like Sisu and trying to get something for nothing.

And you are looking at it as how you can make the most money for Wasps.

italiahorse · Feb 5, 2015

CCFC said:
And you are looking at it as how you can make the most money for Wasps.

Where ?

dongonzalos · Feb 6, 2015

stupot07 said:
Ironically they played Northampton........I'm not convinced either them nor those from London would have stayed in numbers in hotels, bars, down the colly, etc. Nowhere near £6m.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6577065.stm

And actually as wasps become embedded in the area, it will be no different to us - relative local supporters, a few driving up and a few away fans.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Yeo I agree the normal fortnightly match will not generate anywhere near as much wealth as that one off game

Noggin · Feb 6, 2015

CCFC said:
How is it a good deal, the current deal restricts us to being a L1 club or lower? How is that good? It's only good for Wasps who get 100k a year and take the majority of the revenues, I suppose you won't be happy until we are paying 5 million a year.
Idiot syndrome?

The current deal does not in anyway restrict us to being a L1 club. Sisus actions restrict us to being a L1 club or lower.

stupot07 · Feb 6, 2015

Noggin said:
The current deal does not in anyway restrict us to being a L1 club. Sisus actions restrict us to being a L1 club or lower.

Pretty much does though, doesn't it? L1-Championship yo-yo club like doncaster, peterborough, etc.

We know full well, that a matchday only little/no access to additional revenue limits our turnover to one of the bottom 3-4 in the championship.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Noggin · Feb 6, 2015

stupot07 said:
Pretty much does though, doesn't it? L1-Championship yo-yo club like doncaster, peterborough, etc.

We know full well, that a matchday only little/no access to additional revenue limits our turnover to one of the bottom 3-4 in the championship.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

I think there is a very significant difference between being restricted to L1 and below and being a L1-Championship yo-yo club but even then no I don't even accept the loss of match day revenues prevents us being a championship club, this club properly run would have much bigger revenues (even without food and beverage etc) than at least 3 or 4 of the clubs who stay up in the championship and yes I'm fully aware our turn over was towards the bottom last time we were there. The lack of these incomes is a disadvantage certainly but we can more than make up for that with increased attendances.

attendances - current league position
Blackburn - 15.5k - 9th
Huddersfield - 13.4k - 17th
Brentford - 10.7k - 5th
Bournemouth - 10.3k - 1st
Rotherham 10k - 20th

The bottom 3 do also have bad attendances of course.

I also think that any owners who Wasps felt had our best interests at heart and had a chance of succeeding would be able to negotiate for these rights without a problem, because a successful ccfc is in their best interests.

fernandopartridge · Feb 6, 2015

The biggest impact on turnover would be if the people of Coventry bothered their arses to go up and watch them. Forgot NOPM, SISU will stick it out whilst they still have a cause in CCFC to take to court.

NOPM will not force them out, it will assist the continued decline.

tisza · Feb 6, 2015

fernandopartridge said:
The biggest impact on turnover would be if the people of Coventry bothered their arses to go up and watch them. Forgot NOPM, SISU will stick it out whilst they still have a cause in CCFC to take to court.

NOPM will not force them out, it will assist the continued decline.

i think that ship has sailed. It's going to take something extra special on the pitch to get crowds going again.
I'll be honest I thought last season when we had that run games with a load of goals (something we hadn't seen for many seasons) crowds would improve at Sixfields. They didn't.
What started out as falling gates due to relegation (then further falls as a protest against the move) has gotten out of control.
I don't believe anyone that went to the Gillingham game would have really believed that within a week crowds would slump to such low levels.

The Gentleman · Feb 6, 2015

stupot07 said:
Pretty much does though, doesn't it? L1-Championship yo-yo club like doncaster, peterborough, etc.

We know full well, that a matchday only little/no access to additional revenue limits our turnover to one of the bottom 3-4 in the championship.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Fuck me, I'll snap your hand off now for a L1-Championship club and tell me anyone on here who wouldn't after the shit we have been served up recently.

skybluetony176 · Feb 6, 2015

fernandopartridge said:
The biggest impact on turnover would be if the people of Coventry bothered their arses to go up and watch them. Forgot NOPM, SISU will stick it out whilst they still have a cause in CCFC to take to court.

NOPM will not force them out, it will assist the continued decline.

If JR2 goes ahead otium are listed on that action so that will give followers of NOPM further justification to carry on and turn others to NOPM because the club will be directly footing at least half of the bill.

blueflint · Feb 6, 2015

i think that all this crap about match day revenues from f/drink etc is a smoke screen.
if city were succesful and playing good football crowds would increase significantly
producing more money at the gate making f/drink money insignificant

fernandopartridge · Feb 6, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
If JR2 goes ahead otium are listed on that action so that will give followers of NOPM further justification to carry on and turn others to NOPM because the club will be directly footing at least half of the bill.

I don't believe that is the case. The club does not make sufficient money.

John_Silletts_Nose · Feb 6, 2015

Can we put all of these Wasps deal discussions on the Wasps forum rather than on CCFC chat?

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Feb 6, 2015

Noggin said:
I think there is a very significant difference between being restricted to L1 and below and being a L1-Championship yo-yo club but even then no I don't even accept the loss of match day revenues prevents us being a championship club, this club properly run would have much bigger revenues (even without food and beverage etc) than at least 3 or 4 of the clubs who stay up in the championship and yes I'm fully aware our turn over was towards the bottom last time we were there. The lack of these incomes is a disadvantage certainly but we can more than make up for that with increased attendances.

attendances - current league position
Blackburn - 15.5k - 9th
Huddersfield - 13.4k - 17th
Brentford - 10.7k - 5th
Bournemouth - 10.3k - 1st
Rotherham 10k - 20th

The bottom 3 do also have bad attendances of course.

I also think that any owners who Wasps felt had our best interests at heart and had a chance of succeeding would be able to negotiate for these rights without a problem, because a successful ccfc is in their best interests.

Still doesn't change my point, the current deal is not a good deal. Anyone who argues otherwise is misguided.

With your list of clubs, Brentford and Bournemouth both have owners pumping cash in and will be losing a lot of money. Blackburn have probably been living off parachute payments for the past few years and Rotherham and Huddersfield are both in serious danger of relegation this year or next, so the clubs you have listed are hardly self sufficient, stable championship clubs.

skybluetony176 · Feb 6, 2015

fernandopartridge said:
I don't believe that is the case. The club does not make sufficient money.

They're listed on the latest papers aren't they? In which case they have a share of the costs, surely. I guess that means more loans from ARVO and more fans pissed off and more fans walking away.

Godiva · Feb 6, 2015

blueflint said:
i think that all this crap about match day revenues from f/drink etc is a smoke screen.
if city were succesful and playing good football crowds would increase significantly
producing more money at the gate making f/drink money insignificant

... or a bigger issue (as it would be of greater value).

Noggin · Feb 6, 2015

CCFC said:
Still doesn't change my point, the current deal is not a good deal. Anyone who argues otherwise is misguided.

With your list of clubs, Brentford and Bournemouth both have owners pumping cash in and will be losing a lot of money. Blackburn have probably been living off parachute payments for the past few years and Rotherham and Huddersfield are both in serious danger of relegation this year or next, so the clubs you have listed are hardly self sufficient, stable championship clubs.

Your point that I was responding too is that the current deal restricts us to league 1 and below which is simply not true at all. I do also disagree that we currently have a bad deal. In a vacuum it may not be ideal, but for a club who sold the rights to their incomes its a very good deal.

The vast majority of clubs in championship have large debts and many significant yearly losses too. The simple fact of the matter is if this club were well run, even without owning our own stadium and without these extra revenues we wouldn't be in the bottom 3 turnovers in the championship. While I want to own our own stadium as much as anyone and think it's a disgrace that we haven't brought into it by now, the biggest problem is sisu and not the lack of stadium (and that's without taking into count sisu is the reason we haven't purchased our own stadium)

The lack of stadium is absolutely a disadvantage but it's probably 5th on the reasons our revenue is low.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Feb 6, 2015

Noggin said:
Your point that I was responding too is that the current deal restricts us to league 1 and below which is simply not true at all. I do also disagree that we currently have a bad deal. In a vacuum it may not be ideal, but for a club who sold the rights to their incomes its a very good deal.

The vast majority of clubs in championship have large debts and many significant yearly losses too. The simple fact of the matter is if this club were well run, even without owning our own stadium and without these extra revenues we wouldn't be in the bottom 3 turnovers in the championship. While I want to own our own stadium as much as anyone and think it's a disgrace that we haven't brought into it by now, the biggest problem is sisu and not the lack of stadium (and that's without taking into count sisu is the reason we haven't purchased our own stadium)

The lack of stadium is absolutely a disadvantage but it's probably 5th on the reasons our revenue is low.

Point conceded maybe that was oversight on my part, it restricts us to being mostly a L1 club with the odd couple of years in the championship.

What are the reason are revenue is low then? number one would be attendances, what are the other 3 that are ranked higher for the reasons are revenues is low?

Details of Wasps' Ricoh Arena deal with council revealed (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency