mr_monkey
Well-Known Member
But you can't compare a football club to an "normal" business as we are blinded by emotion towards where we go to watch football, as opposed to where you do your weekly shop
And if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle. But the reality is you won’t ever get those extra 8k, because that’s what happens when you move away from your customer base. I know it’s cool to blame the fan base here, but any business that blames its customers for its lack of success is a poor business IMO. We don’t have a right to anyone’s time and money.
The truth is we have no idea. We can do back of a fag packet maths until we are blue in the face but it's assumptions on top of assumptions on top of assumptions.Brass tacks: do you reckon we are better off financially with say 8k fewer fans at St Andrews at £1m/year or at the Ricoh with those fans on £300k/year but receiving half the F&B benefit? (Based on Fisher saying we got about the same at SA as we did with twice as many fans at the Ricoh)
I don’t see any way this can be defended on financial grounds unless you include the potential bigger prize down the line of the Ricoh itself (which I still have doubts would be the actual outcome of a successful state aid complaint).
Exactlybut This club has worth now, they should not just return for the sake of returning. I want SISU to work damn hard to make sure wasps don’t benefit from us without giving something back.
if our fans don’t want the same, and just want to prop up the Arena because “KeEp CoV iN CoV” then they’re fucking morons
ha ha I always thought the saying was brass tax I’ve never seen it written down learned something newBrass tacks: do you reckon we are better off financially with say 8k fewer fans at St Andrews at £1m/year or at the Ricoh with those fans on £300k/year but receiving half the F&B benefit? (Based on Fisher saying we got about the same at SA as we did with twice as many fans at the Ricoh)
I don’t see any way this can be defended on financial grounds unless you include the potential bigger prize down the line of the Ricoh itself (which I still have doubts would be the actual outcome of a successful state aid complaint).
The truth is we have no idea. We can do back of a fag packet maths until we are blue in the face but it's assumptions on top of assumptions on top of assumptions.
Besides, negotiation is all about maximising value, and this is what the owners will be trying to do...for the long term. They are not stupid and they are not going to be throwing away money solely out of spite.
Are wasps dropping the indemnity request now?I wonder if this interview was tactical
Dave Boddy is handling the negotiations with Wasps
Perhaps Fisher was using this as a signal to Wasps that SISU want to do a deal to strengthen Boddy's hand?
We all know the sticking point was the legal action and Wasps demand for an indemnity
Without the indemnity there's a deal
Yup, 13,353 average in '93-94 - Premier League 1993/1994 - AttendanceYou’ve got to love some of our fans that love to bang-on about attendance numbers.
I remember feeling fucking embarrassed about all the empty seats at HR in the Division 1 and Premiership days...(unless, of course, we were playing United, Liverpool or Villa.) We couldn’t satisfy Coventry fans then, even in the Premiership, even with a proper football stadium...that was actually in fucking Coventry.
I hate the Ricoh and I hate Wasps....and you can throw Richardson and McGinnity in there too.
As for Fisher? All noise and no action. I don’t know why you bothered tuning in.
On your assumptions it looks like an additional promotion/ Ricoh return premium of an additional £4.68 million. You say a rent of £3.999 million would be commercially beneficial which would be giving Wasps 85% of that premium. May be marginally commercially beneficial but still doesn’t make sense for CCFC. It also doesn’t give any financial credit for an increase in stadium naming rights( although any potential sponsor would need a cast iron guarantee that we would stay.)I didn’t say “OK”, I said “Commercially beneficial”. Point is current deal is costing us more than £4m/season in reality.
Just pointing out that we didn’t move because of the rental cost, but because we thought it’d strengthen our hand elsewhere. Similarly we aren’t staying away due to cost, but because the demands placed on us to return (no state aid case) Would hamper our hopes for a future return.
The idea that we broke a £1.2m/year lease for a £1m/year lease plus £2-4m in lost revenue for financial reasons doesn’t stack up. Even less so when you consider the reports our last deal was £300k/season.
But what’s hard ball? Getting the best deal possible?Wasps have had falling crowds losing supporters form hasn’t been great then we’ve had the virus with us now in the championship they would be mad not to get us back I think we will be pulling 15k at the Ricoh next season my worry is if sisu play hard ball and ruin any chances
The argument over players wages isn’t going to help wasps. How do you define hard ball?Wasps have had falling crowds losing supporters form hasn’t been great then we’ve had the virus with us now in the championship they would be mad not to get us back I think we will be pulling 15k at the Ricoh next season my worry is if sisu play hard ball and ruin any chances
Agree with most of this, but the last sentence is IMO open for debate. As I’ve said all along if we come back owning the Ricoh or on far better terms that net us millions more a year than we would’ve got then great. Anything else and the gamble has failed.
On your assumptions it looks like an additional promotion/ Ricoh return premium of an additional £4.68 million. You say a rent of £3.999 million would be commercially beneficial which would be giving Wasps 85% of that premium. May be marginally commercially beneficial but still doesn’t make sense for CCFC. It also doesn’t give any financial credit for an increase in stadium naming rights( although any potential sponsor would need a cast iron guarantee that we would stay.)
Highly beneficial to wasps, it would save their bacon. It really isn’t going to happen on those figures.
I’ve got no problem with maintenance and safety costs as long as they’re split 50/50 and we can maximise our income.Remember "owning" part of the Ricoh will bring with it debt and we have seen what that has done to WASPS
It also means CCFC takes on part of the overdue maintenance and safety costs
Also what happens if WASPS fold or flap their wings and fly away?
I’ve got no problem with maintenance and safety costs as long as they’re split 50/50 and we can maximise our income.
Yup, 13,353 average in '93-94 - Premier League 1993/1994 - Attendance
Just ignore him. He's banged on about boycotting all season, but lo and behold rocks up at Broadgate to celebrate promotion...Exactly.
By mysterious coincidence the PSB 'Group' disappear every time someone uses facts:
Remember "owning" part of the Ricoh will bring with it debt and we have seen what that has done to WASPS
It also means CCFC takes on part of the overdue maintenance and safety costs
Also what happens if WASPS fold or flap their wings and fly away?
This thread is exactly why Fisher shouldn't come out. Same tired old arguments and infighting.
Exactly.
By mysterious coincidence the PSB 'Group' disappear every time someone uses facts:
Yep definitely part of itJust listened. Shouldnt let him talk. Sounds like his gameplay is to use wasps words agaisnt them from a tweet lol
the rent was going to go up. Besides the argument wasn’t paying 1.2 million - it was paying 1.2 million and not received any kind of benefit from the stadium. We do receive income from St Andrews albeit on a limited scale
Yup, 13,353 average in '93-94 - Premier League 1993/1994 - Attendance
But what’s hard ball? Getting the best deal possible?
Nice to get back to normal though
That reply guy is talking utter shite too. We averaged 21k in the Championship in 2006.
And 17-18k is a sensible estimate based on historic trends, hardly wild speculation.
Edit: just realised its you. Sorry.
I didn’t say “OK”, I said “Commercially beneficial”. Point is current deal is costing us more than £4m/season in reality.
Just pointing out that we didn’t move because of the rental cost, but because we thought it’d strengthen our hand elsewhere. Similarly we aren’t staying away due to cost, but because the demands placed on us to return (no state aid case) Would hamper our hopes for a future return.
The idea that we broke a £1.2m/year lease for a £1m/year lease plus £2-4m in lost revenue for financial reasons doesn’t stack up. Even less so when you consider the reports our last deal was £300k/season.
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?