Why don't the club buy a piece of land somewhere and build an exhibition centre on it? That would be a lot cheaper than building a new stadium and the team could continue to play at the Ricoh under a rent agreement.
365 days a year income they say is what's needed. So why build a stadium based on an event that happens only 23 days a year?
Good point, why does everything need to be in one place. The NEC is up for sale isn't it, if we need non-matchday revenues why not buy that as I'm sure it will make more money than the Fisher Bowl.
Good point, why does everything need to be in one place. The NEC is up for sale isn't it, if we need non-matchday revenues why not buy that as I'm sure it will make more money than the Fisher Bowl.
Not quite sure what that has to do with what's being discussed but renting isn't the problem, getting the right deal is. You could have a deal where you pay £1 a year and get 100% of revenues or you could have a deal where you pay £1.2m a year and get 0% of revenues. Very different things.
The point being made here is if non-matchday revenue is the key why does it have to be tied to a new stadium. If it's conference facilities that generate the income build conference facilities, you can make the profit without the additional expenditure of building a stadium. How much additional income will the stadium itself actually generate and how much will it cost, will that cost per year to cover finance be significantly higher than renting. Not saying there's a right or a wrong way or what SISU are saying is wrong, that is why we need to see a business case from SISU, show us that financing a new stadium with the facilities to generate significant income on non-matchdays is viable.