D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Which is ultimately why stadia owned by landlords rather than the club tend to end up at a crossroads. The needs of one are incompatible with the other.
Which is ultimately why stadia owned by landlords rather than the club tend to end up at a crossroads. The needs of one are incompatible with the other.Do you not think that just as CCFC will want to minimise costs and maximise income that Wasps would not want to do the same.
There has been litigation one way and another since 2012, seems very long term to me.Not saying it’s correct but surely the sort of Avenue the owners will persue if their quest is to take a very long term view of litigation ?
All the more reason why this situation is unsustainable long term. We're in a situation that what benefits the landlord goes if it is good for the club or not. IF we ever want to progress more than this level we need to be in a situation where we control our own destinyYes that is a possibility, but more so if it were a long term deal. For a five year deal whilst apparently building a new stadium i would suggest access is better reflected for CCFC in the monthly rent
As to the other posters comments - Do you not think that just as CCFC will want to minimise costs and maximise income that Wasps would not want to do the same. As they own the rights to incomes and the lease at the ground the level of charges or access will be set by Wasps in their favour not CCFC's. The choice CCFC have is to accept, try to negotiate or walk away. Wasps are certainly not going to just give parts of it away, and as i understand it see the current deal as undervalue, whether or not CCFC or its fans see differently. CCFC are in a weak position to make demands
If Wasps see the current deal as undervalue, and are looking to increase their own turnover & importantly net profit then it isnt too much of a leap to think a price hike for any new deal is on the cards is it? The alternative is a ground share somewhere outside of the City. Not saying it is best for CCFC just that realistically that is what i see happening.
Just another thought but just as Wasps have been saying for over a year no deal unless no legals, then Wasps have had over a year to prepare for CCFC not being there. Their Plan A might be having CCFC there but what is Plan B if CCFC not there
All the more reason why this situation is unsustainable long term. We're in a situation that what benefits the landlord goes if it is good for the club or not. IF we ever want to progress more than this level we need to be in a situation where we control our own destiny
Another example as to why, despite all the damage done by sisu, the worst thing to ever happen to this club was CCC selling our stadium from under our noses to London Wasps.
I’ve only ever thought the stadium would be sustainable without a debt attached to it. So far that hasn’t been tested due to the greed of all parties.I agree the stadium being sold is a big handicap. But even with two teams there, increased turnover etc Wasps have failed to make it work so far. The stadium only works in my opinion if there are two teams there at the top of their sport, it would have been no different with just CCFC there it still wouldn't work. I know others will see it differently and believe CCFC could have made it work on their own i do not share that belief
To be honest though the whole football model is unsustainable unless you are in the Premier League. I think CCFC makes losses and hits a glass ceiling whether with a landlord or owning its own stadium ..... the model relies on large ownership investment to make the Premier League, paying your own way is not going to achieve it, i do not see that Premier League goal happening
Just a thought but say the Stadium build required borrowing at £25m that has to be financed. At 3% that is 750k per year where does that come from? You could see it as rent by another name?
Not sure i have any good answers to the problem, it all seems to suggest we have to get used to life outside the top division in the interests of being self sustaining - not really a positive outlook sorry
I hate the house buying analogies, but the difference is you own something at the end of it.Just a thought but say the Stadium build required borrowing at £25m that has to be financed. At 3% that is 750k per year where does that come from? You could see it as rent by another name?
I always wondered what happened to Don King
Thats the key. I don't see any reason why CCFC taking on the Ricoh without millions of debt attached is a problem. How does every other club in the country that owns their own stadium cope? I've yet to see any fans of other teams wishing their club didn't own.I’ve only ever thought the stadium would be sustainable without a debt attached to it. So far that hasn’t been tested due to the greed of all parties.
The Arena still needs to be better managed or its business developed.I’ve only ever thought the stadium would be sustainable without a debt attached to it. So far that hasn’t been tested due to the greed of all parties.
The Arena still needs to be better managed or its business developed.
I think Wasps bonds cost them £2m p.a. and other losses well exceed that.
CCFC losses are running between £1m and £2m p.a.
As Tim Fisher said once, two turkeys do not an eagle make.
Read more carefully, I was talking about annual debt to run the Arena/Club not other debts on the books.Aren't the bonds debt then?
Read more carefully, I was talking about annual debt to run the Arena/Club not other debts on the books.
I’ve only ever thought the stadium would be sustainable without a debt attached to it.
And with both clubs making a loss you would think they could work together to bring those losses down.The Arena still needs to be better managed or its business developed.
I think Wasps bonds cost them £2m p.a. and other losses well exceed that.
CCFC losses are running between £1m and £2m p.a.
As Tim Fisher said once, two turkeys do not an eagle make.
I will explain as you fail to understand simple logic. The 2 businesses run at a loss even without paying interest on debts. They both need to find ways of becoming profitable or they will keep on borrowing more.Which is why he said:
I will explain as you fail to understand simple logic. The 2 businesses run at a loss even without paying interest on debts. They both need to find ways of becoming profitable or they will keep on borrowing more.
I’ve only ever thought the stadium would be sustainable without a debt attached to it.
I will explain as you fail to understand simple logic. The 2 businesses run at a loss even without paying interest on debts. They both need to find ways of becoming profitable or they will keep on borrowing more.
I am questioning if it is workable even without servicing a large debt.What he meant - and you know it - is that the decision by the councils to have an external funding source as opposed to charging ACL £1.9 million service charge has ultimately made the stadium an unworkable proposition
Would that fee be in relation to what wasps paid? Or would it be similar to the 34 million Gidney wanted?
Edit: I was wrong, it was 24 million
Yes that is a possibility, but more so if it were a long term deal. For a five year deal whilst apparently building a new stadium i would suggest access is better reflected for CCFC in the monthly rent
As to the other posters comments - Do you not think that just as CCFC will want to minimise costs and maximise income that Wasps would not want to do the same. As they own the rights to incomes and the lease at the ground the level of charges or access will be set by Wasps in their favour not CCFC's. The choice CCFC have is to accept, try to negotiate or walk away. Wasps are certainly not going to just give parts of it away, and as i understand it see the current deal as undervalue, whether or not CCFC or its fans see differently. CCFC are in a weak position to make demands
If Wasps see the current deal as undervalue, and are looking to increase their own turnover & importantly net profit then it isnt too much of a leap to think a price hike for any new deal is on the cards is it? The alternative is a ground share somewhere outside of the City. Not saying it is best for CCFC just that realistically that is what i see happening.
Just another thought but just as Wasps have been saying for over a year no deal unless no legals, then Wasps have had over a year to prepare for CCFC not being there. Their Plan A might be having CCFC there but what is Plan B if CCFC not there
Yeah 10m to the owner.Isn't part of that debt unrelated to the cost of acquisition. management or value of the stadium, but a loan to pay of Wasp's debt to their owner?
In other words, Wasps have loaded a cost onto the stadium that is not inherent in it's value.
So why should another party help to pay off that portion of the debt?
Isn't part of that debt unrelated to the cost of acquisition. management or value of the stadium, but a loan to pay of Wasp's debt to their owner?
In other words, Wasps have loaded a cost onto the stadium that is not inherent in it's value.
So why should another party help to pay off that portion of the debt?
They don’t make statements they batter people in court mateSISU have been deafening with their statement of intent !
Is that the sort of justice meted out in porn movies?What a prick licker that smug twat is. I hope that the council do get held accountable and this prick gets his cumuppance.
They don’t make statements they batter people in court m8
They do make a lot of sandwiches though.The Arena still needs to be better managed or its business developed.
I think Wasps bonds cost them £2m p.a. and other losses well exceed that.
CCFC losses are running between £1m and £2m p.a.
As Tim Fisher said once, two turkeys do not an eagle make.
Or did they expect the same outcome? They pay their legal team anyhow. Maybe merely aiming to weaken Wasp's finances to make them that little more desperate to do us a good deal?At least SISU are consistent - they've lost every case, so far. ......what's the definition of madness? Keep repeating the same thing and expect a different outcome???
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?