chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Matchday costs is a bit of a misleading term I guess. Point I was making is there's things that were included when we paid £1.2m that have now moved to matchday costs and are paid on top of the rent.
Why do people always bring up match day costs you pay them whether you own lease or rent a stadium so they are irrelevant
West Ham will be paying
2m to £2.5m rent annually as part of a 99-year lease.
The West Ham deal isn't particularly straightforward as they pay out but then get things you would normally expect them to be paying for like stewards, ticketing, undersoil heating and all sorts of random things.
The crucial thing for them will be to avoid relegation. If they go down they may well end up in a mess.
It would all be over a damn sight quicker if it was. I can just imagine it........,,,,
You bought the club including a contract to pay £1.3 million rent a year?
Yes.
Your plan was quick promotion, sell for a profit short term, so the rent cost wasn't important to you?
Yes
You badly invested the money and ran the club poorly, Plan A didn't work and in fact you got relegated?
Yes
The rent then become a big issue you were renting a premiership standard stadium whilst in the third division?
Yes
You stopped paying the rent and turned down a few offers around the 200-400k mark. Then broke the contract by moving to Northampton
Yes
We're you doing all this hoping the business running the stadium would go under or you devalue it so you get it a lot cheaper?
Well it's more complicated than that
Let me me rephrase the question did a high court judge rule that that is what you did
Yes
You succeeded in lowering the value but then the charity and council sold the business to someone else
Yes
Now you are saying that they can't do that and you want to claim compensation for all this
Yes
.......................
West ham effectively get it for free and the local community are seriously pissed off.
What,is it being held at Old TraffordReference your first point.....
I think the Judges read it over their prawn sandwiches and glass of Red.
About those plans,someone better wake Tim from his slumber.But think of what we are actually getting. For a start its £200K plus matchday costs which equates to around £450K. The details of F&B haven't been released. Is it a % of revenue or profit? Is it a % of everything or a % of what ACL recieves from IEC?
All we get is the ground for a few hours on matchday. We're even paying for things like parking spaces for the media! We no longer have our offices or club shop there so they are additional costs to add on to the rent when comparing.
It could be a good deal, irrespective of how it compares to others, it could be a bad deal. We won't know that until we see credible business plans worked up for various scenarios.
If we pay someone £200.000 rent why would they then pay match day costs for us
Think you're missing my point. What I'm saying is you can't simply say the rent has gone from £1.2m to £200K as you're not comparing like with like. What we got for £1.2m is nothing like what we are getting for £200K so its not a case of simply saying the rent has been reduced.
Reference your first point.....
I think the Judges read it over their prawn sandwiches and glass of Red.
Sisu legal team says the club was relegated from the Premier League in 2002. The judges clarify it was actually 2001.
We were paying £1.2m for which we got use of the ground on matchdays, offices and the club shop & ticket office. We recieved no revenues generated by our being at the ground or any benefit from any other events held there.
They will still have to pay £2-2.5 million for it, but they are getting an amazing facility and lots thrown in.
The tax payer is pissed off.
Eh?So they are not paying it at all - but let's try and create an illusion it is a bad deal
Yes it was an utterly crap deal, no one can deny it.
Yes it was an utterly crap deal, no one can deny it.
I have bigged up anything, the club were offered a sliding scale rent and rejected it as they believed they were coming straight back up. So why sign to something that will cost more.
SISU should have renegotiated the rent when they bought the club as a fail safe in case their plan A failed and they didn't.
You would have to assume the rent if promotrd was more than 1.3 as that's the point of a sliding scale.
Yes it was an utterly crap deal, no one can deny it.
Ive read all the telegraph has to say on it.. i cant understand a bloody thing thats going on.. got to be honest!
It would all be over a damn sight quicker if it was. I can just imagine it........,,,,
You bought the club including a contract to pay £1.3 million rent a year?
Yes.
Your plan was quick promotion, sell for a profit short term, so the rent cost wasn't important to you?
Yes
You badly invested the money and ran the club poorly, Plan A didn't work and in fact you got relegated?
Yes
The rent then become a big issue you were renting a premiership standard stadium whilst in the third division?
Yes
You stopped paying the rent and turned down a few offers around the 200-400k mark. Then broke the contract by moving to Northampton
Yes
We're you doing all this hoping the business running the stadium would go under or you devalue it so you get it a lot cheaper?
Well it's more complicated than that
Let me me rephrase the question did a high court judge rule that that is what you did
Yes
You succeeded in lowering the value but then the charity and council sold the business to someone else
Yes
Now you are saying that they can't do that and you want to claim compensation for all this
Yes
.......................
Perfect summing up. Can we get back to football, thanks.
Acl encouraged the rent strike?
Think you're missing my point. What I'm saying is you can't simply say the rent has gone from £1.2m to £200K as you're not comparing like with like. What we got for £1.2m is nothing like what we are getting for £200K so its not a case of simply saying the rent has been reduced.
The perfect summing up I agree - from a council whore who has zero interest in the football club.
We have to see that other parasite GPE soon.
From the bit I just saw, the council lawyer replied the reason isn't relevant rather than calling bullshit?Seems what SISU are claiming is that it was a rent holiday that ACL were happy with as it would drive down the value which they wanted to do in order to get the loan off Yorkshire Bank cheap.
There was a few points today where the SISU chap was talking about how the language from the council suddenly changed, this was one of his example. According to him it was a sudden switch from rent holiday to rent strike. Think that's something they need to get to the bottom of as they are two very different things.
From the bit I just saw, the council lawyer replied the reason isn't relevant rather than calling bullshit?
So they are not paying it at all - but let's try and create an illusion it is a bad deal
Seems what SISU are claiming is that it was a rent holiday that ACL were happy with as it would drive down the value which they wanted to do in order to get the loan off Yorkshire Bank cheap.
There was a few points today where the SISU chap was talking about how the language from the council suddenly changed, this was one of his example. According to him it was a sudden switch from rent holiday to rent strike. Think that's something they need to get to the bottom of as they are two very different things.
Are they admitting to a criminal conspiracy and trying to blame another party for it? Highly ethical that!
Are they admitting to a criminal conspiracy and trying to blame another party for it? Highly ethical that!
tbf, I think when it comes to ethics and morals, no matter what the result of this, neither side is going to be going for a Daz doorstep challenge.
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?