Just a few thoughts ....
You could argue that commercially football stadium are a scarce commodity and any rent is deserving of a premium
You might take into account the affordability for a tenant but the first and driving affordability to consider is your own
You might decide that in the best interests of the community you serve that you can decide to discount the rent to a particular tenant on the basis that you think you can work in partnership with that tenant to the greater benefit of the community. In which case the rent set has nothing at all to do with a commercial value or what others pay. It is an assessment of worth to both parties. It places a notional value on what the tenant brings to the community but what the tenant brings has to be seen to be delivered. It also assumes a flourishing partnership that both gain from equally
You can not as a tenant say how great the facilities are then decide they are average third tier just when it suits. Quality costs and it costs more than average whether its is chocolate, clothing, cars or property. Nor can you preach quality in everything else and for reasons of rent decide the venue is over priced at anything over £170k L1 average - it is not logical the stadium, the set up, the club, the earning potential is not L1 average (not about rent though is it - it is about setting an unreasonable demand that you know wont be met to give the illusion of good faith)
Rent is not a function of a tenants performance in the simple sense. It can be tied to attendance or footfall but to do so the landlord has to be confident that the footfall is achievable, that the tenant controls other costs in order to reduce further risk to the tenancy, and in a long term lease the tenant has a long term plan. The tenant has to prove it. If not done on that basis first and foremost it is up to the tenant to arrange its finances to meet rent costs, if it can prove having addressed all costs that it cannot the landlord can agree to step in and "help" even re negotiate on the rent.
We assume or perhaps imply when it suits that football is different, that somehow business logic doesnt apply. Why? SISU clearly see it as a commercial investment yet try to argue that normal commerciality in very specific areas does not apply - want us all to buy into it. This is business, there is no sugar daddy, unless it is treated as a business it wont survive. In that sense I have no problem with driving costs including rent down to benefit CCFC. The fact that we are in the mess we are is because of decades of business people leaving business principles at the door including SISU. In the last 15 years we have accumulated or written off something like £75m in losses and rent is our biggest problem - really ???!!!
Non payment of rent might be a tactic to get the landlords attention but that in the real world means immediate negotiation, and a willingness on both sides to be honest and open with each other. Above all if it is to work there has to be a feeling of partnership and mutual gain (of course this aint about the rent)
Break even is the function of the decisions made by a business management. Rent costs only form part of the calculation and to some degree fixed and out of control of a business. Other costs are agreed to by current choice or by historical accumulation of choices, all of which are the responsibility of the business owners. If breakeven is 22000 (and i am not sure at the moment it is) then that is a product of the choices made by SISU and TF - from ticket prices, to other income streams, to the costs, to the interest charges, then the main influence is themselves. SISU choose the budget, set the break even, make the decisions that affect CCFC.
Is the rent too high at £1.2m probably in terms of the club in its present self inflicted level of performance but if set commercially on the basis of property value probably not. The fact is the landlords are prepared to step outside normal commerce to support something privately owned that is valued by the people - not a normal commercial basis other than in sport etc. But it has to be a partnership - which the Club have repeatedly worked against. It has to be on the basis of openness for both parties and a consistency of plan or measures taken. You can not expect a landlord to be sympathetic when it is clear that other costs are not well controlled or even added to - you are likely to get a response of "why should we if you wont take your own business seriously"
But as we all know this whole situation has nothing to do with rent at all
just thoughts not saying all of this is the right way to go or think about it ....... although i think a reasonable person would think a big chunk of it is .... just my opinion
