The coventrian
Well-Known Member
Semantics.
Semantics.There is no court action, it's a complaint to the EC, just like if you were to put in a complaint to the financial ombudsman about insurance dispute. We all think they should have halted it after the last defeat.
Who says I'm not bothered? I'd prefer us to be at the Ricoh but with Brums pitch, I've only managed to get to 4-5 games due to other commitments. I wouldnt have missed a game at the ricoh.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
You have a real problem with people living just outside Coventry supporting Coventry dont you?
No I was just stooping to your childish level. Just because I don't foam at the mouth about wasps you accused me of being a plastic wasps fan. Your not from cov but support my city's football club so I returned the insult by calling you a plastic cov fan. I know who the more plastic one is out of the 2 of us.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
No surely not. It's only people with an agenda that do that according to some on here?
So the rent was to high but we had a wage bill of 7 million? Yeah ok. I guess the rent was to much but we signed up to it didn't we.If nothing bad happened in 2013, we’d probably be out of business now thanks to the amount of rent we were being charged.
It didn’t help that the incompetent Ranson advised SISU not to purchase a share in the stadium though when they first arrived.
I don't think anyone is. Who was it that agreed to it? Was it fletcher?How can anyone question the rent being too high? £1.3 million for 23 days part use is unbelievable, irrelevant of how much the wage bill was. Two wrongs don’t make a right and all that.
I don’t think you can get away with just saying semantics to that. It’s very different. I genuinely only want to understand it’s not about thinking you’re wrong and I’m right or vice versa. Would you let you’re club go out of business purely over semantics?Semantics.
I don't think anyone is. Who was it that agreed to it? Was it fletcher?
Stadium naming rights is their biggest loss without us.I agree. And what if they don't go bust? What if they can manage without us? Exactly how much income were they creaming off us including f&b? The worry is if wasps can manage without us and they do actually close the door completely even if this eu case gets kicked out. What then?
At the time the rent was set, wasn’t Fletcher on ACL side of the table. Oh, and we were n the Prem. and then itv digital went bust the year we fell to the championship. A completely different environment, which the landlords refused to recognise.I don't think anyone is. Who was it that agreed to it? Was it fletcher?
And I’ve told you this before - the wage bill was too high. Hence why SISU then took drastic measures to reduce the wage bill. It was at that time relegation to league one occurred and the SISU OUT protests started.So the rent was to high but we had a wage bill of 7 million? Yeah ok. I guess the rent was to much but we signed up to it didn't we.
Stop blaming everyone else. Nobody owes us anything.
Well, what other choice did we have?So the rent was to high but we had a wage bill of 7 million? Yeah ok. I guess the rent was to much but we signed up to it didn't we.
Stop blaming everyone else. Nobody owes us anything.
Ha ha I don’t know how but the coventrian somehow quoted me saying something I didn’t say
I don't think anyone is. Who was it that agreed to it? Was it fletcher?
Unavailable - I've just checked.Jesus christ.
Mcginnity agreed to it.
The initial concept was that the club would take a return on revenues back so would actually make a profit on the deal
Then having had the ACL shares valued at £26 million dear old Mike gave them to Higgs for £2 million. Then also clogged the F and B rights I think for £1 million
The club then tried after this to reduce the rent. Council refused.
Aah I remember that disaster lolThen Mike blew a chunk of the proceeds on a new badge
Sadly I don’t think we would get anywhere near 27K on our first game back this time. I reckon too many people will now be out of the habit of going to matches and will continue with whatever over activities they have taken up. 18K tops, then back to 13K despite being in a play off challenging situation.The comment about SISU (or whoever on the CCFC side) having a plan to "starve Wasps out" is clearly bollocks! While it would be lovely to see them being the masters of their own misfortune, the FACT (as far as we know) is that Wasps have not dropped the demand for CCFC to indemnify them against the financial losses incurred by an EC ruling demanding them to pay back the shortfall in the purchase of the Ricoh. Until and unless Wasps make a POSITIVE decision to reverse that demand, CCFC will not come back to the table, and rightly so - it would be unpredictable and suicidal.
But if and when we do come back (which i hope we do under the right circumstances), you can bet your bottom dollar it will be the same as the return from Sixfields - 27,306 for the Gillingham match, and back down to 11,085 just a week later against Yeovil.
Lies.You do. You insinuate the rent amount was ok because we were over paying in wages.
£1.3 million divided by 23 is £56,521 per game day. All that got us was a football pitch with stands. We still had things to pay on top too. We had no right to the income generated while we were paying to use the stadium. It was a shocking deal, one that should never have been agreed to, one that Sisu should have challenged as soon as they arrived. To make out the rent deal wasn’t a problem because we had a high wage bill is nonsense. They were both a problem and both had to be addressed.
Yep and people would only come back slowly. Fully supportive and all thatSadly I don’t think we would get anywhere near 27K on our first game back this time. I reckon too many people will now be out of the habit of going to matches and will continue with whatever over activities they have taken up. 18K tops, then back to 13K despite being in a play off challenging situation.
And exactly how much pull do you think a 3rd division club has when it comes to naming rights?Stadium naming rights is their biggest loss without us.
Mcginnity was an absolute clown. I know this wont go down well on here but in hindsight I' wish we'd of stuck with Richardson.Mcginnity agreed to it.
The initial concept was that the club would take a return on revenues back so would actually make a profit on the deal
Then having had the ACL shares valued at £26 million dear old Mike gave them to Higgs for £2 million. Then also clogged the F and B rights I think for £1 million
The club then tried after this to reduce the rent. Council refused.
I’d say a lot more than premier league rugby club. Ultimately we’re front and central whatever league we’re in on Sky sports every Saturday.And exactly how much pull do you think a 3rd division club has when it comes to naming rights?
Aah I remember that disaster lol
Couldn’t afford himMcginnity was an absolute clown. I know this wont go down well on here but in hindsight I' wish we'd of stuck with Richardson.
Sadly I don’t think we would get anywhere near 27K on our first game back this time. I reckon too many people will now be out of the habit of going to matches and will continue with whatever over activities they have taken up. 18K tops, then back to 13K despite being in a play off challenging situation.
A damn sight more than a prem league, hopefully potentially championship, rugby club.And exactly how much pull do you think a 3rd division club has when it comes to naming rights?
For comparison West Ham pay £2.5m for the London stadiumHow can anyone question the rent being too high? £1.3 million for 23 days part use is unbelievable, irrelevant of how much the wage bill was. Two wrongs don’t make a right and all that.
And West Ham’s income will be how many multiples of what ours was in the championship?For comparison West Ham pay £2.5m for the London stadium
The operating company take most of the F&B income and have athletics and concert income
The operating company still make a huge loss but I think that's mainly due to the cost of converting for athletics
Of course the London stadium has around twice the capacity of the Ricoh
Moving out of Upton Park was the stupidist thing they could have done. Should have downscaled the stadium and let Orient have it.For comparison West Ham pay £2.5m for the London stadium
The operating company take most of the F&B income and have athletics and concert income
The operating company still make a huge loss but I think that's mainly due to the cost of converting for athletics
Of course the London stadium has around twice the capacity of the Ricoh
For comparison West Ham pay £2.5m for the London stadium
The operating company take most of the F&B income and have athletics and concert income
The operating company still make a huge loss but I think that's mainly due to the cost of converting for athletics
Of course the London stadium has around twice the capacity of the Ricoh
And West Ham’s income will be how many multiples of what ours was in the championship?
There's some subtle differences. West Ham don't pay a penny in match day costs, its all included, and get a share of revenues. The rent also goes down if they are relegated. We were paying over £400K a year match day costs on top of the rent and got no revenues.For comparison West Ham pay £2.5m for the London stadium
The operating company take most of the F&B income and have athletics and concert income
The operating company still make a huge loss but I think that's mainly due to the cost of converting for athletics
Of course the London stadium has around twice the capacity of the Ricoh
In fact they are paying so little towards the cost of the stadium the company running it is doing about as well as ACL.LLDC will take on all of the running costs from the corner flags to the stewards in return for £2.5m a year in rent (reduced by half in the event of relegation) and a one-off payment of £15m.
West Ham keep all their ticket revenue while other income streams are shared. Over the first two decades of the stadium’s life, the LLDC will pocket the first £4m of any naming rights deal on the iconic stadium and share anything over that 50-50 with West Ham.
In the small print, it also emerges that West Ham will get a 40% reduction in their rental terms after 20 years if they choose to forego their share of naming rights revenue. Alternatively, they can stick with the existing agreement. As elsewhere, the dice seem loaded in West Ham’s favour.
West Ham’s rental agreement to use the London Stadium has been described as “the elephant in the room” behind the venue’s cash problems.
The claim was made by London Legacy Development Corporation chief executive Lyn Garner who revealed West Ham’s rent does not even cover the cost of staging matches.
West Ham secured the stadium for an annual rental fee of £2.5million in 2013 and moved in at the start of the 2016/17 season.
Stadium operator E20 recorded operating losses of around £22million for the last financial year and faces the possibility of being dissolved.
Garner, who became chief executive of the LLDC in February, told the London Assembly: “What is really driving the problems here are the low rents paid by the concessionaires, particularly West Ham.
“I’ve got to say the elephant in the room is the fee that they pay us in the usage cost does not cover the event-day costs and that’s before we go anywhere near a commercial advantage, it simply does not cover the costs of running the events on a day-to-day basis.”
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?