So that makes it £172500pa rent paid, less some meagre beer and pie sales...still sounds like financial suicide
Mr Fisher's so-called "League 1 average rent"... for a League 2 ground.
I'm sure all those who fumed that Doncaster only pay £10,000 a year* will be on here soon screeching what a rip-off this is and attacking Northampton for charging too much.
(*If you believe Doncaster's stadium only costs them £10,000 a year, then I suggest you read my first post here: http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/24428-Thanks-Doncaster)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/coventry-city/10294857/.html …
Not sure if this has already been posted but if its true were paying over £170,000 per season to play at sixfields !
I posted this several weeks ago after Tim confirmed to me the rent they were paying to play at Northampton. I asked him why he had refused the offer to play at the Ricoh for nothing, he said the offer was never made to him. I told him that the offer was probably made to PA as he was in charge of the club at the time, why was this not passed on to TF. I wonder
Agreed. There is no way that levels of losses like this stack up against playing at the Ricoh; even at the previous rent levels, and with no income. With the offer of lower rents and share of incomes; the choice between the Ricoh and Sixfields is an absolute no-brainer - unless there's an unspoken 'sub-plot', of course. And that's just a direct financial analysis, ignoring the club being torn apart, a generation of supporters who may be lost having never seen their club play in their home town, or the disaster that will be FFP adherence in coming seasons.
There is only one reason 'the club' is doing this; and we all know what it is
Exactly. This is why I can't understand why people are only angry and willing to shout about what ACL/CCC done (past tense)
The suxfields situation is current and doing more damage to our club and in more ways than ACL/CCC actions have ever done.
This is all fans should be concerned with at this moment in time.
No it isn't because the club has zero future anyway under the current arrangement. Despite the sneers and the knowing looks the stark reality is this club had a bad deal from the council compared to every other club in the situation.
The naughty council. Imagine if I owned a house, sold it, gambled away the profits, then asked them to build a better one which I then stopped paying rent on because I said it was more than someone else was paying for their council house in Doncaster.
No it isn't because the club has zero future anyway under the current arrangement. Despite the sneers and the knowing looks the stark reality is this club had a bad deal from the council compared to every other club in the situation.
The other reality people have to ultimately accept is no new owner will deal with the council. For a reason I can never understand they want the owners to do land redevelopment for them. No one is interested.
Sisu I am sure will fail but of they somehow succeeded in getting the club and the ground in one holding entity and removed ACL and the council from the picture then for the long term it would be worth it.
They'll fail though.
Of course where the analogy falls down is that you getting kicked out of your council house won't affect thousands of people who enjoy spending time at your house and the loss of trade to local businesses is likely to be relatively insignificant.
Any new owners would deal with ACL / Council because the current tabled offers for rent are 150k per season.
No it isn't and no they wouldn't without ownership of the facility their is zero attraction.
Just out of interest when did you poll any and all potential professional football club owners?
When did Jim? Why are you addressing just me?
No, I'm addressing you. You're conveniently forgetting, for the purpose of your estimated facts, that Mr Appleton received more than one bid during administration and at least one of these parties had meeting(s) with CCC.
Was it the same pollsters that Joy used for her every football finance expert in the world says line?
No it isn't and no they wouldn't without ownership of the facility their is zero attraction.
The bid could be one pence and certainly would not have looked at rental detail.
I have spoken to people nothing to do with our current owners but previously associated with the club and a director at another football club. This was their view.
Where do you get your view from?
Yet Leeds United managed to be an attractive proposition despite not owning Elland Road.
And Northampton Town despite not owning their ground.
Also Hull City, Wolves and Leicester are all clubs that didn't own their grounds but have been the subject of a takeover in recent years.
Excuse me? Councils in general have proved very supportive and viewed the club as a community asset. The view of this council is it treats the club as an excuse for land regeneration and nothing else.
From the man in charge of the administration process not your imaginary friends that's for sure.
You seem confused. You're now saying there is attraction without ownership of facilities.
No tony your confused. Council owned property is fine of the council demonstrated a desire to work with the club - this council is the exception to the rule - its duplicitous obsessed with getting the club to foot the bill for its regeneration and unfit for purpose.
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?