bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Wasps brought outside caterers into the exhibition hall at their games, compass obviously didn't mind that.
The hotel and casino also seem to manage without compass as well.
Compass/wasps/EIC have the exclusive rights to sell f&b's at the Ricoh, you wouldn't be allowed to bring in mobile bars to sell food.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Wasps brought outside caterers into the exhibition hall at their games, compass obviously didn't mind that.
Does this not highlight a difference between football and rugby fans. It seems to me rugby fans want / expect a day out. They aren't really that bothered who they are going to see play, just look at the number of Wasps fans on their forums that just said they would go and watch another team instead when Wasps moved here and the number of locals who have suddenly decided they are Wasps fans. The consequence of that is that they need to do things like this to bring in and retain the putners.
Football is different, we're not going for a nice day out we're going as we support the team and have done for years. Lets be realistic the only thing that is going to see a surge in crowd numbers is success. We could have the greatest beer and pies in the world and it will make very little, if any, difference to the attendance. And of course it all comes at a cost which is either passed on to us or taken from somewhere else, would anyone really be happy if SP was saying we had to cut the player budget to hire the Jag Hall on matchdays?
Compass/wasps/EIC have the exclusive rights to sell f&b's at the Ricoh, you wouldn't be allowed to bring in mobile bars to sell food.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Did Wasps bring them in directly or did IEC bring them in?
You're having a laugh. They'd have to pay me to attend, at least a couple of hundred quid!
PUSB-PUSB-PUSB-PUSB-PUSB-PUSB
We will just spend all the money hiring it all out and then hand all the income over to ACL, should make a few happy.
Either way it shows flexibility in the agreements that exist.
If it was IEC, why can't ccfc try for a similar deal?
If it was IEC, why can't ccfc try for a similar deal?
Regardless of the benefits to ccfc, this might also help Wasps/acl, so screw the ccfc.
And in one post we get summed up exactly why some are against these ideas.
Regardless of the benefits to ccfc, this might also help Wasps/acl, so screw the ccfc.
Wrong, I have no problem with partnering with Wasps if it can be shown it is in the best interests of the club and the relevant points are addressed.
What benefit to CCFC? From what is being proposed the club gets a significant increase in matchday costs to enable IEC and ACL to profit. I would be surprised if it resulted in a single extra ticket being sold let alone enough to cover costs.
It's a nice idea and of course adding to the matchday experiance would be great but we have to be realistic. It's not our ground and the club is not in a position to spend money to benefit others.
Because what you're suggesting is CCFC expenditure for the benefit of IEC. Unless you think ACL are going to let us have the hall for free and covering the hire in costs of the entertainment. What you're doing is highlighting the problem of not owning your own ground.
If, as you suggest IEC were involved in the Wasps event, then it must make money (compass wouldn't subsidise Wasps).
Therefore if ccfc went to IEC and said we will do something similar if we agree to share profits, why would they say no?
This is a very interesting article about Wycombe Wanderers and Wasps relationship at Adams Park.
http://www.shoot.co.uk/category/team/wycombe-to-go-it-alone/
Wasps fans requested Wasps to make the matches an event. The idea being if they're having to travel for an hour or more to get there, it needs to be a day out with the family etc, rather than having the travel time making up more of the day than the match itself.
Interesting, seemed to be working up to 07/08 (at least for Wasps they had good success, Wycombe seemed to go downhill it seems) and then Wasps started trying to muscle themselves in further and take control and then the relationship fell apart.
The other thing is Wasps always seem to moan about how bad they were treated but this article doesn't paint it that way, it may have went a bit south after Wasps failed attempt to overpower Wycombe but before that it seems ok.
Interesting, seemed to be working up to 07/08 (at least for Wasps they had good success, Wycombe seemed to go downhill it seems) and then Wasps started trying to muscle themselves in further and take control and then the relationship fell apart.
The other thing is Wasps always seem to moan about how bad they were treated but this article doesn't paint it that way, it may have went a bit south after Wasps failed attempt to overpower Wycombe but before that it seems ok.
No it doesn't say that, just my conclusions from just reading the article, Wasps clearly weren't happy being only tenants at Adams Park and tried to gain more power and a bigger influence over Wycombe as they didn't like it the other way round. The point about WW subsidising Wasps is made after there failed attempt to force themselves upon Wycombe.Have you got the Wasps muscling in from the above article because at no point does it say that. In fact WW were subsidising Wasps on match days.
The article does have similarities to our situation in the fact that football fans were getting annoyed with Wasps being there because of lack of clear facts provided to them. They preferred to pick up on silly things like credit card payments names and having a match moved to a Friday night.
It does also show the vulnerability of Wasps who were forced out of QPR ground to WW and I would say Wycombe in general not being sympathetic to their needs.
Hopefully Wasps have learned lessons from there time at Adams Park, the moment they started trying to walk all over the football club was when they lost the support of the local community and the animosity started.
If Wasps try and do the same to the us they may lose the support of Coventry which they can't afford to do.
It seems that our Trust should really have been talking to Wycombe's Trust before going all weak at the knees like a giddy schoolgirl at a One Direction concert when Wasps pitched up.
You say that Adams Park is a nice little stadium and that once it was large enough for the then population. May I remind you that Adams Park is still the perfect size for Wycombe Wanderers. This seasons average attendances have been around 4000. Since Adams Park was opened (only 20 years ago, Woodlands Terrace 15 years ago) the highest average season's attendance was just over 6000. The highest ever gate for a single WWFC match is around 9800. Please can you explain how Wycombe Wanderers FC will benefit from playing in a 20000 seat stadium. A little reminder too, Adams Park is owned outright by WWFC, this came about when former player / director Frank Adams gave (yes gave) the land upon which WWFCs old ground, Loakes Park, was sited to the football club. This was so the future of Wycombe Wanderers FC could be guaranteed. It was this act which later led to Adams Park being built and owned outright by WWFC. Adams Park is the envy of many football clubs .
The Tenants meanwhile, London Wasps, used to play in a 17500 capacity stadium in West London in front of 6000 people until being evicted , and found Adams Park to be perfect for their needs (and as a bonus their average gates increased by 2000).
My analogy of the current situation is this. You agree to house a homeless person in your home for a modest rent, they are very happy and find it most suitable for their needs, then all of a sudden they complain that the bathroom isn't big enough, the garden is too small, and the access isn't good enough. They then suggest that you sell your house and use the money to build a 10 bedroomed mansion with huge bathrooms and many access roads, but you won't own the house, no you'll pay rent to the landlord who gets very rich. Eventually you can no longer afford the rent on such an oversized property and go bankrupt.
What are London Wasps bringing to the table? Wycombe Wanderers FC have to sell their ground and Frank Adam's legacy to help finance a new stadium for Wasps.
Wycombe Wanderers FC have been in Wycombe for 127 years. LONDON Wasps for 8
I presume that, since you are from out of the area, that you are actually a London Wasps Supporter. Average attendances for London Wasps this season have been around 7500.
If you believe that London Wasps would benefit from playing in a 20000 seat stadium I'm sure you'd have no objections if they were to build one (and 600 houses) on green belt land in Kings Langley.
I think the this post from a Wycombe fan at the time sums up well what was happening at least from their perspective (so may not have all been true)
Basically, Wycombe were going to fund a new stadium by selling Adams Park. Yet Wasps were going to be the ones who reaped the benefits from it. Wycombe were going to be left with a stadium which they no longer owned, couldn't fill and probably couldn't cover the operating costs on.
Which is all well and good except their ground is owned by Steve Hayes,and the club by their trust.
Source?
This suggests otherwise
http://www.wycombewanderers.co.uk/news/article/trust-statement-ownership-1358468.aspx
The freehold of Adams Park and all of the memorabilia would remain under the ownership of the Trust
The Trust board believes the offer to be beneficial in securing the long-term future of the football club, while the Trust will retain ownership of Adams Park, potentially free of all outstanding debt, if it so chooses
Ok fair enough only have your word, no idea why they would lie and say the trust own it on there official site then unless they sold it to him within the last year (can't find anything which says such)Were told this at the JPT game at Wycombe by their trust.
You say that Adams Park is a nice little stadium and that once it was large enough for the then population. May I remind you that Adams Park is still the perfect size for Wycombe Wanderers. This seasons average attendances have been around 4000. Since Adams Park was opened (only 20 years ago, Woodlands Terrace 15 years ago) the highest average season's attendance was just over 6000. The highest ever gate for a single WWFC match is around 9800. Please can you explain how Wycombe Wanderers FC will benefit from playing in a 20000 seat stadium. A little reminder too, Adams Park is owned outright by WWFC, this came about when former player / director Frank Adams gave (yes gave) the land upon which WWFCs old ground, Loakes Park, was sited to the football club. This was so the future of Wycombe Wanderers FC could be guaranteed. It was this act which later led to Adams Park being built and owned outright by WWFC. Adams Park is the envy of many football clubs .
The Tenants meanwhile, London Wasps, used to play in a 17500 capacity stadium in West London in front of 6000 people until being evicted , and found Adams Park to be perfect for their needs (and as a bonus their average gates increased by 2000).
My analogy of the current situation is this. You agree to house a homeless person in your home for a modest rent, they are very happy and find it most suitable for their needs, then all of a sudden they complain that the bathroom isn't big enough, the garden is too small, and the access isn't good enough. They then suggest that you sell your house and use the money to build a 10 bedroomed mansion with huge bathrooms and many access roads, but you won't own the house, no you'll pay rent to the landlord who gets very rich. Eventually you can no longer afford the rent on such an oversized property and go bankrupt.
What are London Wasps bringing to the table? Wycombe Wanderers FC have to sell their ground and Frank Adam's legacy to help finance a new stadium for Wasps.
Wycombe Wanderers FC have been in Wycombe for 127 years. LONDON Wasps for 8
I presume that, since you are from out of the area, that you are actually a London Wasps Supporter. Average attendances for London Wasps this season have been around 7500.
If you believe that London Wasps would benefit from playing in a 20000 seat stadium I'm sure you'd have no objections if they were to build one (and 600 houses) on green belt land in Kings Langley.
I think the this post from a Wycombe fan at the time sums up well what was happening at least from their perspective (so may not have all been true)
Basically, Wycombe were going to fund a new stadium by selling Adams Park. Yet Wasps were going to be the ones who reaped the benefits from it. Wycombe were going to be left with a stadium which they no longer owned, couldn't fill and probably couldn't cover the operating costs on.
Ok fair enough only have your word, no idea why they would lie and say the trust own it on there official site then unless they sold it to him within the last year (can't find anything which says such)
Anyway the post I copied would have been from several years ago when Wycombe owned Adams Park and Wycombe were owned by Steve Hayes, assuming you're right when Steve Hayes sold the club to the trust he didn't include Adams Park.
Still doesn't really change the point though, this Steve Hayes fella who was Wasps owner was ready to screw over Wycombe Wanderers in pursuit of furthering Wasps ambitions. Again assuming you're right again about the stadium and they no longer own it it just means they done more damage to Wycombe than I initially thought.
Its no wonder there was animosity between them, lets hope Wasps have learned from there mistakes. They may not always need the club but they will always need the local community.
As long as selfish dickheads are able to watch 'top class rugby' who gives a fuck? Wasps have picked the perfect city in Coventry. Fair play to them, hopefully the football club will soon die off completely and they can then be the main sporting team in the city. Hopefully they'll put at end to that other pesky rugby team as well.
Up the Council!
COYW!
We all need to accept Wasps
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?