I know it's unlikely to be revealed officially (until it turns up in the accounts?), but anybody have any unofficial comments about what was in it?
We know it offers exclusive use to us, but what's the annual fee, what are we responsible for, and what incomes do we get?
It’s again a licence and not a lease so I suspect it’s less but with few benefits - I think tbe last deal allowed all corporate revenue to be retained from sales of refreshments etc - I assume this would be the sameWould not be surprised if it’s significantly more than the £1.2m we used to pay. Negotiated under pressure with pretty dirty tactics from Frasers, almost 20 years later.
It’s again a licence and not a lease so I suspect it’s less but with few benefits - I think tbe last deal allowed all corporate revenue to be retained from sales of refreshments etc - I assume this would be the same
Would not be surprised if it’s significantly more than the £1.2m we used to pay. Negotiated under pressure with pretty dirty tactics from Frasers, almost 20 years later.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the rent will be less, because we are now responsible for the most expensive part - the pitch.
To be clear, I am not saying that I think the deal will be better for the club financially, just a lower amount...
Obviously not worth it, mainly because they didn't follow up with any of their promises afterwards.So question is: a decade later, was the rent strike worth it?
Pros:
- Broke £1.2m lease
- Ultimately did bust ACL/Wasps
- Arguable bunker mentality has helped
- Anything else?
Cons:
- Fan split
- Reduced income/increased rent while away
- Lost chance at 50% share
- Not likely to ever bust Frasers
- Lease > Licence
Obviously not worth it, mainly because they didn't follow up with any of their promises afterwards.
Would have been worth it if we'd done something about buying the Arena or building a replacement.
Anyway, that was then, this is now. I do wonder how much extra income we have to generate this season just to stand still relative to last.
But also, if we're demanding new investment etc, where's it going to come from if we've spent our new investment on a ground deal?Just think we’re at an equilibrium now where we can take stock. This is likely to be us for a bit now.
It will be more than what we were paying wasps
What?I suppose we are getting an awful lot more for our money now.
What?
Who gets the cash for the boxes, and in what percentage?Things like access to changing rooms, control over the pitch, an ability to cover the stadium in new posters, being able to sell boxes and cover the windows in company branding.
But also, if we're demanding new investment etc, where's it going to come from if we've spent our new investment on a ground deal?
Things like access to changing rooms, control over the pitch, an ability to cover the stadium in new posters, being able to sell boxes and cover the windows in company branding.
Indeed, but ultimately you'd get something at the end of it.Where would it have come from if we’d been paying back finance for a stadium purchase?
Not convinced being able to pop posters up is worth a huge amount on a deal, either.Isn’t most of that just cos Wasps went bust?
Indeed, but ultimately you'd get something at the end of it.
It also depends what the deal for f&b is, doesn't it. I have no idea myself what it is.
Not convinced being able to pop posters up is worth a huge amount on a deal, either.
It is important to know however. The ground deal for Selhurst Park brought down two Crystal Palace chairmen, one spectacularly because he didn't really know what he was doing, and signed any old deal.I mean ultimately we aren’t going to be sustainable at this level in any ground, and we aren’t going to be sustainable below this level in a 32k stadium. So in a way it’s a moot point. Go up and we can pay £10m/year quite frankly. Go down and even free rent and all the pies in the world won’t save us.
Isn’t most of that just cos Wasps went bust?
Well that’s worrying.I heard from those within the club pre-securing the license that what FG were demanding was completely unsustainable.
So whatever deal is currently in place will be considerably worse comparative to what was agreed with Wasps.
Who gets the cash for the boxes, and in what percentage?
Surely it comes under the deal of ticket sales?
For me, they key points are the loss of fans during the Northampton/Birmingham jaunt. Bad business, no apparent understanding of the tipping point at which the club was sustainable (Prior to actually leaving the Ricoh). Then it was evident through decline, bad recruitment of managers etc.So question is: a decade later, was the rent strike worth it?
Pros:
- Broke £1.2m lease
- Ultimately did bust ACL/Wasps
- Arguable bunker mentality has helped
- Anything else?
Cons:
- Fan split
- Reduced income/increased rent while away
- Lost chance at 50% share
- Not likely to ever bust Frasers
- Lease > Licence
Sell players. It works.But also, if we're demanding new investment etc, where's it going to come from if we've spent our new investment on a ground deal?
Is it possible that the increase in cost of the corporate boxes is because Frasers have increased how much they charge us for access to them?Who gets the cash for the boxes, and in what percentage?
Maybe the boxes are rented at the old prices of 9k per season? Then anything else is profit for City?Who gets the cash for the boxes, and in what percentage?
It will be more than what we were paying 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?