When I said revenues, I meant actual cash that can be used (I.e. Profit)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Then I'm positive it would be in wasps interests to sell half to us (for the right price of course) (as long as we were intending to invest in the team to get back to the championship, which probably would mean new owners first) especially over us leaving and setting up a competitor to acl.
Then I'm positive it would be in wasps interests to sell half to us (for the right price of course) (as long as we were intending to invest in the team to get back to the championship, which probably would mean new owners first) especially over us leaving and setting up a competitor to acl.
Out of interest what would you determine the right price?
If they wanted shared ownership wouldn't they have just let our bid for Higgs share go unchallenged instead of making a bid for it themselves? As they purchased that share you would have to assume that in the unlikely event they would sell it to us they would want more than they paid so we'd be paying above market rate.
If they wanted shared ownership wouldn't they have just let our bid for Higgs share go unchallenged instead of making a bid for it themselves? As they purchased that share you would have to assume that in the unlikely event they would sell it to us they would want more than they paid so we'd be paying above market rate.
I am totally baffled by your logic on this.
Out of interest what would you determine the right price?
Unless they seriously think Fisher is going to build the new stadium and it will be in a location and with facilities to rival the Ricoh there is absolutely no incentive for them to give us increased access to revenues.I
f anything they have the opportunity to charge us more for less. If they say we will extend the deal but the rent is now £500K and you only get 25% of matchday revenues or profits (whichever it is at the moment), what other option do we have? Do we go back to Sixfields again, would the FL authorise that for a second time?
The only way we are getting anymore from Wasps / ACL is if one or both of them are in financial difficulty.
I have literally no idea what the right price is.
If they wanted shared ownership wouldn't they have just let our bid for Higgs share go unchallenged instead of making a bid for it themselves? As they purchased that share you would have to assume that in the unlikely event they would sell it to us they would want more than they paid so we'd be paying above market rate.
But people can't have it both ways, they are saying we have to build our own stadium as wasps won't sell half to us, if that did mean we were going to build then at that point it would be massively in wasps interests to sell half to us.
At what point does that become an unviable option against a new stadium. For example if Wasps want £10m for a 50% stake is that a better option than building a new stadium is that a better option than owning a 100% stake in a new stadium management company with a £20m debt?
You know what paying double what wasps paid would be? massivly massivly better value than building our own stadium.
I wouldn't do that deal but forced to chose do I believe 10m for half the ricoh vs 20m for the whole of a new stadium that still take the ricoh, absolutely I do. not that I believe for a second that this new stadium can be built for anything like as cheap as that even double that seems unlikely.
That's not having it both ways, that's you taking one point (Wasps won't sell) and then making an assumption that they need us to stay.
Wasps have already stated their business plan does not require CCFC to stay at the Ricoh. While I'm sure they would like us to stay is £100K a season plus F&B (which can't be huge given our attendances are in freefall) really that vital to their business plan?
If it is then I think we should be pushing all football fans to say NOPM to Wasps and starve then out so we can get the Ricoh for ourselves!
There's not really a response that can be made to that as what you are saying is you would prefer to pay more for less!
That's not having it both ways, that's you taking one point (Wasps won't sell) and then making an assumption that they need us to stay.
Wasps have already stated their business plan does not require CCFC to stay at the Ricoh. While I'm sure they would like us to stay is £100K a season plus F&B (which can't be huge given our attendances are in freefall) really that vital to their business plan?
If it is then I think we should be pushing all football fans to say NOPM to Wasps and starve then out so we can get the Ricoh for ourselves!
re a NOPM approach from football fans? I don't think the majority of city fans are going, I think they are being supported by Rugby fans from Coventry, Warwickshire and Birmingham.
There's not really a response that can be made to that as what you are saying is you would prefer to pay more for less!
I wasn't seriously suggesting we mount a campaign, more illustrating the fact that if our presence, at a rent of £100K, was essential to their plans it wouldn't take much to tip them over the edge.
That's not having it both ways, that's you taking one point (Wasps won't sell) and then making an assumption that they need us to stay.
Wasps have already stated their business plan does not require CCFC to stay at the Ricoh. While I'm sure they would like us to stay is £100K a season plus F&B (which can't be huge given our attendances are in freefall) really that vital to their business plan?
If it is then I think we should be pushing all football fans to say NOPM to Wasps and starve then out so we can get the Ricoh for ourselves!
not at all. This is where the logic falls down.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Yes and if they really want to maximise profit and revenue wait a couple of years and then negotiate a deal for £1 million a year and zero revenues.
Still a better option than going to Northampton or building a new stadium.
How? With Grendel's example it would be £1m a year for the next 250 years so £250m, for which we would get no revenue access. In what way is that better than building a new stadium where we get access to all revenues?
It's all hypothetical of course but just shows again that all scenarios need to be worked up fully to allow the best way forward to be chosen.
If we are going to be making ludicrous hypotheticals £30million invested in the stock market getting an average of 7% (which you'd expect over that timeframe) for 250 years turns your 30million into over 1 QUADRILLION! pounds. £1,135,516,381,376,901.25 compound interest is pretty awesome over 250 years.
If we are going to be making ludicrous hypotheticals £30million invested in the stock market getting an average of 7% (which you'd expect over that timeframe) for 250 years turns your 30million into over 1 QUADRILLION! pounds. £1,135,516,381,376,901.25 compound interest is pretty awesome over 250 years.
£1m per annum rent with no access to revenues is hardly a hypothetical, given we were paying £1.3m per annum with no access to revenues not so long ago.
Well that doesn't really answer the question does it. How is renting at £1m a year with zero revenue access (Grendel's example) better than building a new stadium?
I'm not understanding why people are eager to dismiss the idea of a new stadium out of hand when even the independent experts the CT roll out say staying at the Ricoh on a rental deal means more of the same for years to come. Fair enough if its all worked up for various options and a new stadium isn't viable but at the moment it just seems to be getting dismissed out of hand.
£1m per annum rent with no access to revenues is hardly a hypothetical, given we were paying £1.3m per annum with no access to revenues not so long ago.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
It become a ludicrous hypothetical when ChiefDave wanted to compare 250 years of rent to building a stadium.
It's not hypothetical really though, is it? Under the old deal we would have paid £52M for the life of the lease just to rent with very little revenue. Who knows what the new deal will be? As Dave points out you are very trusting of Wasps. And some of your claims are laughable.
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?