Fisher on Talksport (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
M

Magwitch

Well-Known Member
Is this million quid a year rent correct ? seems very high to me.
At the time when it was announced playing at St Andrews I remember the EFL wanting a million pound bond guarantee or something like that, could that be where this million pound figure has come from ?
 
Last edited:
H

HuckerbyDublinWhelan

Well-Known Member
Magwitch said:
Is this million quid a year rent correct ? seems very high to me.
At the time when it was announced playing at St Andrews I remember the EFL wanting a million pound guarantee or something like that, could that be where this million pound figure has come from ?
Click to expand...
I’m guessing so or fisher would have denied it
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
I think the club are looking at what the arena itself is making from the club being there. The value of the lease increases, stadium sponsorship etc

SISU want paying for that I reckon
Click to expand...

I want a share in the equity I’m creating for my landlord. It don’t work like that though.

There’s no denying we are worse off at SA even on the old bad Ricoh deal. It’s a gamble that it’ll pay off in the future. We should be clear about that. It’s not a cold headed business decision.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
We’ve heard the £1m figure from a few places both City and Brum sides and Fisher would’ve denied it. It’s as solid as any figures we know about (which isn’t very solid but best we have).
 
mr_monkey

mr_monkey

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
I want a share in the equity I’m creating for my landlord. It don’t work like that though.

There’s no denying we are worse off at SA even on the old bad Ricoh deal. It’s a gamble that it’ll pay off in the future. We should be clear about that. It’s not a cold headed business decision.
Click to expand...

Definitely worse off but the only thing we could do to keep the club from being able to continue and play in the league after the insane demands from wasps... If we accepted that deal we would be a worse position with a sword of Damocles over our head with the indemnity

If that clause wasn't on the table and we had ended up at Brum it would have been as bad as the Northampton farce
 
Flying Fokker

Flying Fokker

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
I want a share in the equity I’m creating for my landlord. It don’t work like that though.

There’s no denying we are worse off at SA even on the old bad Ricoh deal. It’s a gamble that it’ll pay off in the future. We should be clear about that. It’s not a cold headed business decision.
Click to expand...
That’s SISU for us. Gamblers. Sixfields it didn’t pay off.

The latest Fisher comments mean continuation of bad press and remind fans how they have been treated.

The posts is also an indication of what this mess is doing to the club off the pitch.
 
H

HuckerbyDublinWhelan

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
I want a share in the equity I’m creating for my landlord. It don’t work like that though.

There’s no denying we are worse off at SA even on the old bad Ricoh deal. It’s a gamble that it’ll pay off in the future. We should be clear about that. It’s not a cold headed business decision.
Click to expand...
No it doesn’t, but whilst the assets value is dropping they’ll struggle to refinance that bond. On top of that they won’t get a sponsor for the stadium.

So I’d argue we could negotiate for that.
 
Flying Fokker

Flying Fokker

Well-Known Member
HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
No it doesn’t, but whilst the assets value is dropping they’ll struggle to refinance that bond. On top of that they won’t get a sponsor for the stadium.

So I’d argue we could negotiate for that.
Click to expand...
I’d like wasps to go bust. They are in a weak position but city playing at St. Andrews is also reprehensible.
 
Liquid Gold

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
I want a share in the equity I’m creating for my landlord. It don’t work like that though.

There’s no denying we are worse off at SA even on the old bad Ricoh deal. It’s a gamble that it’ll pay off in the future. We should be clear about that. It’s not a cold headed business decision.
Click to expand...
People who make disingenuous points about a Ricoh deal being like home ownership are as bad as people who make disingenuous points about national finances and macroeconomics being like household budgets.
 
mr_monkey

mr_monkey

Well-Known Member
Flying Fokker said:
I’d like wasps to go bust. They are in a weak position but city playing at St. Andrews is also reprehensible.
Click to expand...

It definitely is but was the only choice we had to keep the club a going concern due to wasps and their insane demands.... Signing up to that astronomical rent deal many years ago almost brought the club to its knees, we cant be in that position again in a few years time, the deal has to be beneficial to us
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Liquid Gold said:
People who make disingenuous points about a Ricoh deal being like home ownership are as bad as people who make disingenuous points about national finances and macroeconomics being like household budgets.
Click to expand...

Yes, comparing commercial property rental with residential property rental is the same as comparing people with nations. Good one.
 
H

HuckerbyDublinWhelan

Well-Known Member
Flying Fokker said:
I’d like wasps to go bust. They are in a weak position but city playing at St. Andrews is also reprehensible.
Click to expand...
It is but the club in this situation have no alternative. They cannot and should not sign an indemnity agreement.

I’ve said before, the fans are allowing their hatred of SISU to get ahead of them. If we when to St Andrews in our droves - the club would be in a stronger negotiating position
 
better days

better days

Well-Known Member
I wonder if this interview was tactical
Dave Boddy is handling the negotiations with Wasps
Perhaps Fisher was using this as a signal to Wasps that SISU want to do a deal to strengthen Boddy's hand?
We all know the sticking point was the legal action and Wasps demand for an indemnity
Without the indemnity there's a deal
 
Last edited:
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Magwitch said:
Is this million quid a year rent correct ? seems very high to me.
Click to expand...
Its a dangerous game when people start throwing rent figures around as you're rarely comparing like with like.

As an example if you look at a headline figure of £100K at the Ricoh (even through any new deal was unlikely to be at that figure) or £1m at St Andrews it makes the Ricoh deal look fantastic.
But what if the Ricoh deal is £100K plus £500K matchday costs with no access to f&b, parking etc compared to £1m all in at St Andrews with access to f&b, parking etc. That's a very different story.
 
H

HuckerbyDublinWhelan

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
Its a dangerous game when people start throwing rent figures around as you're rarely comparing like with like.

As an example if you look at a headline figure of £100K at the Ricoh (even through any new deal was unlikely to be at that figure) or £1m at St Andrews it makes the Ricoh deal look fantastic.
But what if the Ricoh deal is £100K plus £500K matchday costs with no access to f&b, parking etc compared to £1m all in at St Andrews with access to f&b, parking etc. That's a very different story.
Click to expand...
That’s the picture our good friend at PSB_Group is peddling
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
No it doesn’t, but whilst the assets value is dropping they’ll struggle to refinance that bond. On top of that they won’t get a sponsor for the stadium.

So I’d argue we could negotiate for that.
Click to expand...

If you're arguing for that what you're actually trying to strike a deal for is part ownership.
 
shepardo01

shepardo01

Well-Known Member
Magwitch said:
Is this million quid a year rent correct ? seems very high to me.
At the time when it was announced playing at St Andrews I remember the EFL wanting a million pound bond guarantee or something like that, could that be where this million pound figure has come from ?
Click to expand...
Was told 50k per game from a city side and 1.2 mil from a blues side.... have posted this on here before....both kind of about equal... however, if it was on a game by game basis... we might have saved a bit!
Although some suggesting it is high, it hasn't potentially bankrupt the club like signing an indemnity clause to play at the Ricoh may have done.
Heard that the F&B/parking deals were infinitely better for us than at the Ricoh, so some balance...all be it small....
 
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
better days said:
I wonder if this interview was tactical
Dave Boddy is handling the negotiations with Wasps
Perhaps Fisher was using this as a signal to Wasps that SISU want to do a deal to strengthen Boddy's hand?
We all know the sticking point was the legal action and Wasps defend for an indemnity
Without the indemnity there's a deal
Click to expand...
I think so absolutely this was all part of the negotiation
 
M

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Probably would’ve hit 7k average at St Andrews over a full season, maybe more if we had a sell out for the title winning game but let’s say 7. +30% for promotion Id say 9-10k average in the Championship.

vs at the Ricoh, 12.5k in 18/19, +10% last season = around 14k, +30% promotion that’s 17-18k

Roughly £10/game income per ticket, difference of say 8k per game that’s 80k x 23 = 1.84m in tickets, maybe same again in merch and the like. Add in £1m/year rent at SA.

So by my reckoning any deal which is less than say £4m a season rent at the Ricoh is commercially beneficial.

As a reminder we were paying £300k apparently in 2018/19.

Can we stop the idea that this is a commercial decision?
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but anything up to £4million a year would be OK? You must be joking, surely .
£1.1 million was too much and saw us off to Northampton.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
MalcSB said:
I’m sorry, but anything up to £4million a year would be OK? You must be joking, surely .
£1.1 million was too much and saw us off to Northampton.
Click to expand...

I didn’t say “OK”, I said “Commercially beneficial”. Point is current deal is costing us more than £4m/season in reality.

Just pointing out that we didn’t move because of the rental cost, but because we thought it’d strengthen our hand elsewhere. Similarly we aren’t staying away due to cost, but because the demands placed on us to return (no state aid case) Would hamper our hopes for a future return.

The idea that we broke a £1.2m/year lease for a £1m/year lease plus £2-4m in lost revenue for financial reasons doesn’t stack up. Even less so when you consider the reports our last deal was £300k/season.
 
H

HuckerbyDublinWhelan

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
I didn’t say “OK”, I said “Commercially beneficial”. Point is current deal is costing us more than £4m/season in reality.

Just pointing out that we didn’t move because of the rental cost, but because we thought it’d strengthen our hand elsewhere. Similarly we aren’t staying away due to cost, but because the demands placed on us to return (no state aid case) Would hamper our hopes for a future return.

The idea that we broke a £1.2m/year lease for a £1m/year lease plus £2-4m in lost revenue for financial reasons doesn’t stack up. Even less so when you consider the reports our last deal was £300k/season.
Click to expand...

the rent was going to go up. Besides the argument wasn’t paying 1.2 million - it was paying 1.2 million and not received any kind of benefit from the stadium. We do receive income from St Andrews albeit on a limited scale
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
the rent was going to go up. Besides the argument wasn’t paying 1.2 million - it was paying 1.2 million and not received any kind of benefit from the stadium. We do receive income from St Andrews albeit on a limited scale
Click to expand...

Brass tacks: do you reckon we are better off financially with say 8k fewer fans at St Andrews at £1m/year or at the Ricoh with those fans on £300k/year but receiving half the F&B benefit? (Based on Fisher saying we got about the same at SA as we did with twice as many fans at the Ricoh)

I don’t see any way this can be defended on financial grounds unless you include the potential bigger prize down the line of the Ricoh itself (which I still have doubts would be the actual outcome of a successful state aid complaint).
 
H

HuckerbyDublinWhelan

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Brass tacks: do you reckon we are better off financially with say 8k fewer fans at St Andrews at £1m/year or at the Ricoh with those fans on £300k/year but receiving half the F&B benefit? (Based on Fisher saying we got about the same at SA as we did with twice as many fans at the Ricoh)
Click to expand...
We’ll find out next February won’t we. But it does show if our fans would stop the blind hatred of the owners - if they turned up and supported their damn team, it would have been viable.

If you go into hypotheticals you could argue that because of the pitch it’s not guarenteed we’d have got the same results resulting in less fans
 
mr_monkey

mr_monkey

Well-Known Member
HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
We’ll find out next February won’t we. But it does show if our fans would stop the blind hatred of the owners - if they turned up and supported their damn team, it would have been viable.
Click to expand...

This a million percent, at the end of the day any "boycott" hurts the team you supposedly love and makes everything less viable so you cant moan if your actions negatively affect the team.

Northampton you can understand why people didnt go but there was no reason or excuse not to go to brum
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
We’ll find out next February won’t we. But it does show if our fans would stop the blind hatred of the owners - if they turned up and supported their damn team, it would have been viable.

If you go into hypotheticals you could argue that because of the pitch it’s not guarenteed we’d have got the same results resulting in less fans
Click to expand...

And if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle. But the reality is you won’t ever get those extra 8k, because that’s what happens when you move away from your customer base. I know it’s cool to blame the fan base here, but any business that blames its customers for its lack of success is a poor business IMO. We don’t have a right to anyone’s time and money.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
mr_monkey said:
This a million percent, at the end of the day any "boycott" hurts the team you supposedly love and makes everything less viable
Click to expand...

It’s not a boycott in any serious proportion, it’s simply the difference between a game that’s easy to get to and one that’s not. The idea of NOPM or whatever has always been a distraction. Our attendances are influenced far more by our proximity to our fan base and success on the pitch than any boycott.
 
mr_monkey

mr_monkey

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
It’s not a boycott in any serious proportion, it’s simply the difference between a game that’s easy to get to and one that’s not. The idea of NOPM or whatever has always been a distraction. Our attendances are influenced far more by our proximity to our fan base and success on the pitch than any boycott.
Click to expand...

But for some it was actually easier to get to Brum due to the location of the Ricoh, especially those who don't live in Coventry anymore
 
H

HuckerbyDublinWhelan

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
And if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle. But the reality is you won’t ever get those extra 8k, because that’s what happens when you move away from your customer base. I know it’s cool to blame the fan base here, but any business that blames its customers for its lack of success is a poor business IMO. We don’t have a right to anyone’s time and money.
Click to expand...
No you’re correct. But also the way this whole move has been portrayed has encouraged a boycott.

Other teams fans would have supported their club. I want the club to be in the strongest negotiating position possible.

we need to return, the possibility of 20k per week should mean the council want a return.

but This club has worth now, they should not just return for the sake of returning. I want SISU to work damn hard to make sure wasps don’t benefit from us without giving something back.

if our fans don’t want the same, and just want to prop up the Arena because “KeEp CoV iN CoV” then they’re fucking morons
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top