Search results

no it's money money money. If we had fans as owners it might be identity identity identity but we don't, quite the opposite in fact, if the stadium doesn't make financial sense (and it doesn't) the stadium doesn't happen (under sisu at least) how could anyone not want sisu out?

we were foolish not to buy into the Ricoh absolutely when we had the chance but that isn't what we are discussing. But yes it was a ludicrous hypothetical as I showed with an equally ludicrous hypothetical of what you could do with average returns in the stock market with 30mill over the same...

With no real talent to sell and poor crowds it's hard to see how break even and top 6 spending squad can coexist. I suspect if they do it's only by weasel language. you've gotta love the confidence in "should be adequate to challenge for promotion"

I know it wasn't thats why I didn't say it was a ludicrous hypothetical to Grendel. It become a ludicrous hypothetical when ChiefDave wanted to compare 250 years of rent to building a stadium.

It did answer the question. It's getting dismissed out of hand because it's not viable, it's irrelevent if keeping the status quo means more of the same, that doesn't improve what a horrible plan building a new stadium is, it just means being a ccfc fan is probably going to continue to suck...

If anyone were truely a jinx and realised it then they could be very rich indeed.

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...

Still a better option than going to Northampton or building a new stadium.

no it's not, 10m for half of acl which has a well respected events business, leases from restaurants, casino, major shops and restaurants and a 33kish stadium (even with a 14m) loan is absolutely better value than all of a new 18k seater stadium for 20mill (again not that I believe for a second...

Is 100k vital, probably not, but without us the value of stadium naming rights falls as does the value of all the leases to places like the casino. If ACL wasn't viable when we were doing well and paying large rent it sure as hell won't be if we go. I bet most of us aren't giving any money to...

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.

I absolutely think we'd have to pay more than wasps paid for it. You know what paying double what wasps paid would be? massivly massivly better value than building our own stadium, this is why it makes so little sense, if they weren't willing to properly outbid wasps for the ricoh then there is...

Wasps need us almost as much as we need them otherwise we wouldn't have such a generous deal but you are of course absolutely right that it is very likely that they don't believe we are going to build a stadium and thus significantly lowers it's value as a bargaining chip. But people can't have...

I have literally no idea what the right price is. I just utterly disagree with the fact that wasps wouldn't be willing to sell to us meaning we have to build our own stadium and I'm positive that wasps would be willing to sell half again as long as the price was right. In what way does my logic...

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.

Which of these situations do you think Wasps would prefer? 10 million revenue and a loss of £100,000 or 7 million revenue and a profit of £500,000? completely made up numbers I don't have the acl accounts to hand.

It doesn't really matter what he said, it's profit they want and need. He couldn't really use the word profit though because there wasn't currently any. He obviously believed with them there he could turn revenue into profit.

I know exactly how it works thanks, you though don't appear too. Rugby Salary cap is a fixed figure and scmp has so many holes in it to be irrelevant really, but even if it didn't owning half of acl would provide more revenue than the club wanted to spend on players.

Stadium sponsorship and stand sponsorship would be much higher for a premiership rugby/championship football club than just premiership rugby. The number of home games there is basically tripled over just having the rugby club there, this affects the viability of both business they can set up...

You should be a politician He said wasps won't sell half of acl to us because they need all the revenues, my point was that that selling half to us and us doing well is good for wasps, it would increase both theirs and our self sustainability.