So on that basis we were grossly overcharged on the original deal weren't we?
In terms of the whole site then the RIcoh is not just a football stadium in fact the football stadium part is less than 50%. But that is just an aside more importantly ....
In terms of CCFC then there is even by renting (at a reasonable value) a scenario whereby CCFC could actually be profitable. If the cost structure currently set up ( £4m to £5m )is transferred to the Ricoh then assuming revenues increase to at least 2013 (£6.5m) levels that could see the club profitable (not seen that in decades). The trouble with that is expectation. If fans expect just because we are back at the Ricoh that they splash the cash then I think there is going to be an expectation gap. However SP has proven that you do not need in L1 to spend millions to be successful (well for half a season anyway) certainly it wouldn't take much spending to stabilise the club for a season in the top half and at least challenging. That could be done out of cash flow. Then build from there...
Not sure anyone's ever argued otherwise.
Though of course, on that basis we were in League 1, you'd need the same figures for the Championship to know exactly how grossly we were being overcharged (if we were, I have no idea what the figures are for stadia like ours).
The key point. We aren't renting a crappy 7,500 seater stadium.
Wait. We are. But I mean, we weren't. You know what I mean
Be careful pulling at that thread though. You may find yourself making the argument the Ricoh is too big for a club our size.
Not as grossly over charged on that basis at sixfields. Funny our owners don't see that as an issue.
Not sure anyone's ever argued otherwise.
Though of course, on that basis we were in League 1, you'd need the same figures for the Championship to know exactly how grossly we were being overcharged (if we were, I have no idea what the figures are for stadia like ours).
We are not permenant tenants so igure is not relevant and you don't know what it is.
We are not permenant tenants so that figure is not relevant and you don't know what it is.
Using OSB's formula it shouldn't be much over £20k a season. Are you suggesting it's less than that?
I'm suggesting his formula is nonsense as shown by the fact that London road is three times the price of Portman road.
I'm only interested in the club (that's your usual line isn't it) and where our club is concerned suxfields is the worst rent deal this club has ever had to endure. And that's before you factor in things like location, facilities etc.
I'm only interested in the club (that's your usual line isn't it) and where our club is concerned suxfields is the worst rent deal this club has ever had to endure. And that's before you factor in things like location, facilities etc.
I don't know what the deal is - how much do they pay and do they get F and B revenue included?
It's also not worse if it was full every week which again renders the capacity argument worthless.
Do you have a rough estimate of how much sixfields rent is per year/ our use?
I don't know what the deal is - how much do they pay and do they get F and B revenue included?
It's also not worse if it was full every week which again renders the capacity argument worthless.
The figure quoted is £175,000 with access to revenues and zero match day costs. Could be rubbish but if it's true a full house would make it viable.'
It's a deal with the lease owner though and not the council so it's not relevant really.
The figure quoted is £175,000 with access to revenues and zero match day costs. Could be rubbish but if it's true a full house would make it viable.'
It's a deal with the lease owner though and not the council so it's not relevant really.
How many tens of thousands of pounds are they making of the F&B from an average 2000 a week?
From the NTFC fans I've talked to general consensus is it's around £175k a season the lowest figure I was told was £150 a season. From what Rob S said the £220k OSB suggested using his formula was too high to be entertained. If that's true and we filled suxfields game in and game out sisu are paying less than £81k a season to even entertain it.
Can you see that being the case?
Portman road - £115,000
The Kc stadium - £54,000
City ground - under £200,000
Swansea - nothing
I'm not sure how many more council owned stadiums were there during our time. Ultimately though there is no correlation between ground quality, seats or capacity. It's a smokescreen. Ultimately it's the value the council place on a successful club in its city.
Are you calling SISU an industry now?I've consigned OSB's analysis in the bin where it belongs. It tries to present rational calculations to an industry that's totally irrational. Its a fatally flawed piece if work I'm afraid.
Are you calling SISU an industry now?
Man City pay at least 2.5m IIRC. And they were not given a 50% share in anything.
I've consigned OSB's analysis in the bin where it belongs. It tries to present rational calculations to an industry that's totally irrational. Its a fatally flawed piece if work I'm afraid.
I assume you mean attendances/ spending up and down with regards football?
workers paid massively more than management.
I've consigned OSB's analysis in the bin where it belongs. It tries to present rational calculations to an industry that's totally irrational. Its a fatally flawed piece if work I'm afraid.
I mean there is no logic in football at all. % of turnover on salaries, constant losses, workers paid massively more than management. And of course rental payments.
What's the deal for them if they are in the championship or league one?
Also why are you scrabbling around trying to find ab example of a higher rent? Find one outside the premier league - find one.
I've consigned OSB's analysis in the bin where it belongs. It tries to present rational calculations to an industry that's totally irrational. Its a fatally flawed piece if work I'm afraid.
Portman road - £115,000
The Kc stadium - £54,000
City ground - under £200,000
Swansea - nothing
I'm not sure how many more council owned stadiums were there during our time. Ultimately though there is no correlation between ground quality, seats or capacity. It's a smokescreen. Ultimately it's the value the council place on a successful club in its city.
But surely going by them points, it's the same as any other business?
Normally in wages it's: Managers > Workers.
In football it's: Players > Mangers/Board.
Plus with regards turnover in normal business, you use this to reinvest to make the business grow. So surely using a % of turnover to get better players (reinvesting) grows the business?
And with regards rental payments, I don't know many businesses that don't pay for premises, water, electric, heating.....
As much as I agree football seems to be a unique industry, the foundations of the industry are the same as any other surely?
In a normal industry most clubs would not exist. The wealth escalation I'm the premiership is the over riding issue. Relegation from that league usually brings destruction unless an instant return happens. No industry is like football. QPR had more revenue two years ago than ever before but I'd they hadn't been promoted last year would have faced oblivion. That's absurd. Wage escalation has damaged football in the UK and there is no solution. Consider the fact that a F A Cup winner like Micky Gynn earned £200 a week at Coventry and Carl Baker earns £8,000 in league one. My wages have increased tenfold in that period,
Portman road - £115,000
The Kc stadium - £54,000
City ground - under £200,000
Swansea - nothing
I'm not sure how many more council owned stadiums were there during our time. Ultimately though there is no correlation between ground quality, seats or capacity. It's a smokescreen. Ultimately it's the value the council place on a successful club in its city.
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?