AFCCOVENTRY
Well-Known Member
You can't do much on the site of the Butts area...
Sorry to piss on every ones chips including the author of the article but a move to the butts is financial suicide. If you get promotion this year and put another 6 to 7000 arses on seats you would earn at an average of £15 pound a ticket 2.7 million a season, if you get to the prem attendances and prices are even higher. Its just not financially viable to go to a ground with a lower capacity if you have a well supported successful team, the club need to think outside the box for extra revenue. What extra income would you attract at the butts, lower capacity equals less pie and beer money, how much more or less than they are being given now at the Ricoh would need to be worked out. Where would the conferencing and hotel facilities be put that Tim has suggested, its a financial no brainer for me, get a long term deal with Wasps sorted as quick as possible and put to bed the pie in the sky idea of a new stadium. PUSB
Not singling you out but why are people stating as fact that its 12K? The Reid article says 12-15K or 20K plus if we get promoted.
Sorry to piss on your chips too, but what access to revenue are Wasps going to give us exactly? This will be a hugely limiting factor under FFP, and more so in the Championship if we should ever get there.
Almost twenty years ago we gambled the club's future on building a huge, flash stadium for bigger attendances then we've ever been able to maintain - this based on us being and staying in the top division. We've seen the result and it genuinely was financial suicide.
The last thing we need is another grandiose scheme based on the suggestion of future glory, but I also don't see much future at the Ricoh for us beyond the level we're at.
The Butts, very unlikely as it is to actually happen (imho), is about the best compromise solution I've seen so far.
A 2 tiered 18000-20000 seater with option to add-on.
Sorry to piss on your chips too, but what access to revenue are Wasps going to give us exactly? This will be a hugely limiting factor under FFP, and more so in the Championship if we should ever get there.
Almost twenty years ago we gambled the club's future on building a huge, flash stadium for bigger attendances then we've ever been able to maintain - this based on us being and staying in the top division. We've seen the result and it genuinely was financial suicide.
The last thing we need is another grandiose scheme based on the suggestion of future glory, but I also don't see much future at the Ricoh for us beyond the level we're at.
The Butts, very unlikely as it is to actually happen (imho), is about the best compromise solution I've seen so far.
The location is great being in town. The club would however have to try and aim for the majority of the crowd to come by public transport. In London for example many of the stadiums have almost no parking for supporters and they have no problems.
The issue for me is that we would hit a celling on where we could go as a club. If we remained a Championship/League One club for our remaining future, 20,000 would be perfect. However if we became a stable Premier League club, 20,000 isn't enough. Look at clubs similar to our size like Leicester, Southampton and even Stoke. It really limits where we could progress to as a club.
So if we are blagging ffp where do we get the money to give the players?There's a few things about the FFP.
We are allowed to spend 60% of our income on players wages because it assumes that 40% is used to balance the books.
ACL proposed a few years ago that we could have all the football incomes and they would cross book it so they then charged us all those income back. These incomes effectively would be included in the 60% and the charge back would be in the 40%.
Effectively the income for all the sales could be used in the 60% although in theory we hadn't taken any actual incomes into the club..
The down side of this is that we have a bigger player budget but the owners would need to actually fund the shortfall.
So in theory FFP can be stretched to include all the current ACL Football incomes but requires the owners to input the actually player costs.
The fact that Wasps are restricted to £5M a year player budget (IIRC) means this could be accounted for within both FFP systems.
So if we are blagging ffp where do we get the money to give the players?
So if we are blagging ffp where do we get the money to give the players?
Doesn't that defeat the object of getting more revenues for the club?As I said in the text the owners would need to fund the difference.
To be honest though the club will need someone to do that anyway if we need to get to the PL.
Doesn't that defeat the object of getting more revenues for the club?
It's like saying instead of getting a new job I'll just blag the mortgage that I earn more, then I'll just have to get a loan to pay the difference.
There's a few things about the FFP.
We are allowed to spend 60% of our income on players wages because it assumes that 40% is used to balance the books.
ACL proposed a few years ago that we could have all the football incomes and they would cross book it so they then charged us all those income back. These incomes effectively would be included in the 60% and the charge back would be in the 40%.
Effectively the income for all the sales could be used in the 60% although in theory we hadn't taken any actual incomes into the club..
The down side of this is that we have a bigger player budget but the owners would need to actually fund the shortfall.
So in theory FFP can be stretched to include all the current ACL Football incomes but requires the owners to input the actually player costs.
The fact that Wasps are restricted to £5M a year player budget (IIRC) means this could be accounted for within both FFP systems.
There's a few things about the FFP.
We are allowed to spend 60% of our income on players wages because it assumes that 40% is used to balance the books.
ACL proposed a few years ago that we could have all the football incomes and they would cross book it so they then charged us all those income back. These incomes effectively would be included in the 60% and the charge back would be in the 40%.
Effectively the income for all the sales could be used in the 60% although in theory we hadn't taken any actual incomes into the club..
The down side of this is that we have a bigger player budget but the owners would need to actually fund the shortfall.
So in theory FFP can be stretched to include all the current ACL Football incomes but requires the owners to input the actually player costs.
The fact that Wasps are restricted to £5M a year player budget (IIRC) means this could be accounted for within both FFP systems.
A small point it is SCMP in Leagues 1 and 2 - slightly different criteria
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/ - slightly out of date but not much
If they were planning for different outcomes from the start the words 12-15K wouldn't have been mentioned in the first place. It would be 20k with potential fo expansion.
Don't worry Tony it will all sound the same on CWR where ever we play
Yes I know, but the 60% figure still applies
it also includes equity monies put into the club and outright donations ( counted as turnover ) but not loans
There's a few things about the FFP.
We are allowed to spend 60% of our income on players wages because it assumes that 40% is used to balance the books.
ACL proposed a few years ago that we could have all the football incomes and they would cross book it so they then charged us all those income back. These incomes effectively would be included in the 60% and the charge back would be in the 40%.
Effectively the income for all the sales could be used in the 60% although in theory we hadn't taken any actual incomes into the club..
The down side of this is that we have a bigger player budget but the owners would need to actually fund the shortfall.
So in theory FFP can be stretched to include all the current ACL Football incomes but requires the owners to input the actually player costs.
The fact that Wasps are restricted to £5M a year player budget (IIRC) means this could be accounted for within both FFP systems.
Just to give an idea of what may or may not be possible:
View attachment 4789
The Den has a 20,146 capacity.
View attachment 4790
20,520 capacity at the Liberty Stadium.
As I said in the text the owners would need to fund the difference.
As an Earlsdonite, I know planning ain't easy around them parts.
if we played at the butts - we could all park at the ricoh - get the train into town and walk from there
if we played at the butts - we could all park at the ricoh - get the train into town and walk from there
So the big plan is to run up debt?
It's not allowed to be debt is it? Doesn't it have to be put in as equity?
So the big plan is to run up debt?
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?