chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Why? We are told we are insignificant to Wasps finances and they don't need us there. Why then would they need to jack the rent up?
Council Statement due today (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Corrado
- Start date
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
Maybe because CCFC fans justify it and think it’s only fair and reasonable?
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
I didn’t include cup games for obvious reasons. We could have an away tie in both the league cup and fa cup and be knocked out. As for the Checkatrade games, we make a loss on those I think?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I agree with you, but in some respects Wasps also need to be careful about their position. If they suddenly find that they've got an unused stadium for 25 days a year they could struggle. Yes hosting the football has cost attached to it but it does bring in revenue, albeit at a lower spend per head but lower cost (I read on the Wasps forum that the fan village wasn't even open for a recent home game, that'll hit their revenue). It isn't easy to just find replacement events to utilise the arena for, particularly at short notice.
Realistically though, i would be seriously surprised if the £100k p/a rent figure remained.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Where did you get £850k from ?
If it was from Tim Fishers view from the boardroom vs Blackpool I suggest you read it again and think about it. Most of that figure isn't even paid by the club its paid by the fans
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Its the figure from last season given by the club and confirmed by my contact at ACL.
If you're trying to argue its inflated by matchday F&B then you're arguing against your own previously made point when you've said the revenues from that for football matches is insignificant.
Still I think we can all see what the groundwork is being laid for. A hike in the rent by Wasps and the club being expected to swallow it without question.
If you're trying to argue its inflated by matchday F&B then you're arguing against your own previously made point when you've said the revenues from that for football matches is insignificant.
Still I think we can all see what the groundwork is being laid for. A hike in the rent by Wasps and the club being expected to swallow it without question.
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
It still can’t be true. We only pay 100k.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Amazing people still believe that. Or that the rent now can be compared to the rent previously.
Even if you assume Fishers figures include every penny spent by supporters you're still comparing somewhere in the region of £.75m against £1.6m. Given the loss of primacy, stands closed, loss of offices, shop and ticket office I think you could definitely make an argument the deal is as bad as the one we had originally.
And of course both figures discount the other value having CCFC adds for the leaseholder. As one example do we really the companies who have entered into contracts with Wasps with this uncertainty going on haven't put in clauses relating to us no longer being there?
Somewhat concerning that talk of a large rent increase is coming at a time people are hearing rumours of Wasps backing down on their no deal without dropping the legals stance.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Tim Fisher - vs Blackpool
"there is seemingly one point of confusion upon which the club would like to add clarity. We have all seen published statements that the Club contributes around £100,000 each year to the landlords stadium finances. However, for the avoidance of doubt, during the 17/18 season, the Club contributed somewhere in the region of £930,000 to the landlord’s stadium finances. This included the licence fee of £80,000 (this was League 2 – in League 1 it is £100,000), ACL matchday costs (e.g floodlights, undersoil heating etc), payments made to IEC (the stadium-catering Joint Venture company) and revenue from Food & Beverage sales on our matchdays."
Clearly he included F&B figures in his calculation for the total in 2017/18. And it isn't what Wasps make out of it, just the turnover there is a big chunk of costs to account for, and the £950k assumes the figures are net of VAT
match day costs are largely met by costs wasps have to pay out - although there probably some mark up
Less than 3% of turnover in total for Wasps. £950k out of £32m Doesn't change my previous points at all
Not saying the club wont question a rent rise, they just have little control over it other than moving out
"there is seemingly one point of confusion upon which the club would like to add clarity. We have all seen published statements that the Club contributes around £100,000 each year to the landlords stadium finances. However, for the avoidance of doubt, during the 17/18 season, the Club contributed somewhere in the region of £930,000 to the landlord’s stadium finances. This included the licence fee of £80,000 (this was League 2 – in League 1 it is £100,000), ACL matchday costs (e.g floodlights, undersoil heating etc), payments made to IEC (the stadium-catering Joint Venture company) and revenue from Food & Beverage sales on our matchdays."
Clearly he included F&B figures in his calculation for the total in 2017/18. And it isn't what Wasps make out of it, just the turnover there is a big chunk of costs to account for, and the £950k assumes the figures are net of VAT
match day costs are largely met by costs wasps have to pay out - although there probably some mark up
Less than 3% of turnover in total for Wasps. £950k out of £32m Doesn't change my previous points at all
Not saying the club wont question a rent rise, they just have little control over it other than moving out
Last edited:
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
I'm sure the courts have received an application for costs incurred thus far.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
As I've already posted even if you want to completely discount that, although I'm not sure those who have signed contracts with Wasps would agree that the loss of over quarter of a million customers over 23 event days should be discounted, you're still have a much higher total figure than people claim.
A figure they then go on to compare against the old deal despite the club getting so much less and incurring additional costs to locate elsewhere.
Personally I would think if a 200% increase is on the cards the club should be getting more back in return.
Maybe the best option is as in the dispute between Ipswich and their local council. An independent assessor came in and set the rent at £110K.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Think the council were awarded £330K costs for JR1 and the council & Wasps have already been awarded some costs for JR2.
I suppose there's always the prospect of them not being paid but I suspect the FL would treat it in the same manner as the debt to ACL if SISU went down the administration route.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
What companies are you suggesting have entered contracts with these types of clauses chief?
What rumours of Wasps backing down? Have I missed this on one of the threads?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Heres one example:
https://www.thecaterer.com/articles...-wins-20-year-deal-with-coventrys-ricoh-arena
There's been a few rumours, on here, social media etc, that a deal has been agreed behind the scenes. Not from any source I'd say was particularly reliable but you never know.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
There is no way that a contract would contain a clause that voided a contract due to the actions of a third party out of the control of either party to the contract.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I'm not talking about it voiding it, I'm talking about there being a change in the value of the contract and a financial penally for Wasps associated with that.
An example. Lets say you're the car park management company. You pay Wasps up front for the rights to run the car park which includes 23 Cov matches, lets say that's a short contract so only 5 years. The potential revenue is £2.3m. The loss of that revenue would be significant.
So either Wasps have sold the contracts on the basis CCFC won't be there. Unlikely as they'd be depriving themselves of revenue. Or they have sold them on the basis the club will be there. Even the slightest amount of due diligence by the company taking on the contract will show there is a clear risk and that would be covered by the contract.
Sbarcher
Well-Known Member
Will Wasps be able to claim costs? After all they are only an "interested party" and as such freely chose to have representation without direct involvement.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Again, I don't think Wasps would sell contracts on that basis, but equally it would decrease the value of the contracts because of it.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
And given the history of the club over so many years, anyone taking a contract would surely know it carries the risk of CCFC leaving... I mean, it was Plan A until recently, oh, and is now plan A again.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
I hadn't seen any rumors, and only get my news from here... also not particularly reliable...
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
In that case do you want to buy a contract off me to sell your goods at some events I have scheduled that may or may not happen. You have to pay up front and you don't get anything back if the events never take place
