I’m guessing so or fisher would have denied itIs 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 ?
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
He talks about our owners, plural, apart from Joy Sepalla who else is an owner ?
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.
That’s SISU for us. Gamblers. Sixfields it didn’t pay off.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.
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.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.
I’d like wasps to go bust. They are in a weak position but city playing at St. Andrews is also reprehensible.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.
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.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.
I’d like wasps to go bust. They are in a weak position but city playing at St. Andrews is also reprehensible.
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.
It is but the club in this situation have no alternative. They cannot and should not sign an indemnity agreement.I’d like wasps to go bust. They are in a weak position but city playing at St. Andrews is also reprehensible.
He said it wasn’t as high as that but seemingly didn’t know so yep probably close to the right figureI’m guessing so or fisher would have denied it
Its a dangerous game when people start throwing rent figures around as you're rarely comparing like with like.Is this million quid a year rent correct ? seems very high to me.
That’s the picture our good friend at PSB_Group is peddlingIts 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.
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.
Not necessarily - I’m not arguing for 50/50 etc, I’m arguing if you’re going to use our name there’s give and take.If you're arguing for that what you're actually trying to strike a deal for is part ownership.
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!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 ?
I think so absolutely this was all part of the negotiationI 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
I’m sorry, but anything up to £4million a year would be OK? You must be joking, surely .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?
He also talks about `The Board' which in effect is himself and Boddy.He talks about our owners, plural, apart from Joy Sepalla who else is an owner ?
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.
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.
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
He also talks about `The Board' which in effect is himself and Boddy.
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.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)
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.
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
This a million percent, at the end of the day any "boycott" hurts the team you supposedly love and makes everything less viable
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.
No you’re correct. But also the way this whole move has been portrayed has encouraged a boycott.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.
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?