https://www.doncaster.gov.uk/db/chamber/.\reports\5 smc update.docDoncaster Council said:It should be noted that there should be no criticism of any of the stadium users in relation to the financial position that the SMC faces. The users have almost always paid what has been agreed with them in a timely manner and it certainly not their fault that the stadium is running as a loss.
The Keepmoat was not a resounding success as a stadium.RP Hunt said:James, you are quite right about Doncaster council losing over £300k per year on the Keepmoat stadium and this was despite a contribution of £281k per year from Rovers and all income from naming rights, catering, advertising etc. So without the contribution from Rovers, the losses would have been about £600k per year.
Under the terms of the new agreement, Rovers have to fund these losses and pay £100k per year rent. The council are paying the club £90k per year that was paid to the council for naming rights, but this figure was already included as income so it doesn't do anything to offset the £600k loss.
The club obviously has a great incentive to reduce these costs, but they must do so while providing the community facilities that the council demand.
To sum up, if Rovers can halve the losses that the stadium has been incurring, playing there will cost them £300k per year to fund the loss plus £100k per year rent - i.e. £400k per year for a 15,000 seat stadium.
I do think the council will help the right owners and people but not SISU.all councils are corrupt in there own way but not as much as our current owners IMO
The Keepmoat was not a resounding success as a stadium.
Who can say who the right owners and people are though?
Five years ago the overwhelming majority would have said that Sisu were.
I don't think they would-they just didn't want to go into administration as they were told that would be the end of the club. It was an "anybody!" situation. That's really not the same as approving or even championing them. And in any case, the majority weren't qualified to comment until they'd experienced the wild adrenalin ride of actually being owned by a private equity firm.
They've done more for us than our venerable custodians. I'll take democratically elected representatives over private equity.
https://www.doncaster.gov.uk/db/chamber/.\reports\5 smc update.doc
The Keepmoat was not a resounding success as a stadium.
man city and southampton had a idea about sisu. They did'nt let them get hold of their clubs
What mandate does the council have to make any decisions on the RICOH? Is the charity elected also? :thinking about:
Southampton preferred administration in fact.
Indeed, and many laughed at Southampton and called them mugs for not letting Ray and Sisu take them over, their loss was our gain apparently.
Mind you, it was the same people who laughed at "Mad" McCarthy for selling Eastwood to us for "only" £1.5 million.
Southampton preferred administration in fact.
Totally missed my point, as per usual, which was about accountability and transparency. Publicly elected officials are far more altruistic than a private equity firm whose only loyalty is to money and profit. Anyone who claims to be a Socialist should at least comprehend that-ideologically, you are entirely opposed to the very existence of private equity :thinking about: :thinking about: :thinking about: :thinking about: :thinking about:
Have I fallen through a hole in the space time continuum and woken in another dimension?What mandate does the council have to make any decisions on the RICOH? Is the charity elected also? :thinking about:
Have I fallen through a hole in the space time continuum and woken in another dimension?
Didn't CCC
1) rescue the Ricoh project when CCFC had sold Highfield rd?
Doesn't CCC
2) own the Ricoh arena?
How can some people behave as if none of this has happened?
SBTaylor, you seem to blank any facts that don't suit your view. Why is that?
Why do the comparisons with Doncaster and Swansea get trotted out?
Why not compare our situation with clubs that pay higher rent, such as Walsall?
Intellectual argument does not ignore inconvenient facts.
Have I fallen through a hole in the space time continuum and woken in another dimension?
Didn't CCC
1) rescue the Ricoh project when CCFC had sold Highfield rd?
Doesn't CCC
2) part own the Ricoh arena?
How can some people behave as if none of this has happened?
SBTaylor, you seem to blank any facts that don't suit your view. Why is that?
Why do the comparisons with Doncaster and Swansea get trotted out?
Why not compare our situation with clubs that pay higher rent, such as Walsall?
Intellectual argument does not ignore inconvenient facts.
How does any of your points relate to my post? Do you know what mandate means?
Chortle.How does any of your points relate to my post? Do you know what mandate means?
You've fallen through something!
The council paid £10million towards the £81million cost of the stadium,I believe(but don't know for sure) that the Swansea and Doncaster stadiums were council projects anyway?
If it wasn't for the club, and Richardson's, hesitate to call it "vision" there wouldn't be this wonderful facility anyway. The council would never have had the balls to plan and build something like the Arena on their own.
The Walsall situation is totally different, as the rent is paid to the owner of the ground who is also the owner of the club.
Classic tax-dodge, if circumstances merited it and he needed the ground to lose money for a couple of years I'm sure that the rent would be reduced.
Odd viewpoint. Surely you want a successful team similar to the Keepmoats' tenants?
Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2
.Doncaster similar problems as we have had and threatened to move out after falling out with the council but now have a fabulous deal in place
I'd love to see a successful team and a prospering club, what fan wouldn't? My point is that the statement
.
is as far as I know incorrect and no one has provided any evidence that Doncaster were threatening to move out, or had fallen out with the council.
The Keepmoat management company was losing ~£300k a year and that was with the tenants all paying their rent and getting all the extra revenue a stadium generates. So Doncaster Rovers have signed up for a long lease and are paying £100k per year rent plus have got £400k from the council for refurbishment plus money from the naming rights.
However if you add up the annual loss the stadium management company (SMC) was making and add that to the amount Rovers were paying in rent to the SMC it's roughly £600k. Even if Rovers have reduced the losses it would still be costing them as RP Hunt says £400k a year for a stadium with a lower capacity than ours. So that council cheque for £400k would only just cover the costs for a year and it was for repairs and refurbishment . So saying Doncaster Rovers are getting a really cheap deal is possibly slightly wide of the mark.
Chortle.
As I am a teacher and you are a pupil I think so.
!)
They are currently paying £10,000 a year in rent. They get £90,000 discount a season for naming rights the £400,000 is separate.
If we had a similar arrangement we would have access to all revenues. As it stands FPP rules would give them a bigger budget than us in the league
Interesting you really are avoiding discussion on other clubs such as Swansea.
Chortle, Chortle.I hope you don't teach business or economics -- Home Economics by any chance?
Yes but the naming rights were already included in the losses incurred by the SMC, if you read the council scrutiny document https://www.doncaster.gov.uk/db/chamber/.\reports\5 smc update.doc it shows that money as being included. So it doesn't matter if they are getting £90k for that, it doesn't offset the losses that Rovers will have to cover as they lease the stadium. I'm not avoiding Swansea I just haven't looked at it yet.
Chortle.
As I am a teacher and you are a pupil I think so.
!)
From an FPP perspective which arrangement would be better for the football club?
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?