Is the Football League now complicit ? (1 Viewer)

italiahorse said:

The business plan was to get straight back into the football league so the rent would be no problem, particularly as the option to buy was all set up when SISU were ready.
Unfortunately the plan went drastically wrong.
To blame ACL was a cover for there own mismanagement of the above plan yet a few poor souls have taken up the SISU fight.

Click to expand...

h,

If ACL's latest offer wasn't disingenuous, why were they charging so much for so long?

£800k per season extra for 2005-2012, £5.6m - it could almost buy the Higgs share.....

stupot07 said:

As appaling ad sisu's behaviour is acl were still grossly over charging the club, and their final no room for negotiation offer was still £250k more than the latest offer.

Click to expand...

And you think SISU would have accepted 150k come on Stu.

They are not accepting it now.

It is sod all to do with rent

Grendel said:

The "rent" paid at Highfield road is not the same even though certain spin doctors like to claim it is.

Click to expand...

Please break it down and explain the 900k

dongonzalos said:

And you think SISU would have accepted 150k come on Stu.

They are not accepting it now.

It is sod all to do with rent

Click to expand...

Are you saying the club weren't being grossly overcharged?

dongonzalos said:

Please break it down and explain the 900k

Click to expand...

The 900k doesn't seem to match with OSB's figures....

oldskyblue58 said:

Rent paid Highfield Road from published accounts

2005 102833
2004 308500
2003 308500
2002 425000
2001 415232

match day expenses (utilities etc) were on top of that.

yes had to rent HR but then we had no choice but to rent the Ricoh

When making comparables it also helps to compare like with like but will leave that to others to figure out


make of it what you will - am not making a comment

Click to expand...

But people don't compare like with like. The rent paid at HR is the final few seasons enabled the club to operate the stadium 365 days a year. There were not a huge amount of facilities at HR, but there were bars, restaurants, function rooms and conference facilties. The club could profit from those facilities and in addition had access to all corporate hospitality and other matchday revenues.

At the Ricoh, £1.3 million bought us nothing more than use of the facility 25 times a year with no access to F&B revenues, and no opportunity to profit from any business activities on non-matchdays. Why would you make any comparison between HR rent and Ricoh rent? You might as well compare apples with pork pies.

The last season at HR, the club turned over approx £8.7 million making a loss of about 900K. Our first year at the Ricoh we turned over £9.9 million making a loss of £3.3 million - this despite the fact that attendances went up by nearly 6000 on average AND that both ST and matchday prices were increased considerably. FInancially we were much better off at HR (even when we didn't own it).