I was just reading about the Liberty Stadium and Swansea City. Swansea moved to the Liberty at the same time as we moved to the Ricoh.
Swansea are regarded as being one of, if not the best run football club in the country. Yet they rent their stadium, not own it.
The Liberty Stadium is owned by Swansea City Council, and is operated by a SSMC (their equivalent of ACL). Swansea City pay a variable rent based on their attendences (it would seem 10% of ticket sales), which would roughly work out as follows:
Season Atten. Rent Div
2005–06 14,155 488347 Lg 1
2006–07 12,720 438840 Lg 1
2007–08 13,520 466440 Lg 1
2008–09 15,186 523917 Champ
2009–10 15,407 531541 Champ
2010–11 15,507 534991 Champ
2011–12 19,946 538542 Prem
2012–13 20,367 549909 Prem
Every year they have played there they have been paying more than we could have been paying (£400k if we had accepted the last offer), and it also blows Mr Fisher's idea that league 1 clubs should be paying £150k, and Swansea were paying £300k over that.
Does it not suggest that if a club is well run it can cope with having to pay rent?
I was just reading about the Liberty Stadium and Swansea City. Swansea moved to the Liberty at the same time as we moved to the Ricoh.
Swansea are regarded as being one of, if not the best run football club in the country. Yet they rent their stadium, not own it.
The Liberty Stadium is owned by Swansea City Council, and is operated by a SSMC (their equivalent of ACL). Swansea City pay a variable rent based on their attendences (it would seem 10% of ticket sales), which would roughly work out as follows:
Season Atten. Rent Div
2005–06 14,155 488347 Lg 1
2006–07 12,720 438840 Lg 1
2007–08 13,520 466440 Lg 1
2008–09 15,186 523917 Champ
2009–10 15,407 531541 Champ
2010–11 15,507 534991 Champ
2011–12 19,946 538542 Prem
2012–13 20,367 549909 Prem
Every year they have played there they have been paying more than we could have been paying (£400k if we had accepted the last offer), and it also blows Mr Fisher's idea that league 1 clubs should be paying £150k, and Swansea were paying £300k over that.
Does it not suggest that if a club is well run it can cope with having to pay rent?
What point are you making? They pay a variable rent based on their income. Coventry City have had a fixed high rent despite diminishing income.
What do they get for that rent?
What point are you making? They pay a variable rent based on their income. Coventry City have had a fixed high rent despite diminishing income.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>What do they get for that rent?
<p>
My point being that Swansea were paying in excess of £400k whilst being in league 1.
<p>
My point being that Swansea were paying in excess of £400k whilst being in league 1.
I was just reading about the Liberty Stadium and Swansea City. Swansea moved to the Liberty at the same time as we moved to the Ricoh.
Swansea are regarded as being one of, if not the best run football club in the country. Yet they rent their stadium, not own it.
The Liberty Stadium is owned by Swansea City Council, and is operated by a SSMC (their equivalent of ACL). Swansea City pay a variable rent based on their attendences (it would seem 10% of ticket sales), which would roughly work out as follows:
Season Atten. Rent Div
2005–06 14,155 488347 Lg 1
2006–07 12,720 438840 Lg 1
2007–08 13,520 466440 Lg 1
2008–09 15,186 523917 Champ
2009–10 15,407 531541 Champ
2010–11 15,507 534991 Champ
2011–12 19,946 538542 Prem
2012–13 20,367 549909 Prem
Every year they have played there they have been paying more than we could have been paying (£400k if we had accepted the last offer), and it also blows Mr Fisher's idea that league 1 clubs should be paying £150k, and Swansea were paying £300k over that.
Does it not suggest that if a club is well run it can cope with having to pay rent?
And so what! What did Swansea pay in championship - a fraction of the £1.2 million we have had and would have continued to had unless the club went on rent strike.
Excellent analysis - further evidence that this council have treated the club shamefully.
Great you've seen the light.
Nowhere near £1.2million at any time though.
What do they get for that rent? Do they get access to all match day income, F&B's, etc? Is it like renting a house that they hold the lease hold 365 days a year with the ability to sublet out for conferences, weddings, events, etc?
They're only paying £550k in the premier league.
Coventry city were offered the variable rent and declined it
We could have only been paying £400k.
Grendel, why didnt the club accept the offer of variable rent?
Why did they not accept the offer of £400k rent?
How are Swansea so well run despite not owning their own ground?
Typical that your usual tunnel vision stops you from being able to see the point being made.
Which is terrible considering the huge differential in income. We don't earn 72% of what Swansea City do.
It's your tunnel vision. Your little bit of research has backfired as it has identified that the rent Coventry City FC were charged from 2005 to 2012 was clearly excessive.
You agree then that the variable rent that ACL offered would have been fairer then?
I was just reading about the Liberty Stadium and Swansea City. Swansea moved to the Liberty at the same time as we moved to the Ricoh.
Swansea are regarded as being one of, if not the best run football club in the country. Yet they rent their stadium, not own it.
The Liberty Stadium is owned by Swansea City Council, and is operated by a SSMC (their equivalent of ACL). Swansea City pay a variable rent based on their attendences (it would seem 10% of ticket sales), which would roughly work out as follows:
Season Atten. Rent Div
2005–06 14,155 488347 Lg 1
2006–07 12,720 438840 Lg 1
2007–08 13,520 466440 Lg 1
2008–09 15,186 523917 Champ
2009–10 15,407 531541 Champ
2010–11 15,507 534991 Champ
2011–12 19,946 538542 Prem
2012–13 20,367 549909 Prem
Every year they have played there they have been paying more than we could have been paying (£400k if we had accepted the last offer), and it also blows Mr Fisher's idea that league 1 clubs should be paying £150k, and Swansea were paying £300k over that.
Does it not suggest that if a club is well run it can cope with having to pay rent?
It's your tunnel vision. Your little bit of research has backfired as it has identified that the rent Coventry City FC were charged from 2005 to 2012 was clearly excessive.
No it hasn't! He wasn't arguing that it wasn't excessive in the past, he was arguing that SISU's notion of what is fair is skewed whereas the offer made made ACL is reasonable.
No it hasn't! He wasn't arguing that it wasn't excessive in the past, he was arguing that SISU's notion of what is fair is skewed whereas the offer made made ACL is reasonable.
Swansea pay very little looking at the article above.
Unfortunately though NLHWC it's fantastic that Coundon did the research for the post, but there are so many differences in the two scenario's that the fact the Liberty Stadium and the Ricoh Arena is council or partly council owned is literally as far as I can see any similarities..
The Swansea case has two significant differences from ours.
1. They were successfully able to develop an industrial park alongside the stadium.
2. There are two tenants - the football club and the rugby club.
They pay a % of ticket sales
My original point (which seems to have got lost along the way), was to challenge this idea that a club needs to own a ground to be successful.
Swansea are a very well run club yet have as many assets as we do.
I can't help but think that the stadium situation is a smokescreen to hide poor CCFC management.
Swansea City FC urged to pay more Liberty Stadium rentI was just reading about the Liberty Stadium and Swansea City. Swansea moved to the Liberty at the same time as we moved to the Ricoh.
Swansea are regarded as being one of, if not the best run football club in the country. Yet they rent their stadium, not own it.
The Liberty Stadium is owned by Swansea City Council, and is operated by a SSMC (their equivalent of ACL). Swansea City pay a variable rent based on their attendences (it would seem 10% of ticket sales), which would roughly work out as follows:
Season Atten. Rent Div
2005–06 14,155 488347 Lg 1
2006–07 12,720 438840 Lg 1
2007–08 13,520 466440 Lg 1
2008–09 15,186 523917 Champ
2009–10 15,407 531541 Champ
2010–11 15,507 534991 Champ
2011–12 19,946 538542 Prem
2012–13 20,367 549909 Prem
Every year they have played there they have been paying more than we could have been paying (£400k if we had accepted the last offer), and it also blows Mr Fisher's idea that league 1 clubs should be paying £150k, and Swansea were paying £300k over that.
Does it not suggest that if a club is well run it can cope with having to pay rent?
They may get something from F&B's and parking, that I don't know.
They certainly don't get anything from non matchday events (conferences etc).
My original point (which seems to have got lost along the way), was to challenge this idea that a club needs to own a ground to be successful.
Swansea are a very well run club yet have as many assets as we do.
I can't help but think that the stadium situation is a smokescreen to hide poor CCFC management.
I was just reading about the Liberty Stadium and Swansea City. Swansea moved to the Liberty at the same time as we moved to the Ricoh.
Swansea are regarded as being one of, if not the best run football club in the country. Yet they rent their stadium, not own it.
The Liberty Stadium is owned by Swansea City Council, and is operated by a SSMC (their equivalent of ACL). Swansea City pay a variable rent based on their attendences (it would seem 10% of ticket sales), which would roughly work out as follows:
Season Atten. Rent Div
2005–06 14,155 488347 Lg 1
2006–07 12,720 438840 Lg 1
2007–08 13,520 466440 Lg 1
2008–09 15,186 523917 Champ
2009–10 15,407 531541 Champ
2010–11 15,507 534991 Champ
2011–12 19,946 538542 Prem
2012–13 20,367 549909 Prem
Every year they have played there they have been paying more than we could have been paying (£400k if we had accepted the last offer), and it also blows Mr Fisher's idea that league 1 clubs should be paying £150k, and Swansea were paying £300k over that.
Does it not suggest that if a club is well run it can cope with having to pay rent?
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?