torchomatic
Well-Known Member
People did scrutinize the owners at the time with the RR campaign. No one was interested.
Not sure you can blame the fans, unless you mean they should have scrutinised the owners more at the time?
I agree though, being a yoyo club would have been much better for all concerned.
Richardson had already sold HR to Wimpey. We had no ground, we were homeless. What else could our club do?
The problem with this is that if they hadn't stepped in to give our club a home they would have been rightfully slaughtered.
To say that they took advantage of the club's vulnerability is a nonsense based on what?
Not sure you can blame the fans, unless you mean they should have scrutinised the owners more at the time?
I agree though, being a yoyo club would have been much better for all concerned.
Based on £1.2M a year and a break even figure of 22500K.
This was a world class internationally-used stadium with ambitions of Premier League football...
The cock-up was not employing lower rent clauses should we be relegated (as was offered at the end). In this sense, the Council / ACL are not blameless.
Based on £1.2M a year and a break even figure of 22500K.
This was a world class internationally-used stadium with ambitions of Premier League football...
The cock-up was not employing lower rent clauses should we be relegated (as was offered at the end). In this sense, the Council / ACL are not blameless.
It is important to remember that the £1.3m rent equated to less than 4k people at a game.
Whilst i think we can all agree the £1.3m rent was high, the 22.5k figure was mostly due to the shoddy way in which the club was/is run.
Precisely.
Stupot07, our stadium is better than Fester's! Come on mate
This was a world class internationally-used stadium with ambitions of Premier League football...
The cock-up was not employing lower rent clauses should we be relegated (as was offered at the end). In this sense, the Council / ACL are not blameless.
Fan expectations (yes all clubs have the same problem). We were a PL club and demanded that we stayed one, and then happily turned a blind eye when Richardson took a punt. This along with financial pressure of relegation put pressure on the club to spend beyond its means. Even now when you mention the role of Richardsons punt era in our current plight , you get the response of "well at least we were in the PL watching decent players" as an excuse from some fans who believe we're still a PL sleeping giant.
Some of this has been mirrored in the championship.
I'm not apportioning a lot of blame on fans, just a bit. A bit like Portsmouth fans who were happy enough in the PL watching players they couldn't afford.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
It is important to remember that the £1.3m rent equated to less than 4k people at a game.
Whilst i think we can all agree the £1.3m rent was high, the 22.5k figure was mostly due to the shoddy way in which the club was/is run.
It is important to remember that the £1.3m rent equated to less than 4k people at a game.
Whilst i think we can all agree the £1.3m rent was high, the 22.5k figure was mostly due to the shoddy way in which the club was/is run.
You're on a forum don't forget, you're not writing a brochure for the Ricoh.
Anyway, ACL/CCCs rental model from flawed from the outset and it's no surprise we are where we are. And yes, the club were stupid to sign it. But like I said, what choice was there? Wimpey had already bought HR thanks to the incredible foresight of Mr Richardson.
The deal the club had was worse than any other council owned stadium. What it looked like is irrelevant. Financially the club were better off in Highfield road - even of they had to rent it.
Like I said, the major flaw was the fixed rent fee. But then if our owners hadn't done such a shoddy job it might not have become the issue it did.
I'll ignore the 'smart arse' response at the beginning.
Like I said, the major flaw was the fixed rent fee. But then if our owners hadn't done such a shoddy job it might not have become the issue it did.
I'll ignore the 'smart arse' response at the beginning.
Our highest income from ticket sales since moving to the Ricoh was £5.7m, so even then rent was c25% of our ticket sales, our last season at Ricoh it was £3.9m so rent was a third of our ticket income.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
We didn't pay any in the last season
It's valid - it's not an international stadium - its no better than other new builds constructed this century.
Depends which way you look at it.
In the first season the Ricoh generated an extra 5k fans per game. That equates to about £1.7m.
Rent at the Ricoh was only £300k higher than at HR, and let's say f&b's were about £0.5 million.
That means the club (even with a high rent) were nearly £1m better off in the first season of moving.
Financially the club were better off in Highfield road - even of they had to rent it.
The Directors of ACL that made the deal on rent with the Club were 2 from the Club, 2 from the Council, 3 independents. I was not one of them. The rent was set at the same cost as the last years at Highfield Road. The rent was agreed unanimously by the boards of CCFC and ACL.
The major flaw was also agreeing to £1.2/1.3m rent in the championship.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
Your maths are all over the place. Many of the tickets were giveaways - our ticket revenue I believe has never reached £6 million and was always going to decline which means £1 in every £4 was going to the council - and that was when attendances were at their peak.
Have there been two sliding rent deals suggested? I know PWKH said there was one suggested by Sir Higgs when we moved to the Ricoh that was turned down and I seem to recall the one that has been mentioned by you and in the SISU era that had cost per fan included, or are they one and the same?The sliding scale that they turned down was still £1.2m in the championship, more expensive in the PL, but cheaper in league one and two. We don't know how cheap. It also included a cost per fan over a certain level, so not the great deal people like you think it is when you make the "rejecting the sliding scale" argument.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
Your maths are all over the place. Many of the tickets were giveaways - our ticket revenue I believe has never reached £6 million and was always going to decline which means £1 in every £4 was going to the council - and that was when attendances were at their peak.
Your maths are all over the place. Many of the tickets were giveaways - our ticket revenue I believe has never reached £6 million and was always going to decline which means £1 in every £4 was going to the council - and that was when attendances were at their peak.
Have there been two sliding rent deals suggested? I know PWKH said there was one suggested by Sir Higgs when we moved to the Ricoh that was turned down and I seem to recall the one that has been mentioned by you and in the SISU era that had cost per fan included, or are they one and the same?
Probably true, even though the rent would have been at the same level as it was at the Ricoh.
That wasn't rent though was it - it was a rent back after purchase. What was the "rent" the year before?
The comment is very telling of the thought process of PWKH and the others towards the club.
I think this debate about ifs, buts and maybes is getting a little long in the tooth. The facts of this table bring into focus the real consequences of our owners actions..
http://espnfc.com/stats/attendance/_/league/eng.3/english-league-one?cc=5739
Surely the amount of giveaways was just as high at Highfield Road, and currently at sixfields?
Whatever way you look at it, attendance's went up by 5k, whilst rent only went up by 300k.
That wasn't rent though was it - it was a rent back after purchase. What was the "rent" the year before?
The comment is very telling of the thought process of PWKH and the others towards the 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?