.....I hope they will forgive me for publishing this, but I would be really interested in your views. It will help me.....
As part of the prep work for a PH.d research project I asked the FL the question, How many FL clubs own / lease stadiums they play in?
I hope they will forgive me for publishing this, but I would be really interested in your views. It will help me.
The FL state the ratio of Football clubs in the FL that own their stadiums or lease them you will find that 58% actually lease them. This adds to the suggestion that I asserted in an earlier post that CCFC do not need to own the RICOH.
The FL could not say which clubs, but the data suggests that of 72 FL clubs only 30 own the stadium they play in whilst 42 lease them.
If you mail the FL requesting said info, I am sure they will send you the data.
So why do so many clubs manage to make the lease process work but SISU can not?
Why did Les Reid not research this and challenge JS?
Big up to the FL for being open and honest. Thanks for their input and your response as fans
What the FL didn't tell you about those clubs that do lease; the average rent paid is 75p; clubs earn, on average, £3m a year from sponsorship of the stadium and have income, on average, of £10m from the sale of pop, pies and letting out the changing rooms for Gary Glitter tribute nights.
These figures are available to only a few people on here - good luck with your PhD.
How many lease and own the stadium? As your a clever chap you'll know what I mean.
The question beyond that however, is which of those clubs consider themselves handicapped by not owning their stadium, and which clubs lease out of necessity rather than choice?
And which of these clubs lease because of the greed of the current or previous owner? The £2m a year Leeds pay Ken Bates and the £500k that Walsall pay their previous owner spring to mind.
And which of these clubs lease because of the greed of the current or previous owner? The £2m a year Leeds pay Ken Bates and the £500k that Walsall pay their previous owner spring to mind.
What about the £1.3 million charged by a certain greedy council?
The FL state the ratio of Football clubs in the FL that own their stadiums or lease them you will find that 58% actually lease them. This adds to the suggestion that I asserted in an earlier post that CCFC do not need to own the RICOH.
What about the £1.3 million charged by a certain greedy council?
What about the £1.3 million charged by a certain greedy council?
No suggestion the 1.2 million was viable for CCFC (It was too much) but the question was about the need to own the stadium as opposed to having a sensible rent / lease value. Can Lease process be viable for CCFC?
How many lease and own the stadium? As your a clever chap you'll know what I mean.
What about the £1.3 million charged by a certain greedy council?
Just to simplify: 'Ownership' may relate to a lease holder or a freeholder.
Secondly CCFC only rented the pitch at the Ricoh and not the stadia as such. They had a few offices and club shop but not very much else to do with the stadium. They also paid as we all know 1.2m a year for that privilege plus match day fees on top of that!
Ownership in the form of a proper lease hold interest encompassing the stadium activities outside of football and all income related streams gained by those stadium activities - such as concerts, are required or at least a very good share of. The expectancy of any football team to merely rent the pitch game by game without access to such revenue streams they after all are generating, is fundamentally wrong.
The way the council and ACL set out their stall originally and the clowns that signed up to such a deal should have been looked into long ago before SISU went down the rocky path they chose with their own brand of belligerence and arrogance. But none the less we are here and they have a point, if badly made.
They were paying £1.2m to rent highfield before they left (Greedy builders)
No they weren't - that was a contract with a building company on a leaseback. Interesting though that you try and spin that one out. Also interesting that you believe our caring sharing council should behave like "greedy builders"
For a PhD student, you haven't done much research based on even basic primary sources. Les Reid has never argued Sisu must own the Ricoh. Read his blog properly, and don't believe everything you read on blogs or msg boards
What about the £1.3 million charged by a certain greedy council?
Joy however has made it clear in the LR interview that if it's 'Ownership' we're talking about, she wants the Freehold. She sadly doesn't give a decent or even detailed explanation of why this is necessary though.Just to simplify: 'Ownership' may relate to a lease holder or a freeholder.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-fc-owner-joy-6096912Les Reid Interview said:Asked to be clear with fans and Coventrians if there were any hope of a Ricoh return, Ms Seppala said: “The club needs 100 per cent ownership of the freehold of the Ricoh. If you look back at the history of the club, you can see why this is important.”
What about the £1.3 million charged by a certain greedy council?
Yeah and if SISU had bought ACL (or even possibly just the Higgs share) we could be in a similar position where we'd get all the stadium profits. SISU didn't and here we are now homeless in Sixfields and building our new stadium once Tim gets out of the badger droppings.People seem to miss the point. It is certainly true that it is not necessary to own the freehold, or even the leasehold if you have a rental agreement in place that is fair and which enables the club to manage the venue. We fell into none of those categories however. We had use of the stadium for 25 days a year - and even then only partial use that didn't allow us to profit from the revenues we created from our own supporters. And for that we paid a cool £1.3 million a year.
Walsall may pay a high rent (given their size and the level they are playing at), but that money enables them to operate that stadium 365 days a year for their own benefit. They make that back from the Sunday market alone, and also earn a substantial amount from the M6 advertising boards. In addition they also gain revenues from day to day business and social functions that take place there.
I agree that we do not need to own the stadium outright, but at the same time, direct comparisons between ourselves and other clubs that rent their stadiums are completely wide of the mark.
Yeah and if SISU had bought ACL (or even possibly just the Higgs share) we could be in a similar position where we'd get all the stadium profits. SISU didn't and here we are now homeless in Sixfields and building our new stadium once Tim gets out of the badger droppings.
I don't disagree, but then SISU did agree to buy the Higgs share. Why that deal was not allowed to go through amazes me. Just think how different things would be now if it had. But then I'm not allowed to blame the council for that, people will start calling me names.
Of course, why they are not trying to resurrect this deal now I don't understand. It is the only viable way forward for as I see it - it is the middle ground option, but evidently JS just won't go there.
I don't disagree, but then SISU did agree to buy the Higgs share. Why that deal was not allowed to go through amazes me. Just think how different things would be now if it had. But then I'm not allowed to blame the council for that, people will start calling me names.
Of course, why they are not trying to resurrect this deal now I don't understand. It is the only viable way forward for as I see it - it is the middle ground option, but evidently JS just won't go there.
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?