Grendel
Well-Known Member
Well the matchday cost bit may be of interest. If the matchday costs say doubled from the original deal it seems odd to still call them matchday costs. If that's what has happened of course.
As I recall ,the response was a bit of a conundrum in that What TF referred to as matchday costs when he was paying them in the previous season ,he now wished to imply they were in fact ," Rent".
But they would probably have got the total costs of the rent AND the matchday costs for the whole season in 4-6 matches though wouldn't they? The fuckwits, and their supporters, can't seem to work that out though, can they/you G?Plus "matchday" costs.
As I recall ,the response was a bit of a conundrum in that What TF referred to as matchday costs when he was paying them in the previous season ,he now wished to imply they were in fact ," Rent".
Mr Labovitch said in one of his radio appearances something like, they couldn't go back to renting off the council that would be crazy.
I suppose when you're attempting to sue someone it would look crazy to continue to fund one of their businesses..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If the offer was so good, why haven't ACL disclosed the terms?
I think TF came out and went through one of the offers but no reply to say "thats bullshit fella" in as many words.
If you are talking about the last ACL rent offer, they did, it is all here..
http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index.php/114-latest-news/328-questions-and-answers-about-talks
So there's the answer. There are no revenue streams so they have rejected the offer.
So there's the answer. There are no revenue streams so they have rejected the offer.
If you are talking about the last ACL rent offer, they did, it is all here..
http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index.php/114-latest-news/328-questions-and-answers-about-talks
Interesting. Why do matchday costs rise by 50%?
Or why did they reduce them by 50%, and thereby run the risk of some people thinking they are increasing later?
Where do you deduce that?
Got the idea for the argument from you.
How much income do you think the club would generate from these revenue streams?
If you are talking about the last ACL rent offer, they did, it is all here..
http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index.php/114-latest-news/328-questions-and-answers-about-talks
So there's the answer. There are no revenue streams so they have rejected the offer.
It doesn't answer the question in the context of my OP.
So having some revenue streams from 1,600 fans is better?
So why the 50% increase do you think? Bit wierd isn't it?
Goodness knows. Would depend on how far the streams go. I guess SISU want all matchday & non matchday too. In fact didn't they plan for AEG to come in and run Arena? So guessing it would be substantial and more than they would generate in ticket sales.
If they did a temp deal... Can imagine they'd want 100% control of everything on matchday as a starting point.
This is why we won't ever get a deal between them.
I think he actually mentioned a lack of control renting from the council, but it's been a long day (late closing) and I might be thinking of two separate broadcasts.
How much income do you think the club would generate from these revenue streams?
They rejected the other one with revenue streams included I assume because as Mr Labovitch said, they won't go back to renting from the council
Maybe, I personally don't remember that comment but nevertheless I still feel personally that renting the Ricoh is beyond the Club, if we want this Club to progress and be successful we can't return to the previous tenancy agreement or even the agreement that was on the table.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It seems that you're quite prepared to accept that if SISU say they want everything then so be it, we must do what we can to accommodate that to get a deal.
It would be understandable for ACL to not give away non football income, I would hope they would be still open to consider a match day income deal.
Do you think AEG will come and run the Arena for free, or will they want either a fixed fee, or a cut of the income?
Are you stating that F&B revenues are irrelevant? I think that's a pretty silly suggestion if that's what you are insinuating.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As a club that's making massive losses, and with owners that don't have a huge amount of money (their investors might, but will only continue investing if they see a prospect for a return on their investment), then I don't see how we have any choice but to rent somewhere.
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?