Foxes_Trust Posted 19 July 2006 Share Posted 19 July 2006 http://www.foxestrust.com/html/modules.php...cle&sid=625 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Posted 19 July 2006 Share Posted 19 July 2006 some reasonable and very sensible points there, but i would expect that from the chairman of a business, nothing i didn't already know/assume Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox in a Box Posted 19 July 2006 Share Posted 19 July 2006 Andrew has his head screwed on, and its paramount that the club stays solvent of course, groundsharing isnt really a big issue as a few teams do it, we have one if not the best egg chasers in england at our doorstep surely its a viable case of bums on seats and increase verticle revenue streams for both LCFC and the Tigers. *keeping the playing surface at the optimum is my only arguement, and it would be nice to have guiness on tap!! The banqueting facilities would be twice as busy, the cross pollenation of fans would increase gates its a win win situation. Local Businesses NEXT, BRADSTONE etc would then come on board and as a result we all benefit. cant see what all the fuss is about! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 19 July 2006 Share Posted 19 July 2006 Andrew has his head screwed on, and its paramount that the club stays solvent of course, groundsharing isnt really a big issue as a few teams do it, we have one if not the best egg chasers in england at our doorstep surely its a viable case of bums on seats and increase verticle revenue streams for both LCFC and the Tigers. *keeping the playing surface at the optimum is my only arguement, and it would be nice to have guiness on tap!! The banqueting facilities would be twice as busy, the cross pollenation of fans would increase gates its a win win situation. Local Businesses NEXT, BRADSTONE etc would then come on board and as a result we all benefit. cant see what all the fuss is about! Green seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted 19 July 2006 Share Posted 19 July 2006 Only absolute morons oppose the groundshare; it's a shame because they comprise a significant minority of City fans, and thus are quite an object to it actually happening. A real shame to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janx Posted 19 July 2006 Share Posted 19 July 2006 I think if more people had more knowledge of the financial implications. i.e the increasing debt etc, there would be less opposition. Frankly I dont care anymore, although it concerned me originally, but Vicarage Rd survives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 19 July 2006 Share Posted 19 July 2006 Andrew has his head screwed on, and its paramount that the club stays solvent of course, groundsharing isnt really a big issue as a few teams do it, we have one if not the best egg chasers in england at our doorstep surely its a viable case of bums on seats and increase verticle revenue streams for both LCFC and the Tigers.*keeping the playing surface at the optimum is my only arguement, and it would be nice to have guiness on tap!! The banqueting facilities would be twice as busy, the cross pollenation of fans would increase gates its a win win situation. Local Businesses NEXT, BRADSTONE etc would then come on board and as a result we all benefit. cant see what all the fuss is about! Why would the facilities be twice as busy, having the Tigers share the gorund does not automatically increase their usage, besides are they currently 50% under utilised, also there wouldn't be as many facilities available. If Bradstone wanted to sponsor LCFC there's nothing stopping them, they are obviously not interested in LCFC, any sponsorship from them would still go in the Tigers pockets. The revenue from any stadium name would need to be shared. The majority of the running cost are assosciated with match days so will hardly decrease. Pitch maintenance and replacement would be significantly increased. The rebadging and ongoing costs of badge changing for alternative LCFC/Tigers events will be an additional cost. Catering is subcontracted out so very little gain there, if any for LCFC. To name but a few none football reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 19 July 2006 Share Posted 19 July 2006 Only absolute morons oppose the groundshare; it's a shame because they comprise a significant minority of City fans, and thus are quite an object to it actually happening. A real shame to be honest. That is tantamount to being absolute rubbish, since when have the fans had any influence over issues like this, if the numpties that run football & rugby could agree on primacy we would already be ground sharing irrespective of what the fans think majority/minority or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Stig Posted 19 July 2006 Share Posted 19 July 2006 Doesn't really bother me either way, its just the state of the gras which bothers me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted 19 July 2006 Share Posted 19 July 2006 That is tantamount to being absolute rubbish, since when have the fans had any influence over issues like this, if the numpties that run football & rugby could agree on primacy we would already be ground sharing irrespective of what the fans think majority/minority or otherwise. good point about the primacy........how did watford /sarries and wycombe/ wasps sort it out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phube Posted 19 July 2006 Share Posted 19 July 2006 good point about the primacy........how did watford /sarries and wycombe/ wasps sort it out? I think Football has primacy in these situations as the football team 'allows' the Rugby team to play there, our would have been the first 50/50 ownership of the ground!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 19 July 2006 Share Posted 19 July 2006 good point about the primacy........how did watford /sarries and wycombe/ wasps sort it out? I think the difference is that the football clubs own the ground and therefore have the muscle to obtain primacy, which suits the football authorities, the rugby clubs are virtually cap in hand tenants and are desperate along ith their authorities to concede primacy With our situation we are in theory equal partners, but as we are the team in the direst need of this god awful, but maybe necessary solution we end up being 'cap in hand'. That being the case the football league will not budge on primacy and I suspect the Rugby authorities are enjoying their moment of power over a football club. All allegedly of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultra Posted 19 July 2006 Share Posted 19 July 2006 The rugby club are now getting cold feet. Fine. If they and their fans wish to stay in their dilapidated, inadequate, traffic island home, it's up to them. As for us, perhaps we can ask Reading or Watford fans about the harm caused by groundsharing. Oh, except we can't, because they now play in a higher league than us. Maybe there's a moral in there.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 19 July 2006 Share Posted 19 July 2006 The rugby club are now getting cold feet. Fine. If they and their fans wish to stay in their dilapidated, inadequate, traffic island home, it's up to them. As for us, perhaps we can ask Reading or Watford fans about the harm caused by groundsharing. Oh, except we can't, because they now play in a higher league than us. Maybe there's a moral in there.. Hardly because they own their grounds and the rugby clubs pay them rent. We would not be in the same position at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox in a Box Posted 19 July 2006 Share Posted 19 July 2006 Why would the facilities be twice as busy, having the Tigers share the gorund does not automatically increase their usage, besides are they currently 50% under utilised, also there wouldn't be as many facilities available. If Bradstone wanted to sponsor LCFC there's nothing stopping them, they are obviously not interested in LCFC, any sponsorship from them would still go in the Tigers pockets. The revenue from any stadium name would need to be shared. The majority of the running cost are assosciated with match days so will hardly decrease. Pitch maintenance and replacement would be significantly increased. The rebadging and ongoing costs of badge changing for alternative LCFC/Tigers events will be an additional cost. Catering is subcontracted out so very little gain there, if any for LCFC. To name but a few none football reasons. *a game every week rather than spit weeks increases revenue to the facility. * Bradstone/Next whatever would want to expose there brand and therfore could be used in the re badging costs... Running cost would be the same... PITCH maintenance and replacement would be added cost divided by 2 Catering would be increased and therefore and Mr pukka Pies is on the CITY board if he makes cash from sales it would benefit the club i guess, and more profit from sales would increase rev. DavidG we never argue but would you like LCFC to fold.... no expand your mind to possibilities of it happening and embrace them if it happens.. BLOODY EGG CHASERS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilko Posted 19 July 2006 Share Posted 19 July 2006 *a game every week rather than spit weeks increases revenue to the facility. * Bradstone/Next whatever would want to expose there brand and therfore could be used in the re badging costs... Running cost would be the same... PITCH maintenance and replacement would be added cost divided by 2 Catering would be increased and therefore and Mr pukka Pies is on the CITY board if he makes cash from sales it would benefit the club i guess, and more profit from sales would increase rev. DavidG we never argue but would you like LCFC to fold.... no expand your mind to possibilities of it happening and embrace them if it happens.. BLOODY EGG CHASERS! The key comment in Andrew Taylor's reply was 'ever increasing debt' with regard to the stadium. What happens to normal businesses in such a situation...take a guess! A Chairman who did not look at ways of removing this threat would be failing in his duties. If the groundshare can be resurrected it would be an achievement that could secure the long term viability of the Club. Some people need to get real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamesmaster Posted 19 July 2006 Share Posted 19 July 2006 You can sense a football fan's brain working with Andrew's comments, the way they were wrote. It sounds to me like the best way of gaining success, is the Tigers wanting to share our ground. Hoping city will get promoted is becoming more and more like a fairytale, despite our recent form, as we had with Levin's first half season... I wonder if the players read his article? They are the MAIN tackers from our prospects, unless they deliever Did he mean £7M parachute twice? Should season ticket holders gain some sort of share value per season ticket purchase? "It may not sound too exciting but given the events of 2002 it's vital that we remain solvent and protect the interests of all City investors". Is being a fan, a blind alley into the darkness of wallet surgery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 19 July 2006 Share Posted 19 July 2006 The key comment in Andrew Taylor's reply was 'ever increasing debt' with regard to the stadium. What happens to normal businesses in such a situation...take a guess! A Chairman who did not look at ways of removing this threat would be failing in his duties. If the groundshare can be resurrected it would be an achievement that could secure the long term viability of the Club. Some people need to get real. Just because I question the potential for revenue streams to increase doesn't mean I can't see how sharing the stadium affects the capital budget situation. My queries were deliberately aimed at the assumption that these revenues would increase significantly, I just don't see that being the case. I can see that ground sharing will reduce the capital loan millstone but only at the expense of never ever having the potential of owning the ground outright. I think I have a significant grasp on reality thank you very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamesmaster Posted 19 July 2006 Share Posted 19 July 2006 Just because I question the potential for revenue streams to increase doesn't mean I can't see how sharing the stadium affects the capital budget situation. My queries were deliberately aimed at the assumption that these revenues would increase significantly, I just don't see that being the case. I can see that ground sharing will reduce the capital loan millstone but only at the expense of never ever having the potential of owning the ground outright. I think I have a significant grasp on reality thank you very much. Were paying a 7 figure sum per year (£1M?), how much would the Tigers coff up annually? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 19 July 2006 Share Posted 19 July 2006 Were paying a 7 figure sum per year (£1M?), how much would the Tigers coff up annually? sorry I don't understand the significance of your question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamesmaster Posted 19 July 2006 Share Posted 19 July 2006 sorry I don't understand the significance of your question? if the tigers join in with the payments, we could atleast part own outright our stadium at some point. how much would the tigers pay towards doing so, on an annual basis? if its also £1m?, then we'll get the ground paid for, rather than just chipping away little bit at a time each year due to interest. unless our football improves significantly, tigers are our best bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daggers Posted 19 July 2006 Share Posted 19 July 2006 if the tigers join in with the payments, we could atleast part own outright our stadium at some point. how much would the tigers pay towards doing so, on an annual basis? if its also £1m?, then we'll get the ground paid for, rather than just chipping away little bit at a time each year due to interest. unless our football improves significantly, tigers are our best bet. Sharing the ground means sharing payments, halving the current cost to us for mortgage repayments. The Tigers would not pay us rent ... it's all in his statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knighton Matt Posted 19 July 2006 Share Posted 19 July 2006 Doesn't really bother me either way, its just the state of the gras which bothers me If there's grass on the wicket let's play cricket! Anyone fancy a 3-way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultra Posted 19 July 2006 Share Posted 19 July 2006 Hardly because they own their grounds and the rugby clubs pay them rent. We would not be in the same position at all. Technically correct, but at least a significant outlay - our rent payments - would be eased by having the Tigers as a co-tenant. These rent payments are a millstone round our neck and likely to stay there as long as we rot in this league. The board would be failing in their duty if they weren't looking into ways of lifting the burden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamesmaster Posted 19 July 2006 Share Posted 19 July 2006 Sharing the ground means sharing payments, halving the current cost to us for mortgage repayments. The Tigers would not pay us rent ... it's all in his statement. so would that mean the tigers pay a 7 figure sum like city, so that we can rid the penatrating interest payment were having to coff up, that doesnt get us anywhere? im not expecting a sensible reply Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.