Hullfox Posted 28 November 2004 Posted 28 November 2004 Any of the original 5 Nations sides (not England) v Australia or South Africa would be a huge turnout. It's these games they'll be thinking of. Plus, these kind of tournaments are trying to capitalise on corporate hospitality, and we have some of the best facilities.It may be specualtion, but it is possible. As for the money, 5% is the maximum we'd save. My source has said that buying the WS outright is a possiblilty and although more costlier, I would rather we did this for the long term future of the club, not a short term financial gain. 41049[/snapback] Any of the 5 nations sides are likely (other than France) therefore to play the big games in their on back garden. The seeding ensures that these games don't take place until the quarter finals by which time you have 7 games left only. Sources are great when they're hidden. Not sure how spending more money today is better for the long term future of the club. Long terms are made up of many short terms, ask any investor.
Hullfox Posted 28 November 2004 Posted 28 November 2004 Scowy,Tell me more about the inevitable conflict, that's a discussion that could sway me. 40893[/snapback] Seemingly as it will be a 50/50 agreement, who get's the final say on any issue? What about prioritisation of fixtures? What about key decisions made behind the scenes? Who get's what part of the ground? Who decides where and when they can use the ground? What happens if there is a clash of personalities on the boards? I can see this ending in tears. It's 50/50 all the way, no one will have a final say. 41048[/snapback] Scowy I run two businesses on a 50/50 split. My business partner and I have done this for about a year now and occasionally we have had differing views on matters. What we have done however is sat down and discussed the differences and without fail we have always come up with a compromise agreement that suits the both of us. Now had it been my business alone, some of those decisions would have been different, but there's no guarantee they'd have been right or better. Prioritisation of fixtures- we don't sit down at the beginning of August and write down who we want to play when. The FA's computer tells us! Watford and QPR don't have mass brawling on the pitch on double booked Saturdays you know. Who decides where and when they can use the ground - Well, firstly the respective governing bodies with fixture lists and then the two parties will sit down an see what joint things they want to do and then probably they'll take it in turns to pick dates for individual occasions. Seems quite easy to me. What if there's a clash of personalities on the board - Clashes of personalities happen on many boards throughout industry. If however they get in the way of corporate goals, then the people are not doing their jobs and the PLC's will need to remove them. You don't need to like people to work succesfully with them. (Ask Andy Cole and Teddy Sheringham)
Scow Posted 29 November 2004 Posted 29 November 2004 Rugby and Football are two different sports. I know fixtures are decided via an automatic system. The cases you have cited with QPR and Watford are slightly different in the sense that the rugby is staged at their respective grounds, they get the final say. It will be 50/50 with us; there will be a deadlock at some point. Is it really worth sacrificing half of our income for short-term financial gain? We will eventually own our stadium, once we do, we would have access to full income, not just half. How will that sustain us financially? In theory, costs would be cut in half, but what use is that when your income is cut in half? We'll have very little manoeuvring ability when we can't have full decision power making. The notion of identity and soul are dismissed a lot in this argument, but I thought that's why people go to football? For the love of the game, a sense of identity amongst fellow fans supporting our team. Football is in danger of becoming soulless and passionless, and no one wants to do anything about it. I will admit we need more information on the idea, but I feel that my gut reaction views this as a bad idea. I want what's best for this club, but not at the expense of prostituting our image and identity as a football club for short-term financial gain.
Guest Posted 29 November 2004 Posted 29 November 2004 Exactly, Scowy. The Tigers need this move far more than we do. They will be taking a 50% share of a ready built stadium which cost £32m for a quarter of that price. With the way property prices have been moving been moving in recent years, values should be increasing, not depreciating. What I want to know is why are Teachers prepared to sell the stadium for half its value? Exactly how much have City paid towards it? Have we been able to pay more back than anticipated? Or have they written off a sizeable portion? You keep accusing us of thinking with our hearts, and not our heads, but sometimes you have to go with your gut feelings, and this does not feel right to me, and the more I think about it, and the more questions I think of, the more it seems to me that Tigers are the ones who have the most to lose if this deal does not go ahead.
Hullfox Posted 29 November 2004 Posted 29 November 2004 Rugby and Football are two different sports. I know fixtures are decided via an automatic system. The cases you have cited with QPR and Watford are slightly different in the sense that the rugby is staged at their respective grounds, they get the final say. It will be 50/50 with us; there will be a deadlock at some point. Is it really worth sacrificing half of our income for short-term financial gain? We will eventually own our stadium, once we do, we would have access to full income, not just half. How will that sustain us financially? In theory, costs would be cut in half, but what use is that when your income is cut in half? We'll have very little manoeuvring ability when we can't have full decision power making. The notion of identity and soul are dismissed a lot in this argument, but I thought that's why people go to football? For the love of the game, a sense of identity amongst fellow fans supporting our team. Football is in danger of becoming soulless and passionless, and no one wants to do anything about it. I will admit we need more information on the idea, but I feel that my gut reaction views this as a bad idea. I want what's best for this club, but not at the expense of prostituting our image and identity as a football club for short-term financial gain. 41099[/snapback] There's very little soul or passion at The Walkers as it is. I don't see 1) How the atmosphere can get worse because we share the ground and 2) For those of us who are passionate, how we will lose that because we share. Are you suggesting that half of our own income from Home games will go to the Tigers? That's preposterous if it's true but highly unlikely surely. As for prostituting our club, we did that as soon as we went into administration and gave ourselves to the highest/only bidder, that's when we were stood on the street corner looking like some cheap hooker desperate for anyone to come along. I think that we came out of it relatively well unlike Leeds who's buyers are prostituting the whole club once more to make a few quid for themselves. Anyway, I find it difficult to disagree with anyone who can use a word with three consecutive but different vowels at that time of night.
Guest Posted 29 November 2004 Posted 29 November 2004 We will lose the non-footballing revenue. The stadium is used for events like conferences, exhibitions, parties, weddings etc. Our revenue from these would be reduced by 50%. I appreciate that our debt will be reduced too, but at some point we will pay that debt off, and then we will be losing out.
Hullfox Posted 29 November 2004 Posted 29 November 2004 Exactly, Scowy.The Tigers need this move far more than we do. They will be taking a 50% share of a ready built stadium which cost £32m for a quarter of that price. With the way property prices have been moving been moving in recent years, values should be increasing, not depreciating. What I want to know is why are Teachers prepared to sell the stadium for half its value? Exactly how much have City paid towards it? Have we been able to pay more back than anticipated? Or have they written off a sizeable portion? You keep accusing us of thinking with our hearts, and not our heads, but sometimes you have to go with your gut feelings, and this does not feel right to me, and the more I think about it, and the more questions I think of, the more it seems to me that Tigers are the ones who have the most to lose if this deal does not go ahead. 41130[/snapback] The invoice cost for the stadium was £32m. Nowhere near that much was paid for it and I'm not sure how much was due to be borrowed at the time. I know someone who works for Birse, the main contractors and they lost out big style on it. I'm not sure how much Teachers would have it valued at in their accounts but there are all sorts of accountancy practices that will make sure that they don't sell it as a loss. They will have made money on the interest payable and I'm sure that there will be an early repayment penalty that will see them alright. Many lenders make more money if their loans do not go the full term. It may well be that they have another lame duck that needs their assistance too. Bearing in mind that interest rates have risen dramatically over the last couple of years, it may pay them well to lend elsewhere. As for running a football club on gut feelings, the last time we did that, we let Peter Taylor loose and look where that got us. Heart versus head is a great conflict though. When people say it's a choice between identity and soul versus short term financial gain it's just a play on emotions. The alternative view could be it's a few green seats and a groundshare versus a secure future for our beloved club. Potentially the same argument but from very differing views. Believe it or not, my mind is still not made up. I will take in the information that is given and decide then.
Guest Posted 29 November 2004 Posted 29 November 2004 Disagree with the Peter Taylor comments, Hullfox!! I never wanted us to become a plc, and thought that the money given to Taylor was stupid for a club our size, and wished we'd be more prudent. Whilst some of this was logical thinking, a lot was gut feeling, and it rankles now that we've had to go through Administration, and have our good name dragged through the mud because of it.
Hullfox Posted 29 November 2004 Posted 29 November 2004 Disagree with the Peter Taylor comments, Hullfox!! 41143[/snapback] I just hate him for the part he played in our downfall and then he follows me up to Hull!
Guest Posted 29 November 2004 Posted 29 November 2004 Disagree with the Peter Taylor comments, Hullfox!! 41143[/snapback] I just hate him for the part he played in our downfall and then he follows me up to Hull! 41145[/snapback] Poor you!! A constant reminder, I'd move if I were you!
Hullfox Posted 29 November 2004 Posted 29 November 2004 Disagree with the Peter Taylor comments, Hullfox!! 41143[/snapback] I just hate him for the part he played in our downfall and then he follows me up to Hull! 41145[/snapback] Poor you!! A constant reminder, I'd move if I were you! 41147[/snapback] Looking for a house share opportunity to give me financial stability!
Stuliasz Posted 29 November 2004 Posted 29 November 2004 I was gonna stay for the sit in just to see what happened more than anything but it would have been more than 15 minutes of my time as we would have been at the back of the traffic going out of Leicester and been late for dinner
Guest Posted 29 November 2004 Posted 29 November 2004 Disagree with the Peter Taylor comments, Hullfox!! 41143[/snapback] I just hate him for the part he played in our downfall and then he follows me up to Hull! 41145[/snapback] Poor you!! A constant reminder, I'd move if I were you! 41147[/snapback] Looking for a house share opportunity to give me financial stability! 41162[/snapback] You can bog off if you think you're buying half of my house and painting it lime green or sunset orange!!
Hullfox Posted 29 November 2004 Posted 29 November 2004 Disagree with the Peter Taylor comments, Hullfox!! 41143[/snapback] I just hate him for the part he played in our downfall and then he follows me up to Hull! 41145[/snapback] Poor you!! A constant reminder, I'd move if I were you! 41147[/snapback] Looking for a house share opportunity to give me financial stability! 41162[/snapback] You can bog off if you think you're buying half of my house and painting it lime green or sunset orange!! 41165[/snapback] I'm sure there's a compromise here. How about the three piece suite being green and red?
Guest Posted 29 November 2004 Posted 29 November 2004 Disagree with the Peter Taylor comments, Hullfox!! 41143[/snapback] I just hate him for the part he played in our downfall and then he follows me up to Hull! 41145[/snapback] Poor you!! A constant reminder, I'd move if I were you! 41147[/snapback] Looking for a house share opportunity to give me financial stability! 41162[/snapback] You can bog off if you think you're buying half of my house and painting it lime green or sunset orange!! 41165[/snapback] I'm sure there's a compromise here. How about the three piece suite being green and red? 41169[/snapback] What am I supposed to do with the nice blue one I've got? How about a throw, you can put that on whenever you want to use it?
Foxes_Trust Posted 29 November 2004 Posted 29 November 2004 [quote name=Lisa' date='Nov 29 2004, 11:23 AMYou can bog off if you think you're buying half of my house and painting it lime green or sunset orange!! [/quote] Sunset Orange - was that the colour of our seats in Filbo opposite end to the Kop?
Guest Posted 29 November 2004 Posted 29 November 2004 You can bog off if you think you're buying half of my house and painting it lime green or sunset orange!! Sunset Orange - was that the colour of our seats in Filbo opposite end to the Kop? 41204[/snapback] I think that might have been Jaffa Orange, but I could be wrong.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.