Hack Posted 9 July 2011 Posted 9 July 2011 they've won alot compared to most... Not since they built the Emerites stadium. Increased revenues have been heavly pumped back to paying the debt from building the stadium. One day it will pay off but it does in the early days reduce a clubs spending on the squad, which in turn reduces a higher position in what ever league they are in.
Right Back Atyeo Posted 9 July 2011 Posted 9 July 2011 Out of interest, why are brizzle building a new stadium when they can't fill ashton gate? On the face of it, that's a good question. The answer is that Ashton Gate does not generate enough income away from matchdays. The new stadium will be a regional facilty catering for corporate hospitality, concerts etc, and other sources of turnover on any given day. Although we love Ashton Gate, it is archaic and no longer financially viable. Of course, if we ever do reach the promised land, we will easily fill Ashton Vale.
john doe Posted 9 July 2011 Posted 9 July 2011 On the face of it, that's a good question. The answer is that Ashton Gate does not generate enough income away from matchdays. The new stadium will be a regional facilty catering for corporate hospitality, concerts etc, and other sources of turnover on any given day. Although we love Ashton Gate, it is archaic and no longer financially viable. Of course, if we ever do reach the promised land, we will easily fill Ashton Vale. bon jovi did
john doe Posted 9 July 2011 Posted 9 July 2011 Kept up with some news then... yes just seem to of missed the new ground is going to happen stuff ? town council have said no . public meeting said no so are you going keep this up ?
Right Back Atyeo Posted 9 July 2011 Posted 9 July 2011 yes just seem to of missed the new ground is going to happen stuff ? town council have said no . public meeting said no so are you going keep this up ? I'll say it slowly... Town... ...Council... ...have... ...now... ...said... ...yes.
john doe Posted 9 July 2011 Posted 9 July 2011 I'll say it slowly... Town... ...Council... ...have... ...now... ...said... ...yes. not going to happen and its on greenbelt
shiv Posted 9 July 2011 Posted 9 July 2011 I don't know why I still bother checking this thread. It's become rather sh*te...
Right Back Atyeo Posted 9 July 2011 Posted 9 July 2011 not going to happen and its on greenbelt Yeah, Bert was right.
john doe Posted 9 July 2011 Posted 9 July 2011 Yeah, Bert was right. nickys not leaving and you have a new stadium on the way .ok gooodluck
Right Back Atyeo Posted 9 July 2011 Posted 9 July 2011 nickys not leaving and you have a new stadium on the way .ok gooodluck I don't believe I have said that Nicky isn't leaving... You'll see him at the Walkers next season... ...playing for us or a PL team in the cup!
That lad from Japan Posted 9 July 2011 Posted 9 July 2011 I don't believe I have said that Nicky isn't leaving... You'll see him at the Walkers next season... ...playing for us or a PL team in the cup! No we won't because it isn't the Walkers anymore
Petchy Posted 9 July 2011 Posted 9 July 2011 I can't be bothered to read the 139 pages to find out, so have the BC fans stopped being deluded yet?
Lester LXXIV Posted 9 July 2011 Posted 9 July 2011 No we won't because it isn't the Walkers anymore Liking yer style!
Right Back Atyeo Posted 9 July 2011 Posted 9 July 2011 No we won't because it isn't the Walkers anymore Touche. Bloody sponsor named stadiums. I suppose we'll have all that in the new place.
Dan Posted 10 July 2011 Posted 10 July 2011 I can't be bothered to read the 139 pages to find out, so have the BC fans stopped being deluded yet? Bad form is temporary, twatishness is permanent.
MPH Posted 10 July 2011 Posted 10 July 2011 I thought there was breaking news and we`d signed him but i see thats not true.. Lets go for 3,000 Still fed up with the thread? now you KNOW its going to be in the main Leicester City section of the message board IF he signs you wont need to come back into this thread....
Alexikokopops Posted 10 July 2011 Posted 10 July 2011 Actually that is only true in USA. A billion is a thousand million in the USA but a million million in the UK and elsewhere, typical yanks, love to hype it up. Now, you could argue that when we are talking about Billionaires we talk in the American numeracy format.............but then we should be talking dollars and not £'s ..........I'll get me coat..................taxi! Maybe if you go back forty years. In 1974 Howard Wilson declared that a trillion would be worth a thousand million in official reports and statistics, and since then it's use has changed to the short scale (1,000,000,000) rather than the long scale (1,000,000,000,000). Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop asked the Prime Minister whether he will make it the practice of his administration that when Ministers employ the word "billion" in any official speeches, documents, or answers to Parliamentary Questions, they will, to avoid confusion, only do so in its British meaning of 1 million million and not in the sense in which it is used in the United States of America, which uses the term "billion" to mean 1,000 million. §The Prime Minister No. The word "billion" is now used internationally to mean 1,000 million and it would be712W confusing if British Ministers were to use it in any other sense. I accept that it could still be interpreted in this country as 1 million million and I shall ask my colleagues to ensure that, if they do use it, there should be no ambiguity as to its meaning. Although there are still those who argue over the US and "former UK" definitions of figures such as a billion and trillion, according to Michael there is now basic agreement that a trillion is a thousand billion and a billion is a thousand million. "When you hear a politician, business leader of economist using the word trillion, they are talking about a number with 12 zeros," he said. Since 1974 its usage has largely changed. I know I'm a bit late, but I read this at work and didn't have time to reply before I saw reference to billionaires mentioned in another thread and it reminded me of it. Plus it's infinitely more interesting than the following exchange which has been going on for about 100 pages of this thread: Leicester fan WHY HASN'T HE SIGNED FOR US?? Bristol fan HE DOESN'T WANT TO LEAVE. WE HAVE A BILLIONAIRE OWNER (SHORT SCALE, THAT'S THE ACCEPTED USAGE THESE DAYS). WE WON'T SELL TO A CHAMP TEAM Leicester fan WE'RE GOING UP. WE'RE MASSIVE. BRISTOL ARE TIN POT and repeat.
Kent Posted 10 July 2011 Posted 10 July 2011 Maybe if you go back forty years. In 1974 Howard Wilson declared that a trillion would be worth a thousand million in official reports and statistics, and since then it's use has changed to the short scale (1,000,000,000) rather than the long scale (1,000,000,000,000). Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop asked the Prime Minister whether he will make it the practice of his administration that when Ministers employ the word "billion" in any official speeches, documents, or answers to Parliamentary Questions, they will, to avoid confusion, only do so in its British meaning of 1 million million and not in the sense in which it is used in the United States of America, which uses the term "billion" to mean 1,000 million. §The Prime Minister No. The word "billion" is now used internationally to mean 1,000 million and it would be712W confusing if British Ministers were to use it in any other sense. I accept that it could still be interpreted in this country as 1 million million and I shall ask my colleagues to ensure that, if they do use it, there should be no ambiguity as to its meaning. Although there are still those who argue over the US and "former UK" definitions of figures such as a billion and trillion, according to Michael there is now basic agreement that a trillion is a thousand billion and a billion is a thousand million. "When you hear a politician, business leader of economist using the word trillion, they are talking about a number with 12 zeros," he said. Since 1974 its usage has largely changed. I know I'm a bit late, but I read this at work and didn't have time to reply before I saw reference to billionaires mentioned in another thread and it reminded me of it. Plus it's infinitely more interesting than the following exchange which has been going on for about 100 pages of this thread: Leicester fan WHY HASN'T HE SIGNED FOR US?? Bristol fan HE DOESN'T WANT TO LEAVE. WE HAVE A BILLIONAIRE OWNER (SHORT SCALE, THAT'S THE ACCEPTED USAGE THESE DAYS). WE WON'T SELL TO A CHAMP TEAM Leicester fan WE'RE GOING UP. WE'RE MASSIVE. BRISTOL ARE TIN POT and repeat. Yeah, the funny thing is he's still worth £750m so he's not a billionaire either way.
Chazwaz Posted 10 July 2011 Posted 10 July 2011 By the time he makes a decision this thread could be up to 1000 posts!!!!
rico Posted 10 July 2011 Posted 10 July 2011 Yeah, the funny thing is he's still worth £750m so he's not a billionaire either way. .
rico Posted 10 July 2011 Posted 10 July 2011 Yeah, the funny thing is he's still worth £750m so he's not a billionaire either way. he probably will be a billionaire by the time this thread closes
Wymsey Posted 10 July 2011 Posted 10 July 2011 Really wish Maynard speaks up on whether he wants to stay there or not. Seems nothing at all has changed regarding this.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.