Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Mon Jan 02, 2017 7:31 pm  

kapow wrote:

I also think that's set a rod for our own backs. When we could get in so cheaply for years when we were dominating, it creates quite a psychological block to paying £20 to watch us play Featherstone.

So youve answered your own question , buying a fan base doesn't work

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Mon Jan 02, 2017 7:34 pm  

GUBRATS wrote:

So youve answered your own question , buying a fan base doesn't work

I still don't understand why Odsal isn't viable?

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Mon Jan 02, 2017 7:47 pm  

It's like buses, you wait from 2011 until 2017 and then "KAPOW" seven posts (out of thirteen since 2009) come along all at once. Have you bought the account from someone?

Quite apart from Odsal being just about the coldest place in Christendom and a bit crumbly, there are too many outside interested parties. Administrator is not professionally bothered by that. Green wants his pennies back. Odsal therefore white elephant - and with the ban in the ivory trade not worth ought bar all the very many above mentioned, non-sporting uses.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Mon Jan 02, 2017 7:53 pm  

Bent&Bongser wrote:

It's like buses, you wait from 2011 until 2017 and then "KAPOW" seven posts (out of thirteen since 2009) come along all at once. Have you bought the account from someone?

Quite apart from Odsal being just about the coldest place in Christendom and a bit crumbly, there are too many outside interested parties. Administrator is not professionally bothered by that. Green wants his pennies back. Odsal therefore white elephant - and with the ban in the ivory trade not worth ought bar all the very many above mentioned, non-sporting uses.

Bought the account off someone?! Don't be ridiculous! I don't post because I don't feel like I have to. I occasionally check in to see what's going on. Not that it has anything to do with anyone.

I had a genuine question I wasn't seeing answered, so thought I'd ask it.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Mon Jan 02, 2017 8:18 pm  

kapow wrote:

I still don't understand why Odsal isn't viable?

The costs of simply keeping the place up to H&S standards and opening on matchdays etc. mean that it's costing us an arm and a leg to play there.

Of course, we were given a decent wedge of cash from the council to cover these costs, but we spent it on bullmania and our star studded squads of the early 2000s instead. Ah well.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Mon Jan 02, 2017 8:21 pm  

The rent is £70k , which is commercially accurate. But the maintenance is astronomical and worsening year by year, along with the increased matchday overheads compared to other grounds.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Mon Jan 02, 2017 8:29 pm  

Highlander wrote:

The rent is £70k , which is commercially accurate. But the maintenance is astronomical and worsening year by year, along with the increased matchday overheads compared to other grounds.

The rent is one peppercorn. Well, that is what we used to pay the council, and what the RFL currently pay the Council.

Our rent to RFL would be a matter of whatever was negotiated when we took a sub-lease. If the maintenance, which was obviously a very well known figure, was so crippling, then why would anyone have even considered signing up n a 70K lease AND agreeing to pay the crippling costs of maintenance as well? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Mon Jan 02, 2017 8:34 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

The rent is one peppercorn. Well, that is what we used to pay the council, and what the RFL currently pay the Council.

Our rent to RFL would be a matter of whatever was negotiated when we took a sub-lease. If the maintenance, which was obviously a very well known figure, was so crippling, then why would anyone have even considered signing up n a 70K lease AND agreeing to pay the crippling costs of maintenance as well? It doesn't make any sense to me.

This is Peter Hood we're talking about. Common sense wasn't his forte, considering how he thought it was a good idea to sell the lease despite it being used as security on the bank overdraft.
He probably saw it as a short sighted solution to cashflow problems.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Mon Jan 02, 2017 8:53 pm  

Nothus wrote:

This is Peter Hood we're talking about. Common sense wasn't his forte, considering how he thought it was a good idea to sell the lease despite it being used as security on the bank overdraft.
He probably saw it as a short sighted solution to cashflow problems.

You could suggest that, and maybe he's not businessman of the year, but the very basic arithmetic of a modest cash sum in return for inflicting on yourself a hefty lease and an even heftier anual open-ended expenditure does not add up. So I don't buy that that's a fair picture. Nobody would be THAT stupid or financially incompetent and it isn't as if it would just be him, his accountants etc would also have been involved.

I'll concede that none of them seemingly twigging that the bank would not be best pleased at suddeny losing its security doesn't mark them out as financial whizzes, true. But still.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Mon Jan 02, 2017 9:16 pm  

Where's frank Whitcombe gone?
Was expecting a prediction for tomorrow.