Re: GOOD NEWS : Thu Mar 11, 2010 6:36 pm  

i've just been reading the statement released on the club website and it says 'The business case for the development shows loans being repaid by the sale of the developed land to retail tenants and with income from people and clubs using the facility, including ticket sales, car parking, advertising, and conference and banqueting venue hire.' If this is so, how are we going to make any income to be able to spend more on the salary cap?

Re: GOOD NEWS : Thu Mar 11, 2010 8:41 pm  

This is the news I have wanted to hear for what seems like an eternity. It is is fantastic news for the club and RL in general

Re: GOOD NEWS : Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:05 am  

Jaymc9 wrote:

i've just been reading the statement released on the club website and it says 'The business case for the development shows loans being repaid by the sale of the developed land to retail tenants and with income from people and clubs using the facility, including ticket sales, car parking, advertising, and conference and banqueting venue hire.' If this is so, how are we going to make any income to be able to spend more on the salary cap?

welcome to our world - the joys of a new stadium are not all that it seems
ticket sales dictated by stadium comany
outside caterers chosen by stadium company
high rent costs to play there
etc etc

a long way to go before you see any light in all of this

Good news anyways - and good luck along the next stage of the rocky road

Re: GOOD NEWS : Fri Mar 12, 2010 1:05 pm  

Knotweed. Is this still a problem or is it sorted? Can`t have more delays can we?

Re: GOOD NEWS : Fri Mar 12, 2010 1:20 pm  

[quote="Jaymc9"]i've just been reading the statement released on the club website and it says 'The business case for the development shows loans being repaid by the sale of the developed land to retail tenants and with income from people and clubs using the facility, including ticket sales, car parking, advertising, and conference and banqueting venue hire.' If this is so, how are we going to make any income to be able to spend more on the salary cap?[/quote]


You aren't , your income will reduce as things currently stand , You will lose advertising , food , beer and potentially a chunk of your corporate sales , it all depends on how many fans you can entice through the gates , and as I said earlier who is willing to pay to play there as well , no council will run a stadium on 17/18 matches a year , I'd guess either Sale , FC united or both , possibly UTD reserves

Best of luck , you will need it

Re: GOOD NEWS : Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:24 pm  

so by the sound of it if we dont get more fans through the gate in the new stadium we'll be in a worse financial position than we are in now? I persume we dont pay rent at the willows? Like many have said, i cant see just us playing there.

Re: GOOD NEWS : Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:59 pm  

Given that the Willows was sold some time ago, I'd presume we DO pay rent!!

Re: GOOD NEWS : Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:04 pm  

Jaymc9 wrote:

so by the sound of it if we dont get more fans through the gate in the new stadium we'll be in a worse financial position than we are in now? I persume we dont pay rent at the willows? Like many have said, i cant see just us playing there.

Not everybody gets 'the Leigh treatment'. Corporate sales and sponsorship don't just have the potential to disappear, they also have the potential to dwarf our current figures.
Will someone else play there? Let's hope so, might keep costs down.

Re: GOOD NEWS : Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:35 am  

BartonFlyer wrote:

Given that the Willows was sold some time ago, I'd presume we DO pay rent!!

no, sold to another board member so still in the family, unlike Wigan, Huddersfield, Catalans, Crusaders who pay rent for the use of the grounds.

Re: GOOD NEWS : Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:46 pm  

Bigpev wrote:

no, sold to another board member so still in the family, unlike Wigan, Huddersfield, Catalans, Crusaders who pay rent for the use of the grounds.

Be interesting to see how that is being accounted for, whether a rent is in fact being charged, but treated as a director's loan? I would have thought that if the purchaser, whether a director or not, had actually paid out cash to purchase the ground, then they would at least want a return on that?