Joined: Jul 15 2005 Posts: 29811 Location: West Yorkshire
SirStan wrote:Fascinating. All of which has got what to do with the right royal c0ck up the council have made when striking a deal with the SMC?
I'm surprised at you derailing threads.
It's exactly the same point, isn't it? People are complaining about the council and its taxpayers not making any return from its investment in sporting property interests in the west of the city. Just pointing out that on the face of it, the council assisted Rovers when in administration by purchasing Rovers property interest in Craven Park and now sort of lease it back to Rovers via a management company involving a peppercorn rent. Do we really know that the council are making a far better return on their purchase of CP and subsequent leasing arrangements via KCD? It is a completely relevant point, surely, particularly on the Rovers board.
Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12670 Location: Leicestershire.
Mrs Barista wrote:It's exactly the same point, isn't it? People are complaining about the council and its taxpayers not making any return from its investment in sporting property interests in the west of the city. Just pointing out that on the face of it, the council assisted Rovers when in administration by purchasing Rovers property interest in Craven Park and now sort of lease it back to Rovers via a management company involving a peppercorn rent. Do we really know that the council are making a far better return on their purchase of CP and subsequent leasing arrangements via KCD? It is a completely relevant point, surely, particularly on the Rovers board.
The complaints are in absolute terms. In comparative terms we are complaining about 'your' complaints. I think. Qualitatively there may be similarities, quantitatively there are huge differences - hopefully they will be narrowed in the short-medium term.
Ta for your answer about SMC on the paralell thread btw - makes sense.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Joined: Jul 15 2005 Posts: 29811 Location: West Yorkshire
Mild Rover wrote:The complaints are in absolute terms. In comparative terms we are complaining about 'your' complaints. I think. Qualitatively there may be similarities, quantitatively there are huge differences - hopefully they will be narrowed in the short-medium term.
Ta for your answer about SMC on the paralell thread btw - makes sense.
Sorry, MR, a bit late and a bit cryptic for me. In simple terms, my understanding is: Rovers pay a peppercorn rent over the next 50 years. FC pay £25m+ over the next 50 years. City pay £25m+ over the next 50 years. Council gets nothing for its capital investment in either ground. Have I missed something quantitative - this is a huge difference, as you say.
To be honest I think the council have done the right thing, the administration and risk involved in running the stadium would have been pretty high and inevitably if done by the council it would have been done by someone who wasn't best placed to do it. There would have been losses made and we'd all be on here saying how we were propping up City and FC with year on year costs.
The likelyhood is over the next few years gate reciepts at the KC will drastically reduce, City are getting crowds based on season passes bought mid way through a prem league season at a reduced price. Next year they'll be based on season passes bought during / after a poor season. They'll be prob a round 17K max and lower for some games. It will be reasonable to asssume FC will stay similar to this year so on the whole profits wont be massive. Add to that repairs that will kick in in the near future and its not a business the council want or need.
The biggest criticism the council face over this is the renting of offices at such a high cost, they should have negotiated a better deal or gone elsewhere to avoid this criticism.
Joined: Sep 23 2003 Posts: 14306 Location: East Hull
barham red wrote: The biggest criticism the council face over this is the renting of offices at such a high cost, they should have negotiated a better deal or gone elsewhere to avoid this criticism.
The council built the stadium. They should have said to the SMC you can run the stadium but X Y Z room in the stadium is for Council offices. The SMC are hardly in a position to say no are they. They saving grace is that that rental agreement runs out in 2012. Not like the 50 year lease the SMC have on the stadium.
"They supercede individuals, they supercede the team and they supercede the club. Our club is a traditional, working class club and the supporters are loyal and passionate and to see them go away happy really makes my day." Craig Sandercock.
Mrs Barista wrote:Sorry, MR, a bit late and a bit cryptic for me. In simple terms, my understanding is: Rovers pay a peppercorn rent over the next 50 years. FC pay £25m+ over the next 50 years. City pay £25m+ over the next 50 years. Council gets nothing for its capital investment in either ground. Have I missed something quantitative - this is a huge difference, as you say.
Surely that cant be true, the council never do anything for Rovers do they?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 104 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
