Jukesays wrote:Under DW the losses of the stadium (and both the rugby and football) were hidden from the fan.
For various reasons it didn't matter to Dave Whelan in that he could use the clubs as his play thing, for tax purposes, advertisement for his own companies etc. So it kind of didn't matter that the stadium had no naming rights bringing in income (it's been open 24 years and no real Stadium naming sponsorship rights have come into it in all that time from a 3rd party).

The changes really.started with IL's purchase in 2008, and the peppercorn rent debate, the transfer of ownership from a 3rd party Co Whelco into Latics name etc. (Which was a poison chalice, even though imo it was morally questionable).

The stadium has running costs, and they are quite significant
And apart from the matchday corporate income its never really maximised its potential for various reasons inc the ones mentioned above.

There's a myriad of conversations here, but here's some pointers.

When Whelan sold to the Chinese consortium in approx 2017/18 the stadium was just under 20yrs old, it had no naming rights, had issues with bringing revenue in apart from matchday experience and larger than average outgoings due to pitch issues etc.
But also as it hadn't for the first 18/19yrs been ring fenced as its own business, separate to the clubs, which it then became in effect because previously losses/expenditure were covered by Whealn.
At this point it was discovered to ne losing around 1.5million per year as an independent business, along with it approaching a certain benchmark in the age of the stadium were checks on infrastructure were/are legally required. A large amount of money (well into the millions were/are needed to complete those checks and bring the stadium into the 2020's legally and from a future use/investment perspective).

The Chinese didn't do it, the Bahranis haven't done it, and in fact imo they've made another error in their deal with sodexo were they've sold the rights to the matchday income for a a lump sum of money. This was an early sign to me that the investments some thought were coming from the owners weren't going to happen (not sure on the deal but in exchange for Sodexo updating some stuff inside the stadium and a million pound (guesstimate but I've heard it's something like that) the money from the concourse etc doesn't now belong to WAFC).

So some 5 plus years on the stadium still needs 10/15million spending on it legally and to help it maximise income, its still losing over a million a year as an independent business and one of its largest income stream assets doesn't belong to them.

As an aside, if any of the numptys start talking about increasing rent to the 1million approx Hull FC and Huddersfield pay in comparison to our approx 650k bear this in mind
HullFC and Hudds use the stadium 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year for all there other departments etc, whilst we're paying that for in effect maybe 1 day x 14/15 days a year.

There is no doubt the stadium isn't being used to its maximum capacity/efficiency/potential, but due to DW's way of running it and then subsequently the 2 latics owners since inability or unwillingness to invest in it were at a stage were a large Investments is needed to maximise its potential whilst at the same time its losing over a million a year.

I believe that IL has plan a/b/c with regards to the future, but obviously these are dependant on some factors out of our/his control.

However, as it stands IL has invested in Robin Park (and its incredulous/astonishing that some Latics Numptys perpetuate the myth that the council "give" the stadium to the rugby at the tax payers expense etc. Whilst choosing to ignore the full fetails of the deal so they can play the victim) and the benefits of living within our means and having to adapt to a financially sustainable plan/business back in 2008 has led us to a situation were we are relatively stable whilst people can draw their own conclusions about the sustainability of the football were outgoing on wages alone are 256% (something like that) more than total revenue.

The rugby have some challenges post covid, the repayment of the government loans etc post covid provide challenges, but the investment in Robin Park is bearing fruit in helping to achieve that along with Mike Dansons significinat i vestment and commitment behind the scenes. Relatively small losses for the rugby for the past 5 years or so are like to be repeated for the next 5 or so because of post covid commitments but there is a plan, there is sustainability and whilst not ideal that the 1 thing that 99% of what the regular fans see I.e. what pitch we play on, is not 100% in our control and does leave questions.
There's not a lot we can do about that, but I know who's shoes I'd rather be in, and IL's plans a/b/c etc are far more workable than the current football plans/experience.

Jukesays wrote:Under DW the losses of the stadium (and both the rugby and football) were hidden from the fan.
For various reasons it didn't matter to Dave Whelan in that he could use the clubs as his play thing, for tax purposes, advertisement for his own companies etc. So it kind of didn't matter that the stadium had no naming rights bringing in income (it's been open 24 years and no real Stadium naming sponsorship rights have come into it in all that time from a 3rd party).

The changes really.started with IL's purchase in 2008, and the peppercorn rent debate, the transfer of ownership from a 3rd party Co Whelco into Latics name etc. (Which was a poison chalice, even though imo it was morally questionable).

The stadium has running costs, and they are quite significant
And apart from the matchday corporate income its never really maximised its potential for various reasons inc the ones mentioned above.

There's a myriad of conversations here, but here's some pointers.

When Whelan sold to the Chinese consortium in approx 2017/18 the stadium was just under 20yrs old, it had no naming rights, had issues with bringing revenue in apart from matchday experience and larger than average outgoings due to pitch issues etc.
But also as it hadn't for the first 18/19yrs been ring fenced as its own business, separate to the clubs, which it then became in effect because previously losses/expenditure were covered by Whealn.
At this point it was discovered to ne losing around 1.5million per year as an independent business, along with it approaching a certain benchmark in the age of the stadium were checks on infrastructure were/are legally required. A large amount of money (well into the millions were/are needed to complete those checks and bring the stadium into the 2020's legally and from a future use/investment perspective).

The Chinese didn't do it, the Bahranis haven't done it, and in fact imo they've made another error in their deal with sodexo were they've sold the rights to the matchday income for a a lump sum of money. This was an early sign to me that the investments some thought were coming from the owners weren't going to happen (not sure on the deal but in exchange for Sodexo updating some stuff inside the stadium and a million pound (guesstimate but I've heard it's something like that) the money from the concourse etc doesn't now belong to WAFC).

So some 5 plus years on the stadium still needs 10/15million spending on it legally and to help it maximise income, its still losing over a million a year as an independent business and one of its largest income stream assets doesn't belong to them.

As an aside, if any of the numptys start talking about increasing rent to the 1million approx Hull FC and Huddersfield pay in comparison to our approx 650k bear this in mind
HullFC and Hudds use the stadium 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year for all there other departments etc, whilst we're paying that for in effect maybe 1 day x 14/15 days a year.

There is no doubt the stadium isn't being used to its maximum capacity/efficiency/potential, but due to DW's way of running it and then subsequently the 2 latics owners since inability or unwillingness to invest in it were at a stage were a large Investments is needed to maximise its potential whilst at the same time its losing over a million a year.

I believe that IL has plan a/b/c with regards to the future, but obviously these are dependant on some factors out of our/his control.

However, as it stands IL has invested in Robin Park (and its incredulous/astonishing that some Latics Numptys perpetuate the myth that the council "give" the stadium to the rugby at the tax payers expense etc. Whilst choosing to ignore the full fetails of the deal so they can play the victim) and the benefits of living within our means and having to adapt to a financially sustainable plan/business back in 2008 has led us to a situation were we are relatively stable whilst people can draw their own conclusions about the sustainability of the football were outgoing on wages alone are 256% (something like that) more than total revenue.

The rugby have some challenges post covid, the repayment of the government loans etc post covid provide challenges, but the investment in Robin Park is bearing fruit in helping to achieve that along with Mike Dansons significinat i vestment and commitment behind the scenes. Relatively small losses for the rugby for the past 5 years or so are like to be repeated for the next 5 or so because of post covid commitments but there is a plan, there is sustainability and whilst not ideal that the 1 thing that 99% of what the regular fans see I.e. what pitch we play on, is not 100% in our control and does leave questions.
There's not a lot we can do about that, but I know who's shoes I'd rather be in, and IL's plans a/b/c etc are far more workable than the current football plans/experience.

MattyB wrote:Would love to know IL's Plan A, Plan B and Plan C.

NickyKiss wrote:I’m a fan of both but am open eyed enough to know there is a decent element of the Latics fan base who are as thick as a submarine door. The sheer notion that the club could ever afford to ‘kick out’ the rugby is pie in the sky, certainly in it’s current state (or the state it was in when the Bahraini’s took over).

The problem a lot of Latics fans have is that they’ve supported them since the time around the promotion from the Championship, to the Premier League. That is where they see the clubs ‘level’ but it really isn’t. The club for decades before that were a league 2 club, akin to clubs like Rochdale and Stockport (both of these have dropped out of the football league altogether over the past few years). That means those supporters see the club as one who should be able to compete for the premier league again and should be able to assert dominance over the rugby club.

They never wanted takeovers from parties who would run the club on the basis of self sustainability because that means being a permanent league one or league two club. Those supporters loved lauding it over fans of Bolton and Sunderland when the Bahraini’s come in, when they beat both of those clubs to signings. Those clubs both accused Latics of blowing them out of the water with unrealistic salary offers but those Latics fans I spoke off didn’t care and accused them of jealousy. The warning signings were there that these new owners were going sh*t or bust. The fans of Sunderland and Bolton are now both looking forward to the play offs, aiming to get promotion to the Premier League and the Championship respectively, while seemingly being run within their means and Latics don’t know if they’ll have a club. I really wish those type of Latics fans would find some humility from somewhere. I hoped the last administration period would be a lesson for them but sadly not.

My hope for the football club is that it gets bought out by a sensible owner/group of owners, who will strip it back and be comfortable living within its means and if that’s league one and two for a decade or more, that is absolutely fine. They would hopefully be somebody sensible enough to build really strong relationships with Lenagan and Rads and make sure the rugby club actually felt like the DW was its home.

Egg Chasing wrote:I think the best for both parties would be that neither club owns the stadium. The council already control the lease so would make sense for them just to take full ownership and ensure that both clubs pay equal shares into the stadium and take equal shares out (you would probably need to amend this based on usage) rather than the current situation.