Tigers groundshare

beaumontfox · Jul 6, 2005

i'm gutted..........

Foxes_Trust · Jul 6, 2005

lako42 said:
i think it goes beyond the sporting context. i think that a developing city like Leicester would be better if we had two state of the art stadiums with the best facilities. It may go some way to restoring our image as a main sporting city. If we can get promotion we will have two top class sides with two top class teams. matching the other city regeneration plans to get going in the near future. more chance of hosting big games and more money into the local area.

The only problem being, that "two state of the art stadiums with the best facilities" would then be competing for the same customers & the net result is lossed non match income to LCFC.

Add that to the level of savings that would have been made & its a sizeable drop in net revenue. As we posted on our website following the open meeting back in May, the playing budget will halve from this season to next if we aren't promoted & the ground share doesn't go ahead (which seems to be the case from the comments last night).

With a number of new signings on 2-3 year contracts, it sounds like anyone out of contract next summer could again be departing

fcukcov · Jul 6, 2005

Foxes_Trust said:
With a number of new signings on 2-3 year contracts, it sounds like anyone out of contract next summer could again be departing

for a club our size in the current financial situation that football is in can we really expect anything else?

Hazzman · Jul 7, 2005

Just noticed next year Tigers will be having matches where they will be no general sale. It sounds like they could easily get 20k at the Walkers. I think City have missed a massive opportunity.

lazzer · Jul 7, 2005

durham as our TB representative did tim give any reasons as to why the groundshare would not go ahead

Foxes_Trust · Jul 7, 2005

lazzer said:
durham as our TB representative did tim give any reasons as to why the groundshare would not go ahead

We can answer, no - he just said he believed an announcement would be made later this week

Foxes_Trust · Jul 7, 2005

Hazzman said:
Just noticed next year Tigers will be having matches where they will be no general sale. It sounds like they could easily get 20k at the Walkers. I think City have missed a massive opportunity.

Unless they play at the Walkers for those big games, paying to hire on a match by match basis. We have heard nothing from the club on this, but it is a rumour that has reached our ears from a couple of sources

Durham Fox · Jul 7, 2005

lazzer said:
durham as our TB representative did tim give any reasons as to why the groundshare would not go ahead

Nope, just said he couldn't gom in to but it would be announced in a few days.

Granite Fox · Jul 7, 2005

A big financial opportunity lost for us I am afraid.

I don't know why so many Foxes had a problem with the idea - my only concern was stadium branding and the pitch.

Durham Fox · Jul 7, 2005

Granite Fox said:
A big financial opportunity lost for us I am afraid.

I don't know why so many Foxes had a problem with the idea - my only concern was stadium branding and the pitch.

It think they were the only concerns of everyone against it.

lazzer · Jul 7, 2005

cant say i was over the moon about it but i would tolerate anything if it improved the financial future of my club

Lako42 · Jul 7, 2005

Foxes_Trust said:
The only problem being, that "two state of the art stadiums with the best facilities" would then be competing for the same customers & the net result is lossed non match income to LCFC.

Add that to the level of savings that would have been made & its a sizeable drop in net revenue. As we posted on our website following the open meeting back in May, the playing budget will halve from this season to next if we aren't promoted & the ground share doesn't go ahead (which seems to be the case from the comments last night).

With a number of new signings on 2-3 year contracts, it sounds like anyone out of contract next summer could again be departing

but at the same time there are two stadiums now and two teams fighting for the local public. at the end of the day the way to eradicate that problem is for leicester city to start performing on the pitch. i guess the majority of people would rather watch city in the top league than the tigers. however the tigers have theyre own hardcore fan base which obviously merits a new stadium as it is. If we are in the prem and so are the tigers there should not be a problem. two teams in a city the size of leicester is common. two stadiums is even better.

Foxes_Trust · Jul 7, 2005

lako42 said:
but at the same time there are two stadiums now and two teams fighting for the local public. at the end of the day the way to eradicate that problem is for leicester city to start performing on the pitch. i guess the majority of people would rather watch city in the top league than the tigers. however the tigers have theyre own hardcore fan base which obviously merits a new stadium as it is. If we are in the prem and so are the tigers there should not be a problem. two teams in a city the size of leicester is common. two stadiums is even better.

We are not talking about on the pitch related revenue, we mean the conference facilities which we are sure any new stand built at the Tigers will have an equal standard to that on offer at the Walkers. We are both then competing for the same customers, the net effect is lost revenue for LCFC.

Durham Fox · Jul 7, 2005

But if there was only one venue then the revenue would still be shared. So what's the difference?

Semper Eadem · Jul 7, 2005

Excellent decision.

I'd rather spend 10 seasons struggling with limited finances than be a football club without its own home.

bluefox · Jul 8, 2005

http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/articles/2005/07/08/city_tigers_groundshare_feature.shtml

Definiatley off

Dickovforengland! · Jul 8, 2005

Brilliant - the chance of reduced expenditure out the window, great news especially if we don't get promoted this year.

bluefox · Jul 8, 2005

Semper Eadem said:
Excellent decision.

I'd rather spend 10 seasons struggling with limited finances than be a football club without its own home.

We already are a football club without its own home. The ground is owned by American Teachers Pension Fund

Macky · Jul 8, 2005

bluefox said:
We already are a football club without its own home. The ground is owned by American Teachers Pension Fund

that really misses the point

the stadium is identifiable as the home of LCFC

if you have a mortgage on your house, you would still describe it as your home.

if, however, you were to let one of your next door neighbours buy into your house & let them move in with you, would it still feel like your home??
would it bollix

lazzer · Jul 8, 2005

Macky said:
that really misses the point

the stadium is identifiable as the home of LCFC

if you have a mortgage on your house, you would still describe it as your home.

if, however, you were to let one of your next door neighbours buy into your house & let them move in with you, would it still feel like your home??
would it bollix

no but if they paid half the bills and were very hot i wouldnt mind at all

P		Pld	Pts
1	Leicester	46	97
2	Ipswich	46	96
3	Leeds Utd	46	90
4	Southampton	46	87
5	West Brom	46	75
6	Norwich City	46	73
7	Hull City	46	70
8	Middlesbro	46	69
9	Coventry City	46	64
10	Preston	46	63
11	Bristol City	46	62
12	Cardiff City	46	62
13	Millwall	46	59
14	Swansea City	46	57
15	Watford	46	56
16	Sunderland	46	56
17	Stoke City	46	56
18	QPR	46	56
19	Blackburn	46	53
20	Sheffield W	46	53
21	Plymouth	46	51
22	Birmingham	46	50
23	Huddersfield	46	45
24	Rotherham Utd	46	27

Tigers groundshare

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

Moderator

Active Member

Active Member

El Dude Brother.

Active Member

El Dude Brother.

Moderator

Well-Known Member

Active Member

El Dude Brother.

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Gruntled Member

Moderator

Championship