when would you accept a groundshare arrangement?

[bocadillo]

I think that both sides have missed the boat now.

I would prefer to think it was the wrong boat, so we let it sail away.

 

[Isopen]

What happens if we share and tigers fall into the shit and cannot maintain thier half of the deal?

Isn't that more likely the other way around. That's a question I would expect Tigers fans to be asking

 

[Isopen]

If we get promoted this season, we'll look back and say "thank fukk we didn't submit ourselves to that stupid fukking idea"

But would we stay up and wouldn't the extra funds free'd up by handy for attempting to stay up?

 

[Isopen]

Unfortunately the clubs had no problem with that but the two ruling bodies each wanted the stadium to be a priority to their game. I believe that was a hurdle that was unbreachable.

It suits both clubs to blame that issue, however if that had been the sole reason its a very poor one to fail, because the real reason behind that issue was TV companies competing schedules (& the relevant authorities fear of devaluing their deal with the media cos) & bugger all to do with 2 sporting organisations not being able to compromise

 

[Isopen]

Only if we were told that the receivers were called in, the club would be officially bankrupt and would no longer exist.

To then be told that sharing with the Tigers would save us, I would gratefully accept it

Only that would be completely on Tigers terms, it wouldn't be 50/50 owned, it would be Tigers ground with us renting as a venue, as they would hold all the cards.

Isn't that worse?

 

[drummindefender]

You're easily pleased.

i just think at the moment boc we haven't got any realisitic chance of getting promoted-i really hope i'm wrong but i can';t see it-the only way this is going to change is if we sign 3-4 quality players-this can either be possibly funded by a ground share or by selling one of our players-the latter is clearly a step in the wrong direction and shows a severe lack of ambition

 

[bocadillo]

Only that would be completely on Tigers terms, it wouldn't be 50/50 owned, it would be Tigers ground with us renting as a venue, as they would hold all the cards.

Isn't that worse?

I don't think you read Melton's post properly. It would be a last resort to avoid going out of existence - sharing with the Tigers would not be worse than that.

 

[bocadillo]

i just think at the moment boc we haven't got any realisitic chance of getting promoted-i really hope i'm wrong but i can';t see it-the only way this is going to change is if we sign 3-4 quality players-this can either be possibly funded by a ground share or by selling one of our players-the latter is clearly a step in the wrong direction and shows a severe lack of ambition

And you are willing to swap our own ground forever in exchange for a few players who will last a few years each?

That wouldn't be my choice.

 

[Melton Fox]

Thanks Boc, couldn't have put it better myself

 

[Boy Genius]

And you are willing to swap our own ground forever in exchange for a few players who will last a few years each?

That wouldn't be my choice.

 

[DesertFox]

this can either be possibly funded by a ground share or by selling one of our players-the latter is clearly a step in the wrong direction and shows a severe lack of ambition

Just as a side issue... if we did sell one player for good money, brought in two or three more, and then the team goes on to get promotion, would you still think that it "shows a severe lack of ambition"? After all, if we're going to get promoted at any time in the near future, that may well be the way we do it.

I'd describe it as a different tactic, but not necessarily a lack of ambition.

 

[OldGit]

Just as a side issue... if we did sell one player for good money, brought in two or three more, and then the team goes on to get promotion, would you still think that it "shows a severe lack of ambition"? After all, if we're going to get promoted at any time in the near future, that may well be the way we do it.

I'd describe it as a different tactic, but not necessarily a lack of ambition.

Absolutely. It's nothing new - through much of out history we have survived & improved in that way. Increasingly that is the way middle-sized clubs like us are having to operate - barring a sugar daddy coming along. West Ham are probably the prime example.

Even the top teams no longer hang on to their stars long term (with a few exceptions). And the fact is that a £10m player in a team of average players will rarely be able to deliver their full potential - selling them and getting three £2m players will often give a better return in football terms as well as financially.

What it does mean is that the club has to become skilled at bringing on youngsters through the academy and spotting hidden talents in the lower leagues who can be improved.

 

[Leesoh]

because it's their ground and they lease it to the rugby team.
the egg-chasers are tenants, not joint-owners.

If I was struggling with my mortgage, and really didn't want to downgrade, I'd be looking at a tennant, not to sell half my house.

Could the fact that this hasn't happened be anything to do with them thinking that they are bigger than us?

 

[BOB HAZELL]

not pretty i know, but i think tigers are far more stable than we are at the moment.

FACT! Unlike us, they're rolling in dosh.....

 

[BOB HAZELL]

Why would what we are planning to do be any differnet from what reading have done? How come they managed to agree which took priority but we cant?

Answer: Tigers' owner wouldn't back down/wasn't truly 100% in doing it anyway (unless everything was on his terms - which LCFC were 'almost' prepared to buckle in to!)

 

[BOB HAZELL]

I would prefer to think it was the wrong boat, so we let it sail away.

Exactly.

 

[BOB HAZELL]

Could the fact that this hasn't happened be anything to do with them thinking that they are bigger than us?

Unfortunately L, when it came down to it, they do have more financial clout than us hence they consider themselves - rightly or wrongly - to be "bigger than us" as you put it....

 

[Leesoh]

Unfortunately L, when it came down to it, they do have more financial clout than us hence they consider themselves - rightly or wrongly - to be "bigger than us" as you put it....

Not really, we have a significantly higher turnover, but we also have higher outgoings than they do. The only thing they do have over us is a potential sugar daddy. But he's not putting his money in by the sounds of things.

And it's not just financially I was speaking. They are the Manure of Rugby Union, and although their achievements are significant in this part of the world, football has far more exposure and revenue that RU ever will. More people will know who Leicester City are than know who the Tiggers are.

 

[BOB HAZELL]

Not really, we have a significantly higher turnover, but we also have higher outgoings than they do. The only thing they do have over us is a potential sugar daddy. But he's not putting his money in by the sounds of things.

And it's not just financially I was speaking. They are the Manure of Rugby Union, and although their achievements are significant in this part of the world, football has far more exposure and revenue that RU ever will. More people will know who Leicester City are than know who the Tiggers are.

I agree with your views, but...........

my point was that "they" believe, not what you, I or the board of LCFC believe. Turnover and outgoings are irrelevant when you consider their their "potential sugar daddy" as you call him has plenty of cash - mega-millions in fact.

If I was sat round the negotiating table together with the LCFC board and the Tigers hierachy, I know (and they do too) who has the upper hand - and I'm referring to the finanacial side of things before people kick off.....

 

[1966]

If the groundshare provided LCFC with, for example, a modest 10-15% increase in their turnover every year for the long trerm future how many people would still be against the idea ?