when would you accept a groundshare arrangement?

[OldGit]

I assume it was sloppy terminology - something which of course other posters on here are never guilty of. :icon_roll

Turnover would not of course increase, but expenditure would decrease (less rent to pay and fixed overheads being shared), leaving more free cash flow. There are obviously circumstances in which that becomes a compelling argument - at some point the ever-growing debt becomes unsustainable.

Emotionally I am not attracted to the proposition either, but the fact is, as I said earlier in this discussion, that the business case is one the board would be negligent in ignoring, even if, as others have pointed out, it is unlikely to materialise.

 

[1966]

How is ground sharing going to affect the turnover? Have you even thought about the question you are asking?

Let me think.

How about providing us with extra revenue from the reduced sum we pay every year to teachers, which currently stands at over £1m per year minimum.

Then their is the reduced overheads we are liable for by splitting the bills with the Tigers.

 

[bocadillo]

I assume it was sloppy terminology - something which of course other posters on here are never guilty of. :icon_roll

Turnover would not of course increase, but expenditure would decrease (less rent to pay and fixed overheads being shared), leaving more free cash flow. There are obviously circumstances in which that becomes a compelling argument - at some point the ever-growing debt becomes unsustainable.

Emotionally I am not attracted to the proposition either, but the fact is, as I said earlier in this discussion, that the business case is one the board would be negligent in ignoring, even if, as others have pointed out, it is unlikely to materialise.

I'm sure it was sloppy terminology, but that doesn't mean that it should stand unchallenged lest anybody should read it and believe that it could be true. It may, in fact, be that a ground-sharing agreement could reduce turnover in that it might be the last-straw that causes somebody to decide not to renew a season ticket.

Whilst agreeing that several items of overhead will become cheaper, I do wish somebody would list the overheads which will increase as a result of a ground-share.

 

[bocadillo]

Let me think.

How about providing us with extra revenue from the reduced sum we pay every year to teachers, which currently stands at over £1m per year minimum.

Then their is the reduced overheads we are liable for by splitting the bills with the Tigers.

None of that increases turnover. You need to think again.

 

[1966]

Isn't it interesting that on such an important issue all you can do is argue about silly details. I am sure that the mjority understood exactly what I was talking about.

 

[bocadillo]

Isn't it interesting that on such an important issue all you can do is argue about silly details. I am sure that the mjority understood exactly what I was talking about.

Whether you find it is interesting is a matter for you. Even if the mjority did understand exactly what you were talking about, it is still important to challenge the statement that 'turnover will increase' in case even one reader actually took you for your word.

What would happen to any money that would actually be saved is a completely different matter. Some people seem to think that there will be huge amounts of it slopping around and that it would be used to buy a squad who would be consistently able to challenge in the Premiership. Others believe that it is a naive view.

 

[Durham Fox]

My understanding is that the board see the ground share 'creating' around £500k per season that could go directly in to the team. They feel this would probably make the difference between mid table and pushing for a play off spot.

 

[Isopen]

Whilst agreeing that several items of overhead will become cheaper, I do wish somebody would list the overheads which will increase as a result of a ground-share.

Is that perhaps because there aren't any? Think of the major costs:

Power - heat, light - all going to be much cheaper serving one stadium than 2

Rates/local taxes - certainly massive saving across both clubs

Water - consumption may not change much, but fixed costs will be halved

Staffing - in reality should be some savings of duplicated roles, match days would be unchanged, but general admin & hospitality costs should reduce (both must have some days twiddling thumbs)

 

[SilverFox]

In answer to the title of this thread...when the hole in my arse heals over!

 

[OldGit]

Is that perhaps because there aren't any? Think of the major costs:

Power - heat, light - all going to be much cheaper serving one stadium than 2

Rates/local taxes - certainly massive saving across both clubs

Water - consumption may not change much, but fixed costs will be halved

Staffing - in reality should be some savings of duplicated roles, match days would be unchanged, but general admin & hospitality costs should reduce (both must have some days twiddling thumbs)

Wear and tear increases, particularly on the playing surface, but overall maintenance of one stadium would be less than for 2 & be shared. Other items (safety inspection, licensing etc) would halve.

The other increases I can think of are accounting costs and any "identity" change costs match by match.

We remain one of the few places in the world where major stadia are not shared in some way - sometimes by several sports. I can't think of any other industry where owners would be content for their major capital assest to be used for about 30 days a year.

There are lots of arguments against a ground share, but they do not include financial ones.

 

[Leesoh]

The way I see it is this. Yes, there would be a reduction in outgoings. However, I think they need 24,000 attendances to break even for staging matches, that's players wages, non-playing staff etc then this places more importance on the non-matchday revenue. If we groundshare, we will split this revenue between the two clubs 50:50. So whilst we would make savings on bills, we would lose income.

Unless of course the Tiggers are such a huge pull that they could get the stadium used all day, every day, in which case why isn't Welford Road turning corporate events away?

Even our board can't argue against that.

To me, it's a huge gamble that would leave us worse off than we are now. It's a stupid idea, and I wish whoever thought of it never had done.

But it's not going to happen.

 

[bocadillo]

My understanding is that the board see the ground share 'creating' around £500k per season that could go directly in to the team. They feel this would probably make the difference between mid table and pushing for a play off spot.

£500k could also be got by getting an extra 1,500 season ticket holders. More than that would have been raised by putting £30 onto season ticket prices and a couple of quid on matchday prices. But I haven't seen either of these be quoted as the difference between mid-table and a play-off spot.

 

[bocadillo]

There are lots of arguments against a ground share, but they do not include financial ones.

That's not the same as saying that the financial ones are as compelling as some people wold have us believe.

 

[Durham Fox]

£500k could also be got by getting an extra 1,500 season ticket holders. More than that would have been raised by putting £30 onto season ticket prices and a couple of quid on matchday prices. But I haven't seen either of these be quoted as the difference between mid-table and a play-off spot.

You may not have seen about the extra 1,500 season ticket holders being the difference but I have heard the club talking about it.

 

[1966]

£500k could also be got by getting an extra 1,500 season ticket holders. More than that would have been raised by putting £30 onto season ticket prices and a couple of quid on matchday prices. But I haven't seen either of these be quoted as the difference between mid-table and a play-off spot.

The club have directly linked the number of season tickets to squad investment on a number of occasions.

Can we presume then that you are in favour of more expensive tickets?

 

[bocadillo]

The club have directly linked the number of season tickets to squad investment on a number of occasions.

Can we presume then that you are in favour of more expensive tickets?

I am neither in favour of nor against a rise in the price of season tickets. But it throws the supposedly massive advantage of a ground-share into true perspective when it is realised that the same amount of finance could be raised from only a £30 rise in season-ticket prices. In fact the reduction of the maximum 'early-booking' discount on season-tickets this season would have raised the same amount in a far less emotive fashion with far less potential consequences.