Deal edging closer? | Page 57 | Vital Football

Deal edging closer?

Wouldn't hold your breath, nothing substantial to say, bye bye Samy and the circus goes on IMO
I'm more interested if they'll be driving forward all the decisions (someone pointed out on another thread the people heading the talks aren't "business" people) or if at some point they'll be putting what they've talked about / agreed to the members of the supporters club or the "new supporters club" members.
 
https://www.egi.co.uk/legal/wigan-athletic-fails-in-football-stadium-business-rates-challenge/

In this article the President of the Valuation Tribunal admits that the system needs to be looked at.

Edit:

If a new company is formed to run the stadium it may then have grounds to challenge the valuation as a material change will then have occurred.

another point which dawns on me is that in these days of Covid we have a perfect venue in the DW stadium I.e we have a fan base of say 8k to 9k and a 25k capacity stadium !

we can easily put say 2k fans on each of the 4 sides and space them out giving plenty of “social distance” ie we have the advantage of being able to seat all our fans and still social distance ! - not many clubs can do that.

we should push this fact with the EFL & government and get permission to get our fans back in the stadium in October - we could even be one of the first teams allowed if we played our cards right !
 
Listen springy I said I wouldn't respond but I will...i have a strange sense of humour which isn't to everyone's taste but I wasn't singling you out cos I try to take the piss out everyone including myself. If I have offended you I apologise unreservedly as it wasn't my intention at all. There's not a lot of tics around so we shouldn't faw out between the fans we have. Let's move on eh and both discuss important stuff...like our bloody survival.
We are all edgy at present, with what's going on,
we all get our knickers in twist over one wrong word.

The survival of the club is more important than fans falling out with one another, these are stressful times for all Latics
fans and sometimes we all get mixed messages wrong,

There is hell of a lot going on at the moment and it's hard
to keep tags on present news.

No hard feelings, lets move on and support the Latics the
best we can.
 
If i recall correctly the stadium between Latics, Warriors and all other event hire only brought in 800k combined in last stadium accounts. So if I'm remembering right you are looking at heavy rent increases.

We apparently also keep all of the mone spent on food and drink from Warriors and it doesn't really help cover the loss.

Reduced staffing costs will be offset by lack of match day revenue. I think it's a lot harder than you anticipate to bridge the gap.

The figures from the accounts for last year show a loss of approx 1.5 million, however that was artificially inflated because of a change of accounting periods and the loss of income from the stadium naming rights as the deal with DW ended. The losses from the previous year are more indicative of the actual losses and they stand at 750k.

You are right about the rental income, that amounted to 810k a slight increase on the previous year.

The catering and hospitality income is the big earner and that includes the income from all sales at match days for both us and the rugby. Last season that was 2.4 million, again slightly up from the previous season.

Stadium naming rights were down as I said by 140K but it has always been said that the deal with DW benefitted him more than the club and I think an improvement could be made in that respect.

Looking back at the years before the IEC takeover the losses were more akin to the 750k rather than the higher losses of the last year which as I have explained were due to the extended accounting period.

If we could agree a decent stadium naming deal we could possibly reduce the losses by 50-100k. I have speculated that by having a joint ownership arrangement it might be possible to renegotiate the rental agreement of both clubs and it would be then in their interest to do so we could further reduce the losses.

It may not be possible to completely eradicate the losses this way but it is certainly something I think should be explored. I think that the people in charge of both clubs now recognise the symbiotic relationship between the clubs and that neither is able to sustain the stadium on their own. It would make sense to combine their efforts and buy and run the stadium together to minimise the chances of either or both of them having to find new homes.

One thing to consider if they do decide to move ground is whether they would be able to get facilities equal to what they have now for the rental figures they are currently paying.

My apologies for the long winded nature of this reply but it is difficult to explain the figures in a shorter form.
 
Sorry TB ... had been at work yesterday.
There is a line towards the end of the accounts that notes:
Wigan Athletic paid 1.078 million to the Stadium Company 2018/2019
Wigan Athletic paid.jpg

As I mentioned previously, the Stadium can be a decent source of revenue from areas beyond football and Rugby. It looks like IEC tried to do this but gave up.
Obviously this present ongoing, drawn out commie virus (nonsense) means a company won't benefit for a while.
 
Last edited:
Sorry TB ... had been at work yesterday.
There is a line towards the end of the accounts that notes:
Wigan Athletic paid 1.078 million to the Stadium Company 2018/2019
View attachment 42004

As I mentioned previously, the Stadium can be a decent source of revenue from areas beyond football and Rugby. It looks like IEC tried to do this but gave up.
Obviously this present ongoing, drawn out commie virus (nonsense) means a company won't benefit for a while.

Not sure I fully understand were that money comes from and were it is shown on the balance sheet.
 
The figure will be a portion of the 1st line - catering and 3rd line - Rental income

Stadium money.jpg

Regarding salaries, the number of Stadium staff was reduced but the wages bill went up. This to me suggests a few enhanced directors fees swilling around in those figures.
Don't quote me, but I also vaguely recall that a number of employees took the stadium company to a tribunal as they were entitled to holiday pay. That was before IEC took over and the money accounted for in another set of accounts.

Stadium Staff and Wages.jpg
 
The figure will be a portion of the 1st line - catering and 3rd line - Rental income

View attachment 42006

Regarding salaries, the number of Stadium staff was reduced but the wages bill went up. This to me suggests a few enhanced directors fees swilling around in those figures.
Don't quote me, but I also vaguely recall that a number of employees took the stadium company to a tribunal as they were entitled to holiday pay. That was before IEC took over and the money accounted for in another set of accounts.

View attachment 42007

What is confusing me is why it has been shown as a separate item and not been differentiated on the balance sheet. Could this have been money owed from a previous season ?

Also I don't think the number of employees would have made that much difference as they are from the stadium staff and would probably have been part time stewards or catering staff, probably to do with the change of catering suppliers on the concourse. I am more akin to believing these were salaries and expenses for the overseas Directors, which should bring the overheads down as they are no longer with us.

Like you I do believe there is potential to make the stadium profitable but would need the right people at the top and some understanding from the clubs in relation to rental charges.