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.