NEW THREAD FOR ALL THINGS TAKEOVER | Page 439 | Vital Football

NEW THREAD FOR ALL THINGS TAKEOVER

Status
Not open for further replies.
TRUE BELIEVER said:
I am purely speculating on this Yon Mon, but could it possibly have been that Latics wanted them to move offices under IEC. They had plans for concerts and the like at the stadium and may have needed the office space or simply not been happy sharing.

As far as the fan area goes, I don't know how much income was lost but I believe the stadium company made no charge for the use of the room and only made a percentage on the catering and bar which are out sourced.

I may be wrong on this and if anyone has the figures I will be happy to accept it being proven.
Click to expand...

When IEC wanted to use the stadium for concerts etc it was reported that the ends would need filling in. Something to keep the noise down it being near a residential area.
If this was true then it would have taken time to do the work necessary.
So there would have been no need for the rugby to move out straightaway.

Also when IEC took over they said the rugby were valuable tenants and didn't want to lose them.

Regarding the fan area and stadium catering. I would think the percentage the stadium company got would be dependant on how much money was made per matchday. The more people in the ground spending the higher percentage to the stadium company.
So the rugby opening their own facility takes money from the ground. Every penny counts for a loss making company.
 
Mighty Bongsmon said:
From what I'm aware of, the council (even as leaseholders) have no say in what rent the Warriors are charged & nor can then withhold the lease to any new stadium owners because of it.
They can refuse the lease if the new stadium owners refused to allow them to play there as that's in the terms of the lease by all accounts

I have no desire to see the rugby club crippled, but if the stadium is losing £1.5mill a year then it's only right that the new owners look at increasing it's income streams - as well as renting out offices, function rooms, concerts & so on it's only right & proper that the rent paid by the tenants is also reviewed.
Those tenants do include Latics though & so any rent increase should be applied equally to both clubs. That's only fair, but it's also only fair that Wigan RL pay a going rate for use of the stadium
Click to expand...
Wish I had the money then the stadium and Latics would be just the one business.
 
Bickymon1 said:
You mean by upping their rent making them pay a bit more to help with runnung costs
But cant because the council are protecting the wurriors by holding a gun to new stadium owners and saying we own the land you do has we say
Click to expand...

Why do you make statements that are totally untrue, the council are the lease holders (owners) of the land the DW stadium sits on they have no say whatsoever what the lease tennant charges its own tennant.

Can I ask why you keep saying the rent they pay is not enough, I have no time for the warriors but one of the reasons the stadium running costs are so high is because Business Rates are calculated on the income we received when we were in the Premier league (tory policy) 4 to 5 times what they should be now, that is not the Warriors fault and the reason Whelan always paid a greater share of the overall stadium running costs.
 
Yon Mon said:
When IEC wanted to use the stadium for concerts etc it was reported that the ends would need filling in. Something to keep the noise down it being near a residential area.
If this was true then it would have taken time to do the work necessary.
So there would have been no need for the rugby to move out straightaway.

Also when IEC took over they said the rugby were valuable tenants and didn't want to lose them.

Regarding the fan area and stadium catering. I would think the percentage the stadium company got would be dependant on how much money was made per matchday. The more people in the ground spending the higher percentage to the stadium company.
So the rugby opening their own facility takes money from the ground. Every penny counts for a loss making company.
Click to expand...
Well if worst came to the worst and leneghan ended up with stadium then maybe we could set up our fan zone
Maybe the council will provide us with a suitable building or complex for free
 
loudmouthblue said:
Why do you make statements that are totally untrue, the council are the lease holders (owners) of the land the DW stadium sits on they have no say whatsoever what the lease tennant charges its own tennant.

Can I ask why you keep saying the rent they pay is not enough, I have no time for the warriors but one of the reasons the stadium running costs are so high is because Business Rates are calculated on the income we received when we were in the Premier league (tory policy) 4 to 5 times what they should be now, that is not the Warriors fault and the reason Whelan always paid a greater share of the overall stadium running costs.
Click to expand...
Just seen a report about business rates. It seems there are so many appeals against current rates that it will take the government decades to sort it out.
 
Yon Mon said:
When IEC wanted to use the stadium for concerts etc it was reported that the ends would need filling in. Something to keep the noise down it being near a residential area.
If this was true then it would have taken time to do the work necessary.
So there would have been no need for the rugby to move out straightaway.

Also when IEC took over they said the rugby were valuable tenants and didn't want to lose them.

Regarding the fan area and stadium catering. I would think the percentage the stadium company got would be dependant on how much money was made per matchday. The more people in the ground spending the higher percentage to the stadium company.
So the rugby opening their own facility takes money from the ground. Every penny counts for a loss making company.
Click to expand...

As I said it was purely speculative, however it might still have been IEC who asked them to move offices regardless of the time taken to do any work.

I also agree that IEC saw them as valuable tenants but that may have been just on Match days and may not have been keen on sharing office space.

The catering I am referring to would be that in the South Stand pre match fan area. They will still be getting income from the catering inside the ground so the only losses I see would be pre match, which as I have said I believe they only take a percentage of.

Edit:
The main reason for the stadium losses over the last couple of years have been as LMB says the business rates, which are ludicrous and bear no resemblance to the current business, a lack of a stadium sponsorship deal since the DW deal ran out and outdated rent. All of which could be addressed by any new owner.

There was also an amount attributed to the loss from the move of the accounting period when IEC took over.
 
Last edited:
loudmouthblue said:
Why do you make statements that are totally untrue, the council are the lease holders (owners) of the land the DW stadium sits on they have no say whatsoever what the lease tennant charges its own tennant.

Can I ask why you keep saying the rent they pay is not enough, I have no time for the warriors but one of the reasons the stadium running costs are so high is because Business Rates are calculated on the income we received when we were in the Premier league (tory policy) 4 to 5 times what they should be now, that is not the Warriors fault and the reason Whelan always paid a greater share of the overall stadium running costs.
Click to expand...
Cant stand wurriors or council maybe thats why do you think they pay enough rent
We probably as in latics owner might pay more in ground rent to council than wurriors pay in rent for using the stadium
Quote me if wrong but latics pay 127k per year ground rent not sure what our lodgers pay latics owner for use of stadium
 
Yon Mon said:
The rugby use Robin Park to train and have their offices there
They're also allowed to rent out the facility (pre covid) to bring in income.
Click to expand...
But as that track was built with a grant from UK sport on the understanding that it remains a community venue how as this been allowed?
 
Bickymon1 said:
Cant stand wurriors or council maybe thats why do you think they pay enough rent
We probably as in latics owner might pay more in ground rent to council than wurriors pay in rent for using the stadium
Quote me if wrong but latics pay 127k per year ground rent not sure what our lodgers pay latics owner for use of stadium
Click to expand...

Ground rent has been waived by the council for the time the stadium has been open Bicky. It has been their contribution to the running costs.
 
Bickymon1 said:
My exact thinking also , think nandy getting too involved in what may become the final outcome in what we the majority of fans want wealthy owners
She may have a genuine concern about future of club
But might also have a hidden agenda as she stated she is also talking to pollard
She had concerns about the spanish ,now she reports she has concerns about the bahrain group (but she does not want to alarm us the fans)
Any sign of a red flag and she contacts EFL which she states she will do
What annoys me she knew and was tipped off by someone about the chinese she knew there where red flags did she contact the EFL no she did not
I do not trust nandy and its my view only
I feel she is only interested in a local owner be it with little or no money with stadium owned by pollard
This is my thinking only has i said
Click to expand...

Last week people were moaning that LN was too quiet and not interested, this week you are moaning that she may have too much influence with the EFL and have a hidden agenda.
people moaning there was no information, now a bit has leaked out that may or may not be correct and people don't like it.
If the Spanish couldn't pass the EFL test on proof of funding (partly because some of it was a loan) why do you think The Gibson bid will pass it? And more to the point we know nothing of any bids, rumours about loans etc are just that- rumours
Just leave things alone until a deal is done.
 
Last edited:
Kenny Morris said:
Last week people were moaning that LN was too quiet and not interested, this week you are moaning that she may have too much influence with the EFL and have a hidden agenda.
people moaning there was no information, now a bit has leaked out that may or may not be correct and people don't like it.
If the Spanish couldn't pass the EFL test on proof of funding (partly because some of it was a loan) why do you think The Gibson bid will pass it? And more to the point we know nothing of any bids, rumours about loans etc are just that- rumours
Just leave things alone until a deal is done.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
I see you did a edit there
 
Bickymon1 said:
You mean by upping their rent making them pay a bit more to help with runnung costs
But cant because the council are protecting the wurriors by holding a gun to new stadium owners and saying we own the land you do has we say
Click to expand...

The council covenant was put in place to ensure both clubs would be able to have a secure future at the stadium, they would mediate if any disagreement arose or either side behaving in an unreasonable manner. The council likely will leave the 2 clubs to sort it out between them and wouldn't oppose a rent rise if it's fair and justifiable but if it was excessive or exploitive they would step in to try and mediate.
 
Yon Mon said:
The rugby use Robin Park to train and have their offices there
They're also allowed to rent out the facility (pre covid) to bring in income.
Click to expand...

I think the club has made a terrible mistake getting into a position where Warriors and Latics aren't both sharing all of the DW facilities.

We should have the Warriors offices, their club shop, fan zone etc all in the stadium plus give them the ability to rent out space so it brings in more money to help. But unfortunately at the moment it's way more beneficial for them to do their own thing and that is going to be hard to change.

If we could share more facilities and costs more it would only help save us money. I am still hopeful that we can agree a deal to sell them a percentage of the ground so we can split costs more equally and give them the security they are clearly after.
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
The council covenant was put in place to ensure both clubs would be able to have a secure future at the stadium, they would mediate if any disagreement arose or either side behaving in an unreasonable manner. The council likely will leave the 2 clubs to sort it out between them and wouldn't oppose a rent rise if it's fair and justifiable but if it was excessive or exploitive they would step in to try and mediate.
Click to expand...
You mean put in there so latics Couldn't kick rugby out,latics owner owns the stadium no point us having that covenant not going to kick ourselves out now are we
 
Bickymon1 said:
You mean put in there so latics Couldn't kick rugby out,latics owner owns the stadium no point us having that covenant not going to kick ourselves out now are we
Click to expand...

It's absolutely against our interests to kick out tenants and lose more money. It shouldn't ever be a factor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.