Stadium is looking shabby | Page 18 | Vital Football

Stadium is looking shabby

ExiledViking said:
Correct, that's market value for a 50/50 split shared stadium.
And as we all know, a 50/50 split would mean the Egg Chasers would have more of a say in the Stadium than they currently have.

I would be truly astonished if the rent went up 200% (£900k approx)
Click to expand...
What ever rent we charge, it will end up in court
 
Mighty Bongsmon said:
I don't think someone buying the stadium massively devalued Latics & made a sale more difficult - as I mentioned the American/French group didn't want the stadium as its a bit of a white elephant, needs/needed money spending on it, its too big & it loses £1mill a year.
Get that millstone from round Latics neck & have us paying rent instead with the owners able to put money straight in to the club rather than the stadium & it was more attractive to some - after all that arrangement hasn't harmed investment in Wigan RL
There was no real value in Latics as a separate entity anyway & hence why the administrators said that if you bought the stadium and/or the training ground you could buy us for a quid

I thought exactly the same as you though regarding the Warriors contacting the council to let them know what was happening. The council said a while back when the Bahraini bid was going through that the issue of rent between the stadium owners & the tenants was nothing to do with them & not the reason for any delay with authorising a lease to any new owners
In all honesty I don't really think that the Warriors themselves have any say in what the rent is so the use of the word negotiating isn't really correct IMO. If you rent a house out to a tenant, you're losing money & say to the tenant that you're going to increase the rent by £50 a week if they turned round & asked to negotiate a figure more acceptable to them, then you'd tell them where to go. That's a simplistic view I know but I think Radlinski was overplaying their say in the matter to reassure/placate their fans
Click to expand...
Just a reflection.
Citing the case of Coventry City, they found their rental of the Ricoh to not work in their favour, no match day income from food and drink sales, only income from bums on seats, had to rent the club shop space.
This sounds similar to what we imagine the Rugby deal is, hence Robin Park.
 
ExiledViking said:
No one is trying to get rid of them.
The point I'm trying to make is, if the annual agreement rises above what they consider a fair amount, they would consider other options.
That has already been alluded to, in the transcript from the secretive fans forum.
Click to expand...

And I wouldn't blame them. Our owners are looking after us and they're owners are doing the same
That's one of the reasons why it won't be hiked beyond what is reasonable. It's in both clubs interests for them to stay at the DW
 
gazlatic said:
As much as there is animosity between the fans it's in our best interests to keep them here. It's money coming in to pay for upkeep. We should definitely increase it but not to a point where we lose the tenant. That would be silly, because that's money we'd have to take away from somewhere else.

In no way does that stop us putting our stamp on the ground. Blue and white seats and what not, make it clear who the senior partner is.
Click to expand...
Partner what partner its the owner of latics v rent payers no partner whatsoever
 
When individuals, or a club in this case, get accustomed to benefits, free handouts and preferential treatment they then feel they are entitled and expect this to continue.

They have always had a cosy relationship with the council. They have been gifted a multi million pound asset which is now generating them income. They’ve had better than mates rates rental agreements to use a stadium for years, putting them at a significant advantage over numerous other rugby rivals. Effectively they are now going to have their benefits cut and will have to start standing on their own two feet. Yet unsurprisingly they’ve run to the council to try and help them to stop this benefit cut. It’s pathetic.

From our owners perspective it is a simple business decision. They own an asset which is losing money annually. One of the users of that is paying no where near what they should to use it. As such to help reduce this loss this user will need to start paying more. It’s not a difficult equation.

If Pollard doesn’t want to start paying fair market rate then he’s entitled to leave and play elsewhere. Is that unfair on their fans? Yes. However that’s his problem to resolve. Personally I find his behaviour reprehensible. He’s had favourable rates for years, then sought on 3 occasions to buy the ground putting the future of our club at significant risk. To plead for unity now is pathetic and he will have to pay the price for this treachery.
 
Mighty Bongsmon said:
And I wouldn't blame them. Our owners are looking after us and they're owners are doing the same
That's one of the reasons why it won't be hiked beyond what is reasonable. It's in both clubs interests for them to stay at the DW
Click to expand...
But what is "reasonable"???
A 50% rise would see the Egg Chasers pay roughly £450k a year (which is what I would consider the low end of reasonable).

Given they only paid £241k in 2019 because they moved food & drink sales to Robin Park, I'm not sure they would consider a hike of over £200k "reasonable".

Maybe that's why Kris Radlinski is getting his knickers in a knot, because the increase IS reasonable, but not what the Egg Chasers would consider "reasonable".
 
Last edited:
Running to the council just shows what really goes on in this town
They the rugby still believe they are the big boys and its a rugby town
Those days are long gone
Reminds me of someone who because they cant get their own way ,spits dummy out and runs home to their big dad crying
Tough pay up or feck off
 
What we could do with now is the third party of this love in triangle to come out and give us her version of events
But i doubt that will ever happen
 
N"Zogbia's fan club said:
Latest accounts due in 10 days
Click to expand...
We already know they're in a considerable amount of debt.
- Reduction in Super League funding
- Reduction in match day income
- Reduction in TV revenue
- Increase in medical insurance
- Increased wage bill (though probably not in line with inflation)
etc etc etc

They will try to cry poverty to ensure the rent increase is, what THEY believe to be, reasonable.
 
gazlatic said:
As much as there is animosity between the fans it's in our best interests to keep them here. It's money coming in to pay for upkeep. We should definitely increase it but not to a point where we lose the tenant. That would be silly, because that's money we'd have to take away from somewhere else.

In no way does that stop us putting our stamp on the ground. Blue and white seats and what not, make it clear who the senior partner is.
Click to expand...
Not if they aren’t paying the market rate. We just spent 600k on a footballer. Their paltry 300k isn’t worth the damage they do to our pitch, the vandalism their fans do to the ground with the Fuck Latics stickers etc. Pay the going rate or they are nothing but a hindrance.
 
Last edited:
gazlatic said:
As much as there is animosity between the fans it's in our best interests to keep them here. It's money coming in to pay for upkeep. We should definitely increase it but not to a point where we lose the tenant. That would be silly, because that's money we'd have to take away from somewhere else.

In no way does that stop us putting our stamp on the ground. Blue and white seats and what not, make it clear who the senior partner is.
Click to expand...
What if our valuation on rent is miles apart from what the Egg Chasers consider a reasonable increase?

They're already starting to consider their future options, which leads me to believe, they don't agree with our valuation...
 
Apparently the eggs expect something back if they pay the going rate, why should they?
They get to play their games in a Premier League standard football ground at the going rate and that should be enough.
Pay the rent, play your matches and bugger off until your next match.
What do they think they would get from the Horwich Wanderers if they go there? They have been subsidised enough over the years, they are a business not a bleedin' charity.
That has been the problem for 20+ years, the rugby club have and still do expect everything for next to nothing instead of standing on their own two feet.
For fecks sake the Council gave them a £6M Stadium next door, where was our £6M last year when we were nearly going out of business?
I sincerely hope Talal stands firm, and this threat of a massive rise in rent is just a ploy to force the rugby club to bugger off to Horwich or Leigh.
To be fair, if we get £900K a season from them then all well and good, but if the rugby club run off to their spiritual home of Horwich, do you really think he or WAFC will miss £241,000 per year.
The rugby owner has taken everything back 30 years with his antics. His words and actions are far worse than anything Maurice Lindsay came out with.
If anyone believes he had any consideration for the future welfare of WAFC in this sorry tale, they need to book themseles in to the doctor.
Talal, please do not back down one inch to this parasitic set of twats.
 
ExiledViking said:
What if our valuation on rent is miles apart from what the Egg Chasers consider a reasonable increase?

They're already starting to consider their future options, which leads me to believe, they don't agree with our valuation...
Click to expand...

If our valuation and theirs are miles apart then as a business they can take it to a valuation tribunal who will set the going rate.

Edit: Sorry just fact checked this and found that it no longer applies. The resolution process for dispute around rental increases in commercial leases are now enshrined in the lease itself. Therefore it follows that if the existing lease has been transferred, which I suspect it has, the negotiations that Radlinski is referring to will be based on the resolution process that was written into the contract originally.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.