Jeff/RFU funding for home-owned grounds

Let's face it - football stadia are inappropriate for rugby because of the fact that they can't be filled by rugby peeps. So I'm fully behind the Wasps and Sarries (soon to be materialised) in their aspirations to gain home ownership of their venues.

In the Jeff we have Bath, Exeter, Harlequins, Gloucester, Leicester, Northampton, Saracens(soon) and Worcester have grounds for which they have primacy of tenure. That's eight sides out of the twelve.

In the Junior Jeffs there's Bedford, Cornwall Pirates (debatable with Truro aspirations), Doncaster, Leeds (with RL), Moseley(tiny), Newcastle, Rotherham (shared with cricket).

A competitive league structure relies on aspiration. A competitive professional league structure relies on aspiration and sustainability. That means long-term planning which won't degrade the top league.

My feelings are that the Jeff should be reduced to ten sides post-2015 RWC and that the RFU should pump in loads of dosh to develop their second tier.

The current Jeff football ground hosts should be given due notice: get in or get out.

Yes, yes, we all know that Leicester have their own ground and we should all be aspiring to be as wonderful as them on and off the field.

That's bollix Oz. I explained to you only yesterday how the Tigers won a jackpot on the advent of professionalism.

I was talking about the long-term sustainability of the Jeff promotion system. I applauded Wasps' aspirations to gain a new ground.

A modicum of communal thinking might be appropriate.

No Portnoy, it's not bollix. Once again you are seeking to attack any side that does not bear some resemblance to Leicester Tigers, in this case in terms of ground ownership.

My club is one that shares a football ground, and has done for some time. Our lease runs I believe until 2024. Why should we be told that we must move or leave the league, just because you believe that football stadiums are inappropriate. The Madejski has some of the best facilities in the country and is an excellent venue to watch sport, be it football or rugby in.

Yes, I would agree that essentially it is a little large for us as we do not fill it on a regular basis, but that is nobody elses concern but our own. What we have done since moving to Reading is tried to put down ties with the community and increase the fan base.

We do not have the luxury of a sugar daddy (a la Bath) or South African money (a la Saracens) so a new build ground is not an option. We have earned the right to play Premiership rugby through our on field performances and have ensured that we are financially ok off the pitch as well.

Just because we don't conform to the Portnoy/Leicester Tigers model of what a rugby club should be does not mean we should be told to 'get in or get out' as you put it. That my friend, is what is bollix!

Portnoy, by the way, we need to have these discussions over a again, rather than online, much more fun.

So what criretia would you set for being part of a reduced franchise top division?
Best use of resources leached off others?

I was proposing the RFU to pump a ton of money into a ground ownership scheme Oz.

My feelings are that the Jeff should be reduced to ten sides post-2015 RWC and that the RFU should pump in loads of dosh to develop their second tier.

The OP started

Bath, Exeter, Harlequins, Gloucester, Leicester, Northampton, Saracens(soon) and Worcester have grounds for which they have primacy of tenure.

I'm not attacking anyone or any side. I'm promoting the need for clubs to have their own grounds.

But why? Why do clubs need to have their own ground?

There are plenty of examples of shared stadia worldwide where there are no issues.

As long as a club has a long term plan and are not looking for a short term fix, then potentially shard stadia can be of huge benefit. Primacy of tenure is not an issue. it has effected us once in the time we've been at Reading, and we moved the game to Twickenham (Heino pool match v Leinster, Jan 2010).

PSW, if your question is directed to me, my answer would be this.

I agree and have advocated for a while that the Premiership and Championship should be 10 team divisions. Were that to happen, say from the start of the 2013/14 season then I would simply have what happens ON the field of play decide who sits where.

Top 9 from the AP 2012/13 plus the winner of the Championship, to make the new 10 team Premiership. Bottom 3 from the AP, plus places 2-7 in the Championship plus the NL1 winners to make up the new Championship, with the bottom end of Championship down into NL1 and so on and so forth.

The need for a home ground of appropriate size is paramount Oz, Plus like renting rather than ownership (even with a mortgage) creates a mind condition of entrenchment. That's a mindset which has sustained the likes of Worcester, Saints, Quins and Exeter have produced.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

PSW, if your question is directed to me, my answer would be this.

I agree and have advocated for a while that the Premiership and Championship should be 10 team divisions. Were that to happen, say from the start of the 2013/14 season then I would simply have what happens ON the field of play decide who sits where.

Top 9 from the AP 2012/13 plus the winner of the Championship, to make the new 10 team Premiership. Bottom 3 from the AP, plus places 2-7 in the Championship plus the NL1 winners to make up the new Championship, with the bottom end of Championship down into NL1 and so on and so forth.

If the sole criteria for deciding who should be in and who should be out is based on league position wont that encourage teams to take ridiculous financial risks in the season prior to the split, and leave the top division full of debt rather than with those capable of producing long term stability and growth?

Why is having a ground of appropriate size paramount Portnoy?

The MadStad is a a 24,000 capacity stadium, and like it or not we are there for about the next 10 years or so, maybe longer. Over the past 4-5 years, and removing the distortion from the LDH, our average home attendance each season has fluctuated between 8 and 12 thousand I believe. Now, were we in a 12,000 capacity stadium our average attendance would be lower, as the bigger stadium allows for 'prestige' games, such as the St Patricks day party, where attendance is always 20,000+, along with big fixtures like Munster in the Heino (sold out) and other games where the club put on something like a family fun day which boosts attendance.

What we aspire to is filling the stadium on a regular basis, but take away that capacity and what is the aspiration?

I agree to a certain degree that renting is not best option, but at present some clubs, us being one, do not have the option of developing our own ground. As long as the rental is part of a long term, sustainable model, as opposed to a quick fix, then what is the issue?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:

PSW, if your question is directed to me, my answer would be this.

I agree and have advocated for a while that the Premiership and Championship should be 10 team divisions. Were that to happen, say from the start of the 2013/14 season then I would simply have what happens ON the field of play decide who sits where.

Top 9 from the AP 2012/13 plus the winner of the Championship, to make the new 10 team Premiership. Bottom 3 from the AP, plus places 2-7 in the Championship plus the NL1 winners to make up the new Championship, with the bottom end of Championship down into NL1 and so on and so forth.

If the sole criteria for deciding who should be in and who should be out is based on league position wont that encourage teams to take ridiculous financial risks in the season prior to the split, and leave the top division full of debt rather than with those capable of producing long term stability and growth?

Of course there is potential for that, but what is your solution? Place the 10 most financially viable teams in the top flight regardless of where they finish in playing terms? That will never happen and nor should it as who sits at the top table should be decided by matters on the field over a period of time. Of course there needs to be measures in place to ensure financial viability, but saying 'you must have your own ground or you are out' is not one of them.

It's more desirable to own your ground. But I don't see why you think clubs need to own their own ground. They don't.

Leinster rent an equestrian arena. I'd rather if we owned a 20k seater stadium of our own. But we don't. And we don't have any prospective site for one either. The idea of telling Leinster to get out of the PRO12 because they don't own the RDS is silly. They're getting on fine in their rented ground.

It would be good if the RFU funded new grounds for the clubs that don't own them. But two questions

1. Stadiums are very very expensive. Could the RFU afford to do this?
2. Would the clubs that already have spent their own money on new stadiums be happy that other clubs are getting them paid for by the RFU?

The whole ethos of this post is that the RFU should sponsor, encourage and assist the financing of home ownership of their own grounds. If LI have committed until 2014 for the Mad, then I'd hope there should be a reasonable get-out clause. Reading is no place for a London rugby club.

No-one here is suggesting that own-ownership should be a necessity. Just a priority.

I wouldn't mind leinster being kicked out of all comps gives everyone else a better chance.

To be fair Leinster still own Donnybrook, and could go back there in front of 2000 people, as they aren't allowed to develop it, mind you getting one ticket a season would be an achievement.

Works fine for them Own Donnybrook and use it for a pre season frindly and 'A' games, use RDS for most games and big games use NLR. Not many teams can call 3 stadiums home.

Ospeys would be Kicked out of the Pro 12, bu how'd miss them? joking, them could end up in Bridgend or Neath or wander around a bit.

But then want next kick out Sharks cos they share with a rugby League team? you'll reduce it down to a 6 team prem eventually.

As an Ulster fan I like that we own our stadium (or the IRFU do), just like the history and the trophy room is shared, not in a connor and another football clubs is the main front, things like that.

For me If with another club would like a joint tendeny rather than be tenants.

Leinster work well with it, but I do here that its one of the most expensive rents there is, London Irish do as well, Ospreys, its all workable, and if the rugby club is happy with it, and it does have a great impact on the fixtures then why not?

2024 LI are there untill at least,

had to laugh at "Reading is no place for a London rugby club." in truth anywhere but London is where London rugby clubs play, think London Wasps, London Irish, and London Welsh.

to be fair it's better that these teams are spread out around a bigger area, rather than having about 6 clubs all within 15 square miles of each other. makes top level rugby more accessable to a wider audance.

'Reading is no place for a London Rugby Club'

That may be your opinion Portnoy, but quite frankly, tough. London Irish will be playing their home games in Reading for the foreseeable future. The clubs administrative headquarters and training ground remain in Sunbury where it has always been, which despite being classified as part of Greater London is actually in the county of Middlesex and policed by Surrey police.

What relevance any of that has to your initial post I am not sure. You can argue about it being a 'London' club if you want, but it's a pointless argument. Change the name and call if Exiles RFC if you think that makes a difference. Is Reading then deserving of having a Premiership rugby club?

Your initial post has a reasonable argument attached, which is that (your words) a competitive league structure relies on aspiration. A competitive professional league structure relies on aspiration and sustainability.

You seem however to be confusing owning your own ground with a sustainable business model.

I speak only for my club here, as I don't know the details of other clubs finances/business models, but ours is perfectly sustainable whilst playing at the MadStad.

I would argue there is more potential for the likes of Bath and Saracens - who you cite as being ok on the basis of owning their own ground - hitting the skids financially if their wealthy benefactors were to suddenly pull out.

Surprisingly I agree with Portnoy.

A rugby side having their own stadium is the best step one can take.

http://www.espnscrum.com/premiership-2011-12/rugby/story/164350.html

Ozzy3123 London Irish are still making a loss.

The 4 clubs only to make a profit have their own stadium. Also no coincidence that the sides with the highest turnover have their own stadium.

To cite your criticism of Bath and Saracens.

Saracens have been getting woeful attendances at Vicarage road, going to a new stadium should see a boost in attendances.

filling Barnet Copthall (10k capacity) shouldn't be too difficult if the marketing machine goes into full swing.

Bath don't have that many problems but are looking to build a new Rec (I think).

Feckless Rogue to answer your questions

1. NO, simply too expensive. The jumping through hoops is also very costly in regards to time and money. The costs and difficulty increase more in London.

2. Again NO but every team wants to do something in regards to their stadium so it would be in the RFU's interest to help all clubs. E.g. Exeter are the most recent club looking to expand.

Problems with cost again. Just giving £500k to each club in the AP would cost a whopping £6m.

I think the idea of RFU funding would be good if it could be made realistic but I cannot see it so far.

I was thinking that RFU secured loans to clubs (at preferential rates?) might have been the way forward. Maybe on a pound-for-pound basis towards clubs' contributions.

I honestly don't know if that's legal though.

I would have thought the sizing of stadia to suit the expected crowd (like - hopefully - the Sarries) would engender much more atmosphere and result in bigger crowds. So get the land, put in one or two expandable stands along the touchline and a clubhouse at one end.

As for the Sarries, how do the temporary stands fit into their planning agreement? How do Bath get away with it?

Portnoy, first problem with your idea is the large number of "London" clubs in the Jeff - Quins are best off in this respect given a good sized stadium in a rugby location.
I'll reserve judgement about Copthall until I go there but Saracens fans have expressed reservations about the plastic pitch, the athletics track and mainly that it's in the middle of nowhere by London standards - no pubs, restaurants etc., near the ground and the only way to get there is either drive or a convoluted bus and train journey - and London suburban train services are notoriously cr4p at the weekend. Not to mention how many season ticket holders they've annoyed with the nomadic travels this coming season.
Re Wasps and London Irish - both I'm sure would love to own thier own stadia and to move back towards London itself however in practice this is all but impossible - to find a location anywhere inside the M25, get past the huge NIMBY backlash as soon as any planning application went in (look at the problems LI had with just upgrading the training ground at Sunbury), and then actually build the thing would take years and cost millions. I doubt that the RFU could afford fund it even if they were willing to.
The sitiuation when upgrading London area second tier clubs would be even harded to sustain as they don't get the crowd that the Jeff clubs get.
It might work for the clubs outside London as they could build out of town stadia which may be easier to get done - e.g. Bath really need to get off the Rec, although that said it probably is the most brilliant site for a ground anywhere.

Beshocked

I am not sure how that article that you have linked supports the assertion that 'A rugby side having their own stadium is the best step one can take'

Club Turnover Operating Profit(loss)
Bath 9.6m (1.8m)
Exeter Chiefs 8.3m 0.9m
Gloucester 11.3m 0.6m
Harlequins 12.3m (1.6m)
Leicester Tigers 19.5m 0.6m
London Irish 8.2m (1.1m)
London Wasps* 8.4m (3.1m)
Newcastle Falcons 6.0m (1.6m)
Northampton Saints 13.2m 0.9m
Sale Sharks* 8.0m (1.6m)
Saracens 7.6m (5.6m)
Worcester Warriors 7.6m (2.8m)

Of the teams that made a loss, London Irish made the smallest loss, with teams like Bath, Quins and Worcester who all own their own grounds losing more money. That being the case I cannot see a direct correlation between owning your own ground and making a profit on the information given in that article.

My 'criticism', as you call it, of Bath and Saracens has nothing to do with attendances or ground ownership, but was simply an observation about some teams having financial backing from a single source and others not.

To also address one of the poitns you make - 'Saracens have been getting woeful attendances at Vicarage road, going to a new stadium should see a boost in attendances.

filling Barnet Copthall (10k capacity) shouldn't be too difficult if the marketing machine goes into full swing.' - I simply ask why you believe that to be the case?

The question has to be asked about core fan base, and by that I mean those who would follow the team to wherever they play, as well as transient fans, so those in this case who live close to Watford, so pop along as it's close.

Now I don't know what the split is, and I would imagine that the board at Saracens have done research, but simply moving grounds does not guarantee bums on seats.

I know with my own side that there are people who come to games from out west of Reading, who would potentially not come where the team to move back east towards London as it would increase travel for them. The club then has to attract new fans again which is not always easy.

It is very easy for those whose teams have their own ground, or are already moving to one to put a huge emphasis on the benefits of it, but in reality, for a team who rent a ground and have roots now in that area, any move has an element of risk attached.

Ozzy I said turnover.

A big turnoff for a lot of potential Saracens fans is VR and Watford.

Barnet Copthall (Allianz Park) will have a lot going for it. It will be in London. It will be Saracens own stadium. It will be new and fresh. Large catchment area.

If Saracens can get large numbers to Wembley. I know there are various reasons for that surely 10k is much easier?

Barnet is not that far from Watford. It won't alienate too many of the current fans but opens up opportunities to attract new ones.

10k is not a vast number.

I'm not saying that it is a vast number beshocked, what I am saying is moving there does not guarantee fans, and if you moved there but somebody else owned the ground and not you, how would that be any different in terms of attracting fans.

The only difference would be that you would be paying to rent there as opposed to paying for the upkeep of the ground which you will be doing as owners.

Owning your own ground is great, but it is not the be all and end all of being a successful, sustainable club, as evidenced by Leinster amongts others around the world.

But do you not agree Oz that an LI-sized stadium would not be better?

I've been to the Mad when Tigers have been there. But it was hollow in its atmosphere. God knows what it's like when Newcastle pitched up.

The Mad is too big. Sure fans from Slough, Bracknell, Basingstoke etc. may have signed into the craic (which is great) but a suitably-sized stadium like the Wasps are talking about sounds better.

Ground-share?

And turnover is by and large irrelevant in this debate as you can have £20m turnover, but if you are making £10 million loss then you are still not going to last very long.

Quins turnover was £4m more than ours, and their loss was more as well.

Ozzy3213 Leinster are an exception not the norm. With their style of play and success it's hardly a surprise they are bringing in the punters.

You are correct - moving does not guarantee fans but it's better than staying at VR. You are moving to a much more desirable location in all aspects.

It's partly about control. You keep the revenue, the money from food,drinks,hospitality goes straight into your pockets. You are not paying rent to someone else. It's yours - you can do what you want within reason. You can play when you want - within reason again.

With your own stadium you can sell naming rights to reap a nice financial bonus every year.

Rugby stadium suited for rugby - you can make the pitch wider to make more space available (making scoring tries easier in theory), you can update the stadium and make it more modern and comfortable. With new technology you can make the pitch better to play on.

Portnoy

The issue of the size/atmosphere at the MadStad is different to the issue you raised in the OP which I take exception to. I have been to matches at the stadium where the atmosphere has been poor, and others where it has been electric.

The fact remains your initial assertion was that a professional league requires aspiration and sustainability, and you feel that those playing in grounds which are not their own (i.e football stadiums) should be told that they have to move and get their own stadium or get out. This suggests that you feel that playing in a rented football stadium in neither aspirational nor sustainable.

My argument is not around whether or not there is always a great atmosphere at the MadStad, it is around the fact that your initial argument is not based in fact. The figures that beshocked posted a link to show that 4 teams made a profit and 8 made a loss last year. Of the 8 we made the smallest loss, and teams who own their own ground are running at a greater loss than us. How does that make us less sustainable than teams with their own ground. I have also pointed out that the aspiration in terms of the current stadium is to get close to filling it on a regular basis.

At present, we are hindered in that aim by a number of factors, one of which is a lack of success on the field. An uptrun in that area will undoubtedly lead to an increase in bums on seats as it did when we made the AP final few years back.

Beshocked

I am not arguing that Saracens moving from VR is a bad idea, it clearly isn't as staying there is not working for you. Yes, you can do all of those things you mention when you own the ground, but you also have other financial responsibilities that come with it which you don't have as tennants. There are pros and cons to everything. My point is that what is right for Saracens, or for Leicester, is not necessarily right for everyone else.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Portnoy

The issue of the size/atmosphere at the MadStad is different to the issue you raised in the OP which I take exception to. I have been to matches at the stadium where the atmosphere has been poor, and others where it has been electric.

The fact remains your initial assertion was that a professional league requires aspiration and sustainability, and you feel that those playing in grounds which are not their own (i.e football stadiums) should be told that they have to move and get their own stadium or get out. This suggests that you feel that playing in a rented football stadium in neither aspirational nor sustainable.

My argument is not around whether or not there is always a great atmosphere at the MadStad, it is around the fact that your initial argument is not based in fact. The figures that beshocked posted a link to show that 4 teams made a profit and 8 made a loss last year. Of the 8 we made the smallest loss, and teams who own their own ground are running at a greater loss than us. How does that make us less sustainable than teams with their own ground. I have also pointed out that the aspiration in terms of the current stadium is to get close to filling it on a regular basis.

At present, we are hindered in that aim by a number of factors, one of which is a lack of success on the field. An uptrun in that area will undoubtedly lead to an increase in bums on seats as it did when we made the AP final few years back.

My point As, was that sustainability can be best achieved in Jeff-sized stadia owned by clubs and that the RFU should encourage that - with help from the RFU. A Wasps/LI joint-venture may not be such a bad idea?

Portnoy wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:Portnoy

The issue of the size/atmosphere at the MadStad is different to the issue you raised in the OP which I take exception to. I have been to matches at the stadium where the atmosphere has been poor, and others where it has been electric.

The fact remains your initial assertion was that a professional league requires aspiration and sustainability, and you feel that those playing in grounds which are not their own (i.e football stadiums) should be told that they have to move and get their own stadium or get out. This suggests that you feel that playing in a rented football stadium in neither aspirational nor sustainable.

My argument is not around whether or not there is always a great atmosphere at the MadStad, it is around the fact that your initial argument is not based in fact. The figures that beshocked posted a link to show that 4 teams made a profit and 8 made a loss last year. Of the 8 we made the smallest loss, and teams who own their own ground are running at a greater loss than us. How does that make us less sustainable than teams with their own ground. I have also pointed out that the aspiration in terms of the current stadium is to get close to filling it on a regular basis.

At present, we are hindered in that aim by a number of factors, one of which is a lack of success on the field. An uptrun in that area will undoubtedly lead to an increase in bums on seats as it did when we made the AP final few years back.

My point As, was that sustainability can be best achieved in Jeff-sized stadia owned by clubs and that the RFU should encourage that - with help from the RFU. A Wasps/LI joint-venture may not be such a bad idea?

Haven't said a word!

Your point that 'sustainability can be best achieved in Jeff-sized stadia owned by clubs' is not supported by clubs annual financial reports though Portnoy.

Worcester, Newcatle, Bath and Quins all own their own 'jeff-sized' stadia, yet all made bigger losses last year than than London Irish or Sale who were playing in football stadiums. That does not support your premise about what is sustainable.

Ozzy3123 there's nothing London Irish can do. You're locked in. It's not ideal but that's the way it is.

The aspiration should always be one's own rugby stadium though.

In London it's much more difficult but still possible.

It's only worth investing in their own, new stadium if they can

Afford the initial costs
Upkeep costs are significantly less than rent
The location is suitable

If all these things are right then build you own stadium (probably right for Sarries). Otherwise the initial costs could cripple a club if they rely on increased attendances that don't appear. Even with RFU help. As Ozzy has already said, Irish are doing okay-ish on the loss front. And that's after a few years and very up-and-down performances and an seemingly unsettled team. A bit of consistancy and improved performances could see them actually making a profit. They often sell into the 20000 for a few games a season and as long as they're doing that it's not too bad. If the atmosphere is bad they need to market better off the pitch and perform better on it.

I'm much more concerned with Worcester's loss, since they own their own ground and have a lower table squad. If they build up their squad more will they lose even more money? The support down there is pretty strong so I can't seem them suddenly attracting many more fans.

Why should the aspiration be to own your own stadium?

Thunor - another use of owning a stadium is that you can also generate non-match day income with numerous different events, concerts and corporate nonsence. Then if you ground has your logo plastered everywhere that is more people getting used to your brand etc. Also rent the stadium out to other teams yourselves. If you own your stadium that is a money spinner aht you have all year around, and not just for 16 -20 days a year.

Only reason I can think of is control. You're not reliant on other people. 2024 is a long way off but what if Reading decide to scrap the deal? You'll have to move and face the same problems with relocating. What if no clubs with a big enough ground want to share? Or the FA change the rules so the big ones can't?

All hypothetical but still possible. Irish have a good deal in place and I have no doubt they'll be thinking about this a long way in advance of the deal running out.

Spiderman, of course yes, I forgot about that. Of course this would be less valuable in the SE where there are a lot of similar grounds and locations. But should still generate some extra cash.

SS, I don't think anyone is arguing against there being benefits to owning your own stadium, just that the figures do not support the argument in the OP, and that owning your own stadium is not the be all and end all in terms of either success or sustainability.

Hammerof Thunor

I agree entirely with what you are saying there, and ultimately I would love for London Irish to be playing in our own stadium, with green seats instead of blue, and build it into a fortress that away teams fear. My annoyance with the OP is that it suggests that we be forced to either move from the MadStad or be evicted from the Premiership on some spurious basis of not being aspirational nor sustainable, which is disporved by the figures, and smacks of the author seeing their own clubs model as the best and feeling that everyone else should follow it.

Hey, if the RFU are stumping up the cash for the stadium and then giving it to you, you should jump at it

But that's going to happen. And putting massive pressure on clubs to own their own stadium would result is massive debts being created in the short term. That could be the end of some club unless sugardaddies pick up the bill. But ins't that something we want to avoid?

Aboslutely we want to avoid that scenario. We can all dream about the RFU financing shiny new grounds for the have nots, but that is pie in the sky, and back in the real world, there does not appear to be a direct correlation between owning your own ground and level of profit/loss anyway.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Hammerof Thunor

I agree entirely with what you are saying there, and ultimately I would love for London Irish to be playing in our own stadium, with green seats instead of blue, and build it into a fortress that away teams fear. My annoyance with the OP is that it suggests that we be forced to either move from the MadStad or be evicted from the Premiership on some spurious basis of not being aspirational nor sustainable, which is disporved by the figures, and smacks of the author seeing their own clubs model as the best and feeling that everyone else should follow it.

Would they have little orange beards too?!

Ah to be sure they would ;-)

Pots of gold at the end of 'rainbow' coloured stands? Just think of the fun the PR boys&girls could have!!

Hey As, we're the masters of milking every last penny out of a name association: Mohawk bar and food, Apache bar and food, Cheyenne bar and food, Curry house in the Otter Wigwam (wrong sort of Indian!). It's what the spirits would have wanted though!

Carpe Diem wrote:Hey As, we're the masters of milking every last penny out of a name association: Mohawk bar and food, Apache bar and food, Cheyenne bar and food, Curry house in the Otter Wigwam (wrong sort of Indian!). It's what the spirits would have wanted though!

Too true! Should the Hog Roast be replaced by the Bison Grill?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:Hey As, we're the masters of milking every last penny out of a name association: Mohawk bar and food, Apache bar and food, Cheyenne bar and food, Curry house in the Otter Wigwam (wrong sort of Indian!). It's what the spirits would have wanted though!

Too true! Should the Hog Roast be replaced by the Bison Grill?

If you get a tie-up sorted with the (Waikato) Chiefs you could have a Tainui* Hangi stand - pork slow-roasted in an earth-oven



*Tainui is the largest Maori tribe, headed by the Maori King, and based in Chiefs country.

Kiwireddevil wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:Hey As, we're the masters of milking every last penny out of a name association: Mohawk bar and food, Apache bar and food, Cheyenne bar and food, Curry house in the Otter Wigwam (wrong sort of Indian!). It's what the spirits would have wanted though!

Too true! Should the Hog Roast be replaced by the Bison Grill?

If you get a tie-up sorted with the (Waikato) Chiefs you could have a Tainui* Hangi stand - pork slow-roasted in an earth-oven



*Tainui is the largest Maori tribe, headed by the Maori King, and based in Chiefs country.

Suprised we don't have more links with NZ as they played Devon at the old County ground on the Originals tour in 1905 and the Express and Echo claim to be the first to coin the phrase 'All Blacks': "The All Blacks, as they are styled by reason of their sable and unrelieved costume.". Probably bollix though!

I don't see any need to own your own ground but it can be a very handy thing to have. Sandy Park started in 2006 hosting crowds with a max of approx. 4000 and has now been expanded to just shy of 11000. That's the playing side of things but the conference/banqueting side has been going full tilt 12 months of the year bringing in good income to support the squad etc. The next round of developments will increase capacity and the off field facilities ready to generate more income but only when it can be afforded. None of this is possible if you share/rent a ground so your own ground isn't essential but it is desirable.

Ozzy3213 wrote:And turnover is by and large irrelevant in this debate as you can have £20m turnover, but if you are making £10 million loss then you are still not going to last very long.

Quins turnover was £4m more than ours, and their loss was more as well.

Hi Ozzy, I hope that the reason for the loss has something to do with the ground improvements and capacity increase at the Stoop.
Currently around the 14.5k mark.
Aparetly there are plans in place to expand further - but only if they sell out the stoop on more occasions than last season.
Sounds like a fairly reasonable plan - only to expand when there is need.

Portnoy, just so I understand. You promote an independent club rather than regional/provincial model with minimal interference from the governing body.

In order to see this model work you would like a large injection of capital from the governing body.

You're not a banker by any chance?