Mark Lawns comments in T and A today

I thought a lot of what he said made sense apart from the figures he quoted on rent, but he is six years out of the loop. I didnt read him as belittling the club. Far from it. I think he was actually backing up Sparks (and Rupp).

 

You are right on Al-Jazeera, but I think Sky are a lot more balanced than ITV & BBC. Of the mainstreams, Channel Four news is the least scaremongering.

 

Parkies Alive. Hope you are recovered.

 

Feeling good thank you

 

I think it's fair to say, that Rahic has got more skills than Dynamo when it comes to pulling a fast one. I fully expect Lawn was taken in by Edin, the same way Rupp and all of us were. It was only after they'd started running the club (or one of them anyway), that we started to think they should be wearing Stetson hats.

 

Not sure Mark was taken in by Rahic he was the reluctant partner to sell, in fact as with Julian he offered his services to the new owners but obviously Rahic was very reluctant to have any form of involvement from either as they would have sussed his game out early doors.

 

Very true. If Lawn had been able to let go the Steve Parkin enquiry might have become a deal, but Lawn wanted part of it so Parkin walked.

 

Not sure Parkin was the right man, he wanted to amalgamate both City & Bulls if I remember correctly would that have been a good thing.
Even though he's a die in the wool Leeds United fan I'd have thought he would have had more about him with regards running a football club that either Rahic & Ruin.

 

And a top class business man. Not sure about the bradford sporting club but who knows, a radical idea like that might have worked.

 

The Gibb family have made nearly ten million quid out of rent from the ground. Maybe they should do the decent thing and just let us have it back.

 

It wasn’t a risk free investment, football club twice in administration in a couple of years, could easily have gone the other way and lost them money.

Anyway at the risk of being repetitive, the pension fund owns the stadium, their trustees have a legal duty to get the best return for the fund. Giving away a £4-500k a year income for free probably isn’t within their remit.

 

Quite right Mike. Trustees have a Fiduciary duty and failure to exercise it can result in jail time. As a point we are not the only EFL club with this level of rent, there are others who have lower income levels through attendance numbers. Example Oxford who are not even allowed to generate income from catering when I last knew. It all goes to the Landlord who wanted a further rent increase for building a stand on the fourth side of the ground.

 

It was a commercial risk the pension fund took and they deserve every penny in return from it. On your theory, Intu should return the Trafford Centre to the people of Manchester. Absolute garbage.

 

Indeed so. We can't blame Gibb one bit for being a shrewd businessman, seizing on an opportunity.

However, why is it that whoever is the CEO/Owner of this club seems to be so obtuse or lacking in vision, as to not find ways of dealing with this problem after nearly 20 years? If the rental costs really are a barrier to the future success of this club, what are we doing about it? If my CEO asked me to look at the inflated and unstainable running costs laden on our business by a particular 'supplier' because of a perception that we were over a barrel, and my only - and continued - response was; 'well we can either buy some lube or give you a pillow to bite down on' - I'd be out of a job.

Surely there are 3 options, in principle:

1) Buy the ground back
2) Build another ground
3) Negotiate a reduction in rent via a new contract

Option 1 would likely entail a purchase price that's inflated, which won't appeal. But there are always funding options and if the rental really is that high, then there's presumably a return to be had, even if its over a longer period. Or you create leverage to drive a lower purchase price.

Option 3 is only an option if you create leverage - though businesses everywhere are negotiating reduced costs in their supplier contracts, given the economic impacts of COVID.

Option 2 has to be the way to go, either as an actual means of moving forward, or forming a viable plan that creates leverage to move forward on points 1 or 3. Building another ground would avoid a situation whereby Rupp has to commit to buying an asset at an inflated price - he could provide a directors loan, or secure private funding against the security of the assets he holds, to create a modern ground, possibly with other businesses and revenue streams available to boost the return on that investment, and at the same time materially increase the value on the balance sheet and thereby the value of the club he owns.

We have no vision whatsoever.

 

Number 2 would see the death of our club.....

 

What makes you say that Tony, if a new stadium was built within the Bradford boundary why would that deter fans fron attending.
It would be hard for many fans who have known nothing else and of course the emotional tie would be hard but not sure why it would be the end, but it won't happen mate certainly not in our time.

 

Not just any emotional tie which of course is important but it wouldn't be a 24000 seater as we have now, probably something on the lines of 10000 max...which would be unsustainable in my opinion..

 

For 1 or 2 you have to have the appetite for it to happen. Buying back the ground probably makes more sense than building a new one as the cost of building a new one with a capacity to suit makes it an unreal proposition for a league 2 football club on its own. In my lifetime supporting the sporting clubs of my hometown there has only ever been one time period where there was genuine ambition and that was mid to late nineties. That era has gone and the City has changed a lot since then. I'll guarantee you we will sign a new lease at Valley Parade, the terms of which will be determined by FLPF.

 

I agree any new stadium that was built would have to be able to accomadate a figure like your above.

 

I don't disagree with the give it back sentiment but in the financial world life isn't like that, the Pension Fund took quite a big financial risk at the time which we should be grateful for.