Rage Online

Is the stadium rent set at fair level?

I think it is for the most part.

I don't know whether it's fair or not, having nothing to compare it to, but you'd have thought that, given the club's financial situation, they'd get help from the Social to pay it.

The Social Club? We don't have one. One of our many problems.

Personally, I think it appears to be a fair rent for the facility being provided - and appears to be in line with similar deals I've seen elsewhere.

The problem is that the facility is vastly in excess of what is currently needed and accounts for a great proportion of the club's outgoings. Were we at the top end of League One with the attendant increase in income, the proportion spent on rent would be much lower and I doubt there would be many complaints about the rent being too high, despite the facility being exactly the same.

The council, not the social.

The question's meaningless. What is or is not a fair rent? Well it depends on what assumptions you're making about what consitutes reasonable or desirable economic conduct and so all you're doing in recycling your assumptions.

My view is that if Kassam has set the rent at a level which the club find difficult to meet, he has therefore put in peril the future of the club regardless of whether or not it is &quotfair&quot. It which case it's probably a bit stupid to define it as &quotfair&quot - but then again, as the future of the club is not a relevant consideration in Kassam's mind, he might say &quotso what?&quot

The real point is, of course, that the ownership of the club and stadium should not have been separated in the first place, and that all the people who engineered that, or have ever proposed to do so, did so with the intention of using the football club for their personal ends. This isn't something I find particularly admirable, not least given that these people have usually been given special consideration precisely because of their ownership of the footbal club.

&quotMyles Francis&quot wrote:Personally, I think it appears to be a fair rent for the facility being provided - and appears to be in line with similar deals I've seen elsewhere.

The problem is that the facility is vastly in excess of what is currently needed and accounts for a great proportion of the club's outgoings. Were we at the top end of League One with the attendant increase in income, the proportion spent on rent would be much lower and I doubt there would be many complaints about the rent being too high, despite the facility being exactly the same.

What 'other deals you've seen elsewhere'? Can you cite some detail please? Just interested.

It depends who to.

The rent is commercially low for Kassam in my view, given the cost of borrowing to build the stadium.

To a non-league football club it is high compared to competitors similar costs.

Overall it is probably fair, although at the very top end of the range that might be deemed fair.

Very subjective this of course.

A much more important question is whether it is affordable.
And another much more important question is whether a better alternative could be secured.

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:
The rent is commercially low for Kassam in my view, given the cost of borrowing to build the stadium.

Sunk costs are sunk. The size of the loan and the cost of the stadium shouldn't have any impact on the (market) rent since those are historic decisions ... other than in the limited sense of the more that was spent, the better quality the building and hence, in principle, the higher the rent that could be obtained.

&quotAscension Ox&quot wrote:

&quotMyles Francis&quot wrote:Personally, I think it appears to be a fair rent for the facility being provided - and appears to be in line with similar deals I've seen elsewhere.

The problem is that the facility is vastly in excess of what is currently needed and accounts for a great proportion of the club's outgoings. Were we at the top end of League One with the attendant increase in income, the proportion spent on rent would be much lower and I doubt there would be many complaints about the rent being too high, despite the facility being exactly the same.

What 'other deals you've seen elsewhere'? Can you cite some detail please? Just interested.

The one I particularly recall seeing is at Bournemouth. The figures there were broadly similar to what we're paying in rent, but for an inferior stadium.

&quotAncient Colin&quot wrote:

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:
The rent is commercially low for Kassam in my view, given the cost of borrowing to build the stadium.

Sunk costs are sunk. The size of the loan and the cost of the stadium shouldn't have any impact on the (market) rent since those are historic decisions ... other than in the limited sense of the more that was spent, the better quality the building and hence, in principle, the higher the rent that could be obtained.

If there was a &quotmarket&quot then fair enough. But in this instance we are talking about a bespoke building for a single client with no other (realistic) potential tenants. In these circumstances, the landlord has much more freedom to bump the rent up.

Not sure the bit about &quotno other potential tenants&quot backs up the last point.

But in this instance we are talking about a bespoke building for a single client with no other (realistic) potential tenants

Every aspect of the stadium design focused on its suitability for rugby.

Well thats what Keith Cox told us

If Firoz Kassam set the rent - I doubt it!

&quotnewhinkseyyellow&quot wrote:If Firoz Kassam set the rent - I doubt it!

I guess that accounts for one of the “no