Re: rent at shay to alter : Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:56 am  

Its like the LSV problem, Councils do not understand business and as such do not know how to grow income.

If the LSV/Shay are rented to the respective tennants at no cost but they are then responsible for income and running costs they would both be run much better and with far fewer costs.

I do not know the Shays financing but the LSV was built with no debt so there are no interest payments to meet, therefore losses are purely the gap between income and cost. The LSV has far too many staff producing very little and I am sure the Shay is run likewise.

Rent the facilities back to the clubs FOC whilst the respective councils retain ownership, simples.

Re: rent at shay to alter : Fri Mar 02, 2012 1:02 pm  

Far too simple&easy for councils they like to make things as complicated and unwieldy as possible

Re: rent at shay to alter : Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:26 pm  

maurice wrote:

If the LSV/Shay are rented to the respective tennants at no cost but they are then responsible for income and running costs they would both be run much better and with far fewer costs.

That is just a recipe for disaster. The two clubs dont want the hassle of managing the stadium which is effectively what you are suggesting. The overheads plus the additional responsibility is not what two clubs that are in effect semi-pro need.

A new stadium management structure needs putting in place different to the SST. SST was all about managing the stadium at minimal cost whilst focusing on getting the East Stand completed. It now requires a proper management team put in place which can provide excellent sporting facilities for the two clubs whilst maximising the use of the other facilities. The stadium is used what, around 40 times a year for matches so there are another 325 days a year where the facilities need to be used to fill any shortfall in the finances of running the Shay.

It wont happen under the Council's leadership. Yes, they need to retain ownership, but they have no interest or passion for the Shay so they need to put in place an alternative which will have the desire to maximise its use.

I am unsure whether both clubs should have board representation. There are too many vested interests. And should the clubs be given board representation should also all other organisations that use the facilities have a seat on the board?

There is probably no ideal in moving forward, but the Council really needs to be consulting the clubs, the supporters, etc, about finding a way forward.

Re: rent at shay to alter : Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:38 pm  

One of the Fev fans on totalrl has stated that he wrote to the Council via Email on Wednesday about te state of the toilets as they allegedly were in a very poor state in the Skircoat Stand on Sunday. The Council said its up to the clubs to sort out. Is this really the case? I thought Fax ( and the soccer lot) just rented the ground but the Council was responsible for ALL improvements like the North Stand and the Scoreboard that they have promised to sort out

Re: rent at shay to alter : Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:40 pm  

The Lucky Black Cat wrote:

One of the Fev fans on totalrl has stated that he wrote to the Council via Email on Wednesday about te state of the toilets as they allegedly were in a very poor state in the Skircoat Stand on Sunday. The Council said its up to the clubs to sort out. Is this really the case? I thought Fax ( and the soccer lot) just rented the ground but the Council was responsible for ALL improvements like the North Stand and the Scoreboard that they have promised to sort out

Its called passing the buck, the stadium is run and managed by the Council so it is up to them to sort out the facilities not the clubs.
It aint difficult keeping the toilets clean but they fail, the ones in the south stand aint that clever.
As for a stadium company I am all for one BUT it must be run by a structure that makes sure the right people are onboard and they have some kind of steering group that ensures that the management LISTEN to the users which includes the two clubs Bubba.
The SST failed in that they (the Board) became elitist and aloof of their customers and made decisions with nobody keeping a check on them plus they were the same people for all the years they existed with no voting mechanism, so became a click. In other words they stopped listening to anybody else and made the two biggest customers i.e the clubs almost the enemy within!

Re: rent at shay to alter : Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:01 pm  

Fax4Life wrote:

Its called passing the buck, the stadium is run and managed by the Council so it is up to them to sort out the facilities not the clubs.
It aint difficult keeping the toilets clean but they fail, the ones in the south stand aint that clever.
As for a stadium company I am all for one BUT it must be run by a structure that makes sure the right people are onboard and they have some kind of steering group that ensures that the management LISTEN to the users which includes the two clubs Bubba.
The SST failed in that they (the Board) became elitist and aloof of their customers and made decisions with nobody keeping a check on them plus they were the same people for all the years they existed with no voting mechanism, so became a click. In other words they stopped listening to anybody else and made the two biggest customers i.e the clubs almost the enemy within!

Surely if you rented a house or a business premises you wouldn't expect the landlord to come round and clean the bogs for you? Keep them in good working order, yes. But clean them? I very much doubt it.

Re: rent at shay to alter : Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:51 pm  

The Dors wrote:

Surely if you rented a house or a business premises you wouldn't expect the landlord to come round and clean the bogs for you? Keep them in good working order, yes. But clean them? I very much doubt it.

Think you missed the bit where Fax4Life said the stadium is run by the Council. That means the facilities maintained, hence toilets cleaned.

Fax4Life, no stadium management company would ever have a chance with having representatives of the club on the stadium board. As I previously said, they have a vested interest in wanting what is best for themselves rather than what is best for the management of the stadium. The behaviour of both clubs at times left a lot to be desired as did certain supporter representatives who were clearly out of their depth.

In depth consultation and communication should be held with the clubs, supporters and other stakeholders but they shouldnt be allowed anywhere near the boardroom.

Re: rent at shay to alter : Tue Mar 06, 2012 10:23 pm  

Bubba wrote:

Think you missed the bit where Fax4Life said the stadium is run by the Council. That means the facilities maintained, hence toilets cleaned.

Fax4Life, no stadium management company would ever have a chance with having representatives of the club on the stadium board. As I previously said, they have a vested interest in wanting what is best for themselves rather than what is best for the management of the stadium. The behaviour of both clubs at times left a lot to be desired as did certain supporter representatives who were clearly out of their depth.

In depth consultation and communication should be held with the clubs, supporters and other stakeholders but they shouldnt be allowed anywhere near the boardroom.

You seem to miss the point the USERS which includes the two clubs as the biggest 'customers' should have representation on any 'Board' or at least have a management or steering group to ensure they have a voice on how things at the stadium are managed.
Regards your comment about the SST it is unsurprisingly very biased as usual and I will ignore your comment about the supporters rep as that is only your opinion, so you think that the SST was open and honest and well managed then???
Don't answer that as we all know you had a vested interest like a family member involved in the SST before its demise so you are bound to side with them, the SST was a good idea but run by the wrong people imo.