[Bullseye]

: Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:12 pm  

aj cougar wrote:

Seriously though, I think your club could do worse things than publish details on how much Odsal is costing them compared to how much they thought it was going to, if only to focus a few minds on why you're not chucking money around.

It would certainly help put things in context.

: Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:15 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

It would certainly help put things in context.

That's on the assumption that some one did actually do some costings

: Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:20 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

It's like owning a big old house. It costs a lot more to maintain than a brand new house. A lot of the stadium is old and in constant need of maintenance, like the terracing and crush barriers. Newer stadiums aren't crumbling as much and so cost less to maintain. Then there's the stuff like the utilities some of which is 70+ years old. Apparently it cost £75k to sort out a blocked drain a year or too ago.

Anyway, between 1986 and 2003 the council picked up the tab for all this work. Now the club must pay for it but get to play at Odsal (which is still council owned) more or less for free. As a result the club is handicapped by having to pay a shedload more cash to keep the ground up to standard in comparison with every other club.

Plus, I expect there will be a hefty insurance tab to pick up.

And policing and stewarding.

: Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:22 pm  

aj cougar wrote:

That's on the assumption that some one did actually do some costings

I do wonder what due diligence was actually undertaken, I must admit. That said, the club was between a rock and a hard place at the time and I suspect time was limited. What IS clear - cos Caisley said so - is that the budgets were based on a crowd increase in 2004 c/w 2003, but in the event the crowd reduced and has continued to do so. I suspect that - and the ruinous Harris signing catastrophe - are at least as responsible.

: Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:26 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

I do wonder what due diligence was actually undertaken, I must admit. That said, the club was between a rock and a hard place at the time and I suspect time was limited. What IS clear - cos Caisley said so - is that the budgets were based on a crowd increase in 2004 c/w 2003, but in the event the crowd reduced and has continued to do so. I suspect that - and the ruinous Harris signing catastrophe - are at least as responsible.

I just get the feeling that the Odsal and Harris deals were driven by gesturing and posturing rather than any well thought out approach.

: Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:27 pm  

aj cougar wrote:

Plus, I expect there will be a hefty insurance tab to pick up.

And policing and stewarding.

The public liability insurance on an area that size will be obscene. In fact there are probably only a couple specialist insurers in the country that would do it.


Then there is the rates Odsal covers a really big area.

: Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:34 pm  

It's a hard life when you've got to stand on your own two feet.

: Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:38 pm  

Asim wrote:

It's a hard life when you've got to stand on your own two feet.

I've got a mate who's dad gave him a massive deposit for his house and paid for everything during his time at Uni so left with no debt, overdraft nothing and because his mum and dad were divorced due to means testing he had to pay less tuition fees. I hate him!


That must be how Peter Hood etc. feel when they look at the likes of Huddersfield and Hull getting state of the art grounds built by the council

: Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:53 pm  

Maccbull_BigBullyBooaza wrote:

I've got a mate who's dad gave him a massive deposit for his house and paid for everything during his time at Uni so left with no debt, overdraft nothing and because his mum and dad were divorced due to means testing he had to pay less tuition fees. I hate him!

Yeah, but he can't have any sense of achievement

: Mon Apr 20, 2009 4:01 pm  

Asim wrote:

It's a hard life when you've got to stand on your own two feet.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush