: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:55 pm  

DaveO wrote:

Well I was looking forward to someone posting a detailed summary as I think has happened previously but it does seem there is little to write about. Whether that is because things got lost in the noise or because there is not a lot to say I can't really tell.

Or people summarise the major talking points and not how they were presented. We all know how the major weekly gripes would have been addressed, but its the justification and explanation behind these answers which is what makes these events worth going to.

Frankly if you are that concerned then you should have made more effort to go, obtain more detail or simply not jump to conclusions that match your opinions.

DaveO wrote:

I still think having Roberts there is a bit of a contradiction to that idea
It's a bit like having a shirt available with a sponsors name on it before the deal is done

Dave

There's no contradiction in the idea at all, it was no confirmation, just a wave to satisfy the simpleton cynics who would have turned up crying about no signings.

It will be confirmed to the media at an arranged media date, besides the fact it has effectively been confirmed in national and international media for months. In many articles the Roosters confirmed he was signing for Wigan due to SC reasons (fundamentally impossible without him signing for another club).

Also Wigan have not released one image of a kit, with said new sponsor on. People merely think they have.

: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:59 pm  

Woody_woody wrote:

Mcllorum the other.

And Tuson.

[Wigan6/Leeds1 Andy]

: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:00 pm  

Steinlager wrote:

Also Wigan have not released one image of a kit, with said new sponsor on. People merely think they have.

I don't think anyone thinks the club has, which makes it all the more bizarre they felt the need to ask for a made-up one to be censored.

: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:01 pm  

Re The Stadium situation........

1. If we don't buy beer food from the stadium THEY will put our rent up!! Surely the cost of the lease has been agreed for future years when IL bought the club and does not reflect the projected beer sales.

2. Weve got a great deal on the lease of the stadium!!
Yep the lease is that great that when the most important home game of the season is due to take place @JJB we have to up sticks and play it in Cheshire.

Sorry but I fail to see how "We are the greatest club in the World" when we can't play our home games at home due to some tin pot football club.

[Pemps]

: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:06 pm  

Owdpopularsider wrote:

1. If we don't buy beer food from the stadium THEY will put our rent up!! Surely the cost of the lease has been agreed for future years when IL bought the club and does not reflect the projected beer sales.

I have no knowledge of this but I'd imagine the rent is agreed beforehand but only up to a point. Maybe they have regular rent reviews i.e. every couple of years and this is when the stadium would review the situation.

[DaveO]

: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:11 pm  

Memony wrote:

To be fair, I doubt that DW dug into his own pocket to fund the Fielden transfer, the club would have done, DW would have been a guaranteur maybe... Perhaps the shelling out of so much money has left the club in a bigger mess than we are/were aware off...

I have always been under the impression DW would give the club the money it needed. When he owned us we were not as I understood it run as a self sufficient going concern. The revenue from all his sporting interestests went into one big pot and he fed the money out as needed.

So when a record transfer fee was required for Fielden, the money was made available. I also doubt the club had that much money sat in the bank to pay Bradford anyway.

On a much smaller scale DW was like the rich bloke who owns Man City who is currently rumoured to be offering £100M for a Brazilian player. That sort of cash is not in City's bank account but that of their owner.

Likewise I doubt Wigan had the money for Fielden readily available at the time but DW did.

Dave

: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:11 pm  

Owdpopularsider wrote:

Re The Stadium situation........

1. If we don't buy beer food from the stadium THEY will put our rent up!! Surely the cost of the lease has been agreed for future years when IL bought the club and does not reflect the projected beer sales.

2. Weve got a great deal on the lease of the stadium!!
Yep the lease is that great that when the most important home game of the season is due to take place @JJB we have to up sticks and play it in Cheshire.

Sorry but I fail to see how "We are the greatest club in the World" when we can't play our home games at home due to some tin pot football club.

I don't understand what you expect him to do about it? A lease is a lease - "the greatest club in the world" does not have the money to build their own stadium and got in dire financial straights ten years ago which is why we are where we are. You cannot just change a lease because the tenant later decides its "unfair".

What I do hope is that relations between the clubs improve so that this issue of a "conflict of fixtures" is relaxed a little. Perhaps media growing bored of the story will help things. If you were in DW's position and you were getting lots of criticism in the powerful realm of football, perhaps you would do what you could to try and preserve the pitch.

Furthermore rents are altered by way of rent reviews that occur every few years (as stated in the lease) and if circumstances change the landlord can up the rent if it has the evidence (such as decrease in revenue through beer sales) to back it up.

Without seeing the lease but after listening to Ian last night, we have a good lease because we pay a low rent and take all revenue from all corporate sales and events. We have to take the stadium company issue on the chin and aside from that see that we're not in so much of a bad situation.

: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:12 pm  

Pemps wrote:

I have no knowledge of this but I'd imagine the rent is agreed beforehand but only up to a point. Maybe they have regular rent reviews i.e. every couple of years and this is when the stadium would review the situation.

I would agree with this. The building i work in is rented from the council and each year the rent is reviewed (and increased ). I would imagine that the same would apply for the stadium.

: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:13 pm  

Pemps wrote:

I have no knowledge of this but I'd imagine the rent is agreed beforehand but only up to a point. Maybe they have regular rent reviews i.e. every couple of years and this is when the stadium would review the situation.

They don't it's just another simpleton assumption from someone else who did not listen.

He merely said we got a cheap deal (over a long period) as the Stadium Company can capitalise on beer sales.

: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:14 pm  

Steinlager wrote:

Or people summarise the major talking points and not how they were presented. We all know how the major weekly gripes would have been addressed, but its the justification and explanation behind these answers which is what makes these events worth going to.

Frankly if you are that concerned then you should have made more effort to go, obtain more detail or simply not jump to conclusions that match your opinions.



There's no contradiction in the idea at all, it was no confirmation, just a wave to satisfy the simpleton cynics who would have turned up crying about no signings.

It will be confirmed to the media at an arranged media date, besides the fact it has effectively been confirmed in national and international media for months. In many articles the Roosters confirmed he was signing for Wigan due to SC reasons (fundamentally impossible without him signing for another club).

Also Wigan have not released one image of a kit, with said new sponsor on. People merely think they have.

i thought i read earlier that somebody (a mod?) had an official picture but was keeping it under wraps?

probably a wind up