DJWWFC "Doesn't add up to me" That's because it takes away. Hayes has become an expert at taking away. He can't add up and doesn't know how to divide properly. Maybe he should just go forth and multiply.
Piece of cake Rocky, compared to what she used to unearth. Saved one company millions. Don't forget to grow that seed. Could be a winner.
New-wycombe although I am not a Hayes fan, frankly I am the opposite, it's very naive to think that we should get a "share" of Wasp's turnover. The vast majority of businesses who rent a property do not give the landlord a cut of turnover it would generally be a flat annual rent under a lease commonly reviewed at say 5 or 10 year intervals to bring the annual rent to a market rent. Realistically the aim should be that the rent really covers the additional costs incurred by Wycombe such as maintenance and increased electricity,etc plus a mark up so that you are not losing out by taking on a tenant. Turnover alone is not really an accurate basis to judge rent as that does not factor in that company's cost to run the business. If a company had ã7m turnover but the total annual running costs (excluding unnecessary spend!) were say ã6m, paying a rent of ã1.6m would leave the company loss making so would unlikely be a market rent. Management charges are generally of more importance to linked companies where they want to save tax i.e if there was one profit making company and a linked loss making company then the loss making company would lodge a management charge against the profit making company so that less tax is due to HMR&C. Overall combined they are better off as less to HMR&C. However, in the case of both Wycombe and Wasps they are loss making (unless their delayed accounts show otherwise!) so it is unlikely either would be paying tax so management charges are not likely to serve much purpose. "What we apper to have here is one company (Wycombe) being gradually stripped by another company that has the same directors/shareholders. Actually illegal." Again on what basis are Wasps "stripping" Wycombe? Without more facts about the contents it is a bit much blaming them for our financial plight. Again I really don't like rugby but I don't think Wasps are our problem. I think we both have a common problem being the man in charge. As for the depreciation policy on land and buildings. It will only be the building element being depreciated, land does not get depreciated. The reason many go for this policy is that it gives you a consistent impact on your P&L annually, which is easier to manage. Going with a revaluation policy is far more unpredictable and whilst in the mid 2000's revaluing property would be great in recent times this would have dropped considerably. Our issues are the administration costs, far too many non-playing staff employed. I personally think although it doesn't sound great, that one or two "big" clubs need to go bust to help the long term future of English football. It is the only way that I can see that it will make people realise that things can't go on as they are for professional clubs living beyond their means. I really don't think that the stadium move will go ahead because of the sheer size of financial investment needed from parties other than Hayes and the council to build an all singing and dancing community stadium. I think Hayes will then be left with a decision stay or go and I think at that point he will go and that will leave us going bust (unless I or one of us win the Euro millions after a number of rollovers!). To be perfectly honest I would rather us going back to square one now and starting again if it is just going to happen in a few years time! The ill feeling that is at the club means it is not the club it was 15-20 years ago. When you look at the fact when we are in with a chance of promotion but do any of us really seem overly happy about it, not really! Bad times!
they are in may and the tories had better not knock on my door,and as for leslie clarke .......i need a s+it
I don't think any other party will be any better but at least we could get Clarke worried with enough propaganda distributed (as long as it isn't libellous).
Hi Finchyblue I agree that the rent should be commercial for Wasps but equally if our runnung costs and staff support costs are high because of Wasps we should charge appropriately. Surely a minimum 50% share of the gate and the hospitality/drinks profit should be ours. If Wasps are filling Adams Park at an average 20UKP per person thats a gate income of 200,000UKP so even without a share of the other profit elements we should receive 1.6 to 1.8 million. Wasps are losing huge money and as I said their cost of sales is more than their sales so they have a big problem. It will be interesting to see how many turn up at Twickenham for their 'home' match, as Twickenham seats 82,000.
i wonder how much money wasps and indeed steve hayes make out of a twickers game,surely if they think they can fill twickers and make more money then why dont they move their instead of booker and leave us with our home adams park which is a nice stadium and very suitable for a club of our size.
they should change their name from london wasps to nomad wasps because one minute their home is twickers then its adams park then its the middle east where next
