Interesting bit at the end about who/why the council allowed that. Anyway well done to the Allams, a brilliant turn around of a failing business. So saint Adam didn't run at a profit either and didn't invest in a youth policy either. Well well
so turnover went from £11m to £84m - £68m from prem tv and £4m from FA cup ie £72m - so Allam's business genius added £1m and Steve Bruce added £72m - in fact Allam's business genius lost the club money because he ****ed up the due diligence with the SMC
Agreed. Strange how all this forums ITKs and experts in everything don't pursue that with the same vigour they run yapping after the best owners we'll ever see.
on the other hand in the previous 8 years we amassed debts of around £30mill compared to losses of £26mill in 1 year 11 months with Noddy and Big Ears plus they've increased the debt to over £70m and not making any money
So Ehab doesn't consider himself part of the general public, and thinks he's above us, the snobby arrogant ****.
The mortgage most probably had nothing to do with the council. Elementary English law. A leaseholder has the right, unless the lease excludes it, to borow money against the lease. The failed legal action on that point proves it. The Allams would have been aware of the mortgage at the time they acquired the club as it was registered with Companies House along with a number of other charges.
He says the money that has gone to pay the mortgage on the KC would have been reinvested into the squad. Didn't the Doctor say last month they wouldn't be any more investment in the team?
Can't see why it's a "cringeworthy" interview. Or is it obligatory to slag off anything that doesn't openly slag off the Allams?
"This club needs a long-term sustainability and we can't do that by having the income of a side in the bottom three." Increase the stadium capacity and put us on the same footing as a Sunderland or Newcastle then.
So you want them to go further in to debt? Interesting. We have absolutely no chance of being anywhere near either Geordie team. There is not one shred of evidence to suggest we need a 50000 seater stadium. All the evidence points to no increase.
Whose job is it to bring in more fans? Small time, defeatist attitude of 'we'll never be well supported' is bullshit. Let's actually try and then see what happens. Marketing has improved lately; keep that up, make the fans feel wanted again and do what we can to get Cat C and season pass prices low and it's a winning combination. Put the energy currently focused on 'beating' the meddling fans into those things and we'll see more than 25,000 wanting tickets.
I think the investment in players will get us higher up the league and will subsequently result in us increasing our income, I think the same is true of the investment in the academy and exactly the same is true of stadium expansion. I wasn't suggesting that we should have a 50,000 seater stadium, in fact, I've never seen anyone suggest we should have a 50,000 seater stadium. What I'm suggesting, is that if we are going to grow as a club and increase revenue streams then we need a bigger stadium, I'd go further and suggest it's the only way we going to increase revenue. What evidence there is, suggests that if you make the ticket prices affordable(Trenchin), then people are queuing up for tickets, if you massively overprice them(Man City), then you have thousands of empty seats. Take somewhere like Derby, a similar sized city to ours, they have a bigger stadium and use dynamic ticket pricing to fill it and they average 27,500 in the Championship. There is no way any Championship club should have higher matchday revenues than a Premier League one in the same sized city, if they do, it's because someone's doing something wrong.
No its not. Its because Derby have a long history of being a good team with good fans. We didnt sell out at 16 quid either. We didnt sell our allocation for the FA Cup QF, thats a home FA Cup QF. We didnt sell our allocation for an FA Cup Semi Final, thats a historic FA Cup SF and we didnt sell out. Yet a 3rd division side did. We aint all that. You're neatly sidestepping the fact you think he's skint, he says he's skint, you and others make comments all the time about how much debt we are in and yet you think he should dip into his pocket for another 10-20-30 million!! As you say if we stay Premier League we'll be ok, but we can get relegated with a 35000 stadium. Our gates would immediately drop to 15000. It makes absolutely no sense to do it now. In 3 or 4 years time will be the time when we have had sustained success.
Our owner thinks we need to increase revenue to continue to move forward, I'm saying the only way to achieve that revenue increase is to expand the stadium. If he doesn't want to increase revenue, then fine, leave it as it is. If he does, what else is he going to do, the name change is a nonsense with regard to revenue generation, it's not even his motivation for doing it, so what else? Another 5,000 seats on the East would cost no more than £10m(the amount we spent on Hernandez) and could generate well over £2m a year in ticket sales alone.
That would require every game selling out at an average of £21 a ticket, you really think we have the demand there for that given the current attendances? Even then it would be 5 years before the expansion would actually increase revenue. Even at the ambitious £2 million a year, a stadium expansion would at best increase overall revenue by £10 million over 10 years, hardly seems worth it.
