Alan G Bryant wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Alan G Bryant wrote:How can this happen when they have their own stadium

It is not that having a stadium ensures success, it is that long term not having a stadium ensures failure.

I have explained this to you before, perhaps if you spent more time thinking things through rather than being a smart @rse your contributions might be more insightful.

Thank you for you advice , I shall look forward to watching the demise of Manchester City as they continue to lease the Etihad off Manchester City Council.

As I have frequently said. I have no problem renting from the local authority or having a shared stake with the rugby. My problem is being a tenant/licensee of the rugby.

I am heartened that you are thankful for my advice. I would though suggest that you go one step further and take it.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: As I have frequently said. I have no problem renting from the local authority or having a shared stake with the rugby. My problem is being a tenant/licensee of the rugby.

What percentage would satisfy you as a shared stake?

Amberexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote: As I have frequently said. I have no problem renting from the local authority or having a shared stake with the rugby. My problem is being a tenant/licensee of the rugby.

What percentage would satisfy you as a shared stake?

The figure is unimportant. What matters is that it is an equal stake with the rugby. 0% if the Council held 100% ownership. If the local authority have no stake 50%.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote: As I have frequently said. I have no problem renting from the local authority or having a shared stake with the rugby. My problem is being a tenant/licensee of the rugby.

What percentage would satisfy you as a shared stake?

The figure is unimportant. What matters is that it is an equal stake with the rugby. 0% if the Council held 100% ownership. If the local authority have no stake 50%.

Assuming the council continues to show no interest in ownership, what do you think would be required to 'buy' an equal share?

Amberexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:
The figure is unimportant. What matters is that it is an equal stake with the rugby. 0% if the Council held 100% ownership. If the local authority have no stake 50%.

Assuming the council continues to show no interest in ownership, what do you think would be required to 'buy' an equal share?

I have no idea.

Undoubtedly it would have been a lot less expensive had we started the development fifteen years ago.

Then again it'll cost a lot less now than if we leave it another fifteen years.

Edit.

Look at FC United of Manchester. Fans owned club. Started after us. In a lower league. Get smaller crowds.

And yet they have developed a stadium. Go on YouTube and look at it. If they can do it, so can we.

I reckon WRU would want at least £10million and to keep a small majority in the ownership.

Amberexile wrote:I reckon WRU would want at least £10million and to keep a small majority in the ownership.

If you are right about that the value of RP is somewhere north of £20,000,000. Quite a return. If, and I stress if, you are right then if the WRU are prepared to screw over one of their own just think what they'd be prepared to do to us.

Rather makes my point.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:I reckon WRU would want at least £10million and to keep a small majority in the ownership.

If you are right about that the value of RP is somewhere north of £20,000,000. Quite a return. If, and I stress if, you are right then if the WRU are prepared to screw over one of their own just think what they'd be prepared to do to us.

Rather makes my point.

The figure has nothing to do with the value of RP but is to do with the downside of sharing ownership.

i.e. is RP worth £20m - no. Is it worth sharing RP with the County for only half of its value - no.

Amberexile wrote: The figure has nothing to do with the value of RP but is to do with the downside of sharing ownership.

i.e. is RP worth £20m - no. Is it worth sharing RP with the County for only half of its value - no.

And what's the disadvantage of sharing ownership? For me its you can't get rid of the other party when it suits.

Rather re-enforces my point.

Alan G Bryant wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Alan G Bryant wrote:How can this happen when they have their own stadium

It is not that having a stadium ensures success, it is that long term not having a stadium ensures failure.

I have explained this to you before, perhaps if you spent more time thinking things through rather than being a smart @rse your contributions might be more insightful.

Thank you for you advice , I shall look forward to watching the demise of Manchester City as they continue to lease the Etihad off Manchester City Council.

Evidently they might have some other income which makes their decision to sign a 250 year lease for (and pay for huge additional development to) a stadium they don't own somewhat less pressing than in County's case. You could fit our lot into the empty seats in theirs...

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote: The figure has nothing to do with the value of RP but is to do with the downside of sharing ownership.

i.e. is RP worth £20m - no. Is it worth sharing RP with the County for only half of its value - no.

And what's the disadvantage of sharing ownership? For me its you can't get rid of the other party when it suits.

Rather re-enforces my point.

You've lost me there What point would that be?

EDIT: the disadvantages are many and in my view why the WRU would not entertain the idea.

The problem with requiring equal "ownership" of 50% is that County would also want an unequal control with primacy of fixtures.

frostyjohn wrote:The problem with requiring equal "ownership" of 50% is that County would also want an unequal control with primacy of fixtures.

What we need is a stadium in which we have control. Shared with the rugby is a possibility. Developing our own stadium is a possibility. Renting a revamped Spytty is a possibility. There may be other solutions.

The status quo is for me a problem. Pause to think. The rugby wanted a 4G pitch, but having County as tenants prevented them from doing so. Twice now in the last two years the rugby have had to re-arrange fixtures to accommodate County's primacy of fixture. There comes a point when the rent we pay doesn't cover the disruption we cause.

As I said elsewhere if FC United of Manchester can do it, so can we.