Hull football- new owners/ new truce

[redjonn]

2 hours ago, JohnM said:

" he wanted to rent the stadium and buy players instead."

Exactly. in some circumstances for some clubs, buying the stadium instead of renting it  might make sense and might work. In other circumstances, for other clubs, renting the stadium instead of buying it  might make sense and might work.

It's the trotting out of the doctrinaire condemnation of those clubs that rent rather than buy that stimulates a response.

Your right of course in your general point with regard to owning or renting.  I guess it all depends on the nature of the rental agreement. Particularly with regard to investment decisions - although that assumes even if own the ground that you can afford to invest.

Take Leeds whom have invested substantial in their commercial/hospitality options.  That in itself enabled them to increase charges and revenues and potentially target different business and hospitality markets.   I think Leeds largest revenue earner even before corporate upgrades was corporate/hospitality revenues. I suspect their margins are even higher now.  

So if renting agreement enables you to invest say in similar and keep said revenues then good... but if its dependent say on the council or leaseholder whom is reluctant then unable to invest for greater gain or facility improvement. Plus maybe the facilities become poorer and poorer impacting revenue/sales.  Maybe one party doesn't want the impact of any facility upgrade as it impacts their revenue for a period.

As you say which approach is best depends, but for sure the nature of the rental contract/agreement is for sure the key.

 

[EggFace]

17 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Utter madness

You went One Step Beyond with that comment.