wigan, turnover,salery cap,big club, small club

[cpwigan]

AC you are right re the uncertainty etc. As it stands all contract negotiations with players have been frozen. So several youngsters are now looking at alternative clubs rather than wait and see what happens.

Something that confuses me. As I understood it. The JJB was built using funding (grants) that could only be obtained for a dual use stadia. How did Whelco get to own it 100% without safeguards etc / rights to both sporting interests :conf:

[butt monkey]

andycap posted:
CP it may give us bigger freedom or it may give us less it will depend on any agreement that is reached with DW we are therefore at his mercey and reliant on his goodwill to ensure that we continue.

But i can still see problems were will we train,were will our offices be, do we rent them off DW? and on it goes and whichever way you look it is going to cost us more money than it does now.

Harlequins Huddersfield, Hull, Wakefield and Bradford (i think) are all in a similr position but at least they have the full support of there landlords be it the local authority or others who have a mutual interest.

If the new owner (whoever it may be), has any business background whatsoever, I for one, do not believe that they would allow themselves to be "Held to ransom" or allow a "stranglehold", by any deals regarding Whelco or Mr Whelan re: ground rent, ticketing, offices, training facilities etc.

If there is intransigence from Mr Whelan, or he sees this as an opportunity to "fleece" the fans/new owner, then this would be likely to hasten a retreat from the JJB, and that might just happen.

[ancientnloyal]

The new owner would be silly not to buy the new training facilities in Orrell... £2m it cost to build??? I presume that the new owner will have to stump up for a similar amount to buy it outright.

I dont think the stadium will be an issue, ticketing and office use will perhaps be rented or a legal set of documents will be draughted to ensure no 'change' at the club. I dont believe for one minute that Whelan will start being funny with it all, why should he? Of course Athletic would then perhaps be the priority tennant which would mean possible changes to fixture dates other than what already occurs when the two seasons overlap. Whelan for me wont make it tricky.

[mike binder]

andycap posted:
Wigan RLFC turnover for 2005 (2006 not submitted yet) was £3.68M and £3.56M for 2004 PRE TAX profit for 2004 was £108k and £25k for 2005 Total net worth is recorded as (£799000)at the 31/12/05.

This brings up numerous points.

1.We as a club are not as big financially as we think we are and as such our postion may weaken if DW sells out.

2. The increase in spend on the cap sought by members of this board would have little effect on us unless the 50% limit was removed if it was retained then we would not be able to spend much more than we do at present (Mike Binder please note)

3. It does concern me that any new owner would be buying the Wigan Name and little else with no real prospect of generating any real income to invest in the team.

Just food for thought

naturally your not quite as clever as you think yopu are why was our turn over 3.6 millon oh yes that gives us 1.8 million the maximum to spend on wages ,if the cap was made 50% no maximum do you not think we would have a much greater turn over ,with us going out getting more sponsors ie sponsor a player for the match as many other clubs do .Remember we havethe biggest selling thinG in world rugby our name WIGAN WARRIORS

[ancientnloyal]

mike binder posted:
Remember we havethe biggest selling thinG in world rugby our name WIGAN WARRIORS

There's me thinking it was David Vaealiki :conf:

[pedro]

Merchandise will be a lot as they sold out nearly all the stock this year. Also WIgan have a massive sponsorship deal with Tesco and no doubt JJB.

I think the 3.8 is more than achievable. I cant see any other club touching us in reality.

Leeds tickets are cheaper.

[andycap]

naturally your not quite as clever as you think yopu are why was our turn over 3.6 millon oh yes that gives us 1.8 million the maximum to spend on wages ,if the cap was made 50% no maximum do you not think we would have a much greater turn over ,with us going out getting more sponsors ie sponsor a player for the match as many other clubs do .Remember we havethe biggest selling thinG in world rugby our name WIGAN WARRIORS

Mike thats my point DW can manipulate our turnover to suit the cap a new investor will be limited in the income he can generate

[mike binder]

andycap posted:
naturally your not quite as clever as you think yopu are why was our turn over 3.6 millon oh yes that gives us 1.8 million the maximum to spend on wages ,if the cap was made 50% no maximum do you not think we would have a much greater turn over ,with us going out getting more sponsors ie sponsor a player for the match as many other clubs do .Remember we havethe biggest selling thinG in world rugby our name WIGAN WARRIORS

Mike thats my point DW can manipulate our turnover to suit the cap a new investor will be limited in the income he can generate

at no stage any were have i said get rid of whelan mo yes whelan no ,i agree id like dw to stay and give some else a chance to spend his money