Why?

well why pay for more than you actually use

I agree to a point though it would come down to the fine details. How would the income be split between the 2 clubs and the RFL?
If it goes to the 2 clubs how does the RFL get its money back? If it goes to the RFL how do the 2 clubs expand?

I quite like the idea though, just I always thought the 2 clubs were very much against sharing a ground? Although I'd always thought it was by far the best way for both clubs to thrive.

I may be wrong but I thought when Uncle Ken bought the football team that he put the whole 60% of his ownership, ie both the football and rugby club ownership share into one seperate company. And IIRC the football club bought part of that not long ago.

But either way a 20% share wouldn't allow you to do much to expand. Though I'm not saying Hudds are in a bad position with the stadium.

The big issue is what happens with catering/conference income etc. If it all goes to the RFL, then the clubs end up being deprived of what in their own stadiums would be a lucrative income stream - just look at how much money flows into Headingley through non-matchday use for example.

What's the deal in Oz where a lot of the Sydney clubs play at Olympic Park (or whatever it is called now) or SFS?

I think those details are of less importance. it should be easy to work out a structure that benefits all parties.

But that is, where I think the biggest resistance comes from. People don't want other clubs thriving.

It could easily be worked out im sure. Even if it came down to running it as an SMC with each party owning a 3rd of it.

I don't know anything about the Wasps deal save what I've read, but the comment that if all is as it appears to be, then the deal will have cost an arm and a leg is indisputably true. So their gates have initially gone up. So what? The main questions you would need to be able to answer are:
1. What does it cost to service the investment/borrowing? because those charges need to be paid before there is any surplus.
2. Who put up the money? Because if there is a profit at the end of the day then the "investors" will want it. Unless there is a billionaire who is happy to lose many millions a year, permanently, just cos he likes Wasps.

If there really is that much money to be made from casinos, hotels, Zumba nights or whatever at the Ricoh then how come no shrewd billionaires or other companies national or international were remotely interested prior to the Wasps deal? Yet there is, apparently, not only enough money to be made to service the acquisition finance and running costs, turn a healthy profit for investors, but also to make Wasps a wealthy rugby club out of presumably the small change.

I'm not remotely buying into this hype. It is all spin. I don't blame Wasps as a club for taking advantage of it but there are no lessons to be learned here.

Presumably the leisure bond issue is a way of getting some or all of the cash back to those who funded the purchase ASAP. All it then does however is pass the servicing of the bonds on to the next generation of people in charge of the club, who are faced with making sufficient money to be able to pay the return to investors.

Course, there's a cynical view to be taken here. Leisure bonds don't - AFAIK - have any cover under the FSCS. So if you sink your money into one and Wasps are unable to pay a return on it, you've got no compensation in the way you would have if you'd kept that money in your bank account and your bank had gone bust. So a couple of years down the line what's to stop Wasps running themselves into the ground, liquidating, phoenixing under a different company structure/directors and the bond holders ending up with nothing?

I'm tempted to say it shows you can polish turd. But that would be infantile & show my jealousy of yawnion crowds.

Hmm...where to begin?
First up, the borrowing. If there is actually any "borrowing" involved, rather than a Ken Davy/David Hughes type insane beneficiary situation, then it will be minimal, given the current interest rates in the EU. Secondly, as I have already alluded to, if it's a benefactor, then who cares? Benefactors will make decision that in the end are meant to make the clubs self sufficient.......WASPS buy a stadium (share of) and eventually the reliance on their benefactor is reduced......it's good business....the RFL bought your lease and how's that working out for you?????/ or them for that matter????
Then there's your comment about money to be made from the casino







this from someone who believed "pub boy and carpet mans" plans for the bulls including belinda carlisle concerts and the coral lounge for weddings was the answer


Wasps have made a decent start at the new stadium,........they average 16k+ and they own a chunk of the action. They are now looking to raise more revenue through a funding issue......they are making progress......let's not allow your bitterness get in the way here......after all, your club owns nothing, owes everything and is in the 2nd tier....for at leat another year or so.