one answer ban the author please

......and perhaps your English teacher .

If you assumed you'd get the new stand half full every week and all these were incremental, that could be 1,300 punters @ average £150 = £195k. That's being generous in the current climate and with availability on the day in all stands currently. Let's "round up" to your £250k. The balance lump sum is therefore £500k, which you think is a long term upfront payment on a deal for beer and catering. Let's say, again generously, that it's a 5 year deal, so £100k a year. To get half a million quid up front now, including £100k in respect of 2017 would be staggering. What sort of catering company would have the money and risk hunger to do that, particularly given Rovers well-documented financial challenges? It seems both an astronomical cash amount for 13 dining occasions per annum (in a low margin sector), and also huge risk/generosity on the part of the caterers to be bankrolling Rovers in 2017 now. Long term sponsorships generally have annual instalments. The richness of this deal for Rovers appears immense, so presumably the fact it's delayed rather than lost altogether provides a good financial cushion for next year.

i bet you don't get 300 word response to that one 90 ,maybe a wagging finger for derailing.

I agree. You usual de-railing tactics I see, surprised you've not been warned.

As usual, faced with you and champion de-railment mod Mild Rover, it's left to me to get the thread back on track. Do you think it's incredible business for Rovers to have been banking a cheque for £100k in respect of 2017 pie sales this year?

As I say, you can line the numbers up however you like, papering over the gaps with assumptions and inference. My assumption is that if an independent assessment were made it might well give a different (lower) number, but from memory Hudgell defined that figure loosely, and the answer depends on how you frame or interpret the question.
So yeah, it can probably go alongside Pearson's comparison of your rent and Bradford's. or whatever it was. it doesn't mean, in either case, that there isn't arguably a valid point behind the (possibly) dodgy advocacy. Whatever the number, the delays to the North Stand have cost us (ie him), relative to if it had been on or closer to schedule.
But we are where we are. The simple equation is new money = good. No new money = bad. From our pov, obviously.

PS. You're a self-acknowledged troll, you don't get to decide where the rails or tracks are. Soz. Why haven't I got the finger wagging emoticon?

Why would that be? Because I don't capitalise the first letter of insignificant people's names?

My English teacher was ace, had an amazing rack on her

OK. But it's been referenced a lot, and again today by the Chief Exec? Must be well substantiated.

Obsessed derailer.