CCFC

[WonkyWasp]

If we do have a new sponsor and it isn't Ricoh somebody is going to have to re-jig the seats in the  Family Stand.  Let's hope it's a  short word.

[Horusthewasp]

If we do have a new sponsor and it isn't Ricoh somebody is going to have to re-jig the seats in the  Family Stand.  Let's hope it's a  short word.

Please correct me if I’m wrong but didn't Ricoh, the Japanese company, end the stadium sponsorship a couple of years ago (2018?) and some marketing firm was tasked by Wasps to find a replacement. Given it’s still called the “Ricoh Arena” did the Japanese sign a new long term contract or was it temporarily extended?

[Neils]

If we do have a new sponsor and it isn't Ricoh somebody is going to have to re-jig the seats in the  Family Stand.  Let's hope it's a  short word.

Please correct me if I’m wrong but didn't Ricoh, the Japanese company, end the stadium sponsorship a couple of years ago (2018?) and some marketing firm was tasked by Wasps to find a replacement. Given it’s still called the “Ricoh Arena” did the Japanese sign a new long term contract or was it temporarily extended?

I thought it was temporarily extended at a greatly reduced fee. Pre-covid of course.
Also remember someone at the club saying it was cheaper to keep their logos/name up than go to the expense of removing them.

[Shugs]

Would be extremely handy if s choir sponsored it - just some re-arranging required 

[Horusthewasp]

If we do have a new sponsor and it isn't Ricoh somebody is going to have to re-jig the seats in the  Family Stand.  Let's hope it's a  short word.

Please correct me if I’m wrong but didn't Ricoh, the Japanese company, end the stadium sponsorship a couple of years ago (2018?) and some marketing firm was tasked by Wasps to find a replacement. Given it’s still called the “Ricoh Arena” did the Japanese sign a new long term contract or was it temporarily extended?

I thought it was temporarily extended at a greatly reduced fee. Pre-covid of course.
Also remember someone at the club saying it was cheaper to keep their logos/name up than go to the expense of removing them.

Thanks Neil. That would make sense. Given Vodaphone are the “main club partner” for Wasps, you’d think “Vodaphone Arena” was discussed at some point (not sure if the Turkish stadium “Vodaphone Park” (formerly “Vodaphone Arena”) has exclusive naming rights though).

[hookender]

Would be extremely handy if s choir sponsored it - just some re-arranging required 

There are two blue sky choirs...

[Horusthewasp]

Below is a link where BB & CCFC reporter, Andy Turner, discuss today’s deal.

https://fb.watch/48S4bU7oCv/

Not much in the way of details but here are the highlights:

• First meeting to kick off this round of “conciliatory talks” was between Derek Richardson & Joy Seppala in March last year. Due to lockdown it was via Zoom.
• Stephen Vaughan & Dave Boddy thrashed out the details over 12 months including F&B/matchday revenues and (pitch) maintenance.
• Wasps “put aside” the pending EC complaint and requirement for an indemnity clause to “enable negotiations to move forward”.
• Rent has remained unchanged although it was “competitive” for CCFC to start with.
• CCFC now have “improved match day revenue” including F&B but no % was disclosed.
• CCFC will now financially contribute to the up keep and maintenance of the pitch which wasn’t the case before. This includes investments in bank lights to promote grass growth.
• The pitch will be renovated this summer.
• In terms of ‘fixture priority’, the EFL require that all members have “primacy of fixtures“. Apparently this was the same the last time CCFC were playing in the Ricoh which probably means more Wasps fixtures will be on Friday evenings and Sundays.
• CCFC expect initial attendee figures (post Covid) to average 17,000.

As an outsider to the negotiations, my two key comments are:

• Concern that Wasps “put aside” the EC complaint and indemnity requirement. I can only imagine/hope that Richardson & Vaughan either have clear knowledge of how the EC will rule or have placed other clauses to protect Wasps Holding interests.
• It seems Wasps only gain a nominal revenue benefit from this deal and that the biggest benefit is alleviating the uncertainty around this issue.

On a side note, I got the distinct impression that Turner seemed to be more informed or knowledgeable than BB in that video.


Regarding the “Ricoh” sponsorship, BB shed some light in the video:

• Although the branding is there, “the deal has long since elapsed”.
• The search for a new sponsor has been ongoing for some time.
• He believes it was difficult to secure a deal with a big brand as they wouldn’t want to be “associated” with the Wasps/CFCC dispute.
• He continues by saying that now that the dispute is “over” the prospects are for a new sponsor are better given that Wasps are a Premiership Rugby club and CFCC possibly a Championship club next season.

[hookender]

 I thought the report read we were going to receive a rent the same as Brum are charging (500k) compared to 100k ( if Neils recollection correct) plus concession percentage. Concession revenue was probably not great -reading reports as it sounds like sky blues fans didn’t use them to avoid putting revenue into wasps pockets. so having a guaranteed fixed income is probably beneficial to Wasps whilst giving Cov opportunity of bolstering their income, but overall giving concessions in the stadium a better chance as well.


Who knows might mean better service all round?

Hadn’t  seen speculation re sponsorship rights but had posted my thoughts earlier. Stupid minds think alike?

[Neils]

"Rent has remained unchanged although it was “competitive” for CCFC to start with."

This is insane if correct. They were a bottom league club and paying £100k and the agreement is the same? There must be something hidden in the negotiating skills that we are missing!

[Shugs]

I think the rent was always a sub-issue. What we would have been looking at is matchday revenue. A % of food/drink etc on 23 matchdays where there could be 15-25k fans would be attractive to Wasps. More so than when they were in the bottom divisions attracting 4-9k. The key is will they stay up. Us "putting aside" the EC case worries me more.

[RogerE]

Talked to a QC friend about the EU case yesterday, and he was of the opinion that, now the UK was no longer part of the EU jurisdiction, any judgement given out post Brexit would have to be referred to the Justice Ministry, who, politically, would be unlikely to allow it to proceed especially as the Supreme Court has already thrown out the basic complaint. Worst case would be that it is referred, by Government, to the Supreme Court, who, having already rejected similar claims by SISU, would almost certainly follow their previous rulings.

He did say that, havving in the past rejected similar claims about subsidies to sporting venues, that it would appear perverse if the EU did come down on the side of the SISU complaint. However as the EU investigation could be deemed to be "judged" by politicians rather than judges (although they do take legal advice) then it could be that "UK beating" might happen - but he feels it would be counterproductive for the EU to do this.

[Nigel Med]

Given that Wasps have been in the position of being a tenant at Adams Park you'd imagine that they'd be pretty clued up when it came to negotiating the deal with Coventry. Rumour has it that we were paying a million per year at AP and got zero for concession sales.

The food and beverage issue is an interesting one. It depends entirely on the deal negotiated by the stadium owner for the concessions, many clubs will sign the entire rights over to a catering company for a fixed fee, its far less hassle and you don't have to check exactly how much the sales are worth each match day. If you're attracting a lot of supporters the catering company is quids in, if you're propping up the foot of the table and attracting a handful of die-hard supporters, the catering company take the hit. Could be that Wycombe Wanderers had that sort of deal thus we got nothing.

I'm assuming from the published details of the deal with CCFC that we either run the catering in-house or receive a percentage of all sales which then gives the opportunity to hand CC a percentage of their own match day revenue. You wouldn't however expect takings to be of the same scale as a Wasps match day, soccer culture is very different in that it leans more towards turn up, watch the game and leave. A rugby match is more of a social event that happens to include a game (and long may that continue) so you would expect considerably more catering sales. Couple with the restrictions on alcohol sales at soccer matches I would expect catering revenue to be significantly less at a CC match than a Wasps game so possibly not such a major issue, offering CCFC a percentage of concession sales does however paint the picture of a more harmonious and generous partnership.

[MarleyWasp]

The figure I was told was £17k a match at Adams Park.

[Rossm]

I would expect catering revenue to be significantly less at a CC match than a Wasps game so possibly not such a major issue, offering CCFC a percentage of concession sales does however paint the picture of a more harmonious and generous partnership.

At a focus group once at Loftus Road, I learnt that beer sales at one Wasps' game surpassed the entire QPR beer sales in a season!

[Rossm]

'Parked' - Coventry City and Wasps provide update on Euro complaint and indemnity clause sticking points

Bobby Bridge and Andy Turner report:

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/coventry-city-ricoh-arena-wasps-20062831