I don't know for sure, but I doubt the plan relied on bumper crowds - I suspect it was more around better utilisation of the Stadium and Conferencing facilities in terms of days used. Bumper crowds would have been a bonus, rather than a need.
Supposing you're right, was there a plan B for when it became apparent plan A wasn't working? I'm unsure.
Not sure if you're on a wind-up or not? - Really there's two 'plans' rugby teams can operate:
Plan A: Rugby related income (Matchday income, sponsorship, centralised income)
Plan B: Non-rugby related income (Non-rugby use of Stadium/Assets)
Final option; have a very wealthy benefactor to cover year-on-year losses
Plan A is rarely enough for clubs operating it (Quins, Saints, Gloucs, Bath, Irish, Sale, Newcastle) and adding Plan B to Plan A (Tigers, Chiefs, Sarries). Not sure whether Bristol get much use out of Ashton gate on non-matchdays or whether it's part of their plans.
It was clear, that the vision for Derek and Co was to supplement A with B by increasing utilisation of non-rugby related stadium complex use.
What alternatives did they have that you would have considered a viable alternative to the above? This is also the big piece that those who have been confidently predicting our demise and criticising the business plan seem to struggle with.
It's fine to say move back to Greater London and find a 10-15k seater stadium. But what would that cost to build/buy? If you don't build/buy your own stadium, how do you generate enough income to sustain the Club?
Quins as the best example are the closest to making it work properly, but when the cap goes up another £2m in a season or twos time, how do they generate that extra income?