|
|
Post by drivethebody on Jul 9, 2021 7:06:21 GMT
I’m so pleased the pavilions have set things straight, I’m still devastated by the news, I’m sick…. I’ve lost my team!!! But I can not forgive the owners for what they have done!!!! The BBL need to put more in place for new owners so they can’t just run a team into the ground. Without being prompted by the freak under the bridge, I was going to say that i feel your pain. I've been there 18 years ago I found out that Leopards were dead. That killed the atmos of the party that night. I think you need to take the Pavilions claims with a pinch of salt. Even The Herald article, much of which was a cut & paste job from an advanced copy of the press release, acknowledged that the price rise effectively priced Raiders out of staging basketball there. The numbers they're talking about are utterly unrealistic for what they're providing. From the outside it looks like the Pavilions have a financial hole to fill and their answer is to bump up the rent because they believe the owners have plenty of cash. The Herald really should have asked some more searching questions as to how this can be justified. What the Pavilions have done well is win the publicity war. But Raiders' ownership have shown little interest in winning that battle. They're not based in the Plymouth area, and they don't care what people think. The harsh reality is they weren't willing to chuck a load of money at the Pavilions and when it came to the crunch, Raiders were expendable. “Freak under the bridge” Wow- for someone discussing basketball on a forum - just wow |
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jul 9, 2021 7:20:28 GMT
I’m so pleased the pavilions have set things straight, I’m still devastated by the news, I’m sick…. I’ve lost my team!!! But I can not forgive the owners for what they have done!!!! The BBL need to put more in place for new owners so they can’t just run a team into the ground. Without being prompted by the freak under the bridge, I was going to say that i feel your pain. I've been there 18 years ago I found out that Leopards were dead. That killed the atmos of the party that night. I think you need to take the Pavilions claims with a pinch of salt. Even The Herald article, much of which was a cut & paste job from an advanced copy of the press release, acknowledged that the price rise effectively priced Raiders out of staging basketball there. The numbers they're talking about are utterly unrealistic for what they're providing. From the outside it looks like the Pavilions have a financial hole to fill and their answer is to bump up the rent because they believe the owners have plenty of cash. The Herald really should have asked some more searching questions as to how this can be justified. What the Pavilions have done well is win the publicity war. But Raiders' ownership have shown little interest in winning that battle. They're not based in the Plymouth area, and they don't care what people think. The harsh reality is they weren't willing to chuck a load of money at the Pavilions and when it came to the crunch, Raiders were expendable. Totally totally ignoring the fact the owners haven't paid last season's expense only venue hire costs ?? Get real? It was very telling that when the Pavilions made their statement about non payment of last year's rent in the media a couple of days before that there was ZERO response from the owners I'm sure the paper will have asked for one Instead a couple of days later the owners simply withdraw from the league again without refuting the claims of the non payment to Pavilion at all. Trust me if that wasn't true the owners would have refuted it immediately. Instead they ignore the claim? The most searching question that hasn't been answered is to the Raiders owners: "What gives you the right to even question future increased costs for venue hire when despite DCMS money being paid to you you have failed to pay vastly reduced bills for last season?" They are debtors to a venue and shouldn't even be in a position to negotiate venue hire costs with ANYONE whilst thats the case Ridiculous point of view you have there Hersey Did you operate like that ? I doubt it? This is same poster that said due to DCMS money wolves have an ethical obligation to run a club NEXT season? What's happened to ethical obligations for Raiders for non payment to the venue from DCMS money for what it was actually given to the clubs for? Your talk about ethical obligations has ZERO credibility I'm afraid Try and debate that one back without personal insults if you are capable? Theres simply no excuse and you won't be able to answer you will just skulk away or divert like normal Pavilions clearly tried to help Raiders last season - in return the owners shxt on them whilst trying to put blame on them? The facts speak for themselves |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2021 7:33:53 GMT
Without being prompted by the freak under the bridge, I was going to say that i feel your pain. I've been there 18 years ago I found out that Leopards were dead. That killed the atmos of the party that night. I think you need to take the Pavilions claims with a pinch of salt. Even The Herald article, much of which was a cut & paste job from an advanced copy of the press release, acknowledged that the price rise effectively priced Raiders out of staging basketball there. The numbers they're talking about are utterly unrealistic for what they're providing. From the outside it looks like the Pavilions have a financial hole to fill and their answer is to bump up the rent because they believe the owners have plenty of cash. The Herald really should have asked some more searching questions as to how this can be justified. What the Pavilions have done well is win the publicity war. But Raiders' ownership have shown little interest in winning that battle. They're not based in the Plymouth area, and they don't care what people think. The harsh reality is they weren't willing to chuck a load of money at the Pavilions and when it came to the crunch, Raiders were expendable. Totally totally ignoring the fact the owners haven't paid last season's expense only venue hire costs ?? Get real? It was very telling that when the Pavilions made their statement about non payment of last year's rent in the media a couple of days before there was zero response from the owners I'm sure the paper will have asked for one Instead a couple of days later the owners simply withdraw from the league again without refuting the claims of the Pavilion at all The most searching question that hasn't been answered is to the Raiders owners: "What gives you the right to even question future increased costs for venue hire when despite DCMS money being paid to you you have failed to pay vastly reduced bills for last season?" They are debtors to a venue and shouldn't even be in a position to negotiate venue hire costs with ANYONE whilst thats the case Ridiculous point if view you have there Hersey Did you operate like that ? I doubt it? Dude, stop wasting your time with Hersay and Davef as they always whitewash issues with BBL. It’s getting harder as two of its more than decades old clubs have folded. And let’s face it, nobody knows what will happen this fall when Covid cranks up again and restrictions on indoor events are put in place. And the argument of clubs owning their venue only makes sense when there are other metrics in place. Weak clubs owning buildings is a recipe for disaster. |
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jul 9, 2021 7:37:08 GMT
Dp
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2021 8:03:43 GMT
Totally totally ignoring the fact the owners haven't paid last season's expense only venue hire costs ?? Get real? It was very telling that when the Pavilions made their statement about non payment of last year's rent in the media a couple of days before there was zero response from the owners I'm sure the paper will have asked for one Instead a couple of days later the owners simply withdraw from the league again without refuting the claims of the non payment to Pavilion at all. Trust me if that wasn't true the owners would have refuted it immediately. Instead they ignore the claim? The most searching question that hasn't been answered is to the Raiders owners: "What gives you the right to even question future increased costs for venue hire when despite DCMS money being paid to you you have failed to pay vastly reduced bills for last season?" They are debtors to a venue and shouldn't even be in a position to negotiate venue hire costs with ANYONE whilst thats the case Ridiculous point of view you have there Hersey Did you operate like that ? I doubt it? This is same poster that said due to DCMS money wolves have an ethical obligation to run a club NEXT season? What's happened to ethical obligations for Raiders for non payment to the venue from DCMS money for what it was actually given to the clubs for? Your talk about ethical obligations has ZERO credibility I'm afraid Try and debate that one back without personal insults if you are capable? The Pavilions have done a good PR job, Raiders' owners have done an absolutely terrible one. That doesn't mean everything the Pavilions have said is true. It's never that black and white. They're desperately trying to show the world that they're the good guys, and getting plenty of help from Raiders' ownership. I'd love to see the details of the "expense only" deal Raiders had last year, but the fact is the Pavilions have immediately tried to recoup it (and much more) the following year, All the clubs have a moral obligation to try to compete this year after a season where they were funded by our taxes (and as you've posted there's still some money available, though i suspect it will be hard to access). But cynically the Pavilions have decided this is the time for a massive rent hike. You don't think people will flock back to indoor events (we can agree to disagree on that), do you think they'll fill those extra dates? Is this just a game of brinksmanship that they've just lost? This might be a pantomime, but it's not a classic one. One side isn't a villain with a black hat and the other a beautiful princess full of sweetness and light. They're both to blame |
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jul 9, 2021 8:19:59 GMT
Totally totally ignoring the fact the owners haven't paid last season's expense only venue hire costs ?? Get real? It was very telling that when the Pavilions made their statement about non payment of last year's rent in the media a couple of days before there was zero response from the owners I'm sure the paper will have asked for one Instead a couple of days later the owners simply withdraw from the league again without refuting the claims of the non payment to Pavilion at all. Trust me if that wasn't true the owners would have refuted it immediately. Instead they ignore the claim? The most searching question that hasn't been answered is to the Raiders owners: "What gives you the right to even question future increased costs for venue hire when despite DCMS money being paid to you you have failed to pay vastly reduced bills for last season?" They are debtors to a venue and shouldn't even be in a position to negotiate venue hire costs with ANYONE whilst thats the case Ridiculous point of view you have there Hersey Did you operate like that ? I doubt it? This is same poster that said due to DCMS money wolves have an ethical obligation to run a club NEXT season? What's happened to ethical obligations for Raiders for non payment to the venue from DCMS money for what it was actually given to the clubs for? Your talk about ethical obligations has ZERO credibility I'm afraid Try and debate that one back without personal insults if you are capable? The Pavilions have done a good PR job, Raiders' owners have done an absolutely terrible one. That doesn't mean everything the Pavilions have said is true. It's never that black and white. They're desperately trying to show the world that they're the good guys, and getting plenty of help from Raiders' ownership. I'd love to see the details of the "expense only" deal Raiders had last year, but the fact is the Pavilions have immediately tried to recoup it (and much more) the following year, All the clubs have a moral obligation to try to compete this year after a season where they were funded by our taxes (and as you've posted there's still some money available, though i suspect it will be hard to access). But cynically the Pavilions have decided this is the time for a massive rent hike. You don't think people will flock back to indoor events (we can agree to disagree on that), do you think they'll fill those extra dates? Is this just a game of brinksmanship that they've just lost? This might be a pantomime, but it's not a classic one. One side isn't a villain with a black hat and the other a beautiful princess full of sweetness and light. They're both to blame If I was running Pavilions I would have actually stopped them completing last season until they paid Pavilions trust their numerous re-assurances they will get paid Don't get paid and at the very same time the owners try and divert the focus on proposed costs for next season? If anything the Pavilion have been way too soft on the owners and trusted them too much to come good? Everything the Pavilions have said doesnt need to be true. But no idea why they would put it in black and white if it wasn't? That would be stupid. Just the fact the owners haven't paid last season should stop any negotiations regardless And trust me if that wasnt true not only would the owners have told the world they would be suing the arse out of pavilions as we speak You've mentioned the word fraud a few times lately If I was DCMS I would be taking a long look at what raiders owners have actually spent the DCMS money on They will have no doubt claimed costs for venue hire Ps the Raiders started the debate in public and dragged pavilions in to having to reply You know what the world's like. It's easy enough to realise who the bad guys actually are in this If you want to come down on ethical use of DCMS money you should be coming down way harder on raiders than wolves ? Simple as that Or else stop debating ethics full stop as raiders owners have demonstrated zero ethics |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2021 8:34:26 GMT
The Pavilions have done a good PR job, Raiders' owners have done an absolutely terrible one. That doesn't mean everything the Pavilions have said is true. It's never that black and white. They're desperately trying to show the world that they're the good guys, and getting plenty of help from Raiders' ownership. I'd love to see the details of the "expense only" deal Raiders had last year, but the fact is the Pavilions have immediately tried to recoup it (and much more) the following year, All the clubs have a moral obligation to try to compete this year after a season where they were funded by our taxes (and as you've posted there's still some money available, though i suspect it will be hard to access). But cynically the Pavilions have decided this is the time for a massive rent hike. You don't think people will flock back to indoor events (we can agree to disagree on that), do you think they'll fill those extra dates? Is this just a game of brinksmanship that they've just lost? This might be a pantomime, but it's not a classic one. One side isn't a villain with a black hat and the other a beautiful princess full of sweetness and light. They're both to blame If I was running Pavilions I would have actually stopped them completing last season until they paid Pavilions trust their numerous re-assurances they will get paid Don't get paid and at the very same time the owners try and divert the focus on proposed costs for next season? If anything the Pavilion have been way too soft on the owners and trusted them too much to come good? Everything the Pavilions have said doesnt need to be true. But no idea why they would put it in black and white if it wasn't? That would be stupid. Just the fact the owners haven't paid last season should stop any negotiations regardless And trust me if that wasnt true not only would the owners have told the world they would be suing the arse out of pavilions as we speak You've mentioned the word fraud a few times lately If I was DCMS I would be taking a long look at what raiders owners have actually spent the DCMS money on They will have no doubt claimed costs for venue hire Ps the Raiders started the debate in public and dragged pavilions in to having to reply You know what the world's like. It's easy enough to realise who the bad guys actually are in this If you want to come down on ethical use of DCMS money you should be coming down way harder on raiders than wolves ? Simple as that Let's do the math. 1500 capacity venue and lets say £10 per ticket. That's £15k in ticket revenue per game. And with Pavillions, they make the secondary spend I would imagine. The model is flawed and if I were an owner, without big sponsor or TV money that numbers will never add up. Paying market rate for rent as I've read they are seeking 8 to 9k for venue hire is not unreasonable, and they too don't believe the numbers add up for them either. It all seems small time and more of a hobby for any owner. And that's where the problem is......peoples hobbies change, especially when they have to keep chucking money into an endless pit. This will happen with Lions, so watch this space! |
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jul 9, 2021 8:34:30 GMT
On a separate note Raiders have stated no other venue in Plymouth is financially viable for basketball
Pavilions have stated basketball at the costs the owners are willing/able to pay is not financially viable for them either
It's possible and likely they are both right
And not a lot anybody can do about that
But it's actually irrelevant if the owners don't even pay bills they CAN afford and DID have the money for
What venue would want to do a deal with them knowing that?
|
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jul 9, 2021 8:38:06 GMT
Yeah because when our new owners have cash and spend it, one it’s exciting, and two I personally expect some level of honesty and long term investment / time with the club, not over spending, not taking government money and then not paying local Plymouth companies (pavilions) what’s owed, and certainly not have directors sign off and then leave the club. We all struggled through lockdowns, but this team helped me massively through it, I watched near on EVERY game, their social media presence all helped me stay positive when I was faced with losing my business, sorry if my posts are a little narrow minded, but this situation hits hard Why is everyone blaming the Turkish investors? If the club was in such good hands, why did we need investors in the first place? Didn’t the wealthy investors want to invest in our city? Build an arena? Create jobs? Put Plymouth on the map? I wouldn’t be surprised if they said F this ungrateful city and it’s greedy already rich people were off. Whilst claiming and taking the DCMS money and witholding it from suppliers? Having said that there have been resignations from management Who knows where that money has gone? |
|
|
|
Post by notoriousbigz on Jul 9, 2021 8:49:31 GMT
Im not really sure what line Hersey and Dave have overstepped in respect of their comments on Raiders? Not gonna lie.
|
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jul 9, 2021 9:36:05 GMT
Whilst claiming and taking the DCMS money and witholding it from suppliers? Having said that there have been resignations from management Who knows where that money has gone? Aren’t there two Plymouth owners who are also “wealthy” why’s it gone so quite on them? Let’s face it. We won’t know the truth for a while if at all. Because egos and self preservation will get in the way. Pavilions have played a blinder, but they are trying to protect their own and that’s fair play. Me, I want some answers from Richard and Ross. Ross is always on Tv giving it the big guns and now it’s all going tits up looking at the news he’s trying to pass the buck on to the Turkish investors and Richard. Have Pavilions played a blinder? Or have they just had to bring facts to light in response to what Raiders have started in the media? Forced to defend themselves I remember when the story first broke from Raiders side the Pavilions were reluctant to even get involved? |
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jul 9, 2021 10:03:27 GMT
Totally totally ignoring the fact the owners haven't paid last season's expense only venue hire costs ?? Get real? It was very telling that when the Pavilions made their statement about non payment of last year's rent in the media a couple of days before there was zero response from the owners I'm sure the paper will have asked for one Instead a couple of days later the owners simply withdraw from the league again without refuting the claims of the non payment to Pavilion at all. Trust me if that wasn't true the owners would have refuted it immediately. Instead they ignore the claim? The most searching question that hasn't been answered is to the Raiders owners: "What gives you the right to even question future increased costs for venue hire when despite DCMS money being paid to you you have failed to pay vastly reduced bills for last season?" They are debtors to a venue and shouldn't even be in a position to negotiate venue hire costs with ANYONE whilst thats the case Ridiculous point of view you have there Hersey Did you operate like that ? I doubt it? This is same poster that said due to DCMS money wolves have an ethical obligation to run a club NEXT season? What's happened to ethical obligations for Raiders for non payment to the venue from DCMS money for what it was actually given to the clubs for? Your talk about ethical obligations has ZERO credibility I'm afraid Try and debate that one back without personal insults if you are capable? The Pavilions have done a good PR job, I'd love to see the details of the "expense only" deal Raiders had last year Why? Pavilion didn't have to do that. They had a contract in place. They chose to help the club. I'd be more interested to know whether the owners reduced their DCMS claim accordingly Regardless the one fact that remains is whatever money the owners claimed from DCMS for venue hire hasn't been paid Which IMO kind of makes knowing how good that deal was pretty irrelevant in the bigger picture They've paid ZERO in the end. Can't get a better deal than that! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2021 10:54:57 GMT
IRF greed on both parts mate. Pavilions wanted more money, they try it every year. Brent who owns Pavilions was given it by the council and is now selling it off piece by piece
|
|
|
|
Post by allstring on Jul 9, 2021 11:02:01 GMT
The Pavilions have done a good PR job, I'd love to see the details of the "expense only" deal Raiders had last year Why? Pavilion didn't have to do that. They had a contract in place. They chose to help the club. I'd be more interested to know whether the owners reduced their DCMS claim accordingly Regardless the one fact that remains is whatever money the owners claimed from DCMS for venue hire hasn't been paid Which IMO kind of makes knowing how good that deal was pretty irrelevant in the bigger picture They've paid ZERO in the end. Can't get a better deal than that! Playing devil's advocate. Pavilions get funding to cover loss of income (including Raiders). Raiders don't claim DCMS money for venue hire. Do I think that; no. Do I think the Pavilions are presenting an entirely transparent view; no. Find it difficult to believe the Pavilions allowed eight months to pass by, with regular use of their facilities, without a penny of contribution based on the picture of the agreement that they have painted. Should add I'm not even sure that the Pavilions have access to government support at the level of DCMS (grant with no future obligations). |
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jul 9, 2021 11:12:04 GMT
Why? Pavilion didn't have to do that. They had a contract in place. They chose to help the club. I'd be more interested to know whether the owners reduced their DCMS claim accordingly Regardless the one fact that remains is whatever money the owners claimed from DCMS for venue hire hasn't been paid Which IMO kind of makes knowing how good that deal was pretty irrelevant in the bigger picture They've paid ZERO in the end. Can't get a better deal than that! Playing devil's advocate. Pavilions get funding to cover loss of income (including Raiders). Raiders don't claim DCMS money for venue hire. Do I think that; no. Do I think the Pavilions are presenting an entirely transparent view; no. Find it difficult to believe the Pavilions allowed eight months to pass by, with regular use of their facilities, without a penny of contribution based on the picture of the agreement that they have painted. Should add I'm not even sure that the Pavilions have access to government support at the level of DCMS (grant with no future obligations). I get where you are coming from Pavilions do say that the bills were not paid despite constant re-assurances they would be Whatever prompted pavilions to lower the fee though and whatever DCMS was paid for venue fees doesn't hide the fact they didn't pay Theres only so far playing devils advocate takes this and it still ends up at the door of the owners not the pavilion |
|
|
|
Post by allstring on Jul 9, 2021 11:20:03 GMT
Playing devil's advocate. Pavilions get funding to cover loss of income (including Raiders). Raiders don't claim DCMS money for venue hire. Do I think that; no. Do I think the Pavilions are presenting an entirely transparent view; no. Find it difficult to believe the Pavilions allowed eight months to pass by, with regular use of their facilities, without a penny of contribution based on the picture of the agreement that they have painted. Should add I'm not even sure that the Pavilions have access to government support at the level of DCMS (grant with no future obligations). I get where you are coming from Pavilions do say that the bills were not paid despite constant re-assurances they would be Whatever prompted pavilions to lower the fee though and whatever DCMS was paid for venue fees doesn't hide the fact they didn't pay Theres only so far playing devils advocate takes this and it still ends up at the door of the owners not the pavilion Did the Raiders played an entire season at the Pavilions entirely free with no contribution in any form? The Pavilions statement is written to get us to assume that. But I don't believe it explicitly says that. A couple of non debatable words (eg. "any of") would have clarified it. As would clarification that they are referring to every match last season. |
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jul 9, 2021 11:20:38 GMT
IRF greed on both parts mate. Pavilions wanted more money, they try it every year. Brent who owns Pavilions was given it by the council and is now selling it off piece by piece If Raiders had paid last year I would be advocating the Pavilions ought to try and help more Pavilions state they didn't pay last year, I don't doubt thats true They also state the owners never entered into any meaningful negotiations. Everything I've read on this and how it's been handled by Raiders from the start makes me not trust the owners to give them any credit |
|
|
|
Post by allstring on Jul 9, 2021 11:30:46 GMT
Long post. Apologies if it lacks coherence!
Must admit the impact of the DCMS money on clubs isn’t very clear to me.
As I understand, that money was to cover the “losses” the clubs would/did incur last year. Whether you believe it’s in the spirit/ethical for Worcester to have withdrawn after accepting that money, they haven’t done anything wrong. As far as I know they haven’t left any debtors, which I doubt is true of many other businesses that have closed down post government funding.
From what I understand Leicester and Newcastle are offering free extensions to last years Season Ticket holders. That’s great customer service, but what are the economics? DCMS money wouldn’t have covered those tickets last season as the income was obtained and retained.
So for Newcastle I believe your looking circa 75K (or more) in declined income assuming many fans didn't start requesting refunds mid season. Some of that will be retained by secondary income, but primarily over the season rather than upfront. I believe Newcastle were earning around 1K a game from streaming, but that was for last season.
Leicester and Newcastle have a different (and very good) model to the rest of the league, but these are substantial amounts that they won’t be receiving, and a big impact on cash flow, as they are upfront payments (or at least a portion if the clubs offer installment payments). I’m not sure how they are able to manage that when other income streams can not be judged with confidence. I remain unconvinced how any business can truly predict future footfall, not so much based on people’s concerns, but more that 18 months is a long time for many just to slot back into their old routines; they have new ones now.
Surrey and Rocks aren’t offering Season Tickets this season, although I can’t remember if Surrey offered them last year. Bristol I think are offering Season Tickets but not for “free” as I understand.
London are currently in the rich owner model (even Newcastle were many years ago). Two of the big 5 budget wise have gone for differing reasons. Size of the league isn’t a problem per se, ensuring teams remain viable is important.
Not sure I’m so critical of EB (and I’m no fan of them) for being responsible to have top echelon teams relative (infrastructure wise) to the lower end of the BBL. The BBL is a closed shop, it’s not EB’s job to make a flow of teams available. Doesn’t mean I don’t agree that they are indeed doing a poor job within their remit. There really needs to be a BBL 2, but we aren’t close to being able to resource such a league.
If a team were set-up in Leicester, with their own arena with a proven infrastructure, would the Riders accept them with open arms? Maybe, it could be a wonderful rivalry, but equally they could prevent it based on location (I assume the franchise distance limits still exist?). My point being you could have the best team in British basketball but still have no access to the BBL.
I don’t believe it is as black and white as the Pavilions are painting the picture. The model in place has been distorted by government funding. By their own press release they demonstrate close ties with the Raiders.
Don’t be fooled by the figures. They are implying they’ve contributed quarter of a million pounds a year to the Raiders running costs. That they’ve offered a 50% discount. A bit like suggesting I go into Tesco’s and because I buy one and get one for free that Tesco’s claim they are contributing to our family food bill. I’d expect a discount on paying upfront (early bird season tickets!). I bet the Pavilions have a high rental figure they never hit for anything. Without it they have no negotiating room; no ability to quote savings in the millions or huge discounts.
Presumably the Pavilions have received government support and furlough support for staff. Gets very complex then. Raiders can’t claim DCMS money for a normal (level of) cost that they don’t incur. Pavilions can’t charge Raiders for something the government has already covered them for. You could argue that the Pavilions ethically shouldn’t have reduced their costs last season. But here you get into the complexities of the government strategy. On one hand trying to ensure a “Pavilions” is an ongoing viable business and on the other hand ensuring a “BBL” can have a relatively normal season.
As has been suggested with Worcester, they (Worcester) could have considered continuing at a vastly reduced budget this coming season. Whilst it was good to see the BBL having such a successful season, it didn’t sit comfortably with me that they were able to operate teams at such a high level of quality. Bear in mind that a lot of the expense (that Worcester are being suggested to cut) has gone on imports and Brits where the global market opportunities have been impacted. Remember the majority of players weren’t contracted to the clubs and in many cases weren’t even UK based when signed.
Interestingly Worcester appeared one of the few clubs last season that appeared to be operating as if there was a global pandemic happening.
Back to the Raiders. Nobody would agree that a black and white non payment was acceptable. But is it really that black and white. I suspect some middle ground where there is fault and truth on both sides; although I’d accept it’s not likely to be middle, but more slanted in one direction. I’d guess the Raiders haven’t fully met their commitments (how much was agreed on good faith rather than officially) and the Pavilions look to have tried to leverage increased income from rich owners.
|
|
|
|
Post by davef on Jul 9, 2021 12:17:53 GMT
Season ticket money was covered by DCMS on the basis that it would need to be returned as fans could not get into games.
So by extending free season tickets to next season the clubs are doing both the right thing and possibly what they are required to do on the basis of the DCMS money. And don't lose out economically.
Worcester's difficulties with players getting in last year was to do with university visa administration failures not the global pandemic.
Everything else is pretty much spot on.
|
|
|
|
Post by davef on Jul 9, 2021 12:21:19 GMT
Albeit my criticism of BE is that the pro game in this country should not be restricted to 10 clubs. There is no reason for it to be. France has 60-70 clubs.
BE has shown no interest in providing an environment where semi professional clubs can thrive and ultimately become fully professional ones. (Hersey has blogged about this countless times).
This restricts the basketball economy, jobs, finances etc. Thats where their culpability is. Their pathway stuff for 12-18s is excellent but Brexit will result in three being nowhere for these kids to go once they complete education.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2021 12:38:13 GMT
I get where you are coming from Pavilions do say that the bills were not paid despite constant re-assurances they would be Whatever prompted pavilions to lower the fee though and whatever DCMS was paid for venue fees doesn't hide the fact they didn't pay Theres only so far playing devils advocate takes this and it still ends up at the door of the owners not the pavilion You're assuming that absolutely everything the Pavilions have said is true. They have the convenience of knowing that the Turks aren't engaging in a public slanging match. But it wasn't a kind offer, anyway, because the big plan was simply to lump it all onto a massively increased rent for this season. And £8-10k to stage a basketball game at a venue of that size simply isn't the going rate. Once again, however, you've "gone into one" about something you know nothing more about than the rest of us, and have no experience in the field of dealing with sports arenas. 17 posts today alone (I'm sure I'm not the only one who's given up reading), none short and you continue your annoying habit of re-quoting yourself. You're - again - haranguing anyone who doesn't agree with your rather myopic view of what's happened in Plymouth. But nothing anyone says will make any difference. It really was better when you were just (obsessively - because you were always online) reading 'Bev. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2021 12:41:38 GMT
I thibk the reality is Plymouth won't have a pro club for some time to come. I don't doubt someone (who you've mentioned) will attempt a rebuild who I will fully support but this will need to be built from the bottom up. D3 South West has also lost 2 clubs since announcing the league, maybe we'll get a spot quickly, who knows
|
|
|
|
Post by drivethebody on Jul 9, 2021 13:18:30 GMT
Are the BBL doing anything? How many staff are there at BBL- anyone know?
|
|
|
|
Post by davef on Jul 9, 2021 13:25:14 GMT
Richard Mollard has been away from the club for a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by billybob on Jul 9, 2021 13:30:43 GMT
I haven't been on here for ages. Cant remember username so had to start a new one.
I lay the blame at the door of Raiders owners - all of them. If you're running the club, and you know that Pavilions is THE ONLY place where you can play, you make that one of your biggest, if not biggest and most important relationship. You do everything to keep them happy. You pay their bills, you make sure that they're happy and don't have any grumbles with the club. To allow this relationship to go sour, just seems pretty foolish, especially when, if as it seems, Raiders haven't paid all or some of the bills from last season.
I'm not sure I believe Pavilions when they say Raiders haven't entered into any form of negotiations, I'm sure they must have asked how much the Pavilions were going to charge next season, and upon getting the answer, tried to sort something out. But if the unpaid bills are still there, then the Pavilions are fully within their rights to charge Raiders what they want.
This is essentially a private business who want to hire the facilities of another private business. Why in the world, just because it's a basketball club, should the Pavilions bend over backwards and allow the club to treat them like dirt? Why should the Raiders expect the Pavilions to charge them a fee that works for Raiders but doesn't work for the Pavilions? If my business wanted to rent a new office, but the landlord wanted to charge me £1000 a month and I could only afford £500 a month, then why should I expect him to take a £500 reduction on the income he would get just so I could use it. That's not how things work.
The Pavilions doesn't have a lot of full time staff. A lot of them are paid to work only when events are on. So for the Pavilions, they don't mind not having basketball there as it means another day when they don't have to pay all the staff, the power, the heating etc. I remember reading years ago, the Pavilions saying they were making a loss on games because of the staff costs etc. Costs in the real world have gone up. For everything. So the costs to Raiders of renting the Pavilions should go up. It's up to the Pavilions to decide what they charge.
And do you not think the Pavilions stand to make a lot more money from shows there on a Friday night when they can fit 3,000 or 4,000 people into the arena to watch a concert or comedian etc, than they could from charging the Raiders around £2500 per game, and then having to pay all the costs of hiring the staff, the power etc. Pavilions also provide all the ticketing for games if I'm right? So that's something else that the Raiders get for free. I'm sure the Pavilions would charge outside acts for this kind of ticketing facility. Again, that's more money that the Pavilions would make instead of having Raiders play games there.
The club were happy to pay some pretty extortionate wages to players throughout the season. If they were doing that and not paying key suppliers like the Pavilions, then more fool them. The owners don't deserve to own a club.
Mollard had a very public spat with the Turkish owner. This after him welcoming Mr Yucel in with open arms (“This is an amazing point in the club’s history,” he said in the press release of the take over). He was one of the two owners who sold half of the club to the Turks. Who knows what went on between Mollard and Yucel. But Mollard is still listed in the active directors on Companies House. So he has to take just as much blame as everyone else.
I feel bad for the fans, sponsors and paid employees. They're the ones that have been sold down the river. But players and coaches will find other jobs.
The Raiders say they will be back in a year. No they won't. In a year, they'll be in the same place as they are now. You can't source a plot of land, get planning permission, get the funding together, build an arena, and then fit it out in a year. In a year's time, it will be either pay the Pavilions a lot of money every game, or don't play. If you're the Pavilions, and Raiders are throwing all that mud at you when they didn't pay the bills in the first place, would you welcome them back? No. I wouldn't either.
|
|
