Re: New Stadium Name : Sat Nov 05, 2011 6:04 pm
bewareshadows wrote:
TO be fair to Wigan it actually was.
They landed on their feet. But not all clubs do and some go to the wall and are never seen again.
Renting is no indicment of a club, alot of successful sporting clubs rent. I beleive alot of Stadia in Auz and the USA rent their stadia.
Ownership is not a requirement of success, I'm sure NExt and M&S rent most of their buildings, they are not overly concerned about owning them to make themselves more successful.
They landed on their feet. But not all clubs do and some go to the wall and are never seen again.
Renting is no indicment of a club, alot of successful sporting clubs rent. I beleive alot of Stadia in Auz and the USA rent their stadia.
Ownership is not a requirement of success, I'm sure NExt and M&S rent most of their buildings, they are not overly concerned about owning them to make themselves more successful.
The difference here though is that M&S and Next only have to pay rent on loaning a building and all the commercial transactions other than that are kept.
With renting a stadium its different. How much would Wigan be better off if they kept all the money from conferencing and other events at the DW rather than it going to Mr Whelans pockets and Whelco. Other than what they generate on a match day the stadium can't be utilised to generate any extra income outside of games.
Even if Wigan at the time had moved away from Central Park to a new stadium a 50-50 shared ownership with the Football club would have been better than just being the tenants.
