Inflatable_Armadillo wrote:
Thank you... I think! However, lets address your points.
They did not have a gun to their heads but equally the lease was one small part of the club as an overall entity and business, and thank god they did take it on... or it would already be dead! They did not sign or agree the lease and the question is do you not take on the club and let it die because it was so burdensome making it not worth taking any shot as saving the club? Well, given they have been paying it since they took over then the answer is clearly no, but that still does not mean it was ever fair and reasonable!
I don't think they have whinged about it being too high, they have said it is too high because it clearly is (that is not hard to see) and indeed they have tried to negotiate a reduced fair new rent. They have made two very fair and reasonable offers to the BOI and O'Hara (trust me, they are reasonable, they are not trying to take the proverbial) and assume they had hoped for negotiations to continue, but as of this morning, they had not heard from either O'Hara or the BOI about the offers. So, I think is feeling that the club has brought on a game of brinkmanship with the BOI is not strictly true, I think it is the BOI that have done that and not the other way around.
Today was the day you either keep paying the lease into next year or give notice to quit, there were only two choices and one of them had to be taken! I don't think anyone on this thread and any others on FB etc has posted what I consider to be a good enough reason to keep paying what is a very large lease cost for a poor facility for the money being paid!
I also think that your opinion of the BOI, who are still up the creek with no paddle, is over-simplistic! I know someone who is a very good friend of the BOI CEO and he is indeed a very smart man but like my friend, he is a banker, and if this ever got as far as his door I am sure he would want to know why asset on the BOI books, albeit one that is showing as a negative asset, that was generating a very good income in the circumstances is now suddenly costing the bank £5k a month it doesn't need to spend and adding to that negative asset value on the books? He will not give two figs about what it has made him to date, he will want to know why it is now costing him money when it didn't have to! I think the BOI plan is simple, don't spend money when you don't have to... they can play the long game and while ever some money is coming in and they still own a negative asset, that negative value continues to head towards the positive, you don't want it going back the other way!
I think the BOI executives will only want to know, is this the best deal we could do under the circumstances, did we draw out a potential bluff? The answer, unless you know different, it going to be yes, we did and we are still getting an income and if of course a better offer comes along in the meantime, we will reconsider our options.
You will be pleased that I don't intend to go through your reply point by point! However -
The compliment for you / TRB is genuine.
People buying a club do their due diligence and then either proceed or not. The lease was accepted. Notions of fairness and reasonableness are irrelevant. If you don't like the terms of a contract don't sign it.
I have a pretty good idea about Irish banking and Dublin business life. To use your analogy BoI are in a 'creek' far more benign than 2008/9 and they have been given some almighty paddles (by the Irish Government).
The BoI CEO sets the tone. There is no reason a deal like Wakefield's would get to his door.
The BoI have finance , extensive contacts with successful property developers, city centre land for development in a country with a growing economy. They could possibly decide renting out the stadium is not the way to go. Just one moderate business decision to them but significant implications for 120 years of rugby tradition for Trinity fans.
To go slightly off topic I am however fairly confident that you will be in SL next year.
