Printable View
You mean your a luddite who dislikes change and innovation? Mm you sound like your football team stuck in the past and living off glories that are history - like it or not life changes and sensible people and organisations adapt to that change and profit from it, those that don't tend to get stuck in their sepia toned memories clinging onto something that died a long time ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akwesasne
Nothing wrong with the name, or the turf...Awks...it's the crumbling terracing, leaking roofs and health risk toilets that need an update.
In what way do your toilets differ from ours. :? I would also have thought that your's would have got a greater hammering bearing in mind that it's Derby folk that use them and not Nottingham.Quote:
Originally Posted by ramAnag
Can't believe we're discussing toilets but, I expect the last time you saw ours was after Forest 'fans' had trashed them so I guess they wouldn't be very different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akwesasne
I cant believe that you asked the so called financial experts what the implications of the naming deal collapsing were and then totally ignored the fact that we are technically still owed £ 4.6m by an insolvent company with no assets. Ah well I guess the toilets are more importantQuote:
Originally Posted by ramAnag
They certainly are in some circumstances! Got sidetracked by the 'Awkward one' and the small matter of the match...sorry Sir, I'll pay attention now. This £4.6m that we're 'technically' owed...is it money we should have already had or just what we might have eventually expected had the deal not collapsed because of the company's insolvency?Quote:
Originally Posted by roger_ramjet
A very good question and one to which I dont know the answer. The statement of affairs simply lists the amounts owed....the remainder being due mostly to HMRC. If there was a break clause in the deal, you would expect that liability to only be up to the first opportunity for iPro to bail out. If no break clause then arguably should be full contractual amount: so Im a little puzzled. Most likely scenario is that, faced with little chance of getting this money the club agreed to terminate the arrangement early so probably that £4.6m has been magicked away leaving us free to renegotiate a replacement stadium name. On the basis that the original deal was for 7m, then iPro got 2.4m of publicity across 3 years.
Doesn't appear to have done them much good does it? More to the point, how will it effect our 'FairPlay' thingy or whatever it's called?Quote:
Originally Posted by roger_ramjet
I doubt FFP is dependent upon that deal, anyway if each fan ordered a take away at the end of every home game I'm sure the shortfall could be made up!
Sponsorship is usually set up on either a stage payment basis or a performance/exposure basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by swaledale
With the former, payment is usually pretty consistent through time, probably monthly payments. With the latter, the calculation of performance/exposure can delay things, but less in this digital age than back in the day.
The usual time for sponsors to have their clients by the knackers is part-way through a campaign, when a sponsor starts delaying payments but the client doesn't want the loss of credibility of removing a sponsor from a stadium (in DCFC case), shirts, sides of racing cars etc. This may have been the RECENT situation with DCFC, with a sponsor delaying payments knowing it was going to be wound up, but it looks like DCFC did get a 'reasonable' amount of sheckels out of them.
New name? The BRIAN CLOUGH STADIUM, although that would forever mean there couldn't be a commercial name because the 'primary brand' (BC) would be too dominant