By V Cartwright, C Chaplin, R and A Walker
December 16 2004

Thursday saw the first of Tigers’ special meetings for its Members, here’s what we made of the almost three hours of questions and answers. We would emphasise that these are not minutes of the meeting.
There had already been what MC Sam Rossiter-Stead called a “Briefing Paper” published earlier in the day with a selection of the questions received by the Club by mail, e-mail and via the official message board. The topics covered in the “Briefing Paper” were not really re-visited to any great degree although one, that of the standing terrace was, again and again and again!!

The “New Crumbie”
Like so many other issues the outcome of this element of the move remained unresolved when proceedings finished on Wednesday evening.

Essentially it would seem that both LCFC and Tigers would like to introduce a standing terrace of around 3500 to 4000 capacity, which is pretty much what the Crumbie provides but that both clubs are in the hands of the various regulatory authorities, not least the all powerful ones that deal with Health and Safety. The two clubs are enlisting the help of local politicians (well it is an election year so it might help) to lobby on their behalf

Option 2 being explored is for an area of seating on one of the sides, in other words not behind the goals, to be in place for soccer matches but removed for rugby. We know this is possible as they have such an arrangement at (we believe) the Bayern Munich ground with Bayer Leverkusen but we didn’t think it sounded an awfully likely solution at the Walkers.

Our gut feeling is that the third option, and that by far the easiest for the clubs to achieve is the most likely, and that is to have an area of unreserved seating on one side of the ground of similar capacity to the standing terrace at Welford Road.

To be fair though we felt that the issue of standing will stand or fall at the whim of the authorities, no matter how much both clubs try to accommodate all of the issues and objections that the various authorities raise.

While hoping that we’re wrong the days of the standing area could be numbered.

Ticket Prices
There was encouraging news here as the Club do seem to be aware that they risk losing season ticket sales.

The season ticket prices for 2005/6 will not show an increase over those for 2004/5 and will not increase other than to allow for inflation in 2006/7. It was also said that there would be some “attractive” packages made available to encourage season ticket holders to renew.

Season Ticket holders who currently stand will, if the unreserved seating option is taken, be offered such seats at the same price as they pay to stand at present.

Of course if a supporter stands it is not necessarily that he/she cannot afford to do otherwise just that they prefer to stand in the time honoured way.

We see the logic here but given the saving over current and indeed future reserved seats we wonder how many people will sacrifice their reserved seat and either buy an unreserved one or just come along ad hoc.

To be fair it was acknowledged by the Club that there was a possibility that season ticket sales will drop and this has been taken into account in their reaching their conclusions as to the financial viability of the scheme.

The Club have, in their financial models, assumed an average gate of 18000 which they feel to be a cautious assumption.

Bars
The question of “rugby” bars as opposed to “soccer” bars was raised (no pun intended) and the Club said that there is plenty of spare space at the Walkers and that they would be recreating the various Welford Road bars in those areas which would be open only on rugby days. This would also provide places to display Tigers’ trophies and memorabilia which the Club appeared to confirm would be in the bar areas accessible to all Tigers’ supporters on rugby match days.

Stewarding
It was confirmed that Tigers would provide its own stewards “in the main”.

Match Times
This subject got a very good airing indeed including, as it does, the thorny subject of primacy of tenure.

Of course the Club has always made great play of the fact that Tigers will not be tenants, which of course they will, well sort of!!

The set up will, as already explained at length, be that Tigers and LCFC will establish a new company being 50/50 partners. That company will have an agreement with each of the clubs permitting them to play at the Walkers which will involve the clubs paying the stadium company to do so.

Now we read “agreement” as a lease and “paying” as rent and as far as we know if a lease is being paid for the recipient is the landlord and the other party is……..a tenant.

The “T” word shall never be spoken but we think this really is a case of just by calling a Zebra a horse with stripes doesn’t make it anything other than a Zebra!

The clubs are in consultation with the Football League, ERL or ERP or whatever the rugby version is called, the RFU, the Football Premiership and Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all to get this issue resolved as unless Tigers can be secure in having primacy of tenure, or the rules are changed, this issue could be a deal breaker.

The usual mantra was incanted that the Club’s preferred time to play its matches is 3pm on Saturday but this seems a key issue that is very much up in the air although the Club were confident that a resolution could be reached.

The fact that the football clubs in Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool managed to avoid fixture clashes was highlighted by the Club as proving how clashes could be avoided. It was however pointed out that these clubs do not share stadia and that the local police would have a say, therefore the comparison was hardly valid. It might also be worth noting that these arrangements only involve the synchronisation of one fixture list – not two very different ones run by two notoriously slow, insensitive, self-absorbed – one might say arrogant – organisations.

The Club suggested that unless this area of potential conflict could be solved it could be another point where the deal could fail.

It was asked that since this issue was so undecided would the Club delay asking for season ticket renewals and extend the date for the discount that “earlybirds” have historically been able to secure until such time as the fixture list was settled, save for cup runs and the demands of Sky, so that supporters would know what they were buying. The Club were unwilling to commit themselves to this perfectly reasonable suggestion but did acknowledge the point.

We thought that this was a key issue for supporters who have grave misgivings as to whether Tigers will be playing more and more matches on a Friday and/or Sunday.

Making Walkers Tigers’ New Home
The Club reiterated that they would do all that they could to make the supporters feel at home at the Walkers and we’ve already touched upon the recreation of the various Welford Road bars.

It was pointed out that LCFC’s CEO Tim Davies was on record as saying on Radio Leicester: “The stadium will very clearly be the home of Leicester City and will continue to be so. It may have the odd splash of red and green but will be predominantly blue”

At a meeting of The Foxes Trust on 3rd December in response to a question regarding the painting of seats in Tigers colours or with the Tigers logo (as shown in Tigers original announcement material) Tim Davies said “…………one option being looked at was the retention of the blue seats with Tigers’ fans being supplied with green seat covers to be used for Tigers’ games”

It was put to the club that these comments by the LCFC chief were somewhat at conflict with the situation as being portrayed by Tigers’ board. It was agreed that this was the case and the Club undertook to pursue the matter and ensure that Tigers were treated as the equal partners that their status demanded.

Here then we already have another area of difference and it seemed to us that we have two parties who are planning a partnership without, it appears, taking the trouble to ensure that they are “singing from the same hymn sheet” even at this stage when they have been talking for six months. We wonder what they’ve been talking about!?

Given that an average gate of 18000 is initially envisaged a number of supporters raised the issue of a lack of atmosphere in a ground that will, on a number of occasions, be almost half empty and assurances were sought that the Club would not pursue football supporters with special deals to make up the numbers.

The Club confirmed that they did not see football supporters as their natural target audience for such promotions but rather the people who want to see Tigers but are denied due to lack of capacity at Welford Road. We did wonder whether all this effort was worthwhile for the extra 1200 spectators that has been conservatively used by the Club in producing their business model for the move, who are expected to swell the current maximum attendance of 16815 to 18000.

It was the Club’s opinion that for the forthcoming Wasps match all 32500 seats could have been filled. We found this hard to accept as Wasps could not sell their allocation of tickets and we couldn’t really see 15700 casual supporters suddenly appearing.

Indeed if the whole of The Causeway Stadium decamped to the Walkers there would still be 5700 seats available!

Peter Tom also raised the issue of making the ground look full even when it wasn’t so that any media coverage did not show goals being kicked into an empty stand. He mentioned that they would need to be careful about selling seats in certain areas!

It was asked whether the facility for Tigers’ supporters to watch internationals, away games etc on the big screen in the bar at Welford Road would be available. It was confirmed that this facility for supporters could not be reproduced at the Walkers however the possibility of showing them at Welford Road (if it still exists) or in a marquee at Oval Park was mentioned, though this did seem to be a rather ‘off the cuff’/’policy on the hoof’ response.

Consultation
It was asked whether the board had unanimously supported the proposal and it was confirmed that this was the case. It was then asked how John Allen had been mandated to cast his vote without discussing the proposal with the 12 strong LFC Association committee that he represents and which in its turn represents the supporters. We couldn’t, see how he could have voted either way on this. Denied, for whatever reason, the opportunity to consult his constituents he surely had to abstain!

The Club stated that even though there were only twelve committee members concerned, all of whom are considered entirely trustworthy, they did not feel it appropriate to involve them as any leaks could have affected the potential “deal” that LCFC have negotiated with Teachers (the owners of Walkers) .

It was then asked if, as was the case at LCFC, Tigers’ shareholders were to get to vote on the proposal.

The Club advised that there was no such intention as it felt that the board has done a good job since its formation and had no need to secure shareholders support in this way.

It was then asked if, again as is to be the case at LCFC, a standing forum would be established with the Club and its members to discuss and reach conclusions on supporter issues such as branding of the stadium, facilities and so on.

The club said it had no such plans and could not see how such a forum could be appointed. It was of course noted that LCFC had apparently established a way to do so.

It was pointed out that the Club had not consulted with it’s supporters’ representatives and was not going to do so now in a meaningful way so as to affect issues that directly concern them nor was it going to secure the support of it’s shareholders and did they feel that this was really the best way to take their shareholders and Members with them into the new venture.

The Club repeated that they believed that the board’s record spoke for itself in doing what was in the best interests of the Club and its supporters and that this event was their way of consulting with supporters..

It did seem to us that it was disappointing that Tigers’ supporters were not to be given the same ongoing level of input as those at LCFC.

The Partnership
The point was raised that 50/50 business partnerships were fraught with danger with differences harder to resolve than if one party had the casting vote.

The Club did not see this as a potential area of difficulty.

It was the Club’s view that it would, for example, gain greatly from the increase in banqueting and conference facilities available to it at the Walkers, activities which are already a valuable source of revenue at Welford Road.

Again the Club’s attention was drawn to the comments made by LCFC CEO Tim Davies who said “…………………over a period of time Tigers would pay LCFC for lost income (to LCFC) from the Banqueting and Conference side of the business”

It was suggested that in view of this the increased revenue expected by Tigers from such activities could be somewhat less than it was portraying

The Club knew nothing of this arrangement with LCFC but said it would investigate.

Why Now? What’s The Rush?
A recurring theme throughout the evening was why there was such urgency to move at the end of this season when more than a decade remains on the lease at Welford Road.

The Club responded that it was necessary to act quickly as the Walkers was available at a very good price that would not be available if the Club delayed.

Once again it was pointed out that the CEO of LCFC had a rather different view having said “Tigers would be paying 50% of the “market value” for the stadium so they (Tigers) were certainly not getting the stadium “on the cheap” as it may appear from some reports in the press”

The Club were unable to comment on thisalthough the impression was gained that perhaps the option from Teachers may have a “shelf life”and that in any event negotiations with Teachers may be protracted due to the nature of such organisations.

The Club went on to say that if it did nothing all that would happen would be that it would just stay at Welford Road with capacity crowds and end up with plenty of money in the bank.

It was also the view of the Club that the wooden construction of the Crumbie stand could eventually lead to issues with the local authority were there to be another stand fire elsewhere. There was no suggestion from the Club that any kind of warning or notice had been served upon it in this regard.

The Club advised that there was no “rush”. However, the comments of LCFC were again drawn to the Club’s attention where it had been stated “… there was no specific timetable to the deal, other than to say that if it did not happen before the start of next season (2005/6) then it would not happen at all”

The Club advised that they are able to buy their share in the new company and pay the ongoing rent on Welford Road and that there is no absolute need for Tigers to play at the Walkers next season.

The implication was however that having formed the company matches would be at the Walkers in 2005/6.

The Club had no knowledge of any deadlines and confirmed that it was still in ongoing discussions with the council however it is, we feel, fair to say that given the council’s track record over other developments such as the replacement for St Margaret’s baths and the Haymarket theatre the Club, understandably, seemed pessimistic as to these negotiations having a successful outcome

The Club commented that they had investigated green-field sites as far away as Market Harborough and Swandlincote in pursuit of this option but without success.

The club also confirmed that they were commissioning some design consultants to look at ways that the WR atmosphere could be re-created at Walkers, and they anticipated that future members events would incorporate some models and videos to show the new stadium and agreed to consider also making these proposals available via the internet.

Playing Issues
The only issues of substance in this area revolved around the lack of a sufficiently large in-goal area behind the posts which would be suitable for rugby and the need for advertising hoardings to be about 5m away from the pitch.

The Club acknowledged that this was an issue and one to which they did not currently have an answer. The Club said it was nevertheless confident that a solution to this potential problem would be found.

The Club also voiced their concern that it may be the case that given the narrow nature of the Welford Road pitch further World Cup games would be precluded although it was not clear whether the IRB had actually told the Club this was the case if and when a future World Cup come to England or whether this was a perceived rather than current issue.

In summary we felt that this was an honest attempt by the Club to consult supporters however there are many key issues still to be addressed on both the actual equality of the partners, the agreement itself and of course Teachers actually coming to an agreement with the parties and we could not see how the Club could finalise an agreement to move to the Walkers until they had resolved all these substantive issues.

We hoped that the Club would give further thought to involving supporters on an ongoing basis rather than in isolated sessions such as that of this evening.

Generally we felt that there were still too many issues to be decided to cast aside our misgivings but hoped that the number of answers would soon outweigh the number of unresolved questions.


By Vicky Cartwright, Chris Chaplin and Rich and Andrea Walker