Andy Burnham | Manchester Mayor

jrb said:
I stand corrected. I think it’s £4mill+ now. I’ll try and find the details. You maybe right?
Click to expand...
I seem to recall that MCC offered the stadium to the Sheikh when the period of austerity was upon us.
We refused and renegotiated the existing deal which meant the council got more from us - might have been the 30k or whatever it was be removed - and we now pay that £4 million now regardless of match day attendances.

For what it’s worth I think he really is a cnut of the highest order.
He has no right whatsoever to call us out on anything on how City are run or how we got where we are.
David Bernstein had the vision, MCC ( Howard Bernstein) took the gamble in going full on to get the Commonwealth Games. Long before that twat poked his scouse parked car chasing nose into Mancunian affairs.
 
Did he seriously reply with that,well my only thinking is we haven’t greased his palm and like a lot of these freeloading cnuts if there’s nothing in it for them they’ll not back it,as for the bollocks of regeneration around the stadium yes for the Commonwealth games well before we got involved the man’s a fucking fraud ..
 
jrb said:
Really Andy?

Is that why City will pay £1bill over the 250 year lease deal for the Etihad stadium.

If City hadn’t moved to the City of Manchester stadium, as it was renamed, and paid for the North stand construction, the 2002 Commonwealth Games stadium would have remained a White Elephant.

Apart from that Andy, what other financial help have City received from you, that you are desperately trying to get for United?

View attachment 144643

Click to expand...


I understand the point about it being ultimately a very good deal for the council, considering the way other athletic event stadiums have failed.

However, would City have been able to move to a newer stadium, or even properly redevelop Maine Road, without the Commonwealth Games? There's an argument that without the move, we wouldn't have been such an obvious target for our current owners either.

I see it that we got significant benefit from the move, even if, ultimately we'll have given a lot of money back, in part because of the takeover, and our success since.

With the United project, it's clearly part of something much bigger, and, you'll know more than anyone, that stadium costs have also moved on hugely since ours was built. I'd agree that we shouldn't expect taxes to pay for a significant part of the actual build. However, it wouldn't surprise me if United are expecting to spend well north of £1bn themselves, and if the overall Trafford regeneration is worth many times that, then surely we'd expect the local authorities to be working in some kind of partnership with them, even if that means that some taxpayer money benefits them in some way?
 
jrb said:
Is that why City will pay £1bill over the 250 year lease deal for the Etihad stadium.
Click to expand...

City won't pay anywhere near 1 billion quid under the lease. The club has an option to buy the lease with rent already paid being set off against the purchase price.

That hasn't happened so far, because the money would go to Sport England. However, that stipulation ceases after a set period, which I believe is 25 years but the information isn't in the public domain. As I've posted on here before, the source for this information is David Bernstein at a meeting in Portcullis House, Westminster in January 2003.

You'll probably see the club buy out the lease after the deadline for paying Sport England expires. I suspect we may well transfer the lease to the ownership of the JV owned by the Council and the club in line with other land in and around the Campus, but let's see on that.

dickie davies said:
COMS cost £110M
77M came from Sport England
33M from MCC

City gave Maine Road to the council for development for housing and also agreed a 250 year lease payment based on attendance figures, which was renegotiated to a flat £3M PA fee a few years ago, plus City stumped up several million to complete COMS so football could be played
I think in total, including MR, City paid £33M

For its investment into the Commonwealth stadium, which would never had been built unless someone had agreed to take it over following the games, MCC received Maine Road and continues to receive the lease payments, which are now £3M PA and will have easily covered the £33M MCC paid back in 2000-2002
Click to expand...

These figures aren't right, I'm afraid. I'm about to disappear for the evening but will look out the correct ones tomorrow morning. However, I can say for a start that COMS cost GBP 130 million, with Sport England paying an extra GBP 20 million to cover cost overruns before the Games.

Moreover, David Conn reported back in the day, and I think he's right, that the current annual rent is GBP 4 million. That includes a payment of GBP 1 million for the right to dispose of stadium naming rights. And I don't know why you think it should be measured how much of MCC's contribution the club has paid back but lottery funding ignored. I personally disagree, anyway.

From memory, but subject to subsequent clarification, City have currently paid about GBP 80 million of the GBP 130 million total cost of the stadium. When we end up owning it, we'll have more than paid the construction and conversion costs, unlike that catastrophe at West Ham, which has been and remains a huge drain on the public purse.
 
jrb said:
Really Andy?

Is that why City will pay £1bill over the 250 year lease deal for the Etihad stadium.

If City hadn’t moved to the City of Manchester stadium, as it was renamed, and paid for the North stand construction, the 2002 Commonwealth Games stadium would have remained a White Elephant.

Apart from that Andy, what other financial help have City received from you, that you are desperately trying to get for United?

View attachment 144643

Click to expand...

What a know nowt twat.
The Commonwealth Games were a great success, but without a future tenant our stadium would NEVER have happened.
They were literally begging around sports teams to find someone.
What's happened since has been astronomical investment in and around the area.
Not a chance the owners of a club in Trafford invest ANYTHING in the area - it'll ALL be public money (not that it'll get beyond the drawing board)
 
bluenova said:
I understand the point about it being ultimately a very good deal for the council, considering the way other athletic event stadiums have failed.

However, would City have been able to move to a newer stadium, or even properly redevelop Maine Road, without the Commonwealth Games? There's an argument that without the move, we wouldn't have been such an obvious target for our current owners either.

I see it that we got significant benefit from the move, even if, ultimately we'll have given a lot of money back, in part because of the takeover, and our success since.

With the United project, it's clearly part of something much bigger, and, you'll know more than anyone, that stadium costs have also moved on hugely since ours was built. I'd agree that we shouldn't expect taxes to pay for a significant part of the actual build. However, it wouldn't surprise me if United are expecting to spend well north of £1bn themselves, and if the overall Trafford regeneration is worth many times that, then surely we'd expect the local authorities to be working in some kind of partnership with them, even if that means that some taxpayer money benefits them in some way?
Click to expand...

I agree. Ultimately it was a move that changed the club. Apparently United were also offered the stadium, but they turned it down.

Andy is trying to link City getting the Commonwealth Games stadium and that public investment/funding, which wasn’t for City, it was for the 2002 Commonwealth Games.

Burnham and United want public investment/funding for the area around the new stadium. United don’t want to pay for a new stadium and the infrastructure and investment around the stadium, hence going to the new Labour Government for the money.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
He commented on Everton after their decision had been made. No one is commenting of City’s charges on the record as it is an ongoing process.

It’s just fans and journalists inferring stuff and regurgitating the same non-points that keep the conversation ongoing perpetually.
Click to expand...

He’ll say fuck all when we are cleared, he’s a typical self serving snide ****!
 
petrusha said:
City won't pay anywhere near 1 billion quid under the lease. The club has an option to buy the lease with rent already paid being set off against the purchase price.

That hasn't happened so far, because the money would go to Sport England. However, that stipulation ceases after a set period, which I believe is 25 years but the information isn't in the public domain. As I've posted on here before, the source for this information is David Bernstein at a meeting in Portcullis House, Westminster in January 2003.

You'll probably see the club buy out the lease after the deadline for paying Sport England expires. I suspect we may well transfer the lease to the ownership of the JV owned by the Council and the club in line with other land in and around the Campus, but let's see on that.



These figures aren't right, I'm afraid. I'm about to disappear for the evening but will look out the correct ones tomorrow morning. However, I can say for a start that COMS cost GBP 130 million, with Sport England paying an extra GBP 20 million to cover cost overruns before the Games.

Moreover, David Conn reported back in the day, and I think he's right, that the current annual rent is GBP 4 million. That includes a payment of GBP 1 million for the right to dispose of stadium naming rights. And I don't know why you think it should be measured how much of MCC's contribution the club has paid back but lottery funding ignored. I personally disagree, anyway.

From memory, but subject to subsequent clarification, City have currently paid about GBP 80 million of the GBP 130 million total cost of the stadium. When we end up owning it, we'll have more than paid the construction and conversion costs, unlike that catastrophe at West Ham, which has been and remains a huge drain on the public purse.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org

City of Manchester Stadium - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Andy, you scouse ****, City did not benefit from any public money. COM's was built for the Commonwealth Games with funds from Sport England and MCC. The red shite were offered the stadium but told MCC & Sport England to fcuk off. We agreed to take the stadium on only if they removed the running track. The club paid for the conversion for football use. We are responsible for the upkeep of the stadium.

We were paying rent to MCC for just over £3million based on attendances, but this was renegotiated to just over £4.5 million.

Our owners have invested billions into the area and created jobs and continue to do so.


CITY HAVE NOT BENEFITED FROM ANY SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC INVESTMENT.

NOW, FCUK OFF!
 
petrusha said:
City won't pay anywhere near 1 billion quid under the lease. The club has an option to buy the lease with rent already paid being set off against the purchase price.

That hasn't happened so far, because the money would go to Sport England. However, that stipulation ceases after a set period, which I believe is 25 years but the information isn't in the public domain. As I've posted on here before, the source for this information is David Bernstein at a meeting in Portcullis House, Westminster in January 2003.

You'll probably see the club buy out the lease after the deadline for paying Sport England expires. I suspect we may well transfer the lease to the ownership of the JV owned by the Council and the club in line with other land in and around the Campus, but let's see on that.



These figures aren't right, I'm afraid. I'm about to disappear for the evening but will look out the correct ones tomorrow morning. However, I can say for a start that COMS cost GBP 130 million, with Sport England paying an extra GBP 20 million to cover cost overruns before the Games.

Moreover, David Conn reported back in the day, and I think he's right, that the current annual rent is GBP 4 million. That includes a payment of GBP 1 million for the right to dispose of stadium naming rights. And I don't know why you think it should be measured how much of MCC's contribution the club has paid back but lottery funding ignored. I personally disagree, anyway.

From memory, but subject to subsequent clarification, City have currently paid about GBP 80 million of the GBP 130 million total cost of the stadium. When we end up owning it, we'll have more than paid the construction and conversion costs, unlike that catastrophe at West Ham, which has been and remains a huge drain on the public purse.
Click to expand...

I always assumed the yearly rent was tied into to the 250 lease on the stadium, if City didn’t take up the option to buy the stadium?

Thanks for inside info. ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top