North Stand Construction Discussion

petrusha said:
From the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, version released on 1 June 2018 (which is the latest version I get from UEFA's website).

Annex X details what does and doesn't count as income, and by virtue of Section A, paras f) and l), income from "non-football operations not related to the club" are excluded but those related to the club are permissible.

As to what this means, the following is from para l) of Section B of Annex X of the Regulations:



My understanding has always been that rent from facilities located on land around the stadium owned by the MCFC JV with the City Council, including the collar site in the fullness of time but also Co-op Live, can be included by virtue of the first bullet above. Happy to be shown to be wrong if I am.
Click to expand...

FYI, I posted this in reply to someone in 2021 based on an article in the FT in September 2020.

"I've checked my original source which was a detailed article in the FT last September.

According to the FT article the land is actually owned by a JV between ADUG (80%) and MCC (20%). So I should have said ADUG own the land with MCC. However, the article goes on to say Oak View will pay an annual lease payment worth millions of pounds to CFG which presumably will be allocated to MCFC - ( ADUG>CFG>MCFC).

The 50/50 JV for the build is CFG and Oak View so, yes, highly likely 50/50 on profits for CFG>MCFC and Oak View. I understand what you are saying about infastructure costs but personally not 100% certain we qualify."

Basically, you are advancing my uncertainty from back then :) It would be good to know...
 
Last edited:
Gazza said:
They probably took the left handed one up and not the correct right handed one.
Click to expand...
10 Best Eric Sykes. ideas | eric sykes, comedy actors, british comedy
 
Bournemouth Blue said:
If it is that, it would be up to the contractors to absorb the costs, but it could mean a delay. That said, their may be a work around, of the rivets don’t line up exactly we have already seen them overcome slight misalignments.

Or, possibly the lift was a rehearsal
Click to expand...
Why would they go to all that trouble if they were never going to fit it?
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
FYI, I posted this in reply to someone in 2021 based on an article in the FT in September 2020.

"I've checked my original source which was a detailed article in the FT last September.

According to the FT article the land is actually owned by a JV between ADUG (80%) and MCC (20%). So I should have said ADUG own the land with MCC. However, the article goes on to say Oak View will pay an annual lease payment worth millions of pounds to CFG which presumably will be allocated to MCFC - ( ADUG>CFG>MCFC).

The 50/50 JV for the build is CFG and Oak View so, yes, highly likely 50/50 on profits for CFG>MCFC and Oak View. I understand what you are saying about infrastructure costs but personally not 100% certain we qualify."

Basically, you are advancing my uncertainty from back then :) It would be good to know...
Click to expand...

And you've made me doubt much more than I previously did. Is it from the FT that you took the fact it's ADUG involved in the JV? I know it's ADUG involved in the Manchester Life partnership, but the Council's official documents back in the day suggested specifically that the JV to develop land on and around the Campus would be entered into with MCFC.

That to me makes a difference. If rent is paid to a company that's an 80% subsidiary of MCFC, then that's activity basically being carried out by MCFC. Thus it potentially qualifies for an FFP exemption subject to that close proximity condition that we discussed an how it's interpreted. An ADUG company receiving rent is a sister company of MCFC, which doesn't have a direct link so isn't MCFC activity at all, just as Manchester Life isn't.

In any case, the FT apparently says that CFG will receive a rental payment. How? Has the lad been transferred to CFG for it to pursue a venture on its own with OVG and thus receive the rent in return for its investment in the venture?

Given that the Arena is a JV between CFG and OVG, I could see CFG having procured loan financing from ADUG which is to be repaid out of profits over the first few years as a first priority after third-party bank loans are serviced. But if CFG is taking the rent, surely that suggests the whole thing has been structured so that revenues don't go to MCFC?

Might be worth an FoI request if anyone can be bothered. I'd always assumed that the development of the Campus was to allow funds to flow into MCFC to sustain a top European football club, but maybe the idea is for the funds to sustain CFG as a whole.
 
petrusha said:
And you've made me doubt much more than I previously did. Is it from the FT that you took the fact it's ADUG involved in the JV? I know it's ADUG involved in the Manchester Life partnership, but the Council's official documents back in the day suggested specifically that the JV to develop land on and around the Campus would be entered into with MCFC.

That to me makes a difference. If rent is paid to a company that's an 80% subsidiary of MCFC, then that's activity basically being carried out by MCFC. Thus it potentially qualifies for an FFP exemption subject to that close proximity condition that we discussed an how it's interpreted. An ADUG company receiving rent is a sister company of MCFC, which doesn't have a direct link so isn't MCFC activity at all, just as Manchester Life isn't.

In any case, the FT apparently says that CFG will receive a rental payment. How? Has the lad been transferred to CFG for it to pursue a venture on its own with OVG and thus receive the rent in return for its investment in the venture?

Given that the Arena is a JV between CFG and OVG, I could see CFG having procured loan financing from ADUG which is to be repaid out of profits over the first few years as a first priority after third-party bank loans are serviced. But if CFG is taking the rent, surely that suggests the whole thing has been structured so that revenues don't go to MCFC?

Might be worth an FoI request if anyone can be bothered. I'd always assumed that the development of the Campus was to allow funds to flow into MCFC to sustain a top European football club, but maybe the idea is for the funds to sustain CFG as a whole.
Click to expand...


CFG made a £112mill loss in 2022/23

Guessing. Any eventual profit from our side of the Coop Live Arena will go towards the CFG and it's running.

City Football Group (CFG) recorded losses of UK£112 million (US$141.9 million) for the 2022/23 financial year despite generating record revenue of UK£877.1 million (US$1.1 billion).

www.bbc.co.uk

Man City news: City Football Group makes £112m loss in 2022-23 financial year

Man City news: City Football Group makes £112m loss in 2022-23 financial year
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk


CITY FOOTBALL GROUP LIMITED filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

CITY FOOTBALL GROUP LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity
find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

CITY FOOTBALL GROUP LIMITED people - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

CITY FOOTBALL GROUP LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity
find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk
 
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