City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

We didn't pay for the conversion from an athletics stadium to a football stadium. We paid for the stadium to be fitted out (i.e. for concessions, hospitality, offices, etc).

The key figures, though are:

According to Sport England (though the relevant report is no longer on their site), the only option if there was no viable tenant for CoMS was to build a temporary athletics stadium for the Commonwealth Games and then scaling it down to a small athletics stadium afterwards. Sport England further said that the difference in cost between that option and the option of building the stadium City eventually got (including conversion after the Games) was GBP 60 million. So this, in effect, is the cost of getting City into CoMS.

We paid the Council GBP 6 million in cash and transferred Maine Road into the Council's ownership. That transaction valued the old stadium at GBP 27 million, which was its value in our books at the time. However, I believe that it only realised GBP 14 million for the Council when sold for development, so let's be conservative and take that sum as the value. Thus, from what City gave the Council when we moved to CoMS, GBP 20 million went back to the public purse.

We know as well that the attendance-based 'rent' payments we made between 2003 and 2011 came to GBP 14 million, and it's been reported that, since 2011, there's been a renegotiated payment under our lease of GBP 4 million annually (including a component for in return for us being entitled to sell naming rights). That's another GBP 16 million in the last four years then.

Add these sums together and you get GBP 50 million, meaning that three more annual payments will more than match the cost to the public purse of City moving to CoMS after the games. That will be by 2018, or 15 years after we moved in. And we'll continue paying GBP 4 million per year, ringfenced to finance sports activity in Manchester, for a long time after that.

Now, I admit that the new stadium was a godsend for our club at the time because we could never have financed it using more conventional funding models. But this idea that we've given nothing back in return for our good fortune is simply untrue.

I understand that the Olympic Stadium has cost GBP 272 to convert for West Ham to occupy it and West Ham have paid GBP 15 towards that - without even being required to hand over their own stadium. They have a 99-year lease and are paying GBP 2.5 million per year, so by the end of the lease, they'll just about have repaid that GBP 250 million shortfall! Compare this with the public purse being in profit from MCFC within 15 years.

Now, City have more advantageous lease terms than West Ham. We now are able to sell naming rights, and we keep all revenuse from concerts or other events at ths stadium. But even so, it's in no way comparable.
 
We didn't pay for the conversion from an athletics stadium to a football stadium. We paid for the stadium to be fitted out (i.e. for concessions, hospitality, offices, etc).

The key figures, though are:

According to Sport England (though the relevant report is no longer on their site), the only option if there was no viable tenant for CoMS was to build a temporary athletics stadium for the Commonwealth Games and then scaling it down to a small athletics stadium afterwards. Sport England further said that the difference in cost between that option and the option of building the stadium City eventually got (including conversion after the Games) was GBP 60 million. So this, in effect, is the cost of getting City into CoMS.

We paid the Council GBP 6 million in cash and transferred Maine Road into the Council's ownership. That transaction valued the old stadium at GBP 27 million, which was its value in our books at the time. However, I believe that it only realised GBP 14 million for the Council when sold for development, so let's be conservative and take that sum as the value. Thus, from what City gave the Council when we moved to CoMS, GBP 20 million went back to the public purse.

We know as well that the attendance-based 'rent' payments we made between 2003 and 2011 came to GBP 14 million, and it's been reported that, since 2011, there's been a renegotiated payment under our lease of GBP 4 million annually (including a component for in return for us being entitled to sell naming rights). That's another GBP 16 million in the last four years then.

Add these sums together and you get GBP 50 million, meaning that three more annual payments will more than match the cost to the public purse of City moving to CoMS after the games. That will be by 2018, or 15 years after we moved in. And we'll continue paying GBP 4 million per year, ringfenced to finance sports activity in Manchester, for a long time after that.

Now, I admit that the new stadium was a godsend for our club at the time because we could never have financed it using more conventional funding models. But this idea that we've given nothing back in return for our good fortune is simply untrue.

I understand that the Olympic Stadium has cost GBP 272 to convert for West Ham to occupy it and West Ham have paid GBP 15 towards that - without even being required to hand over their own stadium. They have a 99-year lease and are paying GBP 2.5 million per year, so by the end of the lease, they'll just about have repaid that GBP 250 million shortfall! Compare this with the public purse being in profit from MCFC within 15 years.

Now, City have more advantageous lease terms than West Ham. We now are able to sell naming rights, and we keep all revenuse from concerts or other events at ths stadium. But even so, it's in no way comparable.

Informative and interesting post. Thanks for that Petrusha
 
Factually, the sale of lloyds shares has made a profit of over £12bn for the Treasury.

Thanks for correction S2, do you have the facts on the other bailout banks etc., perhaps they are only bad at controlling spend in the construction sector within London or do I have the wrong impression about the differences between public and private sector controls on spending ?
 
think we spent £20bn to get £12bln return to date. not that great

Thanks for that Jon, is that the same £12bn that S2 claims as profit ?
I assumed he had already deducted the cost of the cash injection from the share sale total to get his profit figure.
 
We didn't pay for the conversion from an athletics stadium to a football stadium. We paid for the stadium to be fitted out (i.e. for concessions, hospitality, offices, etc).

The key figures, though are:

According to Sport England (though the relevant report is no longer on their site), the only option if there was no viable tenant for CoMS was to build a temporary athletics stadium for the Commonwealth Games and then scaling it down to a small athletics stadium afterwards. Sport England further said that the difference in cost between that option and the option of building the stadium City eventually got (including conversion after the Games) was GBP 60 million. So this, in effect, is the cost of getting City into CoMS.

We paid the Council GBP 6 million in cash and transferred Maine Road into the Council's ownership. That transaction valued the old stadium at GBP 27 million, which was its value in our books at the time. However, I believe that it only realised GBP 14 million for the Council when sold for development, so let's be conservative and take that sum as the value. Thus, from what City gave the Council when we moved to CoMS, GBP 20 million went back to the public purse.

We know as well that the attendance-based 'rent' payments we made between 2003 and 2011 came to GBP 14 million, and it's been reported that, since 2011, there's been a renegotiated payment under our lease of GBP 4 million annually (including a component for in return for us being entitled to sell naming rights). That's another GBP 16 million in the last four years then.

Add these sums together and you get GBP 50 million, meaning that three more annual payments will more than match the cost to the public purse of City moving to CoMS after the games. That will be by 2018, or 15 years after we moved in. And we'll continue paying GBP 4 million per year, ringfenced to finance sports activity in Manchester, for a long time after that.

Now, I admit that the new stadium was a godsend for our club at the time because we could never have financed it using more conventional funding models. But this idea that we've given nothing back in return for our good fortune is simply untrue.

I understand that the Olympic Stadium has cost GBP 272 to convert for West Ham to occupy it and West Ham have paid GBP 15 towards that - without even being required to hand over their own stadium. They have a 99-year lease and are paying GBP 2.5 million per year, so by the end of the lease, they'll just about have repaid that GBP 250 million shortfall! Compare this with the public purse being in profit from MCFC within 15 years.

Now, City have more advantageous lease terms than West Ham. We now are able to sell naming rights, and we keep all revenuse from concerts or other events at ths stadium. But even so, it's in no way comparable.

And if you add in all the investment we have put into the surrounding area, the college and the Campus plus all the infrastructure and the 6,000 homes which City are helping to build, then it has been a fantastic deal for the council taxpayers of Manchester. In fact the council has made a huge profit. It is a fantastic example of a successful public-private sector partnership. Instead of being slated by the media (and tossers like Greg Dyke) we should be held up as role model for the rest of football.
 
We didn't pay for the conversion from an athletics stadium to a football stadium. We paid for the stadium to be fitted out (i.e. for concessions, hospitality, offices, etc).

The key figures, though are:

According to Sport England (though the relevant report is no longer on their site), the only option if there was no viable tenant for CoMS was to build a temporary athletics stadium for the Commonwealth Games and then scaling it down to a small athletics stadium afterwards. Sport England further said that the difference in cost between that option and the option of building the stadium City eventually got (including conversion after the Games) was GBP 60 million. So this, in effect, is the cost of getting City into CoMS.

We paid the Council GBP 6 million in cash and transferred Maine Road into the Council's ownership. That transaction valued the old stadium at GBP 27 million, which was its value in our books at the time. However, I believe that it only realised GBP 14 million for the Council when sold for development, so let's be conservative and take that sum as the value. Thus, from what City gave the Council when we moved to CoMS, GBP 20 million went back to the public purse.

We know as well that the attendance-based 'rent' payments we made between 2003 and 2011 came to GBP 14 million, and it's been reported that, since 2011, there's been a renegotiated payment under our lease of GBP 4 million annually (including a component for in return for us being entitled to sell naming rights). That's another GBP 16 million in the last four years then.

Add these sums together and you get GBP 50 million, meaning that three more annual payments will more than match the cost to the public purse of City moving to CoMS after the games. That will be by 2018, or 15 years after we moved in. And we'll continue paying GBP 4 million per year, ringfenced to finance sports activity in Manchester, for a long time after that.

Now, I admit that the new stadium was a godsend for our club at the time because we could never have financed it using more conventional funding models. But this idea that we've given nothing back in return for our good fortune is simply untrue.

I understand that the Olympic Stadium has cost GBP 272 to convert for West Ham to occupy it and West Ham have paid GBP 15 towards that - without even being required to hand over their own stadium. They have a 99-year lease and are paying GBP 2.5 million per year, so by the end of the lease, they'll just about have repaid that GBP 250 million shortfall! Compare this with the public purse being in profit from MCFC within 15 years.

Now, City have more advantageous lease terms than West Ham. We now are able to sell naming rights, and we keep all revenuse from concerts or other events at ths stadium. But even so, it's in no way comparable.

Thanks Peter - excellent research as always. I wasn't aware that we didn't fund the conversion to a football stadium and feel a tool for saying so. Maybe that Rag who I monstered on Red Cafe deserves an apology. In fact, no, fuck him - he was being a dick anyway!
 
Meanwhile, there's more hilarious reading on that Gooner site with some Arsenal fans actually claiming that Tony Adams is wrong and Fiszman didn't invest money in the club. A Chelsea fan, Mike T, also came up with this very interesting piece of information that I wasn't previously aware of. Needless to say, not a single Gooner has responded to him:

http://untold-arsenal.com/archives/44691
  • Tony

    Even if the whole Fiiszman thing is misquoted how about the vast sums put into Arsenal by Granada Media?.

    I don’t mean the £20 million that was pic in by way of partnership for the AFC broadband project I am talking about the monies that were turned into equity. And something that would not now be allowable under FFP

    Yes Arsenal used the money to part fund the stadium but none the less it wasn’t money that Arsenal generated through the allowable revenue streams
 
Last edited:
Can someone post a link to where we've been given the green light from UEFA (too many bloody pages on here!). I need it to settle an argument over here. An external source, rather than just someone on here saying it, please. Thanks.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33381403

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-paul-pogba-and-raheem-sterling-10365780.html

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/uefa-lifts-man-city-psg-sanctions-clubs-curb-232350286--sow.html

Please note that 'still subject to restriction' is believed to be just the same restrictions as everybody else, but is mentioned so that people don't go thinking we can spend ANYTHING we like. We can't. We can just spend 'normally' (within allowable losses) over the monitoring period.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if it's an urban myth or not, but I do recall hearing we were still paying off debts from that era some 20 years later.

I'll never forget my home made 'Peter Barnes Football Trainer' - my fave player. Remember that? it was a pair of shorts attached to a ball via elastic - genius! All wearing my first football shirt which was some second hand West Ham top bought on Newton Heath (or possibly Grey Mare Lane) market! - mothers eh?
ha ha my mam bought me one of them i was'nt sure if it was a villa one though, plus a Wolves shirt the mind boggles
 
ha ha my mam bought me one of them i was'nt sure if it was a villa one though, plus a Wolves shirt the mind boggles
Ha, and I kept getting Adidas 'Four Stripe' (nickname for crap) boots with moulded studs instead of screw-ins. Absolutely bloody clueless. I wasn't happy until I got my first 'double diamond' Umbro City kit (about 77?)
 
Can somebody check my maths here please?

-------------------------

Sterling cost £44m on 5 years at £150k a week. Amortisation cost of £8.8m + wages cost of £7.8m = £16.6m

KdB could cost £40m on presumably same contract. Amortisation cost of £8m + wages of £7.8m = £15.8m

Pogba could cost £80m on 5 years at £250k a week. Amortisation cost of £16m + wages of £13m = £28m.

Total new costs are £60.4m

-------------------------

Dzeko signed for 5 years in 2011 at £27m or £5.4m a year. He resigned a contract in 2014 for 4 years meaning he had £10.2m left, making his yearly cost now £2.7m. Plus wages on top of £8m makes total cost of £10.7m

Jovetic cost £23m for 5 years at £4.6m a year. Wages are approximately £6m a year making a cost of £10.6m a year.

Richards has left the club with £4m a year wages and no amortisation value due to him being an Academy graduate. Total cost of £4m a year.

Milner signed for 5 years for £25m or £5m a year cost. His wages were approx £6m a year meaning a total cost of £11m.

Lampard's wages were paid by City and reputably worth another £6m a year.

Total saved based on above would be £42.3m.

------------------------

So I reckon our increased outlay based on landing/selling the above would only be about £17m a year on the books, which should be immediately covered by rise in the TV deal. Can anyone show me where I might have gone wrong here?
 
Can somebody check my maths here please?

-------------------------

Sterling cost £44m on 5 years at £150k a week. Amortisation cost of £8.8m + wages cost of £7.8m = £16.6m

KdB could cost £40m on presumably same contract. Amortisation cost of £8m + wages of £7.8m = £15.8m

Pogba could cost £80m on 5 years at £250k a week. Amortisation cost of £16m + wages of £13m = £28m.

Total new costs are £60.4m

-------------------------

Dzeko signed for 5 years in 2011 at £27m or £5.4m a year. He resigned a contract in 2014 for 4 years meaning he had £10.2m left, making his yearly cost now £2.7m. Plus wages on top of £8m makes total cost of £10.7m

Jovetic cost £23m for 5 years at £4.6m a year. Wages are approximately £6m a year making a cost of £10.6m a year.

Richards has left the club with £4m a year wages and no amortisation value due to him being an Academy graduate. Total cost of £4m a year.

Milner signed for 5 years for £25m or £5m a year cost. His wages were approx £6m a year meaning a total cost of £11m.

Lampard's wages were paid by City and reputably worth another £6m a year.

Total saved based on above would be £42.3m.

------------------------

So I reckon our increased outlay based on landing/selling the above would only be about £17m a year on the books, which should be immediately covered by rise in the TV deal. Can anyone show me where I might have gone wrong here?

Pretty much correct. Your Dzeko numbers are marginally out, as he signed in January 2011, on a 4.5 year contract not a 5 year one. So it was £6m a year. When he signed his new deal it was with 12 months left, so £6m left to pay. Spread that over the 4 years means £1.5m a year amortisation, of which we've already accounted for £1.5m by summer 2015.
 
Can somebody check my maths here please?

-------------------------

Sterling cost £44m on 5 years at £150k a week. Amortisation cost of £8.8m + wages cost of £7.8m = £16.6m

KdB could cost £40m on presumably same contract. Amortisation cost of £8m + wages of £7.8m = £15.8m

Pogba could cost £80m on 5 years at £250k a week. Amortisation cost of £16m + wages of £13m = £28m.

Total new costs are £60.4m

-------------------------

Dzeko signed for 5 years in 2011 at £27m or £5.4m a year. He resigned a contract in 2014 for 4 years meaning he had £10.2m left, making his yearly cost now £2.7m. Plus wages on top of £8m makes total cost of £10.7m

Jovetic cost £23m for 5 years at £4.6m a year. Wages are approximately £6m a year making a cost of £10.6m a year.

Richards has left the club with £4m a year wages and no amortisation value due to him being an Academy graduate. Total cost of £4m a year.

Milner signed for 5 years for £25m or £5m a year cost. His wages were approx £6m a year meaning a total cost of £11m.

Lampard's wages were paid by City and reputably worth another £6m a year.

Total saved based on above would be £42.3m.

------------------------

So I reckon our increased outlay based on landing/selling the above would only be about £17m a year on the books, which should be immediately covered by rise in the TV deal. Can anyone show me where I might have gone wrong here?

I'm no expert on amortisation, but I'm fairly sure £16m + £13m (for Pogba) is £29m rather than £28m!
 
Pretty much correct. Your Dzeko numbers are marginally out, as he signed in January 2011, on a 4.5 year contract not a 5 year one. So it was £6m a year. When he signed his new deal it was with 12 months left, so £6m left to pay. Spread that over the 4 years means £1.5m a year amortisation, of which we've already accounted for £1.5m by summer 2015.

Cheers mate, so the total potential saving for next year is £41.1m rather than the £42.3m as listed. That 4.5 year contract seemed to level me.

And this is obviously presuming that the wages are all as reported which they likely aren't going to be but it isn't a bad estimate to suggest that based on selling Dzeko and Jovetic then we'll probably be looking at a yearly book cost that can easily be covered by the TV deal alone with room to spare
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top