Etihad Campus, Stadium and Collar Site Development Thread

[StrutterBlue]

Aren’t we 1:1?

Sorry, what I meant when I said it's the same as what we are, is that there is a barrier that separates each row but in 1.5 you have an extra step for another person

Here's a 1:5/1:2 vs our 1:1

 

[richards30]

No. I was at a Supporters' Club meeting in London in January 2003 when we were addressed by David Bernstein, about six weeks before he quit as chairman and six months before we took up occupation of the stadium. He confirmed that the lease contains an option for MCFC to acquire the freehold at an option price that reduces over time because the rent we've already paid can be offset against it.

He suggested that it wouldn't make financial sense for City to exercise the option for at least twenty years, maybe considerably more. In theory, the financial landscape changed completely with the 2008 takeover, and what the club could reasonably afford was transformed.

The reason they've elected not to buy the freehold so far is because the money would go straight back to Sport England to compensate the cost of building the stadium. Rent payments go to the Council and are ringfenced for other sports facilities in the area, so the big loser if we exercised the option would be MCC. That's why we still haven't done so yet.

I would imagine it also strengthens any the owner wants to do in Manchester regarding planning etc? Keeping the money in Manchester thus gets more yes than no in other projects?

 

[Centurions]

...

The reason they've elected not to buy the freehold so far is because the money would go straight back to Sport England to compensate the cost of building the stadium. Rent payments go to the Council and are ringfenced for other sports facilities in the area, so the big loser if we exercised the option would be MCC. That's why we still haven't done so yet.

Yes, I can remember that lot now you mention it. Didn't we change the agreement with MCC in recent years (with their permission) regarding what and how we paid? It would have been prior to Covid at some point.

 

[Centurions]

No one else was either I don’t think.

Actually I mentioned it based on the pictures below. I was under the impression the E & W stand roofs would extend out further if/when they add rows at the back of tier 3 in those stands. Looking again at those pics the new roof would still end inside the roof support steelworks (the steelwork slopes out so the roof would extend out to some degree by the looks) but would be higher and much more of an inwards slope (similar to the original and new South stand roof comparison). I've no idea what the strange triangle shaped bits are between the spirals.

 

[Holcombe bloo]

Safe standing in Germany works on a 1.8 ratio. If we were allowed to work the same way in the UK, I could see City implementing safe standing right across ESL1 and NSL1 too. There are over 10k seats there currently, so that would expand the capacity right up over 8k.

Redevelop the North Stand (adding a further 6k) and we would be sorted for the next decade at least.

That would be ace, as much for atmosphere as much as capacity . At all grounds not just ours. That said scousers on almost open terracing is a grim proposition!

 

[Kippaxpete]

Looks great, but what's the point in it being a two tier stand if there's no boxes in between? Might as well just be a single tier?

Dortmund's yellow wall says hello.

 

[petrusha]

I would imagine it also strengthens any the owner wants to do in Manchester regarding planning etc? Keeping the money in Manchester thus gets more yes than no in other projects?

Yes, it's all part of the relationship with MCC. If we'd insisted on taking ownership and let them lose their annual windfall in favour of a lump sum going to Sport England, that obviously would have had a far less positive effect on relations between the club and the Council, as you say.

Yes, I can remember that lot now you mention it. Didn't we change the agreement with MCC in recent years (with their permission) regarding what and how we paid? It would have been prior to Covid at some point.

It changed in connection with the proposed expansion and the Etihad naming rights deal. Before then, the rent was calculated as a percentage of the net gate receipts above 34,000, so we were in the very fortunate position of paying only with respect to extra spectators we couldn't have fitted in Maine Road. The MEN reported that in the first 8 seasons in the new ground, we paid GBP 14 million on that basis.

David Conn (whom I consider a twat, but think likely to be right on this) reported that it went up to an annual GBP 3 million of rent for the stadium itself, a flat fee (i.e. irrespective of gates and by how much we extended the capacity). Then he claimed there was an additional GBP 1 million to be entitled to sell the naming rights, which the lease in its original form didn't let us do. The new amount became payable from 2012, IIRC.

 

[HelloCity]

Dortmund's yellow wall says hello.

Not really the same thing. Our bottom tier would be a completely different section cut off from the rest of the stand. The yellow wall is much more knitted together so to speak. It’s actually quite similar at Spurs new ground where there is an access platform for wheelchairs between the top and bottom of their single tier stand.

 

[Centurions]

Yes, it's all part of the relationship with MCC. If we'd insisted on taking ownership and let them lose their annual windfall in favour of a lump sum going to Sport England, that obviously would have had a far less positive effect on relations between the club and the Council, as you say.



It changed in connection with the proposed expansion and the Etihad naming rights deal. Before then, the rent was calculated as a percentage of the net gate receipts above 34,000, so we were in the very fortunate position of paying only with respect to extra spectators we couldn't have fitted in Maine Road. The MEN reported that in the first 8 seasons in the new ground, we paid GBP 14 million on that basis.

David Conn (whom I consider a twat, but think likely to be right on this) reported that it went up to an annual GBP 3 million of rent for the stadium itself, a flat fee (i.e. irrespective of gates and by how much we extended the capacity). Then he claimed there was an additional GBP 1 million to be entitled to sell the naming rights, which the lease in its original form didn't let us do. The new amount became payable from 2012, IIRC.

That's the one, I'm going to starting calling you the memory man from now on ;)

 

[jrb]

No. I was at a Supporters' Club meeting in London in January 2003 when we were addressed by David Bernstein, about six weeks before he quit as chairman and six months before we took up occupation of the stadium. He confirmed that the lease contains an option for MCFC to acquire the freehold at an option price that reduces over time because the rent we've already paid can be offset against it.

He suggested that it wouldn't make financial sense for City to exercise the option for at least twenty years, maybe considerably more. In theory, the financial landscape changed completely with the 2008 takeover, and what the club could reasonably afford was transformed.

The reason they've elected not to buy the freehold so far is because the money would go straight back to Sport England to compensate the cost of building the stadium. Rent payments go to the Council and are ringfenced for other sports facilities in the area, so the big loser if we exercised the option would be MCC. That's why we still haven't done so yet.

And that’s probably one of many reasons why City and MCC get on so well.

I’m still miffed that the Collar Site hasn’t been developed yet nearly 15 years on since MCR (MCC) won the Super Casino bid in 2007, and Sheikh Mansour bought City in 2008. For the Collar site to remain as it is to date is very disappointing.