Etihad Campus, Stadium Development and Collar Site

[Falastur]

Re: Etihad Campus & potential new stadium

It is, but building a new stadium wouldn't be. They might not take too kindly to that, shall we say, and it might well cause them to reevaluate their involvement in the rest of our cooperation...

that's if you think we haven't thought of most of the possible outcomes to us changing the stadium.

I will admit I am going off instinct here and not actual knowledge but...I get the feeling that we have thought of the possible outcomes, and the board have decided expansion or keeping the status quo are the only two sensible alternatives.

Yes, we have money now. Yes, we all want a really big stadium and the fans every game to fill it. But just because we have the wealth to do something doesn't necessarily mean that we can say "the board will have thought about this. we WILL do it" just because it's what we want. I honestly think there's just too much potential ill-will with the council for building a new stadium to be a possibility. Heck, the council's involvement in the New East Manchester scheme may have even been a bribe to keep us in Eastlands.

 

[ste.sully]

Re: Etihad Campus & potential new stadium

The lease on the Stadium is the balance of 250 years, it must be assumed that a new structure would be required at least once in this timeframe.
We just want the new structure now and are prepared to pay for it - where is the problem?

The problem is with MCC. They receive £3m a year for doing absolutely nothing and £3m x 250 years = far more than we would pay to buy the stadium. They have essentially set themselves up on the gravy train for the next 10 generations. If we build a new stadium, we would most probably build it on land that we - not they - own. Not only will they not get any money from that, they lose their £3m stipend AND they are left nursing a stadium that no-one will want.

It's a bit like owning two houses - you live in one, some other guy rents the other one from you, and has an agreement that he'll rent it for more than it's worth for the rest of his life. One day in the middle of the financial crisis he approaches you and says he's come into a bit of money and wants to build his own house. Problem is you are now hard on cash yourself and can't afford your own house, and you know no-one else can afford your rent. Why wouldn't you force him to keep paying your rent at the cost of his own dreams?

There will probably be a clause in the lease that after a certain amount of years (i.e. 50 years from 2003, so 2053) the £3m lease expires, depreciates to reduced lease fee for the next 50 years (i.e. £1m) or the club will have the opportunity to buy the stadium and land outright for a fee. The stadium cost approximately £140m. So 50 years at roughly £3m = £150m. The important thing to remember is that the lease is not set in stone, it is renegotiable. Sheikh Mansour and Al Mubarak are everyday businessmen, they'll be aware of this potential "cash cow" issue for the council especially if they are planning 20 years ahead.

The club know they would be getting ripped off, and the only reason they are happy to pay the £3m at this moment in time is because that gets reinvested into the area around the stadium - which is in their interests with the plans for training ground, leisure facility etc. United fans might call it the council house, but at least the owners are making an effort to improve the area while their lot are tax dodging in the Cayman Islands.

 

[warpig]

Etihad Campus & potential new stadium

so let me get this right; are people really concerned about mcc not granting planning permission for a new stadium? it would be an absolute formality.

Don't know how you come to that conclusion. MCC get £3 million from the club and have a responsibility to interested parties (i.e. Sport England who helped fund the stadium) for it to be used and maintained. I guess your not familiar with the term 'white elephant'...

I was talking purely on a planing basis, nothing else.

 

[el blue]

Re: Etihad Campus & potential new stadium

The lease on the Stadium is the balance of 250 years, it must be assumed that a new structure would be required at least once in this timeframe.
We just want the new structure now and are prepared to pay for it - where is the problem?

The problem is with MCC. They receive £3m a year for doing absolutely nothing and £3m x 250 years = far more than we would pay to buy the stadium. They have essentially set themselves up on the gravy train for the next 10 generations. If we build a new stadium, we would most probably build it on land that we - not they - own. Not only will they not get any money from that, they lose their £3m stipend AND they are left nursing a stadium that no-one will want.

It's a bit like owning two houses - you live in one, some other guy rents the other one from you, and has an agreement that he'll rent it for more than it's worth for the rest of his life. One day in the middle of the financial crisis he approaches you and says he's come into a bit of money and wants to build his own house. Problem is you are now hard on cash yourself and can't afford your own house, and you know no-one else can afford your rent. Why wouldn't you force him to keep paying your rent at the cost of his own dreams?

There will probably be a clause in the lease that after a certain amount of years (i.e. 50 years from 2003, so 2053) the £3m lease expires, depreciates to reduced lease fee for the next 50 years (i.e. £1m) or the club will have the opportunity to buy the stadium and land outright for a fee. The stadium cost approximately £140m. So 50 years at roughly £3m = £150m. The important thing to remember is that the lease is not set in stone, it is renegotiable. Sheikh Mansour and Al Mubarak are everyday businessmen, they'll be aware of this potential "cash cow" issue for the council especially if they are planning 20 years ahead.

The club know they would be getting ripped off, and the only reason they are happy to pay the £3m at this moment in time is because that gets reinvested into the area around the stadium - which is in their interests with the plans for training ground, leisure facility etc. United fans might call it the council house, but at least the owners are making an effort to improve the area while their lot are tax dodging in the Cayman Islands.

Also inflation should take care of it nicely, in 50 years time £3m/year will seem like a right bargain.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Re: Etihad Campus & potential new stadium

It is, but building a new stadium wouldn't be. They might not take too kindly to that, shall we say, and it might well cause them to reevaluate their involvement in the rest of our cooperation...

that's if you think we haven't thought of most of the possible outcomes to us changing the stadium.

I will admit I am going off instinct here and not actual knowledge but...I get the feeling that we have thought of the possible outcomes, and the board have decided expansion or keeping the status quo are the only two sensible alternatives.

Yes, we have money now. Yes, we all want a really big stadium and the fans every game to fill it. But just because we have the wealth to do something doesn't necessarily mean that we can say "the board will have thought about this. we WILL do it" just because it's what we want. I honestly think there's just too much potential ill-will with the council for building a new stadium to be a possibility. Heck, the council's involvement in the New East Manchester scheme may have even been a bribe to keep us in Eastlands.

This is the same council which is in partnership with us on projects all around the area & has people actually working in an office at our place ? They are going to be difficult to deal with ?

This is about as far off beam as it's possible for anyone to be mate.

 

[more lazy than useless]

Re: Etihad Campus & potential new stadium

I could be completey wrong, but isn't one of the complications that the 'sports council' (or whatever the national body is called) paid for all or part of the stadium and the deal is that if City buy it or MCC agree to knock it down then they get their money back? that's a serious complication!

They put public money up for a publicly owned stadium, the delicate politics of that can't be underestimated, especially given the on-going farce over the Olympic stadium.

 

[Falastur]

Re: Etihad Campus & potential new stadium

This is the same council which is in partnership with us on projects all around the area & has people actually working in an office at our place ? They are going to be difficult to deal with ?

This is about as far off beam as it's possible for anyone to be mate.

Fair enough. As I've said before, I'd be quite happy for a new stadium to be built. But so long as we don't announce one is going to be, I will continue to believe that MCC are playing hardball over our intentions to leave. Fair?

-- Sat Jul 07, 2012 12:11 pm --

I could be completey wrong, but isn't one of the complications that the 'sports council' (or whatever the national body is called) paid for all or part of the stadium and the deal is that if City buy it or MCC agree to knock it down then they get their money back? that's a serious complication!

They're called Sport England, and that sounds quite familiar, yes.

-- Sat Jul 07, 2012 12:15 pm --

There will probably be a clause in the lease that after a certain amount of years (i.e. 50 years from 2003, so 2053) the £3m lease expires, depreciates to reduced lease fee for the next 50 years (i.e. £1m) or the club will have the opportunity to buy the stadium and land outright for a fee. The stadium cost approximately £140m. So 50 years at roughly £3m = £150m. The important thing to remember is that the lease is not set in stone, it is renegotiable. Sheikh Mansour and Al Mubarak are everyday businessmen, they'll be aware of this potential "cash cow" issue for the council especially if they are planning 20 years ahead.

Possibly, although that clause would certainly have been rewritten when we agreed the new payment deal a year or two back, for better or worse. But even assuming a 50-year opt out clause, that still leaves us waiting another 40 years before we can build a new stadium. That's not quite in line with all the predictions and demands people are suggesting here, that we should be announcing a new stadium in the next 2-3 seasons, if not right away even...

 

[rickmcfc]

Re: Etihad Campus & potential new stadium

Please can someone just sum up for me, why is there now talk about a new stadium? What have i missed?

 

[not my fault!]

Re: Etihad Campus & potential new stadium

City have no intention of building a new stadium, the plan was & is to develop the Etihad to three levels all the way around & fill in the corners. Go back to the original thread & it's first dozen pages, nothing has changed. City have a great deal so there is no need to break away from that, it'd cost us more annually to build than develop & stay where we are according to the powers that be.

 

[Leyther]

Etihad Campus & potential new stadium

The problem is with MCC. They receive £3m a year for doing absolutely nothing and £3m x 250 years = far more than we would pay to buy the stadium. They have essentially set themselves up on the gravy train for the next 10 generations. If we build a new stadium, we would most probably build it on land that we - not they - own. Not only will they not get any money from that, they lose their £3m stipend AND they are left nursing a stadium that no-one will want.

It's a bit like owning two houses - you live in one, some other guy rents the other one from you, and has an agreement that he'll rent it for more than it's worth for the rest of his life. One day in the middle of the financial crisis he approaches you and says he's come into a bit of money and wants to build his own house. Problem is you are now hard on cash yourself and can't afford your own house, and you know no-one else can afford your rent. Why wouldn't you force him to keep paying your rent at the cost of his own dreams?

I thought everything we are doing is a partnership between us and the council anyway?

It is, but building a new stadium wouldn't be. They might not take too kindly to that, shall we say, and it might well cause them to reevaluate their involvement in the rest of our cooperation...

Analogy - you let a three bedroom bog standard house, your tenant says "I want to knock it down and build a 5 bedroom mansion with a swimming pool, cinema and landscaped garden, you and your finance company keep all existing ownership rights, I'll keep paying the rent and these mods won't cost you a penny"
Seriously, you'd say no?