Ground Ownership

My understanding is MCC get more money now per year and actually get a better deal from us if we just continue paying a sum each year rather than buying it outright as if we did this - a large sum would go out of Manchester and into the coffers of Sport England.
 
Eds said:
Thanks for the comments. I was just wondering with all the work we are doing with the regeneration of the area had the ownership of the actual ground and surrounding land been renegotiated. Can't wait for the day (which is getting nearer) when all the jibes about likkle old Citeh, council tenants etc can be shoved so far down the rags throats that they choke, which is what I am hoping will happen to Fergie if by some miracle they blow it this year.
If you're bothered by the jibes you need to grow a pair mate. City do own all of the development land though, and the rags should know that as well. There was a rag, Shaun O'Brien, who tried to scam his fellow rags into buying the land his company held near the stadium - I think PB reported him if I recall correctly. He had to sell up eventually under threat of a compulsory purchase order: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-16978706" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ma ... r-16978706</a>
 
I thought the reason we couldn't buy it is that we'd have to buy out a significant part of our one hundred year lease - thus making it a bad deal for us. At the same time, MCC have no reason to sell it because it generates a nicely reliable annual income for them.
 
Went on a stadium tour last year and someone asked this , the guide had a lot of knowledge about the subject with how much he went on about it , but he said it cost just under £2m a year to rent for the council which is on a 999 year lease. He said buying it would make no sense referring to how much Arsenal spent on the Emirates.
 
Skashion said:
I thought the reason we couldn't buy it is that we'd have to buy out a significant part of our one hundred year lease - thus making it a bad deal for us. At the same time, MCC have no reason to sell it because it generates a nicely reliable annual income for them.

It's a 250 year lease, not 100 year. The reason we haven't bought the ground is because MCC refuse to sell up. As many have pointed out, Sport England covered most of the cost of building the place and under contract would receive the bulk of the payment, so MCC aren't happy with that, while our new rent agreement is larger than what we were paying before and is a guaranteed annual stipend - a bit like the government coming to you when you retire and saying "you can have £200,000 now and then nothing afterwards, or a £20,000 pension for the rest of your life, and for your childrens' lives, and for your grandchildren's lives, and for your great grandchildren's lives". Why would you take the money up front when you're making yourself for decades (centuries even) into the future?
 
Falastur said:
Skashion said:
I thought the reason we couldn't buy it is that we'd have to buy out a significant part of our one hundred year lease - thus making it a bad deal for us. At the same time, MCC have no reason to sell it because it generates a nicely reliable annual income for them.

It's a 250 year lease, not 100 year. The reason we haven't bought the ground is because MCC refuse to sell up. As many have pointed out, Sport England covered most of the cost of building the place and under contract would receive the bulk of the payment, so MCC aren't happy with that, while our new rent agreement is larger than what we were paying before and is a guaranteed annual stipend - a bit like the government coming to you when you retire and saying "you can have £200,000 now and then nothing afterwards, or a £20,000 pension for the rest of your life, and for your childrens' lives, and for your grandchildren's lives, and for your great grandchildren's lives". Why would you take the money up front when you're making yourself for decades (centuries even) into the future?

True but the stadium won't be there for 100 or 250 years .What happens when the stadium reaches the end of its life. Who owns the land it's on?
 
blueparrot said:
Falastur said:
Skashion said:
I thought the reason we couldn't buy it is that we'd have to buy out a significant part of our one hundred year lease - thus making it a bad deal for us. At the same time, MCC have no reason to sell it because it generates a nicely reliable annual income for them.

It's a 250 year lease, not 100 year. The reason we haven't bought the ground is because MCC refuse to sell up. As many have pointed out, Sport England covered most of the cost of building the place and under contract would receive the bulk of the payment, so MCC aren't happy with that, while our new rent agreement is larger than what we were paying before and is a guaranteed annual stipend - a bit like the government coming to you when you retire and saying "you can have £200,000 now and then nothing afterwards, or a £20,000 pension for the rest of your life, and for your childrens' lives, and for your grandchildren's lives, and for your great grandchildren's lives". Why would you take the money up front when you're making yourself for decades (centuries even) into the future?

True but the stadium won't be there for 100 or 250 years .What happens when the stadium reaches the end of its life. Who owns the land it's on?

Its the landlords responsibility for the upkeep of any property, in 50 years or so they'll have to build us a new one:-)
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.