A
A
Anonymous
Guest
Appparently one particular pitch in this new training ground development that City are building has the abilty to 'change the grass' to match whatever surface City will be playing on next !
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ground Ownership
- Thread starter Eds
- Start date
CitizenTID
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 5,053
If we bought it, im guessing that would affect our expenses and therefore FFP?
Maybe we can get Etihad Airways to buy it for us, then they can rent it out to us for next to nout and let us call all the shots for them while they pay us to sponsor their own stadium.........
Maybe we can get Etihad Airways to buy it for us, then they can rent it out to us for next to nout and let us call all the shots for them while they pay us to sponsor their own stadium.........
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?
250 years maybe, but what's to say it won't last 100 years?
LittleStan
Well-Known Member
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?
Shame really, I quite like the stone cladding that inevitably ends up on brought council houses. It's a good look.
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
nijinskybell said:Isn't one of the reasons the ground isn't being bought outright by our owners because a large chunk would go straight to Sport England and not stay in Manchester?
Exactly this The lease fee now ~£4M is ring fenced for sport in Manchester any revenue from a sale would be repaid to Sport England
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
The guy who designed it told me its working life was about 50 years.Falastur said:blueparrot said:Falastur said: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?
250 years maybe, but what's to say it won't last 100 years?
lancs blue
Well-Known Member
I don't understand why some people get hung up about this, City don't need to buy it, both sides have a great deal as it is - the council get regular income and a post-industrial wasteland is getting renovated with external capital. City get two large packets of land that can earn future revenue in terms of both on-field (the new Academy) and off-field activities (the collar site). Retaining the mutual interest between MCC and ADUG is hugely beneficial to both.
Right, for clarification!
Who owns the stadium?
The stadium is jointly owned by Sport England and Manchester City Council.
Why don't City just buy the stadium outright?
City pay an annual lump sum of about £3m to Manchester City Council. Buying the stadium would cost £50m+ - all of which would go to Sport England who mostly funded the the construction of the stadium in the first place. City's logic is that it makes more sense giving Manchester City Council £3m a year which will be reinvested into east Manchester rather than send £50 million to central government and which will provide benefit for east Manchester
Will City ever buy the stadium outright?
The lease was renegotiated in 2011. It is possible after a period of tenure, City will be given the opportunity to buy the stadium outright as the club will have deemed to have paid the market value of the stadium over the past 50+ years etc. To put simply - the two authorities might want to 'cash in' rather than risk the club moving elsewhere or building a new stadium.
Who owns the stadium?
The stadium is jointly owned by Sport England and Manchester City Council.
Why don't City just buy the stadium outright?
City pay an annual lump sum of about £3m to Manchester City Council. Buying the stadium would cost £50m+ - all of which would go to Sport England who mostly funded the the construction of the stadium in the first place. City's logic is that it makes more sense giving Manchester City Council £3m a year which will be reinvested into east Manchester rather than send £50 million to central government and which will provide benefit for east Manchester
Will City ever buy the stadium outright?
The lease was renegotiated in 2011. It is possible after a period of tenure, City will be given the opportunity to buy the stadium outright as the club will have deemed to have paid the market value of the stadium over the past 50+ years etc. To put simply - the two authorities might want to 'cash in' rather than risk the club moving elsewhere or building a new stadium.