JoeMercer'sWay
Well-Known Member
the kippax wall said:
i don't like him.
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.
John Leech: The Council Should Sell COMS To City............
- Thread starter jrb
- Start date
i don't like him.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,437
squirtyflower said:even at the interest rates us mere plebs can get that would amount to approximately £5 million a year, less tax.jrb said:What's the interest on £200mill a year? Got to be more than £3mill.
I think is more to do with the plans that are currently being drawn up. There's no way the Council want out of that.
it's a no-brainer.
see my post, £10M tax free in investment bond plus capital growth. Big companies don't put huge sums in accounts. Not if they have a brain cell anyway.
RuncornBlue
Well-Known Member
What happens with naming rights of the stadium, we wouldn't hold these until we buy it would we?
BatleyBlue said:What happens with naming rights of the stadium, we wouldn't hold these until we buy it would we?
It is a commonly held belief that the recently held renegotiations on the lease resulting in a flat payment of £3m PA have allowed the club to earn from naming rights and increased capacity.
the kippax wall said:Dubai Blue said:It's not City's duty to bail out either the council or the government, and the last I heard we had little interest in buying the ground anyway. If City were desperate to buy but kept getting rebuffed by the council then this suggestion would make perfect sense, but that isn't the situation as far as I'm aware.
Totally agree! The problem with Leech is that he knows the cuts put om M/C council are totally fucking unfair and instead of having the balls to say so, he sees our owners as a cash cow for wank ConDem policy.
Didn't the Lib Dems oppose the Commonwealth Games in the first place? In other words if they'd got their own way the blinkin thing would not have been built in the first place.
He's a pesky WUM is that John Leech...
Hence the reason why the City council and the other 9 councils of Gtr Manchester won't sell the airport. It generated an extra £20mill for the 10 councils of Gtr Manchester last year.
Add another £3mill(City), factor in future rises, and MCC could be looking at an extra £20mill a year.
Of that £100m, its parent company, Manchester Airport Group Plc, will get £20m, shared between the 10 Greater Manchester Councils that own it. Manchester City Council has a 55 per cent share, which equates to £11m. The other nine borough councils will get £1m each.
Add another £3mill(City), factor in future rises, and MCC could be looking at an extra £20mill a year.
Dyed Petya
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 May 2007
- Messages
- 1,490
I think there's a major problem with what this guy is saying.
The stadium was built largely with lottery cash doled out by Sport England for the express purpose of building sports facilities for community use. The stadium is apparently open for 100 days per annum for use by the community as a result. Also as a result, I believe that the rent we pay (or any proceeds of sale) legally have to be spent by the Council on providing sports facilities. So he either doesn't know what he's talking about or else he's being disingenuous fo political reasons.
In any case, City have an option to buy under the lease (at least according to David Bernstein at a supporters' gathering in London in January 2003). There's a specific formula to calculate the value as well, and the cost would be nothing like the GBP 200 million quoted in the article. It's more like GBP 60 million as things stand, I would think. However, the club doesn't want to take this course anyway for the time being.
The stadium was built largely with lottery cash doled out by Sport England for the express purpose of building sports facilities for community use. The stadium is apparently open for 100 days per annum for use by the community as a result. Also as a result, I believe that the rent we pay (or any proceeds of sale) legally have to be spent by the Council on providing sports facilities. So he either doesn't know what he's talking about or else he's being disingenuous fo political reasons.
In any case, City have an option to buy under the lease (at least according to David Bernstein at a supporters' gathering in London in January 2003). There's a specific formula to calculate the value as well, and the cost would be nothing like the GBP 200 million quoted in the article. It's more like GBP 60 million as things stand, I would think. However, the club doesn't want to take this course anyway for the time being.
Dyed Petya
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 May 2007
- Messages
- 1,490
cibaman said:Are Councils still restricted in how they can spend money from asset sales?
If they accept funding from a purpose-specific lottery grant for nearly 75% of the cost of building the asset and the asset would never have come into existence without that funding, then yes. And so they should be restricted in those circumstances.
Challenger1978
Well-Known Member
WNRH said:Isn't £200m a bit much?
I really want city to buy the ground and fuck off the vermin that are MCC. At that price though they can get fooked if they think there going to rip us of like that. I've got to say though this just proves how parasitic the council our and how much they will try and bleed our club dry.
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader
Well-Known Member
WNRH said:Isn't £200m a bit much?
Half of that would be a fair deal.
u2fme2
Well-Known Member
200 million my arse
u2fme2 said:200 million my arse
A seriously expensive rent boy!
mancunial said:if city did go down this road would it help city in the fair play rules, or not, could somebody tell me please?
As investment in such things is not counted against FFPR but the £3m payment (a rental if you will) is, so we would effectively be £3m per year better off for the FFPR calculations.
But it could cost the club many,many millions to achieve that saving - money that could be recouped in shirt sales if you bought Messi instead ;-)
thank you very much fblokefbloke said:mancunial said:if city did go down this road would it help city in the fair play rules, or not, could somebody tell me please?
As investment in such things is not counted against FFPR but the £3m payment (a rental if you will) is, so we would effectively be £3m per year better off for the FFPR calculations.
But it could cost the club many,many millions to achieve that saving - money that could be recouped in shirt sales if you bought Messi instead ;-)
mancunial said:thank you very much fblokefbloke said:As investment in such things is not counted against FFPR but the £3m payment (a rental if you will) is, so we would effectively be £3m per year better off for the FFPR calculations.
But it could cost the club many,many millions to achieve that saving - money that could be recouped in shirt sales if you bought Messi instead ;-)
NP :-)
There is a quote from someone at manchester city council later on the MUEN website saying that 86% of any money received by the council would have to be used to repay grant received to build.
So not worth anywhere near £200m and 86% payout - not worth it from the councils point of view either set against £3m a year income.
Not surprised at another piece of poorly informed and researched piece of
self publicity from this individual.
Desperate attempt to distance himself from cuts!
larry
So not worth anywhere near £200m and 86% payout - not worth it from the councils point of view either set against £3m a year income.
Not surprised at another piece of poorly informed and researched piece of
self publicity from this individual.
Desperate attempt to distance himself from cuts!
larry