Media bias against City

[gordondaviesmoustache]

As it appears in the fail article.

Even though United fans were top for bad behaviour, the fail couldn't find a picture of United fans in it's extensive photographic database.

To be fair, there's plenty in that photo doing that secret signal with their hand above their eyes to show they're part of a crew.

Isn't that a new wave nazi salute ;-)

Shhh, don't mention the Daily Mail and Nazis. They're a bit sensitive about it, for some reason.

 

[Eds]

From the ever reliable Nick Harris in his survey of PL clubs' finances in The Mail.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3016432/Club-club-guide-Premier-League-s-financial-health.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... ealth.html</a>

MAN CITY: Still losing money despite the new TV deal and commercial income from the Middle East. Buys like £42.5m flop Eliawuim Mangala won't help

MAN UTD: Debt still lingers from Glazer takeover but huge income still allows marquee signings like £59.7m Angel Di Maria

Can't wait for our next set of financial results. He will literally have a panic attack at his little desk.

Without doubt the most bitter City hater of all the journalists.

Can someone clarify where the debt figure that was quoted came from as I understood that we were debt free...

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

From the ever reliable Nick Harris in his survey of PL clubs' finances in The Mail.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3016432/Club-club-guide-Premier-League-s-financial-health.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... ealth.html</a>

Can't wait for our next set of financial results. He will literally have a panic attack at his little desk.

Without doubt the most bitter City hater of all the journalists.

Can someone clarify where the debt figure that was quoted came from as I understood that we were debt free...

Off the top of my head, as I haven't got access to the accounts, it's probably to do with estimated future payments due under the stadium operating lease. The accounting treatment for this requires that we calculate and report potential future liabilities under the lease so we put in a notional figure based on various parameters to reflect this.

It's not a debt in the same way a loan or bond issue is but for accounting purposes it's treated as one. In simple terms you could say it represents what we'd have to pay the council in order to honour the lease terms if we moved out.

 

[Wilf Wild 1937]

I'm sure that I read somewhere that at a certain point the ownership of the stadium transfers from the council to us.

Something along the lines of when we have paid off the book cost it becomes ours.

Anybody know if this is true?

If so the lease is essentially a mortgage and should be considered as "good debt" using Harris's words.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I'm sure that I read somewhere that at a certain point the ownership of the stadium transfers from the council to us.

Something along the lines of when we have paid off the book cost it becomes ours.

Anybody know if this is true?

If so the lease is essentially a mortgage and should be considered as "good debt" using Harris's words.

I doubt that's the case and have never heard that. We appear to have a 250 year lease although the useful economic life of the structure is estimated to be 50 years.

We could negotiate to buy it but I gather we've had that discussion and decided it's not worthwhile.

The accountants on here may recoil in horror when I say this but the accounting treatment for this type of lease (a finance lease rather than an operating lease) does largely treat the asset as though the lessor has lent us the money to buy it. I may have used the term 'operating lease' earlier, which was wrong.

You can compare it to leasing a car. The leasing company buys the car, you pay them but have exclusive use and usually have to maintain it over the term of the lease. Then at the end of the leasing period you hand it back.

 

[Eds]

Can't wait for our next set of financial results. He will literally have a panic attack at his little desk.

Without doubt the most bitter City hater of all the journalists.

Can someone clarify where the debt figure that was quoted came from as I understood that we were debt free...

Off the top of my head, as I haven't got access to the accounts, it's probably to do with estimated future payments due under the stadium operating lease. The accounting treatment for this requires that we calculate and report potential future liabilities under the lease so we put in a notional figure based on various parameters to reflect this.

It's not a debt in the same way a loan or bond issue is but for accounting purposes it's treated as one. In simple terms you could say it represents what we'd have to pay the council in order to honour the lease terms if we moved out.

So effectively we are debt free and the article is unsurprisingly a total load of bollocks

 

[Centurions]

I'm sure that I read somewhere that at a certain point the ownership of the stadium transfers from the council to us.

Something along the lines of when we have paid off the book cost it becomes ours.

Anybody know if this is true?

If so the lease is essentially a mortgage and should be considered as "good debt" using Harris's words.

I doubt that's the case and have never heard that. We appear to have a 250 year lease although the useful economic life of the structure is estimated to be 50 years.

We could negotiate to buy it but I gather we've had that discussion and decided it's not worthwhile.

The accountants on here may recoil in horror when I say this but the accounting treatment for this type of lease (a finance lease rather than an operating lease) does largely treat the asset as though the lessor has lent us the money to buy it. I may have used the term 'operating lease' earlier, which was wrong.

You can compare it to leasing a car. The leasing company buys the car, you pay them but have exclusive use and usually have to maintain it over the term of the lease. Then at the end of the leasing period you hand it back.

Was that not down to the Council since any sale would see all the money going to Sport England(?). The Council would then lose out on the annual lease fee. Or have I remembered that entirely wrong?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

This is a very simplistic way to explain it but if you lease a car worth £30k (and show that as such in your accounts) and your lease payments are going to be £12k over the term of the lease, you've a theoretical debt of £18k, being the difference between the value of the asset and what you are going to pay for it.

 

[Wilf Wild 1937]

I'm sure that I read somewhere that at a certain point the ownership of the stadium transfers from the council to us.

Something along the lines of when we have paid off the book cost it becomes ours.

Anybody know if this is true?

If so the lease is essentially a mortgage and should be considered as "good debt" using Harris's words.

I doubt that's the case and have never heard that. We appear to have a 250 year lease although the useful economic life of the structure is estimated to be 50 years.

We could negotiate to buy it but I gather we've had that discussion and decided it's not worthwhile.

Thanks for clarifying that PB. My understanding was that we were keen to buy the freehold upfront but that the council were against it.
The council nominally owns the stadium and gets the annual lease fee from us which is ring fenced for sporting activity
within the city. The stadium though was largely funded by Sports England and they would have been the beneficiaries of
any sale. The club viewed it's partnership with the council as key and therefore didn't pursue the matter. Culturally I believe
that this went a bit against the grain as our owner "doesn't do rent" but he was willing to look at the bigger picture. The fact that we
are "in bed with the council" probably makes holding additional events like concerts a lot easier to get approved. That's before
we look at billion pound housing developments and the like!

It's disappointing that Harris's article made no reference to what this debt was related to and the truly marvellous things our
owner is doing for this city.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

I'm sure that I read somewhere that at a certain point the ownership of the stadium transfers from the council to us.

Something along the lines of when we have paid off the book cost it becomes ours.

Anybody know if this is true?

If so the lease is essentially a mortgage and should be considered as "good debt" using Harris's words.

I doubt that's the case and have never heard that. We appear to have a 250 year lease although the useful economic life of the structure is estimated to be 50 years.

We could negotiate to buy it but I gather we've had that discussion and decided it's not worthwhile.

Thanks for clarifying that PB. My understanding was that we were keen to buy the freehold upfront but that the council were against it.
The council nominally owns the stadium and gets the annual lease fee from us which is ring fenced for sporting activity
within the city. The stadium though was largely funded by Sports England and they would have been the beneficiaries of
any sale. The club viewed it's partnership with the council as key and therefore didn't pursue the matter. Culturally I believe
that this went a bit against the grain as our owner "doesn't do rent" but he was willing to look at the bigger picture. The fact that we
are "in bed with the council" probably makes holding additional events like concerts a lot easier to get approved. That's before
we look at billion pound housing developments and the like!

It's disappointing that Harris's article made no reference to what this debt was related to and the truly marvellous things our
owner is doing for this city.

But not totally unsurprising!!