North Stand Construction Discussion

petrusha said:
Yes, the definition of "close proximity" is key to whether City can count rental income from the Arena (assuming I'm right in assuming that there is some). CFG and OVG are the operators of the Arena so the club itself doesn't receive any of the operating income.

IIRC, there are developments in Europe where other sports and entertainment venues are in the vicinity of stadiums and count for FFP purposes, with the distances involved there suggesting that the Arena should count here. However, I can't be sure about that so would need to check. Unfortunately, the point isn't clear from a quick Google so requires more research.
Click to expand...
Ah I wondered about this.

Must be a proximity and related activity thing maybe?

E.g if we imported coffee beans and manufactured jars of coffee you wouldn't expect. that to be allowed but wondered what the regs were?
 
Gray said:
Obviously doesn’t fit, could be a costly mistake and adds more time to the build.
Click to expand...
If it is that, it would be up to the contractors to absorb the costs, but it could mean a delay. That said, their may be a work around, of the rivets don’t line up exactly we have already seen them overcome slight misalignments.

Or, possibly the lift was a rehearsal
 
Norman kneejerk said:
Ah I wondered about this.

Must be a proximity and related activity thing maybe?

E.g if we imported coffee beans and manufactured jars of coffee you wouldn't expect. that to be allowed but wondered what the regs were?
Click to expand...

It's not very tight drafting and you could see how differing interpretations might easily arise. My guess at this stage would be I'd guess that as long as it's sports/leisure/entertainment related, i.e. the sorts of wider developments that a football club might anchor in the modern climate, and as long as there's no gap between the club's own land around its stadium/training ground and the ground where this business is, it should be OK.

I'd like to see what has been allowed through on this point, however. That might well give us greater clarity.
 
petrusha said:
From the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, version released on 1 June 2018 (which is the latest version I get from UEFA's website).

Annex X details what does and doesn't count as income, and by virtue of Section A, paras f) and l), income from "non-football operations not related to the club" are excluded but those related to the club are permissible.

As to what this means, the following is from para l) of Section B of Annex X of the Regulations:



My understanding has always been that rent from facilities located on land around the stadium owned by the MCFC JV with the City Council, including the collar site in the fullness of time but also Co-op Live, can be included by virtue of the first bullet above. Happy to be shown to be wrong if I am.
Click to expand...

FYI, I posted this in reply to someone in 2021 based on an article in the FT in September 2020.

"I've checked my original source which was a detailed article in the FT last September.

According to the FT article the land is actually owned by a JV between ADUG (80%) and MCC (20%). So I should have said ADUG own the land with MCC. However, the article goes on to say Oak View will pay an annual lease payment worth millions of pounds to CFG which presumably will be allocated to MCFC - ( ADUG>CFG>MCFC).

The 50/50 JV for the build is CFG and Oak View so, yes, highly likely 50/50 on profits for CFG>MCFC and Oak View. I understand what you are saying about infastructure costs but personally not 100% certain we qualify."

Basically, you are advancing my uncertainty from back then :) It would be good to know...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top