Stadium Expansion

[fbloke]

The point is though, ticket sales is not where it's at. Worrying about revenue from ticket sales is completely missing the point and the much bigger opportunities.

If you look at United - who despite all their sins, do actually manage to win the odd thing and to generate profit - their matchday revenue has been on a steady decline for years. It is now 15% lower in cash terms than it was 4 years ago. Lower still in real terms.

On the other hand, their revenues from commercial activities and from broadcasting have steadily increased, and in the case of commercial, nearly doubled over the same period.

In 2009, matchday revenue including merchandising, catering and everything that goes with it generated 49% of their income. In 2012 it's 35%. And it's a steady decline. In 2013 it will be 30%.

My point is this: For us to succeed as a business, as a winning football club, and as a vehicle to promote Abu Dhabi, we have to grow our brand on the world stage. In that regard, it doesn't matter where on earth we are located. We could have been in Swansea and it wouldn't matter. Worrying about your ticketing revenue is missing the point because that's not where your profits will come from, no matter who or where you are.

Anything that makes us more attractive to watch and creates interest around the globe, should be our focus. An 80,000 seater stadium, jam packed full and rocking every week would certainly help that, and if we can stimulate that with cheap tickets, its a small price to pay imho.

1) I thought we were talking 60k
2) And it has been suggested that the club are looking to "Upgrade" Level 2 so it becomes something like a Club Wembley targeting wealthy fans.

And myself and others have argued that in Manchester it would be very difficult to attract this type of fan because of the nature of manchester and the surrounding area

I agree that Match Day Revenues are insiginficant compared to the gigantic sponsorships that Utd have secured eg Chevrolet

So it seems that what the club is suggesting is a little impractical and unlikely to succeed.

In an expanded stadium there must be room for all the fans, but setting aside such a large part of the stadium to such a small target pool looks like a bad plan

Hopefully its not the plan and it's Chinese whisper distortion

The more I think about it - the more I think IT is the plan.

The club need to generate a huge amount more revenue from the Corporate/Sponsorship side on Matchdays and the above plan will achieve that objective.

As an aside it has been mentioned earlier in the thread that City don't own the stadium but rent it from Manchester Council (or if I am wrong on the owners - the fact is that the Stadium is rented).

From a business point of view it makes no sense to rebuild something that you do not own.

I think the plan will be an expansion to 60,000 and then the capital involved will be recouped within a short period of time.

Perhaps anyone reading this post who owns a business and rents premises can confirm what I have written or can tell me how the owners can possibly recoup the £500million to £1billion which would be the cost of a new stadium ( based on the Emirates) when they are already committed to spending that amount of money regenerating the whole area.

Your assumption is that making a profit is the ONLY part of the decision making process.

What if knowing that the local community will benefit by millions a year rather than faceless London based bureaucracies benefitting in the sale of a local asset to the tune of tens of millions is also of import?

 

[Marvin]

You mean MCC continue to receive their stadium rent if we extend, and Sport England would get their money back if we moved from the COMs?

The land you referred to. In order for City to benefit under FFP, doesn't it have to be on the site of the stadium or associated with the football branding?

I wouldn't have thought that City could make a speculative investment, then sale, or redevelopment work for FFP, unless it was directly associated with the football side?

 

[fbloke]

You mean MCC continue to receive their stadium rent if we extend, and Sport England would get their money back if we moved from the COMs?

The land you referred to. In order for City to benefit under FFP, doesn't it have to be on the site of the stadium or associated with the football branding?

I wouldn't have thought that City could make a speculative investment, then sale, or redevelopment work for FFP, unless it was directly associated with the football side?

MCC will continue to get the money as they are partners with MCFC and have an interest in the Joint Venture.

Land purchases can be anywhere in the world and revenues are OK under FFPR as long as the name of the club or associated TM's are used.

So, for want of a better example if the club bought a building in Manhattan and opened a MCFC bar then the revenues would be included.

Similarly if they had an MCFC boutique hotel in the Cayman Islands that traded off the clubs name, or one in say Abu Dhabi. I think you know where I am going with this one.

But then imagine a situation where other people buy the land, property etc and pay a licence for the use of the name it involves less up-front cash and pure revenue coming back.

Now imagine a situation where part of the MCFC family of companies had already bought property and land for later use.

 

[greenfingers]

"Your assumption is that making a profit is the ONLY part of the decision making process.
The owners have stated all along that the club will become self sustaining in time - to do so you have to make a profit.

What if knowing that the local community will benefit by millions a year rather than faceless London based bureaucracies benefitting in the sale of a local asset to the tune of tens of millions is also of import?"

It has been stated many times that if the owners buy the stadium then what you have written will happen - this is why the owners rent it.

Let me ask another question -

If the Stadium is demolished and rebuilt then surily the owners have to repay the Sport England (or whoever the grant came from in the first place)grant because the origional building would not exist ?

 

[SWP's back]

1) I thought we were talking 60k
2) And it has been suggested that the club are looking to "Upgrade" Level 2 so it becomes something like a Club Wembley targeting wealthy fans.

And myself and others have argued that in Manchester it would be very difficult to attract this type of fan because of the nature of manchester and the surrounding area

I agree that Match Day Revenues are insiginficant compared to the gigantic sponsorships that Utd have secured eg Chevrolet

So it seems that what the club is suggesting is a little impractical and unlikely to succeed.

In an expanded stadium there must be room for all the fans, but setting aside such a large part of the stadium to such a small target pool looks like a bad plan

Hopefully its not the plan and it's Chinese whisper distortion

The more I think about it - the more I think IT is the plan.

The club need to generate a huge amount more revenue from the Corporate/Sponsorship side on Matchdays and the above plan will achieve that objective.

As an aside it has been mentioned earlier in the thread that City don't own the stadium but rent it from Manchester Council (or if I am wrong on the owners - the fact is that the Stadium is rented).

From a business point of view it makes no sense to rebuild something that you do not own.

I think the plan will be an expansion to 60,000 and then the capital involved will be recouped within a short period of time.

Perhaps anyone reading this post who owns a business and rents premises can confirm what I have written or can tell me how the owners can possibly recoup the £500million to £1billion which would be the cost of a new stadium ( based on the Emirates) when they are already committed to spending that amount of money regenerating the whole area.

Your assumption is that making a profit is the ONLY part of the decision making process.

What if knowing that the local community will benefit by millions a year rather than faceless London based bureaucracies benefitting in the sale of a local asset to the tune of tens of millions is also of import?

PLus for all intents and purposes, we do own it.

It would be like not building an extension on your terraced house as you don't own the freehold and only have 900 odd years left on it.

 

[fbloke]

"Your assumption is that making a profit is the ONLY part of the decision making process.
The owners have stated all along that the club will become self sustaining in time - to do so you have to make a profit.

What if knowing that the local community will benefit by millions a year rather than faceless London based bureaucracies benefitting in the sale of a local asset to the tune of tens of millions is also of import?"

It has been stated many times that if the owners buy the stadium then what you have written will happen - this is why the owners rent it.

Let me ask another question -

If the Stadium is demolished and rebuilt then surily the owners have to repay the Sport England (or whoever the grant came from in the first place)grant because the origional building would not exist ?

We could easily fall into an semantic argument here but the structure of the stadium can change, develop and grow but remain in essence under the same ownership model.

All that matters in the end is the desire of the involved parties to reach an accord.<br /><br />-- Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:20 pm --<br /><br />

"Your assumption is that making a profit is the ONLY part of the decision making process.
The owners have stated all along that the club will become self sustaining in time - to do so you have to make a profit.

What if knowing that the local community will benefit by millions a year rather than faceless London based bureaucracies benefitting in the sale of a local asset to the tune of tens of millions is also of import?"

It has been stated many times that if the owners buy the stadium then what you have written will happen - this is why the owners rent it.

Let me ask another question -

If the Stadium is demolished and rebuilt then surily the owners have to repay the Sport England (or whoever the grant came from in the first place)grant because the origional building would not exist ?

We could easily fall into an semantic argument here but the structure of the stadium can change, develop and grow but remain in essence under the same ownership model.

All that matters in the end is the desire of the involved parties to reach an accord.

 

[S04]

Keep in mind that the tithe we pay for the stadium is earmarked for developments that are done in accord with our own plans for east Manchester.

So it´s not money lost to us really..

 

[fbloke]

Keep in mind that the tithe we pay for the stadium is earmarked for developments that are done in accord with our own plans for east Manchester.

So it´s not money lost to us really..

Partnership, joint venture etc ;-)

 

[Sheikh Rattle n Roll]

Whatever happens with the stadium, expand or build a new one, it doesn’t really matter what, if anything, Sport England or whoever may be owed for their financial input. As harsh as it might sound, after the Super Casino was scrapped, Manchester was promised funding for something significant in its place. How many years down the line are we since the Casino was scrapped and Manchester has nothing in its place, albeit Sheikh Mansour is now on board.

Deals will continue to be done, like the recent deal to pay a fixed rent for the stadium instead of the anything over 36k deal that was in previously place.

Whatever City want to do in today’s harsh economic climate, and that could include knocking down the Stadium, if they so desired, nothing is likely to stop them, because whatever City plan on doing in the area, would be advantageous to Manchester and the country.

 

[Marvin]

You mean MCC continue to receive their stadium rent if we extend, and Sport England would get their money back if we moved from the COMs?

The land you referred to. In order for City to benefit under FFP, doesn't it have to be on the site of the stadium or associated with the football branding?

I wouldn't have thought that City could make a speculative investment, then sale, or redevelopment work for FFP, unless it was directly associated with the football side?

MCC will continue to get the money as they are partners with MCFC and have an interest in the Joint Venture.

Land purchases can be anywhere in the world and revenues are OK under FFPR as long as the name of the club or associated TM's are used.

So, for want of a better example if the club bought a building in Manhattan and opened a MCFC bar then the revenues would be included.

Similarly if they had an MCFC boutique hotel in the Cayman Islands that traded off the clubs name, or one in say Abu Dhabi. I think you know where I am going with this one.

But then imagine a situation where other people buy the land, property etc and pay a licence for the use of the name it involves less up-front cash and pure revenue coming back.

Now imagine a situation where part of the MCFC family of companies had already bought property and land for later use.

I was under the impression that that none football related income was excluded from Relevant Income, but Annex X specifically refers to Income from non-football operations not related to the club.