Stadium Expansion

[SWP's back]

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.

Article 58 of FFPR has an exclusion regarding certain income from non-football operations. It's not clear to me that what you are suggesting would work

Relevant income is defined as revenue from gate receipts, broadcasting rights,
sponsorship and advertising, commercial activities and other operating income,
plus either profit on disposal of player registrations or income from disposal of
player registrations, excess proceeds on disposal of tangible fixed assets and
finance income. It does not include any non-monetary items or certain income
from non-football operations.

But income from MCFC branded or located close to the stadium/training ground products DO count.

 

[Marvin]

Yes, I have just read Annex X which defines relevant income and includes

Income from non-football operations not related to the club

Edit: I got this totally wrong. Income from non-football ops is to be deducted from allowable income But there are crucial exceptions and the activities in the Etihad Campus would come under that

 

[marco]

Yes, I have just read Annex X which defines relevant income and includes

Income from non-football operations not related to the club

Suddenly a lot of things suddenly make a lot more sense

i would find it hard to think of anything we invest in is not going to be football related, unless we open a sweety shop on ashton rd then again we could argue that its there for serving fans

 

[SWP's back]

Yes, I have just read Annex X which defines relevant income and includes

Income from non-football operations not related to the club

Suddenly a lot of things suddenly make a lot more sense

i would find it hard to think of anything we invest in is not going to be football related, unless we open a sweety shop on ashton rd then again we could argue that its there for serving fans

Building a supermarket in Hull that wasn't City branded etc. Anything braded is counted.

 

[Marvin]

What comes under the banner

Income from non-football operations not related to the club

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

United have been buying property for years around Manchester and putting it on their shitty balance sheet.

They own the Manchester Freight Terminal at the Airport, brings in a tidy some each year.

I would argue we could buy 25 MCFC trams, run them on the Meterolink line, and take a rather large cut from the Manchester Passenger Executive.

Nothing could stop it, they run past the stadium!

Can of worms this FFPR bollocks.

 

[Marvin]

United have been buying property for years around Manchester and putting it on their shitty balance sheet.

They own the Manchester Freight Terminal at the Airport, brings in a tidy some each year.

I would argue we could buy 25 MCFC trams, run them on the Meterolink line, and take a rather large cut from the Manchester Passenger Executive.

Nothing could stop it, they run past the stadium!

Can of worms this FFPR bollocks.

And would income from that Freight Terminal is that quality a Income that can be used in the break even calculation? It must surely, as what else is "Income from non-football operations"

 

[fbloke]

Yes, I have just read Annex X which defines relevant income and includes

Income from non-football operations not related to the club

Suddenly a lot of things suddenly make a lot more sense

It's why I have been so vocal on the subject.

It's not an issue as long as the club or associated logos are used the location matters not a jot.

Building a brand in the US is a very clever move and using CITC for that a brilliant win/win

 

[Marvin]

Yes, I have just read Annex X which defines relevant income and includes

Income from non-football operations not related to the club

Suddenly a lot of things suddenly make a lot more sense

It's why I have been so vocal on the subject.

It's not an issue as long as the club or associated logos are used the location matters not a jot.

Building a brand in the US is a very clever move and using CITC for that a brilliant win/win

Having read what expenses can be ignored from the b/e calculation I am of the opinion that these regulations were drafted with the full co-operation and input of MCFC.

 

[greenfingers]

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.

Sorry to come back to this from yesterday :

BUT as I see it -

SWP owns a terraced house
I rent the house from SWP and want more space for my growing family
I build and fund an extension on the terraced house owned by SWP

OR I demolish SWP's terraced house and build a semi in its place

At the end of the rental agreement SWP says "Thanks for upgrading/rebuilding my house" - I will now put your rent up !

Its nothing to do with leasehold or freehold.<br /><br />-- Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:09 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.

Thank you fbloke for answering my question and clarifying the position regarding the Stadium ownership .

I agree with you that

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