Stadium Expansion

[fbloke]

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

To be frank, and I'm not picking on you here so dont take it that way, I am staggered it is taking so many people so long to realise how much flexibility there is built into the FFPR.

Lets be honest even without some of the wiggle room about the use of the club name/badge etc the simple fact that 'market values' for sponsorships cannot justifiably and legally be judged by an 'expert panel' in a subjective manner.

 

[nmc]

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.

-- Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:09 pm --

"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."

I see what your saying but I think you are missing the point - the time frame upon which we hold the freehold is such that it will far outlive the present stadium. None of us will live that long but the future MCFC will play at a number of venues on that site in the next 250 years. It's a bit like living in a - dare I say it - council house and not insulating the loft - because you don't own it but you do pay the gas and electricity bills! If you are gonna spend your whole life there do what needs to be done to make it fit for purpose. We will never hand the keys of the stadium back to Sport England we are here for the duration in one form or another.

 

[fbloke]

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.

-- Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:09 pm --


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."

I see what your saying but I think you are missing the point - the time frame upon which we hold the freehold is such that it will far outlive the present stadium. None of us will live that long but the future MCFC will play at a number of venues on that site in the next 250 years. It's a bit like living in a - dare I say it - council house and not insulating the loft - because you don't own it but you do pay the gas and electricity bills! If you are gonna spend your whole life there do what needs to be done to make it fit for purpose. We will never hand the keys of the stadium back to Sport England we are here for the duration in one form or another.

Oh I fully understand and completely agree with you in that we do basically own the stadium as the lease/rental is actually longer than the planned lifetime of the structure (estimated at 75 years I believe).

But if it was knocked down then there would be different issues with funding etc.

 

[Nascent Blues]

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"

Not taking the piss but...what?

 

[Sheikh Rattle n Roll]

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.

-- Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:09 pm --



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."

I see what your saying but I think you are missing the point - the time frame upon which we hold the freehold is such that it will far outlive the present stadium. None of us will live that long but the future MCFC will play at a number of venues on that site in the next 250 years. It's a bit like living in a - dare I say it - council house and not insulating the loft - because you don't own it but you do pay the gas and electricity bills! If you are gonna spend your whole life there do what needs to be done to make it fit for purpose. We will never hand the keys of the stadium back to Sport England we are here for the duration in one form or another.

Oh I fully understand and completely agree with you in that we do basically own the stadium as the lease/rental is actually longer than the planned lifetime of the structure (estimated at 75 years I believe).

But if it was knocked down then there would be different issues with funding etc.

Who cares about issues......no one can say anything after the debacle with The Millenium Dome, The Olympic Stadium and dare I say it, the Super Casino.

 

[fbloke]

I see what your saying but I think you are missing the point - the time frame upon which we hold the freehold is such that it will far outlive the present stadium. None of us will live that long but the future MCFC will play at a number of venues on that site in the next 250 years. It's a bit like living in a - dare I say it - council house and not insulating the loft - because you don't own it but you do pay the gas and electricity bills! If you are gonna spend your whole life there do what needs to be done to make it fit for purpose. We will never hand the keys of the stadium back to Sport England we are here for the duration in one form or another.

Oh I fully understand and completely agree with you in that we do basically own the stadium as the lease/rental is actually longer than the planned lifetime of the structure (estimated at 75 years I believe).

But if it was knocked down then there would be different issues with funding etc.

Who cares about issues......no one can say anything after the debacle with The Millenium Dome, The Olympic Stadium and dare I say it, the Super Casino.

Aye, its far better to have no tenant to move into a large publicly funded stadium than what Manchester achieved in 2002.

 

[Atypical]

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.

To be frank, and I'm not picking on you here so dont take it that way, I am staggered it is taking so many people so long to realise how much flexibility there is built into the FFPR.

Lets be honest even without some of the wiggle room about the use of the club name/badge etc the simple fact that 'market values' for sponsorships cannot justifiably and legally be judged by an 'expert panel' in a subjective manner.

I think the flexibility of Ffp in Europe is there for everyone to see. You only need to see the way the FairPlay is trying to be put into the premierleague by arse and rags. They know we are home and hosed in Europe so are now trying to ensure they stay on top in the PL.

As big gob Whelan said they are rattled.

 

[SWP's back]

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.

Yes it has. We have a 250 year lease on the fucker. It's exactly the same as freehold or leasehold in that the lease will last 7 or 8 generations (ie longer than the useful, safe of engineered life of the stadium).

You really think the stadium will be in use in 250 years??? That's the reason such a long agreement was chosen.

We don't need to own the fucking thing.

 

[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"

Not taking the piss but...what?

Sorry! Meant to ask if income from this Man Utd owned Freight Terminal qualifies as Income that can be used in the break-even calculation.

If I can answer my own question I would say it would be OK as long as it was clearly identifiable and branded as being owned and run by Man Utd. (I never knew they owned this. It's just brought up as an example).

Clearly those business and operations that will eventually end up on the Etihad campus will be more straightforward as they are on location, and clearly identifiable as relating to MCFC.

 

[fbloke]

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"

Not taking the piss but...what?

Sorry! Meant to ask if income from this Man Utd owned Freight Terminal qualifies as Income that can be used in the break-even calculation.

If I can answer my own question I would say it would be OK as long as it was clearly identifiable and branded as being owned and run by Man Utd. (I never knew they owned this. It's just brought up as an example).

Clearly those business and operations that will eventually end up on the Etihad campus will be more straightforward as they are on location, and clearly identifiable as relating to MCFC.

The revenues from that deal dont seem to fit the profile of allowable income.

Of course the Glazers are well versed in using United's cash flow to earn them money however it comes.

Also ManU wont have FFPR issues in any case.