United Thread - 2023/24

Status
Not open for further replies.
chedinho said:
How would this differ with City’s stadium agreement?
United would not be the first club in Manchester to benefit from facilities built with public money. Their Abu Dhabi-owned rivals City are council tenants at the Etihad, formerly known as the City of Manchester Stadium, a 48,000-seat venue built for the 2002 Commonwealth Games. Around £78 million from the national lottery and £49 million from Manchester City Council contributed to its build and it was converted to a football stadium at the public’s expense too.


I thought City paid for the conversion.

Abu Dhabi owned? Lol
Click to expand...
Pretty much everything is wrong with the statement above, is it Red issue or Sky sports ?
 
chedinho said:
How would this differ with City’s stadium agreement?
United would not be the first club in Manchester to benefit from facilities built with public money. Their Abu Dhabi-owned rivals City are council tenants at the Etihad, formerly known as the City of Manchester Stadium, a 48,000-seat venue built for the 2002 Commonwealth Games. Around £78 million from the national lottery and £49 million from Manchester City Council contributed to its build and it was converted to a football stadium at the public’s expense too.


I thought City paid for the conversion.

Abu Dhabi owned? Lol
Click to expand...
Think we paid half, paid for South stand expansion paying for North stand complex, maintenance and paid a fair amount in rent over last 20 years. Think it's been a good deal for Manchester council the City of Manchester in general and of course MCFC.
 
i kne albert davy said:
Think we paid half, paid for South stand expansion paying for North stand complex, maintenance and paid a fair amount in rent over last 20 years. Think it's been a good deal for Manchester council the City of Manchester in general and of course MCFC.
Click to expand...
And without the stadium (as it was then), we wouldn’t have had the Commonwealth games

And without a tenant (us) lined up after its use for the above….
 
MikeF said:
And without the stadium (as it was then), we wouldn’t have had the Commonwealth games

And without a tenant (us) lined up after its use for the above….
Click to expand...
That's right, without us to move in would have been a giant white elephant for the council. Which they would probably be forking out to demolish now, worked out well for all concerned.
 
i kne albert davy said:
That's right, without us to move in would have been a giant white elephant for the council. Which they would probably be forking out to demolish now, worked out well for all concerned.
Click to expand...
Within City agreeing to take over the stadium after the Commonwealth Games, there would have been no stadium.

MCC would have erected a temporary stadium for the games, and that would have been that.
 
chedinho said:
How would this differ with City’s stadium agreement?
United would not be the first club in Manchester to benefit from facilities built with public money. Their Abu Dhabi-owned rivals City are council tenants at the Etihad, formerly known as the City of Manchester Stadium, a 48,000-seat venue built for the 2002 Commonwealth Games. Around £78 million from the national lottery and £49 million from Manchester City Council contributed to its build and it was converted to a football stadium at the public’s expense too.


I thought City paid for the conversion.

Abu Dhabi owned? Lol
Click to expand...
City paid for the conversion to a football stadium
 
i kne albert davy said:
That's right, without us to move in would have been a giant white elephant for the council. Which they would probably be forking out to demolish now, worked out well for all concerned.
Click to expand...
It's also worth pointing out the fact that City actually paid their taxes in the lead up to getting the stadium. The rags, meanwhile, and their new 'owner' both have a long history of avoiding tax. Don't pay tax, don't feel entitled to public money.

And finally, our owners have actually invested in the surrounding area, to the public have more than made their money back on the deal. The Glazers, on the other hand, have done absolutely nothing for the local area.
 
Vienna_70 said:
Within City agreeing to take over the stadium after the Commonwealth Games, there would have been no stadium.

MCC would have erected a temporary stadium for the games, and that would have been that.
Click to expand...
The stadium area and the land currently being developed would probably still be wasteland today. The wider development would also not have been driven. The council have gained millions instead of having a derelict hazardous eyesore for decades.
 
i kne albert davy said:
That's right, without us to move in would have been a giant white elephant for the council. Which they would probably be forking out to demolish now, worked out well for all concerned.
Click to expand...
Just like the Don Valley Stadium in Sheffield, I know a few years ago the good folk of Sheffield were still bearing the costs in their Council Tax. The World Student Games it was built for was demolished 25 years later after hardly being used.

I’ve just looked it up and refinancing and debt payments were 658m which is staggering, the article says the debt will finally be repaid this year some 33 years later, could you imagine the indignation of the Sheffield Council if Trafford was given a huge subsidy to develop the shit hole that’s Old Toilet,
 
moh said:
The football subroutine for Rashford AI would be piss easy to write

10 Set Run_speed =max
20 Set Shot_speed =smash
30 Goto 10




(^one for the ZX Spectrum buffs. IYKYK^)
Click to expand...
10 Set Drink_speed =max
20 Set Tequila Shot_speed =smashed
30 Goto the pub
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top