Don’t most clubs come with a football stadium? What point are you making?
1 Like
Well, Not a relatively new stadium with a capacity of 50k. That to for a club of City’s fanbase. I do think that proved a major point in the Sheikhs deciding to buy the club and also Thaksin Sinawatra before them.
If only Manchester had another Premier League club that might be interested in a new stadium 
8 Likes
Not enough. Expulsion from the Premier League must follow.
How much did Tottenham have to pay to get the new stadium done ? As did Everton etc.
City paid what 22m initially for the stadium of close to 50k capacity and , Yes. They have done upgrades to it later. But it’s still a substantial asset in hand.
1 Like
That would be hilarious
1 Like
They have put a billion quid into the stadium since they bought it. What the city council contributed to the original construction is about what city paid in legal fees a year to fight this case
2 Likes
Bonus, ITK
Can you tell me where you are getting your figures from ?
I was under the impression that Man City pay lease on a 250 year contract.
They paid 20m initially , 50m for improvements to add another 7k seats (2014-2015) and another 300m only recently done
Or are you referring to the entire complex around the stadium ?
And the Shiekhs could afford to easily spend on the global Etihad campus etc etc because they already had a modern , built up stadium for them.
Tottenham built their stadium for close to a billion, Everton got theirs for 750m , City got their stadium for relative peanuts and had the money to obviously build other football infrastructure around it.
1 Like
Spurs built a state of the art entertainment complex that included a football pitch. The city of Manchester built a relatively cheap athletics stadium on a strict budget that was needed enormous investment to match the state of the art football stadiums of the time, or to keep pace with the next generation stadiums that would come later.
You can probably make an argument that the new location was a better one than the old Moss Side location for this sort of expansion
1 Like
And Manchester City negotiated the rights for the name of the stadium and gave it to Etihad for 15m a year. They give the City of Manchester the amount on the lease and pocket the rest.
That’s again a related party payment back there.
1 Like
1 Like
I disagree. After the calciapoli scandal in Italy, that season’s winner was left void due to Juve winning the league but being heavily involved in the scandal.
Inter do go around claiming it, but the record books leave it empty, as the league never officially gave it to them. Same thing needs to happen here
The Etihad stadium rights deal is 15m a year , Man City paid the City 3m a year on lease for the stadium.
They probably got 120m over a 10 year period from that money laundering scheme alone. And then added a bit more to build that academy. That academy is a huge source of profits to them now.
During the same time, They could keep their teams very competitive as well because the stadium wasn’t eating into their revenue. Not that they didn’t cheat there too with all the other 130 charges cases.
All the time when other clubs have had to spend out of their own pockets or take exorbitant loans to increase their stadium footfall to maximize their earnings as per FFP.
1 Like
Did they buy it?
I thought they were leasing it from the council after the city built it for the Commonwealth Games?
And I’m not talking of the overall Etihad deal which is 80m odd a year. This is just the stadium naming deal which is 15m a year
So massive cheating after being given a huge favour by the City of Manchester right there.
Heads ought to roll over there too.
Built by oil money, I imagine Ratcliffe will be all over it right now.
And you’re not allowed to offer extra incentives to sign individual academy players, like private school education. So City offer that to everyone. No favouritism, so not against the rules. But other clubs can’t compete with that.
3 Likes