Ripleyscate, what are yopu going on a about??? Sorry but I was actually defending City but telling them to do it in stages and see were you go from there! But you seem to be very angry and think all United fans are actually bothered and for some strange reason, you thought my post was a wum??? Take a deep breathe next time!
comment by RipleysCat (U1862) posted 18 hours, 49 minutes ago
"beacuse for City to own the stadium they would have to buy if from the council who would then have 100mil or whatever to spend on the people and improve the city"
As opposed to receiving (as it stands) £3m per year for the next 240-odd years? Which, inflation notwithstanding, would equate to over £700m going to the Council.
--------------------------------------------------------
Ya you really believe City is going to use that stadium for 240 years? Also 100mil was a thumb suck I have no idea how much they would sell for, considering the stadiums built for the WC in SA cost around 350mil each I'd say the council would sell for around 400mil. It would represent good business for both parties I guess. Anyway very side tracked from the original topic.
blademaster20 (U6559)
Where abouts in SA do you live? I've seen the site of the stadium in Green Bay (not the finished product though) and I'd be surprised if it will ever pay for itself.
I'm from Durban but live in Cape Town. The reason it will never pay for itself is that local football doesn't get huge crowds and the WC stadiums are not even used for most league games. Tickets are available from R60 thats less that 5 pounds for adults! The clubs do not own the stadiums, as they were built exclusively for the WC. It will never pay for itself but that is irrelevant as the purposes of building were vastly different. I'd urge you to google images, the stadiums are magnificent and they are used as tourist attractions that make money in that way to cover running costs. The construction costs were paid for through taxes and some of it was made back through the WC. It is a legacy and a statement to show that SA can produce world class facilities and host a great event.
Google Green Point stadium - Cape Town
Moses Mabida - Durban
Soccer City - Soweto/Jhb
Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium
In fact every single stadium is brilliant.
Anyway City can afford to pay for it themselves, remember expenditure on stadium and facilities is not counted in FFP, also with the full stadiums, high ticket prices merchandising etc it would easily pay for itself.
blademaster20 (U6559)
Where abouts in Cape Town do you live mate? I spent 6 months there with work - absolutely love the place!
Re: the stadiums - they're a great legacy now, but if they're not used and not maintained, they'll soon become an ugly legacy, sadly.
If we want to increase the revenus coming into the Etihad Stadium the only way this can be done without raising the prices to much is by increasing the ground capcity. All I amsayin gis that this should be done a.s.a.p., so as to booost the clubs revenue.
The longer the club leaves it the more it will eventually cost the club to go through with those plans.
blademaster20 (U6559)
You don't get it. It makes more financial sense to lease the stadium than to buy it, why should the owners throw money away to make to meaningless macho statement.
As for the stadiums in SA - I agree they look fantastic but weren't they a waste of money as they'll probably never be used to their full potential again.
comment by askdannyjeeves (U8241) posted 15 hours, 59 minutes ago
blademaster20 (U6559)
Where abouts in Cape Town do you live mate? I spent 6 months there with work - absolutely love the place!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I live in the Northern Suburbs a place called Bellville about 25min from the City centre. Its inland so it has the best weather not as rainy as the coast plus its near the wine farms
Boris - I agree that they were a waste of money in some ways, it really is unsustainable and they are being called "White Elephants" here. However the point was to show Africa as a modern and thriving region and economy. I'm sure 100% of people who visited loved the place and it did a lot for the country in terms of good will etc. We are also going to host the AFCON 2012 and we won't have to spend a cent. Also the WC allowed us to upgrade airports and roads.
I disagree that it makes more financial sense to lease stadiums. If the stadium is owned, key decisions susch as upgrades, sponsorships, renaming etc are all within the clubs control. It is an asset and can be hired out for concerts and shows to increase revenue. Full gates are kept by the club. In Italy stadiums were historically leased to clubs, now they are moving away from this and Juventus recently built their own stadium. Every major club in the world (bar the Milan giants) owns their own stadium. There are pros and cons to both of course, but I would think if City are planning on increasing size they may as well buy it.
I disagree that it makes more financial sense to lease stadiums. If the stadium is owned, key decisions susch as upgrades, sponsorships, renaming etc are all within the clubs control. It is an asset and can be hired out for concerts and shows to increase revenue. Full gates are kept by the club.
City have total control over every aspect of the stadium including naming rights and upgrades. There were 10 Take That concerts there in the Summer which earned the club a sizeable amount of money.
People buy houses because they increase in value and can be bought and sold with relative ease, football stadia are the exact opposite in comparison. In practical terms they are only worth the land they stand on which in the case of City or United is minimal - No other sporting organisation would be interested in buying either and the number of sports they can be used for is limited anyway.
"City have total control over every aspect of the stadium including naming rights and upgrades"
Not sure that's true, actually.
Fair points I will not argue as I don't know the terms of the lease. I would think owning your own stadium is a good way to increase revenue like the Juve example but then again West Ham and Spurs are fighting for the Olympic Stadium so it does point to the fact that it does have its positives. As stated earlier both methods have pros and cons.
Sign in if you want to comment
Raising the Capacity
Page 6 of 6
6
posted on 7/9/11
Ripleyscate, what are yopu going on a about??? Sorry but I was actually defending City but telling them to do it in stages and see were you go from there! But you seem to be very angry and think all United fans are actually bothered and for some strange reason, you thought my post was a wum??? Take a deep breathe next time!
posted on 8/9/11
comment by RipleysCat (U1862) posted 18 hours, 49 minutes ago
"beacuse for City to own the stadium they would have to buy if from the council who would then have 100mil or whatever to spend on the people and improve the city"
As opposed to receiving (as it stands) £3m per year for the next 240-odd years? Which, inflation notwithstanding, would equate to over £700m going to the Council.
--------------------------------------------------------
Ya you really believe City is going to use that stadium for 240 years? Also 100mil was a thumb suck I have no idea how much they would sell for, considering the stadiums built for the WC in SA cost around 350mil each I'd say the council would sell for around 400mil. It would represent good business for both parties I guess. Anyway very side tracked from the original topic.
posted on 8/9/11
blademaster20 (U6559)
Where abouts in SA do you live? I've seen the site of the stadium in Green Bay (not the finished product though) and I'd be surprised if it will ever pay for itself.
posted on 8/9/11
I'm from Durban but live in Cape Town. The reason it will never pay for itself is that local football doesn't get huge crowds and the WC stadiums are not even used for most league games. Tickets are available from R60 thats less that 5 pounds for adults! The clubs do not own the stadiums, as they were built exclusively for the WC. It will never pay for itself but that is irrelevant as the purposes of building were vastly different. I'd urge you to google images, the stadiums are magnificent and they are used as tourist attractions that make money in that way to cover running costs. The construction costs were paid for through taxes and some of it was made back through the WC. It is a legacy and a statement to show that SA can produce world class facilities and host a great event.
Google Green Point stadium - Cape Town
Moses Mabida - Durban
Soccer City - Soweto/Jhb
Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium
In fact every single stadium is brilliant.
Anyway City can afford to pay for it themselves, remember expenditure on stadium and facilities is not counted in FFP, also with the full stadiums, high ticket prices merchandising etc it would easily pay for itself.
posted on 8/9/11
blademaster20 (U6559)
Where abouts in Cape Town do you live mate? I spent 6 months there with work - absolutely love the place!
Re: the stadiums - they're a great legacy now, but if they're not used and not maintained, they'll soon become an ugly legacy, sadly.
posted on 8/9/11
If we want to increase the revenus coming into the Etihad Stadium the only way this can be done without raising the prices to much is by increasing the ground capcity. All I amsayin gis that this should be done a.s.a.p., so as to booost the clubs revenue.
The longer the club leaves it the more it will eventually cost the club to go through with those plans.
posted on 8/9/11
blademaster20 (U6559)
You don't get it. It makes more financial sense to lease the stadium than to buy it, why should the owners throw money away to make to meaningless macho statement.
As for the stadiums in SA - I agree they look fantastic but weren't they a waste of money as they'll probably never be used to their full potential again.
posted on 9/9/11
comment by askdannyjeeves (U8241) posted 15 hours, 59 minutes ago
blademaster20 (U6559)
Where abouts in Cape Town do you live mate? I spent 6 months there with work - absolutely love the place!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I live in the Northern Suburbs a place called Bellville about 25min from the City centre. Its inland so it has the best weather not as rainy as the coast plus its near the wine farms
Boris - I agree that they were a waste of money in some ways, it really is unsustainable and they are being called "White Elephants" here. However the point was to show Africa as a modern and thriving region and economy. I'm sure 100% of people who visited loved the place and it did a lot for the country in terms of good will etc. We are also going to host the AFCON 2012 and we won't have to spend a cent. Also the WC allowed us to upgrade airports and roads.
I disagree that it makes more financial sense to lease stadiums. If the stadium is owned, key decisions susch as upgrades, sponsorships, renaming etc are all within the clubs control. It is an asset and can be hired out for concerts and shows to increase revenue. Full gates are kept by the club. In Italy stadiums were historically leased to clubs, now they are moving away from this and Juventus recently built their own stadium. Every major club in the world (bar the Milan giants) owns their own stadium. There are pros and cons to both of course, but I would think if City are planning on increasing size they may as well buy it.
posted on 9/9/11
I disagree that it makes more financial sense to lease stadiums. If the stadium is owned, key decisions susch as upgrades, sponsorships, renaming etc are all within the clubs control. It is an asset and can be hired out for concerts and shows to increase revenue. Full gates are kept by the club.
City have total control over every aspect of the stadium including naming rights and upgrades. There were 10 Take That concerts there in the Summer which earned the club a sizeable amount of money.
People buy houses because they increase in value and can be bought and sold with relative ease, football stadia are the exact opposite in comparison. In practical terms they are only worth the land they stand on which in the case of City or United is minimal - No other sporting organisation would be interested in buying either and the number of sports they can be used for is limited anyway.
posted on 9/9/11
"City have total control over every aspect of the stadium including naming rights and upgrades"
Not sure that's true, actually.
posted on 9/9/11
Fair points I will not argue as I don't know the terms of the lease. I would think owning your own stadium is a good way to increase revenue like the Juve example but then again West Ham and Spurs are fighting for the Olympic Stadium so it does point to the fact that it does have its positives. As stated earlier both methods have pros and cons.
Page 6 of 6
6