Did they buy it or rent it after the Olympics? Either way, I can’t imagine it was cheap to move there.
I thought that only applied to academy infrastructure? I’d class new training grounds and stadiums as infrastructure and I’m pretty sure they count towards PSR. I could be wrong.
It was very cheap, they barely pay anything for it. Nope, all infrastructure, women's teams and academies are deductible. It's why Everton got in trouble as they claimed a loan was taken out solely for the construction of their stadium and thus the interest should be deductible, but it was found they were using it for the general running of the club.
It was peanuts to rent it , all security costs paid for by the taxpayer indirectly and they sold the old ground for development - not a bad state of affairs to be honest - and we got a 25 k stadium so that FC could fill it once a year against rovers - oh hang on !
They only paid £15m towards the costs of converting it to a football stadium (it cost £323m) and the rent is £3.6m a year, but due to someone cocking up the terms, it's estimated that the tax-payer still pays up to £1m a week towards it's running costs.
Their owners spent a lot on it and the surrounding area. Though Allan wouldn’t have done as it is on a lease not owned and who spends money on a council house?
Built for £112m Converted to football for £42m £22 paid by council, £20m by the Mancs but I believe they also lease it from the Council
Man City have subsequently spent £300m expanding and improving the stadium, along with another £200m on the Academy (they pay £3m a year rent).
Jesus. Just read a bit about it and it seems the taxpayer and a few other parties have been shafted. West Ham’s rent doesn’t even cover the costs for match day operations let alone any other maintenance. Pretty unfair that taxpayers are subsidising privately-owned football clubs. Didn’t Jim Ratcliffe want a new stadium for Man Utd to be paid for using public funds too? Cheeky ****.
Ratcliffe wanted the council involved in the development, but not the actual stadium, only the residential stuff around it.
My in laws are are 'ammers fans, and they couldn't believe how little they contribute to the stadium, talk about falling on their feet !
So it’s basically irrelevant if the ban is reduced because we have a wage limit in place AND have to stay within FFP? The whole system is ****ing corrupt, some clubs can spend £300 million but we can’t spend 2% of that
Premier league clubs have a different PSR limit. But it is the same level of losses permitted for the whole competition. We would theoretically be able to spend 300m annually under PSR if we generated 287m of that figure ourselves. The reason we have a wage limit in place is because of significant concerns that Acun can't afford to meet the clubs running costs going forward having missed multiple payments due before this. It's not a conspiracy and Acun created the mess, not the EFL.
To be fair we have been spending well beyond our means. No idea what the next set of accounts are going to show but can’t imagine it’s pretty. We did spend about £30m last window
