With the continuing farce of the Olympic legacy with their Stadium we can only again give thanks that our negotiations for to move into the Commonwealth Stadium was conducted by all parties Council/Lottery funding committee/Government and City, without rancour, and with final agreement all round which resulted in everybody being the winner
The contract was signed before a single brick had been laid.
Our Council now receives over £5 million a year income from City.
Athletics have a state of the art 5,000 capacity stadium with modern facilities and east Manchester itself has ongoing regeneration with the new Etihad Sporting Campus being the next stage of its development.
I am not one to sing the praises of our council, but with the situation in east Manchester, lets give them and our Chairman at the time David Bernstein, loud applause for sitting down and hammering [ sic] out a contract in which everybody benefited.
London should of looked up north for guidance.
Commonwealth-Olympic Stadiums
posted on 11/10/11
If it isn't broke...
The 2002 Commonwealth games were a huge success for Manchester. The 2012 Olympics would have done well to learn from the success and foresight that Manchester had 10 years previously.
The OS is a classic case in point.
posted on 11/10/11
When you compare the farce that is going on in London and the way things were done in Manchester it does make you think that they haven't got a clue. Except in how to extract more money out of the public.
posted on 11/10/11
As I say, happy to be wrong, but isn’t it still under discussion, it was put into public consultation in mid September which a Manc mate of mine told me was not complete for 6 weeks? It is ground that Man City own and as such means they can lay some works to protect the site. Pretty sure you can’t build anything substantial yet? Your new owners have also said they want to buy the stadium as well. Signing a fixed rent contract simply means you have a home ground to play on, not sure what your point is there. All Spurs have asked for as transparent dealings and so far it hasn’t been forthcoming. Using the City deal as a good model is a cop out. Why is it a good model now, after what, 4 years since we ‘won’ the Olympics (what a prize eh) £9b of tax payers money! They couldn’t use it as a good model then as one of the first decisions taken was to remove the running track thus proving Spurs point. Where were Lord Coe and his mates when they were digging up that running track in a stadium that cost £200m at today’s prices to build and with public money you say?
Spurs came up with a perfectly good interpretation of the OPLC tender, including a novel and bold suggestion for satisfying the legacy element of athletics in the home of athletics in the UK, which was subsequently rejected as wholly unacceptable? The high court ruled in Spurs favour so now the DCMS call a halt confirming they messed up.
Not laying a single brick until everyone had agreed terms is not the same is it. In all likelihood it would still have been a building site now.
posted on 11/10/11
"Uefa have ruled that clubs that do not own the ground where they play (freehold and the structure) can not enter into a stadium naming rights deal without Uefa's AUTHORISATION."
This is how DC5 himself put it last week
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rule only says you need authrisation, so does anybody know what criteria UEFA will use in granting said authorisation?
Anyone.........
Anyone.........
No thought not, so pointless to bring it up really as for all we know it may be a pure rubber stamp exercise where a request to name will be passed on the payment of an ‘administration’ fee (UEFA do so hate the word bribe). Said fee costs would of course be passed on to any sponsor.
posted on 11/10/11
It's on page 3 of MafiaBoys article called "Olympic Stadium - Whom shall we invite" in fairness I did the capital letters.
posted on 11/10/11
T K o T, you will never get an answer from him..as he speaks complete nonsense...
posted on 11/10/11
Well he can ignore me as I filter him, but please be free to remind him of what he said yourself.
posted on 11/10/11
This his response on other thread..
DC5 (U10317)
posted 1 minute ago
I'll have to drag it out of the archives, it was in the Guardian about 6 months ago - I'll post the link this evening.
posted on 11/10/11
Like a person with his views on immigration reads the Guardian.
posted on 11/10/11
DC5 seems to invent situations to suit his own opinion...!!
ADUG who are the owners of City have stated that they are happy with the relationship with the council.........and has i said in the article, the stadium contract also involved the Government and lottery funding.........when public funds are involved a water tight agreement was needed..
also, the council has a cash cow for decades...and do not want a one-off payment.....and being a council-tax payer of Manchester I agree with the council on that one...