Man city's lease and terms actually make it better than ownership..... They pay peanuts, got 250 year lease and don't even have to pay rent if attendance is less than maine road I believe.....They got a dream deal.
Ive no idea about Newcastle situation but can imagine it's far more messy .....
Man city's lease and terms actually make it better than ownership..... They pay peanuts, got 250 year lease and don't even have to pay rent if attendance is less than maine road I believe.....They got a dream deal.
Ive no idea about Newcastle situation but can imagine it's far more messy .....
With Manchester City's deal it's really complex I guess the best way to put it is that the council get paid rent on a ring-fenced band between 33500(or so)and 47500 (the club paid for and built the extension that added 7500 additional seats) but the monies have to be spent to cover sporting costs in the Manchester area.
I know when the owners took over they looked closely into the deal and it turned out that it was better than ownership and the money that they could have used for that they have spent on regenerating a large part of East Manchester building a "training complex" calling it that really doesn't do it the justice it deserves and it has also led to a close working relationship between the ownership group and the City which has been the driving force behind a quite wide-ranging regeneration, going way beyond simply the football of East Manchester which some might know was pretty much the worst and most deprived area in Manchester.
Back to the original question though what about all the Leeds takeovers, Leeds haven't owned their ground for ages,