Man City - Etihad Campus

Azza

Azza

Azza

Caporegime
Joined
6 Dec 2005
Posts
37,858
Location
Birmingham
This looks superb!

http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/2011/July/Etihad-Campus-consultation-to-open

http://www.manchestercityfootballacademy.co.uk/

• A new Academy for up to 400 young players with classrooms for 200
• On site accommodation for junior and senior players
• 16 football pitches, up to 12 of them dedicated to players aged from 8 to 18
• A state of the art first team building with changing rooms, gym, refectory and injury and rehab centre
• A 7,000 capacity stadium for youth matches
• Staff offices and a dedicated media centre
• A bridge linking the site to the Etihad Stadium and the rest of the Etihad Campus


Unlike Chelsea, Man City seem to be properly planning for their future and future football in Manchester which is super I think, good on them. :)
 
I was going to post this but i didnt think threads regarding individual clubs was allowed.
Anyways.....

It is great news for East Manchester mainly but Manchester as a whole will benefit.

It will also really help FFP not necessarily through the amount of money we will get through it but it will prove to UEFA we are not just spending hundreds of millions on players and staff but we are looking to improve further are already highly successful academy and it will also be helping get 'Grass Roots' football etc back on track in England.

The infrastructure that will come with this will be good for tourism also for Manchester, there is going to be dedicated tram lines etc
 
Last edited:
Biz.Kid09 said:
I was going to post this but i didnt think threads regarding individual clubs was allowed.
Click to expand...

You are not allowed generic threads about an individual club, but my understanding is you are allowed to create new threads about a specific topic even if it primarily relates to one club. So this thread will be fine so long as it doesn't evolve into a thread about MC in general.
 
I don't particularly like the way teams go about trying to buy success so it's good to see Man City planning for a more sustainable future.
 
One of the reasons Chelsea haven't done this is pretty simple, theres smeg all space around Chelsea, if they could they would basically, I'm fairly sure considering Roman's long term goals of making an actual profit that if Chelsea could have built a 100k seater stadium on the plot they have now, they would have.

Little surprised to see City aren't just building a 80-100k seater stadium themselves with half of the rest of what they said in that area, then either using the existing stadium for other events or paying the City to knock it down and reusing the land for something more profitable. Long term City need a vastly vastly bigger stadium to be financially stable so using all the land they can get thats close, for small scale stuff seems well intentioned, but ultimately a bit daft.
 
drunkenmaster said:
Little surprised to see City aren't just building a 80-100k seater stadium themselves with half of the rest of what they said in that area, then either using the existing stadium for other events or paying the City to knock it down and reusing the land for something more profitable. Long term City need a vastly vastly bigger stadium to be financially stable so using all the land they can get thats close, for small scale stuff seems well intentioned, but ultimately a bit daft.
Click to expand...

They don't even fill their stadium as it is so it would be pointless. The only way city will ever make a profit is if they increase their fanbase.
 
mufcmark said:
They don't even fill their stadium as it is so it would be pointless. The only way city will ever make a profit is if they increase their fanbase.
Click to expand...


This, and that'll take a bit more than winning the FA Cup a couple of times. They're going to have to win the PL & CL quite a few times before they are even near filling out a 80k seater stadium. You talk some rubbish at times DM it's rather incredible.
 
Where did I say they fill up their stadium, or could fill up a 80k seater stadium instantly?

INcreasing their fanbase, genius, won't do anything unless that turns into ticket sales. UTD/Arsenal game day income is 100mil a year give or take, City's is, iirc, around 25-30mil, even if they sell out, they won't get very high there.

Chelsea have increased their fan based dramatically over the past 7 seasons........ how many extra seats is that bringing them, how much extra cash? Smeg all without a bigger stadium basically.

City are buying success, anyone who thinks they won't fill more seats every year is utterly deluded, the fact that they could win the league next year added to the fact that building a stadium will take 4 years. Honestly City in the CL and pushing for the title if not winning one, and winning other cups in 4 years will mean the ability to massively increase arses in seats.

Success breed's fans, its as simple as that, there are more City fans today, than this time last year, and there will be more next year, and loads more in 4 years, when a stadium could potentially be finished.



The people who go and sit in corporate boxes paid for to wine and dine clients go for thousands every week, and bring in the MAJORITY of Arsenal's match day income, not a minor part of it. A new stadium + success would bring in corporate clients essentially the second they are ready, even if the other 30k seats take years to fill up, it won't make much difference.

City's key way to improve profits is via a stadium, have you noticed, West Ham are desparate for a stadium, Spurs are, Chelsea are, they are more desparate for a stadium capacity. Fan base when no one can watch them, and worst of all, minimal real corporate facilities is worthless, they are buying success, fans will come with that, the single biggest thing they can do, thats also got no chance of being called cheating, is building a stadium.

Arsenal/Utd both mostly make more from match day income than media income(though Utd beat matchday income now and then) Commercial income is 20-30mil lower than match day income, yet City want to spend MORE than Utd on wages, significantly. The best supported club in the world doesn't make more commercially than their match day income, what chance to City have(without cheating), and where will they make up that 70mil they lose to Arsenal/Utd on matchday income, nowhere is the answer, they HAVE to have a new bigger stadium, there is literally no other option around.

How many of the top 4 clubs in any leagues have small capacity, and how many of those are being run financially soundly. Long term success for City = bigger stadium, Chelsea are the only other team really not to have a huge capacity, and they lose 10's of mils every single year, after 8 years of success, league titles, increasing fan base, winnings, commercial growth, etc, etc, why do they still lose so much, tiny stadium. If they jumped to a 100k seater stadium, it would take a few years and a bit more success to fill it, but they'd be financially stable.
 
Last edited:
if a football club, also owned other business's. could they use the cash generated by those business's for transfers and wages, etc, under financial fair play?

e.g. I own 100% shares of Chelsea and I then buy a hotel using Chelsea FC's trading company and call it Chelsea FC Hotel, and it's a 5 star hotel and generates £100 million a year, could that money be used by the football team, since it's all money being generated by the same company?

Arsenal already make money from hospitality, etc from within the stadium, i dont see the difference tbh.
 
Only money made from the immediate surroundings of the stadium.

edit: For what it's worth, I think it's a flawed rule. How can non-football related income be ok if it's generated within a certain distance of the stadium but not if it's outside a certain distance? If it's non-football related then it's non-football related and shouldn't be included regardless.
 
Last edited:
DM we dont need a bigger stadium for a while yet, looking at what city are doing they are laying the foundations for a bigger fanbase world wide first, which will generate the need for the bigger stadium at a later date. Oh and i will gurantee you it will be in their plans, but they will be doing it correctly and not rushing into things.

Etihad Campus i believe is a fantastic idea and would greatly benefit the club long term more so than a bigger stadium, this will also benefit manchester as a whole and definately get the council on the football teams side... always a handy thing to have for planning permission ;)
 
Well I was at City of Manchester Stadium/Etihad Stadium/Sports City today for community sports session doing Emergency Aid and Child Welfare. This was in conjunction with a lot of local sporting bodies such as Manchester FA & Local boxing clubs etc. Even as a Ud fan I was impressed with the vision of the Arabs.

Outside the London Olympics this is the biggest investment in sporting facilities in Europe and their is a ten year development plan to leave a lasting legacy on what is a low income/high unemployment community. Just across the road from middleEastlands is a £25m BMX complex opening in four weeks.
 
401888802.jpg


Thats a model of the new academy that will be built and the surrounding buildings also.

The site will have 15 pitches, 2 half pitches, 7000 seat arena, places for 400 young players and 200 schoolkids

campusNight.ashx


Fly Through---http://www.mcfc.co.uk/Video/Features/Planned-Academy-flythrough
 
Last edited:
7000 seats for a youth stadium? When on earth are they expecting to fill that?

Looks snazzy otherwise though.
BaZ87 said:
Only money made from the immediate surroundings of the stadium.

edit: For what it's worth, I think it's a flawed rule. How can non-football related income be ok if it's generated within a certain distance of the stadium but not if it's outside a certain distance? If it's non-football related then it's non-football related and shouldn't be included regardless.
Click to expand...
Makes sense to me. It encourages the clubs to reinvest in their local area, and at the same time keeps them tied there, rather than only by the ground.

drunkenmaster said:
If they jumped to a 100k seater stadium, it would take a few years and a bit more success to fill it, but they'd be financially stable.
Click to expand...
A smaller, but full stadium is miles better for atmosphere than a large, half-empty one.
 
Weebull said:
7000 seats for a youth stadium? When on earth are they expecting to fill that?

Looks snazzy otherwise though.
Click to expand...
I think that the reason behind it is that if the reserves play practically in the centre of Manchester more people will go as we currently play out of Manchester pretty much.

Also if they changed game times for example to be before late kick offs etc then fans would go there before the 1st team games etc
 
Biz.Kid09 said:
I think that the reason behind it is that if the reserves play practically in the centre of Manchester more people will go as we currently play out of Manchester pretty much.

Also if they changed game times for example to be before late kick offs etc then fans would go there before the 1st team games etc
Click to expand...

It's thinking ahead but it's also a statement. Our owners want to have the best football academy in known existence. We've gone and looked at every other academy worth its salt so we can see what can be done better. No point building a 2k stadium now to uproot it and build a 7k stadium if you can afford to build a 7k in the first place. The grander the plans also means the more jobs/time/money into the local economy, which is half the reason the plans will be approved in the first place.

http://mcfc.co.uk/Video/Features/Planned-Academy-flythrough

A nice CGI fly through to get a better idea.

These are truly fantastic, fantastic plans. Very excited to see how this project develops not just the area but the club in general.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom