Jake the Peg:DSJ1983:
It’s a genuine question as I have no idea about how it all works but what would be the advantage of having the SMC for our owners personally? Didn’t think it was a massive money spinner (especially if as the original posters states they owe City money) or does it all hinge on the proposed development? I remember the spat between AP and the Allam’s when they controlled it but that aside I don’t think anyone’s ever really fought over it.
FWIW City will stay up it’s in their own hands against a side with nothing to play for so the immediate problems might not be so bad but looks like their wage bill is a lot higher then the team on the pitch are performing that’s usually when things start to go Pete Tong financially so it’s something that will eventually have an impact on us given the ground share situation.
City reportedly losing £1/2m a week
The benefit to us is control over where we play. Currently we get 2nd dibs on everything and have no surety of tenancy beyond next year as far as we all know
Yeah obviously it would be a no brainer from a strictly club/supporters perspective but that’s why I said owners personally, I imagine it would be a significant cost to them that’s why I’m genuinely interested if it would make sense to them long term as I have no idea of the arrangement/cost controlling the SMC is to Cities owners. Unless he’s just been very coy we can only go off what AT has said publicly, I was surprised that the stadium situation didn’t seem that much of a big deal when questioned at the fans forum very much we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it was my impression.
Like I say after Saturday it’s probably less of an issue as they’ll likely confirm their championship status, but if they did go do down that wage bill looks staggering big changes will have to happen on and off the field for them something that’s going to effect us one way or another.
