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. 

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. 

I'm not as convinced as you about city staying up.  They can't score goals.

My hypothetical situation was the SMC go bust, forfeiting the lease which would then be available

Balls to City for too long have they looked down on us like the unwanted brother, hope they go down, we take control of the stadium and give them a taste of their own medicine.

In situations such as this, club owners usually seek to acquire ownership/control of a stadium due to potential development opportunities arising from acquisition of the land surrounding the sports stadium. It's rare for owners to seek control of a stadium as a sole means within itself, they are rarely profitable as a standalone business. Even the proposed rebuild of Old Trafford has come with expansive plans for the redevelopment of the surrounding area.


Obviously, I have no idea of the finer financial details regarding SMC operating costs, but do we really want Thirkill & Hood to be saddled with a loss making operations if it is of only minimal benefit to Fc? Unless there are significant potential income streams to be had from the development of West Park, I'm not sure what the tangible benefits to Fc would be, aside from the fact the ground would have a splash of black & white here and there along with a couple of blow up pictures of Johnny Whiteley.


I too think City will survive on Saturday (think it might be Preston who fall), their away form is pretty good, way better than their home form (sounds like a certain other team not a million miles from here!!), and Portsmouth have nothing to play for, so reckon City will somehow scramble over the finishing line at the death. What the longer term future for the club and the owner is a good deal more uncertain however. In twelve months they've gone from a potential PL promotion to staring league one relegation in the face, which smacks of bad decision making and poor recruitment options.


For me, Thirkill & Hood taking control of the SMC may provide more problems than answers medium/long-term for our club than any potential benefits. Think we should acknowledge they didn't acquire their substantial personal wealth by making poor business decisions and I suspect that would be the case here too.    

This is exactly what I was getting at. 

As Jake says though it’s different scenario if the SMC itself goes bust.