Well City had to give Manchester City Council, Maine Rd in exchange for the Etihad. The council then sold Maine Rd to property developers for quite a tidy fee. The land was used to build affordable housing for the local people in the area.
On top of that City had to pay 20 million to have the stadium renovated into one fit for purpose for football.
Now City pay the council for the lease of the stadium. It is estimated at over 5 million pounds a year. In 2014/15 it was 4.3 million as you can see clearly from the link I have posted below. The link is from MCC who gave out the figures under the freedom of information act. The increased revenue now comes from the increase of stadium capacity. Initially the lease was for 2-3 million a year. City have been in the stadium now for over 10 years. A conservative estimate would be that City have paid the council 35 million in rent over the last 13 years.
If you say City valued Maine Rd at 20 million (a reasonable figure considering the housing developer sold 450 houses at an average of 125000 ), the over the last 13 years it has cost City at least 75 million (it will be a lot more than that due to stipulations into the council receiving money for the naming rights deal). City are also responsible for every other cost associated with the stadium.
The stadium cost 110 million and City have a 250 year lease on it. It is an absolutely fantastic deal for the council and the local people. Let's be honest here, City could afford to buy the stadium outright quite easily. They choose not to do so because it would not be beneficial to the local community in comparison to the current agreement. This is because Sport England would receive 2 thirds of any sale fee as they initially invested 77 million into the build. The council keep all the lease money on the agreement all the money is then invested back into the local community. City also own all the land surrounding the stadium. The training complex which was built on contaminated land cost just as much as the stadium. City have totally transformed what was a shit hole of a local area (I know this as I live 1.2 mile away from the ground.
The deal for the stadium is nothing short of a resounding success. It is a great deal for the council, the local people and Manchester City.
As for your snide financial doping comment, it just reeks of bitterness. Yes City got lucky, there is no hiding away from that but they have fully capitalised on their bit of luck. The value of the club and assets far exceeds the investment that has been put in. The club now run at a profit, they do not pay the highest wages and our record transfer is KDB at 55 million. They also play beautiful and enertaining football.
That is absolutely no basis in 2017 for your financial doping jibe. 8 years ago the club had no other choice than to invest heavily. You don't go from also rans to consistently challenging without a lot of investment. Yet them days are long gone. The established elite have had their noses put out and they do not like it one bit. Fuck them.
Also Gary Neville tweeted that united have spent 660 million on transfers since Taggart left the club. Why is that alright but not OK for City?