Jump to content

The Official Manchester City Thread


Jonathan Fairfield

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 7.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
11 minutes ago, champers said:

It's only an ROI if someone does take money out. 

But that doesn't have to be straight away. It could be when you eventually sell your share. When you think about this deal it's huge. Silverlake have paid more for a 10% stake than what Ashley wanted for the whole of Newcastle

 

BTW. Our owner could only gift money within the FFP rules. He couldn't just gift hundred's of millions. The thing is, people were slagging off the 1 billion that our owner spent. After today, he still owns 70+ % of a club that's worth over 4 billion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mrbojangles said:

BTW. Our owner could only gift money within the FFP rules. He couldn't just gift hundred's of millions. 

But there are plenty of ways around that.....

 

And this deal applies to City Football Group. Manchester City is a club administered by that holding company. It is the football club which is subject to UEFA rules. The success of Silverlake's investment into City Football Group isn't dependent on City the club. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mrbojangles said:

After today, he still owns 70+ % of a club that's worth over 4 billion

Wrong again. It is City Football Group and all its entities that is valued at around 4 billion. Those entities / assets are only there because of what the owner has pumped in so far (a lot more than the 1 billion on City the club, I think).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RickG16 said:

Wrong again. It is City Football Group and all its entities that is valued at around 4 billion. Those entities / assets are only there because of what the owner has pumped in so far (a lot more than the 1 billion on City the club, I think).

What do you mean wrong again? Where have I been wrong already? Think your being a bit pedantic TBH Rick and I can understand that. You aren't keen on being knocked off your perch. These deals and ownerships are complex. Too complex for us to go into on here and figures will vary depending on what article you read. Yes it is the whole group which has the total value but in reality City are the main part of the group. SkySports earlier said about 3.1billion 

 

https://www.euronews.com/2019/11/27/manchester-city-seal-record-breaking-investment-deal-with-silver-lake

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-soccer-england-mci-silver-lake-deals/private-equity-firm-silver-lake-makes-500-million-investment-in-manchester-city-owner-idUSKBN1Y10FJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mrbojangles said:

Yes it is the whole group which has the total value but in reality City are the main part of the group. 

The main part maybe, but the group itself is not subject to UEFA rules. Especially not when it comes to clubs in Japan, USA, Australia etc. The group will be bankrolled as much as it needs to be.

 

Nothing to do with football here. Let's just get the facts right. You are trying to paint the Arab takeover as some kind of genius business move due to the value of the City Football Group. As I said, with that amount of capital, and some sensible people at the helm, it is almost harder to fail. 

 

Let's take a line from the Reuters piece you linked to. I think it sums everything up.

 

"The investment crowns a rags to riches story for Manchester City, which spent much of the 1990s in the doldrums but broke into the big league of world soccer with the help of Middle Eastern cash."

 

That's all there is to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RickG16 said:

"The investment crowns a rags to riches story for Manchester City, which spent much of the 1990s in the doldrums but broke into the big league of world soccer with the help of Middle Eastern cash."

 

That's all there is to it. 

Yep. And we have always been consistent in acknowledging that fact. There's nothing new and I don't understand your point cos we've always said it to be the case.

 

We are however, extremely well run. This isn't reckless money being thrown around

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RickG16 said:

broke into the big league of world soccer with the help of Middle Eastern cash."

Find me a City fan anywhere in the world who doesn't agree and acknowledge that - you won't, because we all do acknowledge we won the lottery when we were purchased by a great owner, bless him.

 

Looking back, when City were bought 11 years ago, all the sceptics in the media, Ferguson and his buddies at ManU, and the experts on TV forum said we'd never reach the top table, we'd never win anything, and remembering that always gives me a chuckle. ???? Now it's, "well if you throw money at it it's easy". Well no it isn't. We had to throw silly money at not so great players initially (which we were slatted for) in order to step forward to buying class players like Aguero, Silva, Yaya, KDB, etc. We had to invest wisely. We've invested in the ground and the infrastructure. We've developed links and associations worldwide. We had to choose the right managers (yes Pep was always the target but we trusted Mancini and he moved us forward with trophies and most importantly mentally, we trusted Pellegrini and we were in very good hands). So yes of course having money helps - I've repeatedly argued on these threads over the years that the wealthiest clubs going way back in English football history (in various decades, the likes of Huddersfield, Arsenal, ManU, Liverpool, etc) have always had the advantage over the not so rich clubs - that's obvious. But it's the way you spend it (just look at ManU's spending in say the past 6 years: been struggling to find the right players, the right manager, etc), and the decisions you make along the way, the people you employ, etc. Ok so over to you lot to raise FFP, how City are destroying football, our despot Arab owner, how you don't like Manchester because it rains more than anywhere else in the world, the Stone Roses were better than Oasis, yadda yadda yadda.

 

What a great time to be a City fan ????

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RickG16 said:

There just aren't that many City fans worldwide

Rick it isn't about matchday going fans - matchday receipts for City aren't a massive part of City's revenue - it's about fans interest worldwide but mainly about generating sponsorship or advertising revenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick and Champers,
CFG are now reputed to be the world’s most valuable football group.
City is the driver of 85 per cent (85%) of its revenues, most of its silverware and nearly all of its global fame — and is "very probably the world’s most valuable individual football club".
The total value of the group is now $4.8 billion or £3.7 billion, which makes City alone worth, roughly speaking, £3.2 billion.
There are currently seven clubs in CFG, spanning five continents, with 1,500 players, 2,000 staff and 2,500 fixtures a season. India's Mumbai City expected to be the next up, plus its rumoured that clubs in Thailand, Brazil and Mexico will be joining soon.

 

Sheikh Mansour only bought City on 4 August 2008 or 11 years 3 months ago, the CFG group amazingly was set up only in January 2013, so imagine where will be in another 11 years 3 months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2019 at 9:52 AM, Bredbury Blue said:

plus its rumoured that clubs in Thailand, Brazil and Mexico will be joining 

Get Pattaya's team back in the City, instead of a Bangkok suburb. The Dolphins used to have a very nifty sky blue and white hooped strip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, champers said:

Get Pattaya's team back in the City, instead of a Bangkok suburb. The Dolphins used to have a very nifty sky blue and white hooped strip.

Barry 'upskirt' as stadium announcer? Round up a few bar girls to be cheerleaders? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, RickG16 said:

With Kun out is the likelihood you will play Jesus or Sterling as false 9?

Why would we not play Jesus?

 

Aguero and Jesus share the position, with the starter changing.

 

Think Jesus will start all the  games while Aguero is out injured except maybe not Zagreb and Oxford when he might be on the bench.

 

Jesus' 50 in 113 games for us is very decent (Rashford, who i feel everyone talks more highly of, is also 22 yrs old but only 55 out of 188 games player).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bredbury Blue said:

Jesus' 50 in 113 games for us is very decent (Rashford, who i feel everyone talks more highly of, is also 22 yrs old but only 55 out of 188 games player).

Jesus has way more quality around him, and way less pressure on his shoulders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...