Stadium Discussion

Where Do You Want The Stadium?

  • Manhattan

    Votes: 54 16.7%
  • Queens

    Votes: 99 30.6%
  • Brooklyn

    Votes: 19 5.9%
  • Staten Island

    Votes: 7 2.2%
  • Westchester

    Votes: 18 5.6%
  • The Bronx

    Votes: 113 34.9%
  • Long Island

    Votes: 6 1.9%
  • Dual-Boroughs

    Votes: 3 0.9%
  • Etihad Island

    Votes: 5 1.5%

  • Total voters
    324
This seems like the most concrete news we’ve ever had on the stadium.
From the recent The Athletic article about the Silver Lake investment:
...fans should expect to hear movement, at last, on NYCFC’s long search for a permanent home in New York. Building in the Big Apple is not easy but the Major League Soccer club’s search for a site has been a tad embarrassing at times.

Sources at CFG say lessons have been learned and in board member Martin Edelman they have the best property lawyer in the Five Boroughs. Throw in Silver Lake’s network — they have a stake in Madison Square Garden — and you can start to see a way out of their very expensive groundshare with the New York Yankees, to a purpose-built, state-of-the-art stadium in America’s best sports market within three to four years.

NYCFC currently make a loss on turnover of £40 million. A new home and a much-improved MLS broadcast deal, which is a racing certainty, will transform that equation.
 
“The $500m cash injection will help fund (1) CFG’s aggressive expansion plans, including the acquisition of more football clubs globally, as well as (2) the planned construction of a stadium in New York, according to people with knowledge of the group’s plans.”


[X] Acquisition of more football clubs

[ ] Stadium . . .



 
NYCFC currently make a loss on turnover of £40 million.

I'm not familiar with the phrase "loss on turnover." I don't know if that's ignorance on my part or a bad sportswriter making up financial jargon. But either way I suspect it might not mean a loss of £40 million, as had been discussed here. It sounds like it could mean they take an undefined loss on revenue of £40 million, or cash flow of £40 million, or expenses of £40 million, or various things that don't necessarily mean the loss = £40 million. Is anyone familiar with that phrasing?
 
I'm not familiar with the phrase "loss on turnover." I don't know if that's ignorance on my part or a bad sportswriter making up financial jargon. But either way I suspect it might not mean a loss of £40 million, as had been discussed here. It sounds like it could mean they take an undefined loss on revenue of £40 million, or cash flow of £40 million, or expenses of £40 million, or various things that don't necessarily mean the loss = £40 million. Is anyone familiar with that phrasing?
I *think* that "turnover" is the British way of referring to net income. The writer of the article is English.
 
I'm just saying this graphic looks like the logo of the evil organization in the James Bond film, Spectre.



giphy.gif
 
I *think* that "turnover" is the British way of referring to net income. The writer of the article is English.
Oh. A British writer addressing an American audience and neither he nor his editors can manage to translate idiomatic usage to American.
I’m surprised he doesn’t work for NYCFC.
 
Oh. A British writer addressing an American audience and neither he nor his editors can manage to translate idiomatic usage to American.
I’m surprised he doesn’t work for NYCFC.
If it does mean net income (it means the same in Australia), then "loss on turnover" feels redundant. Versus, say, "a loss of 40M" or "turnover loss of 40M". But yeah, I think it implies net loss of 40M.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kjbert
Oh. A British writer addressing an American audience and neither he nor his editors can manage to translate idiomatic usage to American.
I’m surprised he doesn’t work for NYCFC.
He's a British writer addressing a British audience in an article that was about Man City written for TheAthletic UK.

Holiday blues? You've been Fred Mertz levels of irritable lately.
 
Turnover is top line revenue. Pretty easy to Google. So I would assume they lost an undisclosed amount on 40million in revenue, which feels right.

How much of that loss was attributable to us paying CFG is what I would like to know. Starting to feel like CFG is just a massive con to allow City to sidestep FPP.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Christopher Jee
Oh. A British writer addressing an American audience and neither he nor his editors can manage to translate idiomatic usage to American.
I’m surprised he doesn’t work for NYCFC.

I don’t think it’s addressing a US audience - it’s a straight lift from the FT article. As a Brit I’d confirm this means an undefined loss on turnover of $40m - which sounds incredibly low and is less than 1/10 of MCFC.
 
How much of that loss was attributable to us paying CFG is what I would like to know. Starting to feel like CFG is just a massive con to allow City to sidestep FPP.

The NYCFC franchise is costing CFG money so I can’t quite follow the logic that NYCFC is subsidising MCFC, more likely it is the reverse - one franchise is profitable the other is not.
 
CFG view NYCFC as an investment that will pay off in the very long term. They think soccer has a big future in the USA, and they've bought into it in the early stages. They are expecting operating losses for a while and for these to be offset by growth in the value of the franchise in the long term.
 
The NYCFC franchise is costing CFG money so I can’t quite follow the logic that NYCFC is subsidising MCFC, more likely it is the reverse - one franchise is profitable the other is not.

An honest book might say NYCFC is a $10 million loss per year, but a book favorable to MCFC might allocate some of that revenue to MCFC instead and mark NYCFC as a $40 million loss.
 
The NYCFC franchise is costing CFG money so I can’t quite follow the logic that NYCFC is subsidising MCFC, more likely it is the reverse - one franchise is profitable the other is not.

That’s not the point I made. The point I made was how much of that cost is attributable to us running in the red and how much is attributable to circumventing FFP.