So CFG is in...There were a lot of rumours when CFG first signed a sponsorship with Korean company Nexen Tire that a K-League team would be bought soon. Hasn't happened so far. I'll wait before getting too invested in this idea.
http://footballchannel.asia/2015/02/17/post2208/ for background.
Good luck adjusting that avatar.The reported purchase of Girona is still yet to turn into anything more than a rumour, so unless you're counting what presently is no more than a gentlemen's agreement then you need to scratch off Spain from that list. Of course, if you are including gentlemen's agreements then you need to add the Netherlands, because there's a very similar arrangement with NAC Breda right now (minus the talk of buyouts).
Also, the next countries are likely to be China and India, or they are where all the talk has been revolving around for the last 12 months or so.
Haha. Yeah...Good luck adjusting that avatar.
That's disappointing. Was hoping for 17 slices.Haha. Yeah...
To be honest, most likely the next time I change the avatar it will be to remove the badges altogether and use a completely different type of picture. Will need to work out exactly what I would want to replace it with before I can do that, though.
100% CFG will buy a team in China or India considering they are probably the two fastest growing football leagues that are also untapped by CFG is there any news on who there considering buying or is it just wait and see.Also, the next countries are likely to be China and India, or they are where all the talk has been revolving around for the last 12 months or so.
Also considering that they sold a 13% stake in their company to a investment group owned by the Chinese government, and with the Chinese President having visited the training ground in Manchester to sign an agreement with David Cameron for UK investment into Chinese football...100% CFG will buy a team in China or India considering they are probably the two fastest growing football leagues that are also untapped by CFG is there any news on who there considering buying or is it just wait and see.
Pretty sure you’re right. But pretty sure it’s all defensible.I'll summarize:
To ensure that MCFC shows a profit, NYCFC and Melbourne are subsidizing MCFC.
Man, you guys are supposed to make me feel more bad, and not less bad, about cancelling my season tickets, aren't youI'll summarize:
To ensure that MCFC shows a profit, NYCFC and Melbourne are subsidizing MCFC.
Honestly sickening how we just give them our USMNT stars for free.I'll summarize:
To ensure that MCFC shows a profit, NYCFC and Melbourne are subsidizing MCFC.
I want to cancel mine now too. I’m sort of disgusted.Man, you guys are supposed to make me feel more bad, and not less bad, about cancelling my season tickets, aren't you
Oh I thought we were joking. Guys, our season tickets are not paying Aymeric Laporte's $80m transfer fee. The "subsidy" the article talks about looks like CFG shifting costs to places they can absorb them without hurting Manchester City's Financial Fair Play standing. There's no reason to believe it hurts NYCFC at all, while we all know the ways that CFG gives our team an advantage.I want to cancel mine now too. I’m sort of disgusted.
"Subsidized" in the article is kind of a loaded term. It's more housing its debt on its affiliate's balance sheet instead of its own, it's all CFG's cash in the end. Given the debt that they've shown in previous years, it could be a case of showing more of our own debt for cash we've been lent rather than anything nefarious.I'll summarize:
To ensure that MCFC shows a profit, NYCFC and Melbourne are subsidizing MCFC.
"Subsidized" in the article is kind of a loaded term. It's more housing its debt on its affiliate's balance sheet instead of its own, it's all CFG's cash in the end. Given the debt that they've shown in previous years, it could be a case of showing more of our own debt for cash we've been lent rather than anything nefarious.
We can hardly be subsidizing them when our total receipts are half the debt we reported.
That all rings true, thus why I said it’s defensible."Subsidized" in the article is kind of a loaded term. It's more housing its debt on its affiliate's balance sheet instead of its own, it's all CFG's cash in the end. Given the debt that they've shown in previous years, it could be a case of showing more of our own debt for cash we've been lent rather than anything nefarious.
We can hardly be subsidizing them when our total receipts are half the debt we reported.