Stadium Discussion

  • Welcome to NYCFC Forums 2.0. Since completing our upgrade I've had a number of people request to make a donation. If you'd like to Donate you may do so via this Paypal link below. Thank you all for the support and your willingness to cobtribute.
Consider becoming a 'donor' member to help support the forums! Click Here To Upgrade

Where Do You Want The Stadium?

  • Manhattan

    Votes: 54 18.5%
  • Queens

    Votes: 82 28.1%
  • Brooklyn

    Votes: 14 4.8%
  • Staten Island

    Votes: 6 2.1%
  • Westchester

    Votes: 18 6.2%
  • The Bronx

    Votes: 105 36.0%
  • Long Island

    Votes: 5 1.7%
  • Dual-Boroughs

    Votes: 3 1.0%
  • Etihad Island

    Votes: 5 1.7%

  • Total voters
    292

Keith Putnam

Senior Member
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
May 4, 2015
2,319
4,892
323
41
Astoria
highwatermedia.com
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.
 

sundance

Active Member
Elite Donor
Aug 1, 2016
726
2,525
213
Manhattan

mgarbowski

Senior Member
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jul 16, 2014
12,092
34,431
353
Queens, NY
mgarbowski.com
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?
 

Keith Putnam

Senior Member
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
May 4, 2015
2,319
4,892
323
41
Astoria
highwatermedia.com
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.
 

mgarbowski

Senior Member
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jul 16, 2014
12,092
34,431
353
Queens, NY
mgarbowski.com
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.
 

Christopher Jee

Senior Member
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jul 24, 2014
3,262
8,475
353
36
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

FredMertz

Senior Member
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jun 2, 2014
2,529
5,234
323
37
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.
 

Kjbert

Senior Member
Seasoned Supporter
Apr 24, 2014
10,177
15,261
303
34
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

Nmc

Newbie
Jan 11, 2019
10
6
3
54
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.
 

Nmc

Newbie
Jan 11, 2019
10
6
3
54
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.
 

Gotham Gator

Senior Member
Donor
Feb 9, 2015
10,115
20,921
353
54
Bronxville, NY
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.
 

sbrylski

Senior Member
Apr 24, 2014
4,017
10,490
303
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.
 

Kjbert

Senior Member
Seasoned Supporter
Apr 24, 2014
10,177
15,261
303
34
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.