Forbes article on the Lampard situation
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbymc...manchester-city-owners-it-is-simply-business/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbymc...manchester-city-owners-it-is-simply-business/
Official Nycfc In The Media Thread 2015
- Thread starter BxLio91
- Start date
Ap article by Sam Harris on Lampard with solid summary of the history and analysis "Lampard NY deal creates credibility issue for MLS, new team"
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3dbe...y-deal-creates-credibility-issue-mls-new-team
"MLS now says that Lampard was in fact was signed last July by City Football Group, the umbrella company for the portfolio of clubs owned by Sheikh Mansour...."
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3dbe...y-deal-creates-credibility-issue-mls-new-team
"MLS now says that Lampard was in fact was signed last July by City Football Group, the umbrella company for the portfolio of clubs owned by Sheikh Mansour...."
I wonder if this will be a precedent for future DP that NYCFC may get? Although it doesnt seem villa is in that situation, at least from the little i know.
People should read this article. It touches on some of the benefits of CFG owning NYC FC.
HINT: the benefits are not ours. CFG touts the scouting network because they accrue the expenses of it to us and Melbourne and Yokohama Fat Tires or whatever the hell it is to mitigate the expenses on MCFC's books for FFP. Less booked expenses there and elsewhere means more money to spend on players for MCFC.
I'm not sure you can read too much into that.
I can't find The Times article which this was originally from but somebody posted it word for word on Bluemoon in 2010
http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=202193
"£3 million Amount Manchester City invest annually in their worldwide scouting operation
30 Pages in scouting dossier compiled on Yaya Touré
11 Full-time scouts
7 European scouts
2 South American scouts"
Whatever the figure is today I doubt it runs into the tens of millions, for a team that posted revenue of $530m last year, the amount of money they're saving by spreading the costs of scouting over 4 teams is probably negligible. No doubt NYCFC have been wronged by CFG with Lampard but the benefits of sharing a scouting network far outweigh the costs to NYCFC, Melbourne and Yokohama.
Last edited:
Not correct. From the settlement of FFP, there is a clause:
Furthermore Manchester City agrees that revenues from the sale of assets within their group structure will not be included in future break-even calculations.
The whole document is here for validity.
http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles...ncialControl/02/10/69/00/2106900_DOWNLOAD.pdf
Why has he said Manchester City own NYCFC? It is CFG.
We're not talking sale of assets, though. We're talking the equivalent of splitting the utility bill with your roommates (flatmates).
Yeah we are. What is happening (the sharing of info) is classed as a saleable asset. Apparently, all multi national firms with accounting departments will charge one another. Kelloggs is a US multi national whose European base is in Ireland, while Amazon have chosen Luxembourg, for their European sales.
Man City towards the end of the accounting year put in a figure for RPT Related Party Transactions
" As a number of journalists have pointed out, there are a host of Related Party Transactions, Inter-company transactions as well as a sale of Image Rights to a company that the City Press Office insists is outside the club. These obscure transactions have been designed to generate one-off income for the club during the final accounting year that will be covered by the first Monitoring Period. City have remained publicly silent over whether they will actually pass the FFP Break Even test and curiously, the accounts don't even mention FFP or the potential for reduced income if they were to be excluded from future competition. Given that their thousands of fans are keen to know if the club have passed the FFP test, the club's silence seems remarkably remiss. "
Here is another view http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...the-champions-league-next-season-9093921.html
Most thought it was a ruse (as most criticisms are now that it was a FFP dodge) whilst it is in reality a normal multi-national operation, The problem was, it is the first of its kind in football. UEFA didn't like it. They are good at ignoring things they dont like and even better at making up stuff to suit.
Hence, that clause was inserted in the settlement.
Pretty much all soccer/football governing bodies seem to be jokes at best, and more likely corrupt. Is the FA in England any better. I never really heard any major complaints about them beyond disgruntled small team fans saying they never geta break on appeals, etc, but that seem run-of-the-mill.
You dont hear much now because their inefficiency has beaten us all into submission.
They are that poor you just know the answer will be fudged, poor or down right incompetent. There would be a bigger noise if they got something right. The problem is there are 3 governing bodies The PL (looking after the PL), The FA (looking after the whole game, England internationals and the FA Cup but having no real power) and the FL (looking after the football league).
Circling back to the inter-group transactions wherein MC charged NYC and Melbourne for MC intellectual property and Trademark/Trade Dress rights, it seems to me that this has a lot to do with our kit. Whether the price charged was fair or not, once they charged the new clubs those clubs had to use that property to the maximum amount possible in order to justify the price paid. The result is Identakit.
If anyone brought this up during the kit blow-up last November I totally missed it. I do remember a lot of debate over the whys and wherefores for the kit, and most agreed that none of the reasons quite added up. Everyone understood why there had to be similarity but not why there was such total overlap to the maximum amount possible. I think this is the reason. I don't think this will change anyone's opinion but it does, for me, solve a mini-mystery.
If anyone brought this up during the kit blow-up last November I totally missed it. I do remember a lot of debate over the whys and wherefores for the kit, and most agreed that none of the reasons quite added up. Everyone understood why there had to be similarity but not why there was such total overlap to the maximum amount possible. I think this is the reason. I don't think this will change anyone's opinion but it does, for me, solve a mini-mystery.
I absolutely agree that it's not nefarious or wrong in anyway. I didn't meant to suggest that it was (thus, my analogy of splitting a bill). It's absolutely typical and fair from a financial reporting perspective.
I was only pointing out that the benefit of that to NYC is non-existent now and for the foreseeable future.
The weirder thing to me is the "break clause" and contract structure demonstrated by FFF's deal. I am sure they are all buttoned up on its compliance with any rules/regulations. Nonetheless, I think such a structure, if allowed to remain viable, leaves a massive loophole for creative transactions to subvert FFP (I don't care about it, frankly.) and more importantly, other CFG clubs (NYC, whom I care a lot about.). So if you're in our shoes, you kind of hope that the loophole gets closed or else your experience as a supporter will be pretty stressful, as you're always wondering if or when the other shoe will drop.
The problem is we are not sure, as there is no go to list to check if anyone has benefitted. I suspect some of the players may have been found using links, thinking mainly Andres Mendoza and David Villa. Sorriano will have certainly spoke with Villa. Looking at the website there are similarities. There may well be front office work flows that have been tried and tested, thus eliminating trial and error. I dunno there could be a 1000 things benefitting right now. Our ticket office was terrible, it seems yours has worked from day one with people on here being impressed with reps. All little somethings and many may not be visible but it doesn't mean they aren't being used. Just remembered another, the February training camp in Mcr. The players will like that. But like a good rhythm guitar, keeping it all ticking over. Yes, i accept the first song in public, the guitar went right off key.
That loophole is not too bad. The problem is no one 'fessed up. If it was done correctly and announced Lampard was signing with City until Dec 31. Then coming ready for promo work then join with the training in Feb, ready for the season. Most would have been ok. Sadly, it was way off key. Bieber off key, yes, that bad.
The kit was nothing to do with selling intellectual property. You're forgetting that before either the NYCFC kit or even the Melbourne City kit were announced, UEFA had long ago slapped a Cease and Desist order on MCFC which said that they weren't allowed to include a penny of intellectual property sales to other CFG teams in their accounts. There's nothing to gain from them "selling" the sky blue kit to NYCFC anymore because they can't financially gain from it so what would even be the point? The sky blue kit was entirely down to a - probably misguided - attempt at creating brand identity. That's all.
I confess ignorance on this point about the whole intellectual property/UEFA history etc. All I know is what was in the article that Mr Plow posted above and which says:
The second is the sale of City’s services to the other clubs which it owns – the New York FC franchise which it launched last year, along with the new Melbourne Heart franchise and Manchester City Ladies FC. That “sale of intellectual property to related parties” brought the club another £22.45m and is vital to City getting anywhere near complying with Uefa’s regime.
