Stadium Discussion
- Thread starter Gene
- Start date
“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 . . .
www.cityfootballgroup.com
www.google.com
[X] Acquisition of more football clubs
[ ] Stadium . . .
CFG acquires majority stake in Indian Super League’s Mumbai City FC
• CFG agrees deal to take 65% majority stake in Mumbai City FC • Indian Super League team to become eighth club in City Football Group (CFG) network • Acclaimed actor and film producer, Ranbir Kapoor to stay with Club as minority shareholder • Damian Willoughby, takes on CEO role of City...
www.cityfootballgroup.com
Man City stake sale breaks valuation record for a sports group
FT exclusive: Silver Lake deal puts worth of English champions’ parent at $4.8bn
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.
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.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone. Figured I’d put it here since everyone checks this thread on the hour.
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.
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.
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.
"Starting"?
I assume your choice of words is ironic, but this is the internet after all.
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.
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.
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 post you quoted did not come close to suggesting that NYCFC was subsidiZing MCFC.
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.
