You tell me ? Obviously a typo. Responding to a lot of questions too quickly ,,, but not finding the need to swear . Did you get out of bed the wrong side this morning ? If city owners are so good (they are by the way) why would you want them to own 10% less of the company and some firm in America acting as a venture capitalist / private equity firm to have it instead (City's owners have vast sums at their disposal so they could fund it themselves if it was priority).
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City Football Group | Secure $650m loan facility for infrastructure projects (p 54)
- Thread starter MCFC1993
- Start date
Barcon
Well-Known Member
You tell me ? Obviously a typo. Responding to a lot of questions too quickly ,,, but not finding the need to swear . Did you get out of bed the wrong side this morning ? If city owners are so good (they are by the way) why would you want them to own 10% less of the company and some firm in America acting as a venture capitalist / private equity firm to have it instead (City's owners have vast sums at their disposal so they could fund it themselves).
What difference will it make? Will they have any say in how City are ran, or prevent us from continuing to invest in the club?
Genuine question by the way.
I assumed you were talking about Mubadala Investment Company. If City were owned by the Abu Dhabi state then a vehicle like that would have bought City in the first place and not Sheikh Mansour. This is getting into the related party argument that our critics use re City sponsorships.Cronyism?! In the royal families of the Middle East?! Say it aint so.
Next you'll be telling me Mansour isn't actually qualified to be Deputy Prime minister of his country.
OB1
Well-Known Member
Why can't you read ...
Agree there are differences ... their goals are largely the same (maximise profits) the main difference is their ownership structure. Plus in this instance at least for now Silver Lake is acting more like a venture capitalist "Private equity firms mostly buy 100% ownership of the companies in which they invest. As a result, the companies are in total control of the firm after the buyout. Venture capital firms invest in 50% or less of the equity of the companies. ... " A
Congrats on being able to use Google whilst still failing to understand the key differences between VC & PE.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
This has nothing to do with FFP or buying players. FFP is calculated on revenue & expenditure, which means money we get from TV, ticket sales and commercial deals less what we spend on wages, travel, the costs of running the Etihad & CFA, etc. Sheikh Mansour could put £10bn into our bank account but it's not "revenue" and we still can't spend that unless we've made enough allowable revenue from those sources to support that level of expenditure.I suppose for me the bottom line is will we be able to spend more on players for MCFC first team?
OB1
Well-Known Member
What difference will it make? Will they have any say in how City are ran, or prevent us from continuing to invest in the club?
Genuine question by the way.
They have a place on the CFG board so can advise but Mansour has total control.
Drubas
Well-Known Member
My company started out with an entrepreneur/founder, moved on to a private investor (two rich guys) and have been owned by equity owners two times in a row. We're just at the end of the road with the current owners, and it's ... interesting.
Both have been similar. Short term and cynical. They have no interest beyond maximizing profit when they exit.
I'm guessing that Silver Lake are brought on to help expand the business. They'll want to prove a model where they can grow quickly with high earnings in the new clubs/investments. If they can prove that this model works, they will be able to sell their "shares" with a really big profit, within five years.
EBITDA/earnings will be key. And with players being the easiest way to keep consts down, there is a risk that there won't be as many expensive signings the coming ~5 years.
I'm using my own limited experience as reference.
Both have been similar. Short term and cynical. They have no interest beyond maximizing profit when they exit.
I'm guessing that Silver Lake are brought on to help expand the business. They'll want to prove a model where they can grow quickly with high earnings in the new clubs/investments. If they can prove that this model works, they will be able to sell their "shares" with a really big profit, within five years.
EBITDA/earnings will be key. And with players being the easiest way to keep consts down, there is a risk that there won't be as many expensive signings the coming ~5 years.
I'm using my own limited experience as reference.
oakiecokie
Well-Known Member
And having 10% less will hurt City how ??????You tell me ? Obviously a typo. Responding to a lot of questions too quickly ,,, but not finding the need to swear . Did you get out of bed the wrong side this morning ? If city owners are so good (they are by the way) why would you want them to own 10% less of the company and some firm in America acting as a venture capitalist / private equity firm to have it instead (City's owners have vast sums at their disposal so they could fund it themselves if it was priority).
Are you a vicar by any chance ?
Barcon
Well-Known Member
They have a place on the CFG board so can advise but Mansour has total control.
Cheers. I was actually interested in why scoobz thinks thinks this: "If city owners are so good (they are by the way) why would you want them to own 10% less of the company and some firm in America acting as a venture capitalist / private equity firm to have it instead", is relevant.
oakiecokie
Well-Known Member
So I`ll ask you again "who is Powell ?"Just in case you really don`t know.You tell me ? Obviously a typo. Responding to a lot of questions too quickly ,,, but not finding the need to swear . Did you get out of bed the wrong side this morning ? If city owners are so good (they are by the way) why would you want them to own 10% less of the company and some firm in America acting as a venture capitalist / private equity firm to have it instead (City's owners have vast sums at their disposal so they could fund it themselves if it was priority).