City Football Group | Secure $650m loan facility for infrastructure projects (p 54)

[oakiecokie]

for god sake it was a typo - if you don't understand what that means look it up ! No wonder I don't post here so often - you simply harass anybody with a different view until they give up and you spout your usual tribal, banal comments about them being a rag because they dare to think different than you ... In terms of positivity I think the current owners are great and would want them (not an american finance shop) to own as much of us as possible - how does that make me a rag?

If you look closely you will notice that I am NOT the only poster who has concerns about you and in fact I`ve had a barrel load of "likes" with my posts.
You appear to be arguing with all and sundry,as you come across as a "know all in the finance industry" yet fail to look at the bigger picture.
I think Messrs Khaldoon and the likes are far more savvy than you good self and I for one will support those financial people and our wonderful Owner to make decisions that are far more positive than your good self.
Thats my final post with you on this topic but suffice to say you will continue to argue with more posters.

 

[petrusha]

Oak View launched OVG International a couple of month ago, they aim to do the same thing in the rest of the world as they have done in the US, they will challenge ASM in every market and it's going to get messy, OVG International are backed by Live Nation. So we have basically picked a side in the global clash of the promoter titans. We will build the arena in Manchester with OVG and Live Nations acts will play the Eastlands arena instead of MEN, OVG will most likely also be involved in NYCFC's arena. OVG, islanders, MSG and Mets has previously done everything in their power to block us, but now we're on the same side. We have been dealing with both Endavor and CAA for a long time so thats no problem. We actually helped William Morris and Silver Lake to buy IMG back in 2013, the same year that IMG founded the Indian Super Leauge. There's also a few casino giants involved with Oak View so maybe we will finally get a super casino in Eastern Manchester!

Keith, I'm interested in your view, as someone involved in the industry, on the viability of two large arenas in Manchester. In other words, will the existing arena survive despite competition from the proposed new one at Eastlands?

In particular, I note that the existing Manchester Arena is managed and operated by ASM Global, which I understand is jointly owned by AEG. Does this fact along with the Eastland's arena's links to Live Nation via OVG mean that both venues should be able to procure enough events to remain commercially feasible?

 

[Metalartin]

I'm not sure how scoobz has managed to find a negative in this.

Since this is an ownership deal, wouldn't that have ruled out any funds from making their way into our transfer budget?

As for taking it as a sign of our owner's intentions of spending less in the coming years. Isn't that a suggestion that we have been in any part funded by our owner these past 5 years, and not self sustaining and in profit where we want to be, as Khaldoon reiterated in the interview?

I don't think Sheikh Mansour is selling after coming so far, why would he bother with 10% in the first place? I do wonder why UEFA doesn't care about how much money owners like the Glazers have taken out of football and the whole concept of leveraged buyouts though. All clubs should be protected from that, except United.

 

[petrusha]

If you look closely you will notice that I am NOT the only poster who has concerns about you and in fact I`ve had a barrel load of "likes" with my posts.
You appear to be arguing with all and sundry,as you come across as a "know all in the finance industry" yet fail to look at the bigger picture.
I think Messrs Khaldoon and the likes are far more savvy than you good self and I for one will support those financial people and our wonderful Owner to make decisions that are far more positive than your good self.
Thats my final post with you on this topic but suffice to say you will continue to argue with more posters.

The poster in question does have a valid point about private equity funds owning football clubs in general and I think it's legitimate to flag that in this context. But his trenchant and repetitive reiterations of the argument have long since become tedious, not least owing to their dubious relevance given that AUG retains a 77% shareholding (enabling it to pass special resolutions of shareholders on its own) and the new investor is taking only 10%.

If this proves to be the thin end of the wedge and ADUG continues to dilute its shareholding at the expense of private equity investors, that's the time to be vocal in expressing worries about it. As things stand, there's no sign of this happening so I prefer not to get wound up over hypotheses that may well never come to pass. In fact, I rather like this deal because, as others have said, it shows that ADUG are treating their investment as one that's expected to move forward based on commercial principles and not as a poster child for the emirate of Abu Dhabi, which would have been an easy accusation had ADUG itself simply pumped in more funding.

 

[Shaelumstash]

This isn't good news - 10 % stake going to venture capitalists - all they care about is a return ! The Chinese deal made sense as there was a media company involved and the chance to increase and substantially grow the franchise using their expertise. There doesn't appear to be anything strategic about this alliance. Let's hope this doesn't become a growing trend or x years down the line it could be Glazer's like with football taking very much a back seat ....

Would you not consider the fact that Silver Lake have major stakes in Endeavor (WME & ICM) and Oak View as strategically important?

Particularly Oak View who are clearly very interested in operating the new arena on the Etihad Campus site, and have huge sway in NYC where we’re also looking at stadium / possible arena projects?

Also, regarding dividends, is it not true that as Sheikh Mansour still owns 75% of the shares, he’s still in complete control about whether dividends are paid out or not? So even if it’s Silver Lake’s wish to receive huge dividends each year, they do not make the final decision.

 

[Scoobz1]

Christ now i am coming across as a know it all ... all i have said and i am constantly attacked / harassed (rag, know it all, stupid ... ) is that the dilution of 10% equity stake to a private equity house isn't necessarily a good thing from a "Football" perspective as Private equity firms are primarily driven by returns and profits and our owners up to now have largely focused on football success and Finance has taken very much a back seat.

Indeed they have shown great vision and taken risks in doing so, more so than any Finance company / institute would probably do. If they were awful owners (Man UTD) then any transfer of equity indeed would be great news. But if you think it is great news and someone can't have an alternative view (without being ridiculed and bullied - it obviously makes you feel good) then so be it. Indeed, if it wasn't for the bullying an insults I would have merely finished with my first post and left it that.

 

[SVP]

Christ now i am coming across as a know it all ... all i have said and i am constantly attacked / harassed (rag, know it all, stupid ... ) is that the dilution of 10% equity stake to a private equity house isn't necessarily a good thing from a "Football" perspective as Private equity firms are primarily driven by returns and profits and our owners up to now have largely focused on football success and Finance has taken very much a back seat.

Indeed they have shown great vision and taken risks in doing so, more so than any Finance company / institute would probably do. If they were awful owners (Man UTD) then any transfer of equity indeed would be great news. But if you think it is great news and someone can't have an alternative view (without being ridiculed and bullied - it obviously makes you feel good) then so be it. Indeed, if it wasn't for the bullying an insults I would have merely finished with my first post and left it that.

As the song goes you have had your day out now fuck off home! smiley

 

[Keith Moon]

Keith, I'm interested in your view, as someone involved in the industry, on the viability of two large arenas in Manchester. In other words, will the existing arena survive despite competition from the proposed new one at Eastlands?

In particular, I note that the existing Manchester Arena is managed and operated by ASM Global, which I understand is jointly owned by AEG. Does this fact along with the Eastland's arena's links to Live Nation via OVG mean that both venues should be able to procure enough events to remain commercially feasible?

I can't see why we can't have two major indoor arenas in Manchester, it would actually be great for the City, with two arenas we would hosts over 400 events annually, MEN hosts 250. If they can do it in Birmingham we can do it in Manchester. SMG wants to keep their monopoly so you should not really pay any attention to what they says about how Eastlands arena would kill central Manchester, its just their usual unethical comms tactics.

 

[OB1]

It is primarily about releasing equity because if it was about synergies and opening doors their are many better potential partners than Silver lake, who are primarily a


If it wasn't primarily about releasing equity and it was about the above why would you choose a company which describes itself as this: "Silver Lake is the global leader in technology investing, with over $43 billion in combined assets under management and committed capital and a team of approximately 100 investment and operating professionals located around the world. There are so many other better potential candidates to achieve the above stated aims. Indeed, given who City's owners are I doubt very much they need the "expertise" of a company like Silver Lake to achieve the above stated aims.

I too hope that Mansour wouldn't sell them a controlling stake because being a "Private Equity company" (unlike a venture capitalist) they typically take up a 100% or have a controlling stake in the companies they invest in. Anyway the gist of it is our owners have been brilliant and very much let finance take a back seat up to now in terms of City's development. With money men coming on-board and our owners reducing their ownership stake their is less incentive for them to continue to invest in the future. Indeed, it is not unknown for smaller stakes to turn into bigger stakes over time (indeed this is what these companies typically do ). So once again I personally don't see any news which is really good from a MCFC's point of view in this. If the £500m stake was about to be invested in new players or ear-marked for such then I might think differently (-:

Half a billion dollars is still a lot of money even to a multi-billionaire so why not get a cash injection of that size if it still gives you complete control. CFG remains a relatively risky investment and this allows Mansour to diversify his own portfolio to spread risk, should he choose to. Perhaps he and or KAM have agreed to invest some of their cash via Silver Lake.

Not sure how you know that CFG cannot use some of Sliver Lake's expertise as you are not party to their plans for the future. A potential synergy in respect of arenas is already apparent.

 

[Scoobz1]

Would you not consider the fact that Silver Lake have major stakes in Endeavor (WME & ICM) and Oak View as strategically important?

Particularly Oak View who are clearly very interested in operating the new arena on the Etihad Campus site, and have huge sway in NYC where we’re also looking at stadium / possible arena projects?

Also, regarding dividends, is it not true that as Sheikh Mansour still owns 75% of the shares, he’s still in complete control about whether dividends are paid out or not? So even if it’s Silver Lake’s wish to receive huge dividends each year, they do not make the final decision.

Re Oak view / stadium ...They could definitely help but then could so many other companies and they could do this regardless of an equity stake.

RE ownership / dividends Very true. Indeed as long as the Sheik contains 51% or a controlling stake (if shareholdings are very diluted among many owners you can control a company with an even smaller share) then they can do as they please. However, they will probably have given assurances regarding future business plans and how those investors will be ultimately rewarded. This could even take the form of allowing them to increase their equity stake in the future subject to certain criteria being met. Indeed, equity firms often take small stakes to start with until they understand the business then take a controlling stake or full ownership of the business. I am not saying this will happen, but it does open up that possibility and it is something we haven't had to think about before

You could regard all of this as almost inevitable because you could argue that at the end of the day our owners would have to free up some of the capital they have put into the business and it would be too good to be true for it to continue as it was. However, that doesn't make it good news and I personally would prefer a partner that wasn't primarily a Finance house and was able to offer an alliance which was obviously much more strategic in terms of their core / underlying business. A good example of that would be the Chinese deal that was done or a deal with a pure media giant. But I guess it depends what was on the table at the time ...