It's a geographical expansion of the core businsess, but it's so far loss-making.People seem to be getting confused with investment into CFG and Manchester City.
Any monies paid to CFG are not available to City therefore would not be used to buy players. City stands on its own in that regard as it does with capital expenditure on things like the North Stand.
This money allows City to expand its global network and improve its access of and use of technology. It also brings in new partners who may wish to expand in other areas such as arena's etc.
We have owners whose ambition and money know no bounds and are happy to work with people with similar vision. Once many years ago I was told I should get into "IT" I laughed and said the boss had told me to get into "it" oh how we laughed. The thing is certain people see not what is but what will be and is the reason they become the wealthy. 30 years ago which seemed the safer bet Woolworths or Amazon yet look where we are now
Not sure the CFG want or expect you to be arsed tbh. This isn't about us.
Yes, CFG is loss making, but City don't fund CFG or the other clubs in any way. Mansour does that.It's a geographical expansion of the core businsess, but it's so far loss-making.
I think it's a straightforward play to buy a piece of football that may explode in China, India etc. Someone described it as caroet bagging earlier. However this carpet-bagging requires funding.
City fans should hope that we don't get mired in international losses because collectively the CFG lost £45m in 2017-18.
Just thinking about what you said...True - this shit should be posted in this forum.
I feel sorry Mumbai City fans losing their identity.
I think it relates to the new ones during the monsoon season.That's a lot of rivers!!!
Are City greater as the kingpin of an international group, or are we weakened by subsidising loss-making international ventures?
There was much excitement when the $500m investment in CFG was announced, but this is the background: investments in clubs other than Man City. I can see that clubs like NYC may benefit from being linked to Man City, but do Man City see benefits?
I can think of the odd player e.g., Aaron Mooy, but generally, it looks like City are pumping money into overseas football clubs. There must be some synergies but they are vague. MBappe in a Man City shirt would not be vague.
I do like the idea of City being part of a big family of international clubs, but about 0.0001% of my emotional investment is vested with the overseas clubs, and the rest is with Man City. From what I understand all but Girona are loss-making, (and they were relegated and part-owned anyway), so wouldn't the fans of Man City be happier still if the US$500m went direct into Man City?
As we see with Man Utd, a poorly managed club can haemorrhage money. Can CFG really effectively managed a huge number of overseas football clubs? I doubt this model has much chance of success. People think Khaldoon etc is a genius, and super intelligent guy, well he may be but he only has two eyes and one brain and limited capacity to focus.
Generally, financial markets frown massively on companies that aggressively expand overseas because it is a managerial disaster.
Just thinking about what you said...
Did we lose our identity when SHeikh Mansour took over Man City? Did Man Utd lose their ID when the Glazers took the club over?
I don't think a change in management, and who sits in the boardroom necessarily changes the identity of the club. Most City fans in the 1980s supported the club, but hated the owner, and Man Utd fans are much the same (LUHG). I'd imagine most local fans would welcome anything which improved the financial power of their club, and improved its access to players.
The boss said yesterday “All these businesses are sustainable, are profitable.” So how come you are saying they are running at a loss?