CFG Expansion | Başakşehir to join? (p70)

[bobbyowenquiff]

Suicide post...but what the hell...

I love almost everything the Sheik has done for our Club - its been prudent, well managed, mostly thoughtful and bought signifiant investment in Manchester too - and I have just about got over the ESL misstep. There is a respect for our history and culture, former players and legends and a fair degree of engagement with the fans. And without him, we would never have seen Sergio, Silva, Yaya and Vincent.

But...

I really struggle with CFG. As exciting as it is to have a global network of clubs and as much as I love taking on the dippers and rags with a growing global fan base (although in the case of Melbourne and New York - that doesn't always work) I don't measure my club by how many teams in South America we own, or how many City shirts we sell in Indonesia.

It's what happens in that 90mins on the pitch - wether that's on a rainy November night against Stockport or a sun soaked early evening at the Bernabeu. I recognise the talent pipeline benefits it may bring and the money it might make to impact the quality of those 90mins - but what would it be like to be that 'feeder' club to the mothership? I feel strongly about the connection between a football club and its local roots and local community - and that might be an old fashioned opinion - but at its core, that's what football is for me still.

The alternative is a world of the ESL, half and half scarves, plastic tourists and football reduced to some TicTok marketing content. I am not a luddite, and I recognise that generations change and football changes and there is no going back to a pre-Premier League world - but the wild west of sport consumerism worries the crap out of me. I read other posts from fellow Blues and I would just urge a grumpy bit of caution in celebrating every commercial step we take.

It is all about balance - which the Sheik has mostly got bang on. But, for me, please no more tunnel clubs, double size hoardings, buying clubs in Mongolia...

Bring on the haters....:)

I agree with most of your post but am relaxed about the CFG. Most clubs are owned by big business these days. To me the CFG is just a smart business model which allows us to maximise revenues by offering global opportunities to more sponsors at the same time as reducing costs by spreading the impact of wages, back office functions, etc etc across different centres. I know globalisation is a dirty word but it is inevitable and at least our business model is driving a lot of investment into local communities at the same time. There are risks involved but I wouldn't want to go back to the days of clubs being owned by local crooks like Peter Swales.

 

[heartman]

Suicide post...but what the hell...

I love almost everything the Sheik has done for our Club - its been prudent, well managed, mostly thoughtful and bought signifiant investment in Manchester too - and I have just about got over the ESL misstep. There is a respect for our history and culture, former players and legends and a fair degree of engagement with the fans. And without him, we would never have seen Sergio, Silva, Yaya and Vincent.

But...

I really struggle with CFG. As exciting as it is to have a global network of clubs and as much as I love taking on the dippers and rags with a growing global fan base (although in the case of Melbourne and New York - that doesn't always work) I don't measure my club by how many teams in South America we own, or how many City shirts we sell in Indonesia.

It's what happens in that 90mins on the pitch - wether that's on a rainy November night against Stockport or a sun soaked early evening at the Bernabeu. I recognise the talent pipeline benefits it may bring and the money it might make to impact the quality of those 90mins - but what would it be like to be that 'feeder' club to the mothership? I feel strongly about the connection between a football club and its local roots and local community - and that might be an old fashioned opinion - but at its core, that's what football is for me still.

The alternative is a world of the ESL, half and half scarves, plastic tourists and football reduced to some TicTok marketing content. I am not a luddite, and I recognise that generations change and football changes and there is no going back to a pre-Premier League world - but the wild west of sport consumerism worries the crap out of me. I read other posts from fellow Blues and I would just urge a grumpy bit of caution in celebrating every commercial step we take.

It is all about balance - which the Sheik has mostly got bang on. But, for me, please no more tunnel clubs, double size hoardings, buying clubs in Mongolia...

Bring on the haters....:)

From a Melbourne City perspective.

Our club was bought by CFG, our name changed and our colours changed both huge errors in my opinion.

Since then CFG have built a sustainable viable club that many hold dear. They have nearly completed their second training facility and continue to engage with the local communities.

Possibly the attendances could be more, but every season we have 10K plus season ticket holders and my club is driving long term positive change to a game that for decades has been abused and mismanaged.

Without CFG Melbourne Heart would have meandered through a struggle town existence waiting for a player or coach to change its fortunes.

So from somebody that knows what its like to have a club taken over, I say Thankyou.

 

[TonyM]

From a Melbourne City perspective.

Our club was bought by CFG, our name changed and our colours changed both huge errors in my opinion.

Since then CFG have built a sustainable viable club that many hold dear. They have nearly completed their second training facility and continue to engage with the local communities.

Possibly the attendances could be more, but every season we have 10K plus season ticket holders and my club is driving long term positive change to a game that for decades has been abused and mismanaged.

Without CFG Melbourne Heart would have meandered through a struggle town existence waiting for a player or coach to change its fortunes.

So from somebody that knows what its like to have a club taken over, I say Thankyou.

I think changing the name and colours was essential to CFG's branding. The clubs that didn't follow the same policy don't feel proper members of the CFG family. Melbourne and NY have shown the way. ( of the 2 I far prefer Melbourne City... even from the Heart days there were some great characters and since the the takeover matured the football has been generally good)

(My kids also love their Australian cousins)

 

[KS55]

Can not blame the fans for having their say, now is the time for dialogue not after the signature, there are a few concerns not least what happened to Chelsea, the Chelsea fans did own the ground before Abramovich bought it of them for redevelopment, there is no guarantee that it will not be a supermarket next season.. in Germany the fans own a % of the clubs, our council own our ground, i am a believer that owners should own or rent the business and fans should own the ground.

Not correct. Chelsea supporters still own the ground. Abramovich had to get their agreement to the proposed remodel.

Chelsea Pitch Owners

www.chelseafc.com

 

[This and only this]

di Marzio is pretty reliable with Palermo so this might have legs

 

[halfcenturyup]

Suicide post...but what the hell...

I love almost everything the Sheik has done for our Club - its been prudent, well managed, mostly thoughtful and bought signifiant investment in Manchester too - and I have just about got over the ESL misstep. There is a respect for our history and culture, former players and legends and a fair degree of engagement with the fans. And without him, we would never have seen Sergio, Silva, Yaya and Vincent.

But...

I really struggle with CFG. As exciting as it is to have a global network of clubs and as much as I love taking on the dippers and rags with a growing global fan base (although in the case of Melbourne and New York - that doesn't always work) I don't measure my club by how many teams in South America we own, or how many City shirts we sell in Indonesia.

It's what happens in that 90mins on the pitch - wether that's on a rainy November night against Stockport or a sun soaked early evening at the Bernabeu. I recognise the talent pipeline benefits it may bring and the money it might make to impact the quality of those 90mins - but what would it be like to be that 'feeder' club to the mothership? I feel strongly about the connection between a football club and its local roots and local community - and that might be an old fashioned opinion - but at its core, that's what football is for me still.

The alternative is a world of the ESL, half and half scarves, plastic tourists and football reduced to some TicTok marketing content. I am not a luddite, and I recognise that generations change and football changes and there is no going back to a pre-Premier League world - but the wild west of sport consumerism worries the crap out of me. I read other posts from fellow Blues and I would just urge a grumpy bit of caution in celebrating every commercial step we take.

It is all about balance - which the Sheik has mostly got bang on. But, for me, please no more tunnel clubs, double size hoardings, buying clubs in Mongolia...

Bring on the haters....:)

Just seen this. No hate from me and I must say the CFG concept leaves me cold as a City fan. What I think people need to remember, though, is that City are also owned by CFG, City don't own these other clubs. So to say that these other clubs are feeder clubs isn't really true is it? How many players have grown up through the academies of these clubs and been "poached" by City. I would say it's the other way around. They get access to players through the CFG scouting network that they wouldn't get access to normally. And lets be honest, most clubs at the the level down from City lose their best players to richer, more successful clubs. Does that make them feeder clubs? It's just business. Which is why it leaves me cold, actually.

Fans may have concerns about the ownership of CFG, but that is because they are, at best, badly informed, or, at the worst, racist/xenophobic. But I don't really get their footballing concerns.

 

[west didsblue]

From a Melbourne City perspective.

Our club was bought by CFG, our name changed and our colours changed both huge errors in my opinion.

Since then CFG have built a sustainable viable club that many hold dear. They have nearly completed their second training facility and continue to engage with the local communities.

Possibly the attendances could be more, but every season we have 10K plus season ticket holders and my club is driving long term positive change to a game that for decades has been abused and mismanaged.

Without CFG Melbourne Heart would have meandered through a struggle town existence waiting for a player or coach to change its fortunes.

So from somebody that knows what its like to have a club taken over, I say Thankyou.

As Heart were only 4 years old when taken over by CFG I don’t think the name and colour change was as big a deal as if it had a long history like when Cardiff and Salford had their colours changed. Our club changed its name and colours twice in the first 14 years between 1880 and 1894.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Just seen this. No hate from me and I must say the CFG concept leaves me cold as a City fan. What I think people need to remember, though, is that City are also owned by CFG, City don't own these other clubs. So to say that these other clubs are feeder clubs isn't really true is it? How many players have grown up through the academies of these clubs and been "poached" by City. I would say it's the other way around. They get access to players through the CFG scouting network that they wouldn't get access to normally. And lets be honest, most clubs at the the level down from City lose their best players to richer, more successful clubs. Does that make them feeder clubs? It's just business. Which is why it leaves me cold, actually.

I always thought Southampton were part of the FSG group.

 

[yerwot?]

As Heart were only 4 years old when taken over by CFG I don’t think the name and colour change was as big a deal as if it had a long history like when Cardiff and Salford had their colours changed. Our club changed its name and colours twice in the first 14 years between 1880 and 1894.

As long as "change" is unacceptable to many, then protests are inevitable.
Discussing "details", pointing out flaws in the logic, just hides the fact that fear of "change is behind the criticism of CFG's strategy.

 

[remember arthur mann]