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.
CFG Expansion | Başakşehir to join? (p70)
- Thread starter MAG
- Start date
Your final paragraph is well worth noting.We know that Manchester City Limited, the holding company of MCFC Limited, has been transferred to Midco. So has MCWFC Limited, along with other UK companies such as City Football Image Rights Limited, City Football Investments Limited, City Football Marketing Limited, City Football Services Limited and City Football UK Holdings Limited. The number of shares is remarkably specific and thus likely significant, but how?
It seems entirely possible that it might indeed reflect a valuation of some sort. But given that the companies below Midco in the structure include MCFC Limited (even if Midco holds that one indirectly), it surely can't be intended to represent the value of the above, can it? MCFC Limited is worth well in excess of GBP 800 million given the presence of MCFC Limited as a subsidiary. It's difficult to be sure what they're doing, because we simply don't have enough information, and in particular whether foreign CFG entities are also below Midco in the overall structure.
My first thought was that CFG want to separate out the holdings in different markets so you have a range of CFG subsidiaries, quite possibly not incorporated in the UK, with each one holding the companies that operate in a given market. Thus you could have a subsidiary incorporated in China called something like CFG China that holds CFG's shares in the part-owned Sichuan Jiuniu, plus owns CFG Academy China if they set up something like that, and so on.
The advantage of that structure is that you can attract investors who want a piece of the action in a given market but who don't want (or no longer wish to have) involvement in the worldwide Group. I suspect that CMC, with its holding in CFG now reduced to 1%, will continue to hold its 30% of the shares in the Sichuan club, but maybe it will also invest in wider CFG activity in China if or when we expand our operations there.
But I'm guessing, of course. However, it does seem that something might be going on - though it could eventually prove not to be especially interesting even for geeks like me. If I have time, I might delve through all the filings about CFG companies that I can find on the Companies House over the coming days and weeks to see whether there are further clues.
One thing worth noting is that it further discredits the idea that City is purely a state-focused sportswashing vehicle. Corporate machinations of this kind would be completely unnecessary if the whole exercise were simply aimed at promoting Abu Dhabi and distracting from a human rights record that seems to draw particular ire mainly from people who never mentioned the topic until an Emirati royal turned this project into a conspicuous success.
Not because the ‘City project’ is a Sportswashing project, it is clearly not to anyone with 2 brain cells or more (ie the vast majority of the nonRed footballing family), but because, as you say, it further demolishes that artificial and fake construct of the media, that is repeatedly respouted by the Neanderthals.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 10,157
Does CFG pay MCFC for use of our branding such as name, kit etc?
I doubt they pay City for name, kit and the like, more likely the other way round, City will pay CFG for using their shared services. Scouting and the like. Is that what you mean?
I suppose a share of sponsorship monies would be paid down to City where CFG sign a multi-club sponsorship deal. If that ever happens.
I doubt they pay City for name, kit and the like, more likely the other way round, City will pay CFG for using their shared services. Scouting and the like. Is that what you mean?
I suppose a share of sponsorship monies would be paid down to City where CFG sign a multi-club sponsorship deal. If that ever happens.
Back in about 2013, I remember that City sold various IP rights to CFG for somewhere north of £20 million, which was reflected in the accounts as a one-off item and boosted the bottom line. The idea was that CFG would then collect an annual fee from the individual clubs in the group for a licence to use the IP in question.
For those who don't know about it, this is called cost sharing and isn't uncommon in large international groups of companies. I wrote at length about it at the time, I recall. UEFA regarded the move as an FFP dodge, especially in terms of giving us a one-off hit of income in a relevant set of accounts to help us avoid punishment under those rules. Let's face it, there was probably some merit in the UEFA view.
I think they excluded it from their calculations. I also seem to remember that the settlement agreement with UEFA required us to account in full for the expenses of the CFG marketing and services companies (even those not attributable to MCFC) for FFP. If anyone knows this to be wrong, please correct me.
I suspect we therefore might have rowed back on the way we intended to handle this back when CFG was formed. I can't say that for sure, though - but I might try to research it if I have time.
LongsightM13
Well-Known Member
They have to agree to collective bargaining as part of their PL licence14 clubs for to agree with it though and the clubs who don’t get big support won’t vote for it there is probably around 6/8 teams who could earn more in selling there own tv rights! Plus the other clubs those 6/8 teams still have to have those other teams to play and if the other team say gets around 1/10 of them it’s not worth there while..
We certainly pay for shared services, but if I owned rights to our kit I would certainly want paying each time a CFG member used it.I doubt they pay City for name, kit and the like, more likely the other way round, City will pay CFG for using their shared services. Scouting and the like. Is that what you mean?
I suppose a share of sponsorship monies would be paid down to City where CFG sign a multi-club sponsorship deal. If that ever happens.
They have to agree to collective bargaining as part of their PL licence
Does that mean if one club says no to it it doesn’t happen?
nmc
Well-Known Member
Does that mean if one club says no to it it doesn’t happen?
No…. There’s no democracy… agree to the PLs rules as handed down by the teams in red or don’t play.
CFG is worth more than that so which investments are you referring toThanks. That GBP 875 million is a very similar figure. Good spot.
The idea of splitting football and other assets with a view to attracting different types of investors is an interesting one, too. As you say, we're all speculating at the moment, but they do seem likely to have exciting plans, whatever they turn out to be.