CFG Expansion | Başakşehir to join? (p70)

Corky said:
Exactly, they would be trumpeted if the value had "gone up" in theory, the Chinese likely taking a bit of a haircut for whatever reason.
Click to expand...
The article doesn’t give any figures for the value of the latest transaction and from a regulatory perspective I’m not sure they have to.

It’s possible that Silver Lake could provide a figure, but it’s Thanksgiving so again they may not say anything until next week, if they do at all.

I’m not sure there’s any strong reason to suggest that the latest transaction would necessarily imply a decline in the group’s value though. Silver Lake increasing their stake to 18% and Mansour buying half of the shares sold this week suggests to me that the people who know most about the group expect the valuation to continue to rise.
 
Corky said:
Looks like it has devalued the club on paper.
Click to expand...
Good job we play on grass then.

Can't say looking at that article and if it's purely an internal transaction then we won't know unless someone leaks something. I always thought the $5bn valuation based on the original SilverLake investment was too high at the time but it might be nearer the mark now, based on 5 times revenue.
 
west didsblue said:
Unlikely to be anything to do with that.
Many companies have complex holding company structures with names like midco, topco etc. as part of the name of the companies. Midco will simply mean that it is in the middle of the structure with CFG above it and MCFC below it.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree told it’s CFG Midco
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
I don’t think this is too far away.

Fans already can’t stand any kind of perceived bias against their teams from “neutral” pundits.

I’m sure football will have far more balanced debate when all clubs have their own channels and pundits blowing smoke up fans’ arses.
Click to expand...
I just think the one lesson we have all learned from football is that "money talks." Whether we like it or not there are staggering profits to be made from the full digitisation of football. If clubs ran their own broadcast network they could deal direct with the sponsors and advdertisers, big games could be sold like boxing as pay-per-view, they could sell digital season tickets to millions of fans (and bars) across the world. Some of these fans will pay a premium to watch in virtual reality.
Clubs own the content so why would they continue to give their own product away to organisations like SKY, BT, UEFA, and FIFA? Clubs can hugely increase their revenues by dealing with their own customers directly. This why buyers are not put-off by the huge asking price for MUFC. Football is one of the fastest-growing industries in the world and has only just started getting going in huge markets like China, USA, and India. Women's football is also growing.
The crucial thing is that matchgoing fans get a fair deal because without full stadiums the product will be hard to sell. Change is on the way and the PL will be at the heart of it and so will all the major clubs and CFG. A new structure will have to be put in place to guarantee the pyramid, especially in England. This is not going away.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Good job we play on grass then.

Can't say looking at that article and if it's purely an internal transaction then we won't know unless someone leaks something. I always thought the $5bn valuation based on the original SilverLake investment was too high at the time but it might be nearer the mark now, based on 5 times revenue.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the continued growth in MLS and the New York land and stadium deal will boost the value of CFG. I have always thought that MCFC provided most of the value for the group but I wonder if that will change moving forward. Sheikh Mansour has made big profits from his property investments in Manchester but can expect better returns in New York City. It is fascinating watching the stratospheric expansion of "little old City."
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
I just think the one lesson we have all learned from football is that "money talks." Whether we like it or not there are staggering profits to be made from the full digitisation of football. If clubs ran their own broadcast network they could deal direct with the sponsors and advdertisers, big games could be sold like boxing as pay-per-view, they could sell digital season tickets to millions of fans (and bars) across the world. Some of these fans will pay a premium to watch in virtual reality.
Clubs own the content so why would they continue to give their own product away to organisations like SKY, BT, UEFA, and FIFA? Clubs can hugely increase their revenues by dealing with their own customers directly. This why buyers are not put-off by the huge asking price for MUFC. Football is one of the fastest-growing industries in the world and has only just started getting going in huge markets like China, USA, and India. Women's football is also growing.
The crucial thing is that matchgoing fans get a fair deal because without full stadiums the product will be hard to sell. Change is on the way and the PL will be at the heart of it and so will all the major clubs and CFG. A new structure will have to be put in place to guarantee the pyramid, especially in England. This is not going away.
Click to expand...
It’s inevitable that clubs will start to broadcast their own games at some point.

The challenge then is to keep football reasonably competitive. The PL, for all its faults, pays its teams far more equally than any other big league. This creates better content.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
I just think the one lesson we have all learned from football is that "money talks." Whether we like it or not there are staggering profits to be made from the full digitisation of football. If clubs ran their own broadcast network they could deal direct with the sponsors and advdertisers, big games could be sold like boxing as pay-per-view, they could sell digital season tickets to millions of fans (and bars) across the world. Some of these fans will pay a premium to watch in virtual reality.
Clubs own the content so why would they continue to give their own product away to organisations like SKY, BT, UEFA, and FIFA? Clubs can hugely increase their revenues by dealing with their own customers directly. This why buyers are not put-off by the huge asking price for MUFC. Football is one of the fastest-growing industries in the world and has only just started getting going in huge markets like China, USA, and India. Women's football is also growing.
The crucial thing is that matchgoing fans get a fair deal because without full stadiums the product will be hard to sell. Change is on the way and the PL will be at the heart of it and so will all the major clubs and CFG. A new structure will have to be put in place to guarantee the pyramid, especially in England. This is not going away.
Click to expand...
Certainly don’t disagree with that although I don’t want clubs to ‘do their own thing’ I certainly don’t understand why the Premier League don’t stream its own matches rather than outsource it to Sky/BT. The money they’d then make would be astronomical!
 
BeerIsTheBest said:
Nothing to see here. Chinese investment in UK sport being pared back in most areas including other Prem clubs.
Click to expand...

Exactly this. CMC is also a partner, owning 30%, of a JV with CFG (33%) and a local company in Sichuan (37%) that owns 90% of the shares in Sichuan Jiuniu, the Chengdu-based member of CFG. There's no mention so far of CMC withdrawing from that venture, and at the moment there seems no basis to cast doubt over whether it will continue to be involved in the Group's operations in China.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
I wonder if the continued growth in MLS and the New York land and stadium deal will boost the value of CFG. I have always thought that MCFC provided most of the value for the group but I wonder if that will change moving forward. Sheikh Mansour has made big profits from his property investments in Manchester but can expect better returns in New York City. It is fascinating watching the stratospheric expansion of "little old City."
Click to expand...
There is the NYC stadium deal as well as Bahia coming up which is in excess of £1bn from memory
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
I just think the one lesson we have all learned from football is that "money talks." Whether we like it or not there are staggering profits to be made from the full digitisation of football. If clubs ran their own broadcast network they could deal direct with the sponsors and advdertisers, big games could be sold like boxing as pay-per-view, they could sell digital season tickets to millions of fans (and bars) across the world. Some of these fans will pay a premium to watch in virtual reality.
Clubs own the content so why would they continue to give their own product away to organisations like SKY, BT, UEFA, and FIFA? Clubs can hugely increase their revenues by dealing with their own customers directly. This why buyers are not put-off by the huge asking price for MUFC. Football is one of the fastest-growing industries in the world and has only just started getting going in huge markets like China, USA, and India. Women's football is also growing.
The crucial thing is that matchgoing fans get a fair deal because without full stadiums the product will be hard to sell. Change is on the way and the PL will be at the heart of it and so will all the major clubs and CFG. A new structure will have to be put in place to guarantee the pyramid, especially in England. This is not going away.
Click to expand...

Spot on, it could majorly benefit the smaller teams. I wonder if there are a million County supporters world wide who would be happy to pay £2 a match to watch them play? The potential revenue could possibly prevent another Bury
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
I just think the one lesson we have all learned from football is that "money talks." Whether we like it or not there are staggering profits to be made from the full digitisation of football. If clubs ran their own broadcast network they could deal direct with the sponsors and advdertisers, big games could be sold like boxing as pay-per-view, they could sell digital season tickets to millions of fans (and bars) across the world. Some of these fans will pay a premium to watch in virtual reality.
Clubs own the content so why would they continue to give their own product away to organisations like SKY, BT, UEFA, and FIFA? Clubs can hugely increase their revenues by dealing with their own customers directly. This why buyers are not put-off by the huge asking price for MUFC. Football is one of the fastest-growing industries in the world and has only just started getting going in huge markets like China, USA, and India. Women's football is also growing.
The crucial thing is that matchgoing fans get a fair deal because without full stadiums the product will be hard to sell. Change is on the way and the PL will be at the heart of it and so will all the major clubs and CFG. A new structure will have to be put in place to guarantee the pyramid, especially in England. This is not going away.
Click to expand...
Good points, well made. Perhaps the way technology is going it won’t be too long before players wear some sort of gizmo which will allow a subscriber to tune in and ‘become‘ that player for games playing in some sort of virtual reality via a headset. This will pander to the millions of (weirdo) fans who are emotionally tied to a player and not necessarily a team.
Reminiscent of Woody Allen and the orgasmatron in his 70s film Sleeper.
Glad I’m a FOC.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
It’s inevitable that clubs will start to broadcast their own games at some point.

The challenge then is to keep football reasonably competitive. The PL, for all its faults, pays its teams far more equally than any other big league. This creates better content.
Click to expand...

14 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..
 
waspish said:
14 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..
Click to expand...
They voted for FFP…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top