As far as I'm aware it's still planned. I've seen people on here who've said it might start this summer.
I do read the thread quite often but I`m still not certain it will happen.Perhaps the powers that be are waiting to see if the demand will increase.I wonder what the figures are for the "Waiting List" ?As far as I'm aware it's still planned. I've seen people on here who've said it might start this summer.
Something wrong about CFG?
Is there a danger that UEFA could look at this and rule that we're manipulating the figures to show City as making a profit while the rest of the City Group is burdened with the losses?
Something wrong about CFG?
Well done you.Can always count on you to put some of these fuckers in their place Col.No but there's something badly wrong with his report.
He's assumed that anything in CFG's accounts that isn't a City cost has been buried in NYCFC/Melbourne's accounts. He's effectively saying that we're burying these in order to make City's accounts look good. This is a serious accusation.
But he's not realised that there are the two other companies, City Football Marketing and City Football Services which account for the majority of the costs he believes are being hidden. I've done the correct calcualtion & demanded a retraction/correction from Forbes for this potentially defamatory article. I've also copied in the club so they can take their own action.
Really shit, irresponsible and poorly-researched reporting for such a supposedly respected source.
What he was saying was that City have over 90% of the group income yet the operating costs (without player amortisation) for the group were disproportionately high for NYCFC & Melbourne, at 36% of the total operating costs for the group. In fact when you take out the two other subsidiaries, that percentage of costs falls to about 14%, which is nearly one third of the percentage he was claiming it was.It did seem basically to demand that costs should be shared equally pro rata according to income and any other split was bent. As PB says, the options were MCFC and not-MCFC, and nothing else was considered.
Excellent example of stats without context.
Actually when you also take out the figures for the Image Rights company & the Women's Team, the other teams' expenses are 12% of the overall figure.What he was saying was that City have over 90% of the group income yet the operating costs (without player amortisation) for the group were disproportionately high for NYCFC & Melbourne, at 36% of the total operating costs for the group. In fact when you take out the two other subsidiaries, that percentage of costs falls to about 14%, which is nearly one third of the percentage he was claiming it was.