Chinese Consortium invests $400m in CFG

AlloBoi said:
Are we still the noisey neighbors?
Click to expand...
Possibly they have become the 'nosy neighbours'... face and hands pressed against the glass looking in at the display with longing in the cold light of day?
 
Looking for cheap flights already, possibly another preseason trip to Shanghai then :-)
 
Gaudion M said:
Just to clarify. We have issued shares which in accounting terms adds cash to the balance sheet but has no impact on P&L. The share have been issued by the holding company so the ownership of MCFC has changed and we are now owned as per the split above 87/13%.

The deal will have no impact on MCFC accounts and therefore no impact on MCFC FFP. It is that simple. Within groups of companies you find intercompany loans so the money could find it’s way into our accounts as a loan from the parent company and we could spend it but this would be no different to money the sheik put directly – it doesn’t change much in terms of our accounting or FFP. However it does mean that accusations of soft sponsorship going forward will be harder to justify given the multiple owners.

By my maths £265m is 13% of £2,039m. Let’s not do a rags and quote misleading or inaccurate figures. The group is valued at £2bn. Who cares how much we are worth we are top of the league and that is more important.
Click to expand...

Well said.
Indeed, the club statement says this:
"The capital from the share acquisition will be used by City Football Group to fund its China growth, further CFG international business expansion opportunities and further develop CFG infrastructure assets."

It's a separate entity in effect, and has nothing to do with City's finances directly. Obviously, there may be new sponsorships as a result of it which will be relevant in time.
 
lancs blue said:
Doesn't FFP work on a 3 year rolling cycle?
Click to expand...

True, so lets expand it a bit. Lets say in Year 1 City make a profit, after player dealing, of £100m. A very good year. Year 2 we lose £10m after player trading. Year 3 we break even. Year 4 comes around. At this point year 1 is out of the picture, as that is outside of the 3 year rolling cycle. In Year 4 City make a £10m profit (before any player trading). Over the 3 year period that puts City at ZERO profit (-£10m, £0m and +£10m), so we need to sell as much as we buy (in financial terms) to break even. However, we've actually still got £100m of profit from Year 1 we haven't spent. Can we no longer spend that money on players as it falls outside of UEFA's entirely arbitrary 3 year cycle? Over a 4 year cycle we're £100m in profit. It's just another farcical foible of the FFP rules, profit can be spent on players, as long as you spend it within a certain period of time, after that the profit can't be spent on players anymore.
 
Marvin said:
Could be spun as Sheik Mansour selling, but in reality its a strategic deal which is going to open up China for City.

All the commercial sponsorships in football are based on global popularity, and City now have a huge advantage on European rivals

I thought that the City football group was a waste of time and resources, but this makes it real and valuable
Click to expand...
CFG may have initially seemed like a waste of time and resources, but like all good things it will take time to build. Imagine the vision; CFG own the most high profile, profitable and most successful club on every continent with only South America and Africa to go and a proper footing in Asia to be resolved with Yokohama.

Imagine the fans of our foreign CFG owned clubs as you would fans from small provincial towns in the UK. They have their 'local' team who they support, but they ultimately consider themselves as fans of one of the Premier League big hitters so they feel involved in some way in all the big domestic and European dust ups. They travel to the matches, buy the merchandise and ultimately contribute to the coffers of the big club they follow. The Rags have been doing it for years, but CFG have now taken this multi level marketing to another level altogether and on a truly global/local scale.

I always knew this would be the case with CFG, and realised early on that even though the task would be difficult, with dedication and determination the impossible just take a little bit of time to achieve. Make no mistake, this is a truly MASSIVE deal that is sending shock waves through world football as the reality of what CFG are doing begins to sink in.

I mentioned how MASSIVE this deal was to our resident Rag in my office....... Alas he's too busy writing some .php server side software code to comment....... Funny thing is, it's never stopped him before. Oh and one last thing, the Rags in my office absolutely hate the use of the word MASSIVE!!!! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha! :-)
 
Last edited:
blue5ter said:
lots of people are 'misreporting' - many outlets & social media reporting that 'the sheik has sold' or 'abu dhabi have sold' instead of 'CFG have released additional equity'

As for redcafe, it's hilarious - they are in complete & utter denial
Click to expand...

That's the key point. That it's a Right Issue/Share dilution. It basically means that the brand now has £265m more capital, and presumably serious leverage in China, and that's about it.

It really is thrilling news.
 
Panic...great entertainment...total ignorance relating to financial matters...yes....it's all there on Redcafe....just can't stop smiling.
 
People need to stop going on about FFP and look at the bigger picture. It's got nothing to do with FFP which was a fly around the Sheikh's backside which he swatted away. the same could be said about Man United.

This is the big time.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
He's really going for it, isn't he? "Part owned by Chinese state", "communist party member" - this guy is a cockroach.
Click to expand...
I'm amazed he already had time to ask his rag overlords what to say tbh, he must just be going off book here and saying what he thinks they'd like. It's over the next few days when we'll see the planted stories from the other clubs owners
 

"is this one of those rhetorical questions"

Maybe!

I also offer this:
Rob Harris ‏@RobHarris 46m46 minutes ago
Like City's original takeover, Sheikh Mansour is diluting his ownership to 87% without the deal being trailed in advance - no leak

Not trailed in advance? Is this meant to be approving of the integrity, or a spin at it being more sinister? Use of the phrase "diluting his ownership" suggests the latter.
 
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