New York City FC Thread (new away kit P245)

[Matty]

Re: New York City

they could be but there not going to be mcfc are NOT buying a soccer franchise in new york , our owner is to further raise the profile of abu dhabi not to pump more money into mcfc

You now this as a FACT or is it your opinion?

It was said on the radio earlier that the NYCFC project was only one of four possible "partnerships" with MCFC. Obviously NY, but also Shanghai & two other locations I've forgotten!
It was also said they'd be branded as we are it's the same colours & similar badges etc, all would obviously have the name 'City' in their titles. Now if he bought them under ADUG who solely own City then they could use accounts, investments etc etc between all of the clubs in that group.

Like Red Bull have done, they've got the New Jersey Red Bulls, Red Bull Salzburg, the Red Bull Formula 1 team etc all owned by the Red Bull company/owner but that doesn't mean Red Bull Salzburg can take millions from sponsorship gained by the formula 1 team.

 

[SuperYaya]

Re: New York City

Would be pretty cool. We could loan players out there to get some experience in a competitive league.

 

[SJT]

Re: New York City

Franchise? what's a franchise? it's another club.
there's only one City.

 

[FlatlineMonday]

Re: New York City

Would be pretty cool. We could loan players out there to get some experience in a competitive league.

Perhaps just as important, MLS is an extremely physical league

 

[LoveCity]

Re: New York City

If their marquee players are very good, we could loan them like Everton did with Donovan in the middle of the season.

 

[Beezer]

Re: New York City

I don't see many positives for Man City with Sheik Mansour looking to buy an MLS club, but there are a few. The leagues are mutually exclusive for the most part. EPL is Aug thru May and MLS is March thru October. EPL games are usually all over by the kickoff of the first MLS match. MLS is a small feeder club to the EPL, and EPL feeds players that are retiring from the continent and both leagues are okay with that setup. My guess is that Mansour and company are looking to put together a good team in New York, and then casually mention "Hey, if you want to see a really kick-ass team play, I just happen to own one you might be interested in."

The MLS might be a good stint for some academy players, but if you are looking to groom them for Europe, I would make sure the skills you want them to pick up here coincide. Unless you are a designated player, this league is not attractive to anyone looking to make it big. It's pretty much guys that would rather hold off working an 8-5 job for 10 years. The league salary cap is a whopping $3 million US dollars. So, aside from the ridiculuous sums of money the designated players (DP) like Beckham made, the league pays a living wage for guys outside the starting 18, and if you are really good, you can earn $100,000 - $200,000 / year. (DP minimum is $400,000 I think). Most of these guys go back to school when they retire.

Young talent in the US is getting better every year, and could be a scouting opportunity for Man City's academy. Coaches are getting better, kids have the ability to watch superstars online, and on TV when they couldn't do that 15 years ago. The US college system doesn't really produce players the caliber that even the MLS requires. When college kids are drafted, only the top 5 usually end up being good enough to seamlessly fit into the starting lineup. Clubs' academies have devloped a "homegrown" player system that has an agreement with the college system (NCAA is very strict), and that seems to be getting the best of both worlds. Players can choose to go pro and not finish college if they want, and not have to go through the draft. New York city has a very large, and diverse, talent pool, and the New York academy would attract the best talent in the area, especially if there was an option to make it big at Man City where the money is.

 

[Hung]

Re: New York City

It's a way of generating major revenue. Assuming they are part of the 'MCFC Family', any revenue that is directed towards them would automatically be our revenue. Sponsorship deals, tv receipts, merchandise sales etc - a very elegant way around FFP.

que ?

As far as I am aware, there is no FIFA restriction on the same 'Club' having more than one team competing in other leagues around the World. There is a restriction on owning more than one club competing in the same competitions/area, so, I don't think you can own two clubs competing for places in UEFA competitions for example. However, since Premier League clubs do not compete with MLS clubs, one assumes that a single club can have a team in the Premiership as well as the MLS.

On this basis, it would follow that income generated from the MLS would be allowable income into the club. We are under no geographical restriction as to where we generate income from - the 'brand' can have global value (look at Utd).

Of course, like everybody else on here, I'm hypothesising, but on the face of things, it doesn't seem unreasonable. I dare say however that if this is a loophole that we can exploit, Platini with the support of Utd and Bayern will move to close it quickly.

 

[Falastur]

Re: New York City

It's a way of generating major revenue. Assuming they are part of the 'MCFC Family', any revenue that is directed towards them would automatically be our revenue. Sponsorship deals, tv receipts, merchandise sales etc - a very elegant way around FFP.

que ?

As far as I am aware, there is no FIFA restriction on the same 'Club' having more than one team competing in other leagues around the World. There is a restriction on owning more than one club competing in the same competitions/area, so, I don't think you can own two clubs competing for places in UEFA competitions for example. However, since Premier League clubs do not compete with MLS clubs, one assumes that a single club can have a team in the Premiership as well as the MLS.

On this basis, it would follow that income generated from the MLS would be allowable income into the club. We are under no geographical restriction as to where we generate income from - the 'brand' can have global value (look at Utd).

Of course, like everybody else on here, I'm hypothesising, but on the face of things, it doesn't seem unreasonable. I dare say however that if this is a loophole that we can exploit, Platini with the support of Utd and Bayern will move to close it quickly.

I am 143.354% sure that UEFA will not allow this. Even if they realise that it's an actual loophole, they will just close it. But as others have said, it's Mansour and ADUG buying this club, not City. It may be City-branded but that does not mean we can claim their revenue. Seriously, for the love of God stop thinking that FFPR was just invented as a mental exercise in rule bending. And just to top it all off, as I said, MLS teams make virtually no money. In fact

MLS is well-known as an incredibly unprofitable league.

I put it in bold, underlined and on its own line in the hope that more people would read that and realise that this is not about trying to break FFPR. This is about selling City and Abu Dhabi's names around the world, and principally to the USA. Not about finding new profit margins by absorbing other companies. Just about selling City shirts indirectly. I mean, if City were that desperate to break FFPR don't you think they would have come up with something genuinely inventive, like installing a crystal meth lab under the Etihad or something?

 

[Shaelumstash]

Re: New York City

que ?

As far as I am aware, there is no FIFA restriction on the same 'Club' having more than one team competing in other leagues around the World. There is a restriction on owning more than one club competing in the same competitions/area, so, I don't think you can own two clubs competing for places in UEFA competitions for example. However, since Premier League clubs do not compete with MLS clubs, one assumes that a single club can have a team in the Premiership as well as the MLS.

On this basis, it would follow that income generated from the MLS would be allowable income into the club. We are under no geographical restriction as to where we generate income from - the 'brand' can have global value (look at Utd).

Of course, like everybody else on here, I'm hypothesising, but on the face of things, it doesn't seem unreasonable. I dare say however that if this is a loophole that we can exploit, Platini with the support of Utd and Bayern will move to close it quickly.

I am 143.354% sure that UEFA will not allow this. Even if they realise that it's an actual loophole, they will just close it. But as others have said, it's Mansour and ADUG buying this club, not City. It may be City-branded but that does not mean we can claim their revenue. Seriously, for the love of God stop thinking that FFPR was just invented as a mental exercise in rule bending. And just to top it all off, as I said, MLS teams make virtually no money. In fact

MLS is well-known as an incredibly unprofitable league.

I put it in bold, underlined and on its own line in the hope that more people would read that and realise that this is not about trying to break FFPR. This is about selling City and Abu Dhabi's names around the world, and principally to the USA. Not about finding new profit margins by absorbing other companies. Just about selling City shirts indirectly. I mean, if City were that desperate to break FFPR don't you think they would have come up with something genuinely inventive, like installing a crystal meth lab under the Etihad or something?

What the hell are you on about?

Nobody is talking about ways to "rule bend" people are talking about ways to increase our revenue within the existing rules of FFP. We are not going to be able to compete with The Shite or Munich using their existing business model, so City will have to think creatively of ways to increase revenue within the existing rules.

Your crystal meth suggestion is rather far fetched, but not as far fetched as just expecting CIty to just pack up shop and say "Oh well, United, Barca, Real and Munich can never be caught now, so let's just stop trying." The people running the club are mega ambitious and mega intelligent, they will explore every opportunity to give us an edge (legally).

You say the rules are there, and cannot be "broken" or "bent" or they will just change them. Well, if the people running Google or Starbucks had your attitude they'd be paying hundreds of millions more in UK tax. Now morally, I understand the argument they shouldn't be avoiding paying tax, but the reality is they have the best accountants in the world working for them to ensure they are the most tax efficient companies they can possibly be, while still remaining legal and making a profit.

In any business, to be successful you have to find angles to be as successful as possible within the laws of the territory you are trading in. You can't have the attitude of "well there's no point in trying that angle, because they'll just close that loophole down the line". Wake up.

 

[Corky]

Re: New York City

New York City ground:

Maybe there was a misunderstanding?