City Football Group (CFG) [Owner of Melbourne City]

[Jimmy]

Was certain there was an AFC rule that any one owner couldn't own more than one club in the Champions League.

[jw1739]

37 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

Was certain there was an AFC rule that any one owner couldn't own more than one club in the Champions League.

And you were correct!
I have found it.
http://www.fourfourtwo.com/sg/news/chinese-corporate-giants-could-jeopardise-acl-participation#:OKEamGP_lDivcA
Specifically mentions City, Yokohama, CFG, and Sheikh Mansour.

[Jimmy]

8 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

And you were correct!
I have found it.
http://www.fourfourtwo.com/sg/news/chinese-corporate-giants-could-jeopardise-acl-participation#:OKEamGP_lDivcA
Specifically mentions City, Yokohama, CFG, and Sheikh Mansour.

“The Member Association shall ensure that no natural or legal person (including holding companies and subsidiaries) exercise third-party control over more than one club or group whenever the integrity of any match or competition could be jeopardised.”

[raw10]

6 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

And you were correct!
I have found it.
http://www.fourfourtwo.com/sg/news/chinese-corporate-giants-could-jeopardise-acl-participation#:OKEamGP_lDivcA
Specifically mentions City, Yokohama, CFG, and Sheikh Mansour.

Well, either this is no longer an issue, considering that both Jiangsu and Guangzhou is competing in the champions league right now, or they have yet to make a ruling.. I wonder who keep tabs on who owns what and by how much in each league?

[Deeming]

1 hour ago, jw1739 said:

And you were correct!
I have found it.
http://www.fourfourtwo.com/sg/news/chinese-corporate-giants-could-jeopardise-acl-participation#:OKEamGP_lDivcA
Specifically mentions City, Yokohama, CFG, and Sheikh Mansour.

Who wants in on Melbourne City FC finally qualify for the AFC but are ineligible because [insert other Asian city] FC have already qualified or are CFGs preferred AFC club

[jw1739]

1 hour ago, raw10 said:

Well, either this is no longer an issue, considering that both Jiangsu and Guangzhou is competing in the champions league right now, or they have yet to make a ruling.. I wonder who keep tabs on who owns what and by how much in each league?

I would suggest that the rules will simply sit there until something like the "Disgrace of Gijon" occurs (if it ever does) and then there will be major repercussions affecting a number of clubs.

It's early days to forecast what might happen as City Football Group expands its influence across the globe. IMO the biggest threat to a smaller club such as Melbourne City won't come directly from being a small part of the overall CFG empire, but it will come if the regulatory framework in which that club operates inhibits CFG from doing what they want to do. Global businesses don't like petty restrictions being placed on them. For the moment I think CFG are happy to try and force FFA's hand on various issues, but in the longer term I can see them walking away from the A-League if FFA continues to frustrate them.

[Tesla]

I'm surprised the rule exists in the AFC (I havent bothered to read the article above, I'll trust that you guys have read it correctly), just because AFC cares a lot more about the business side of things than the football. The UEFA rule is pretty well known on the other hand.

The thing is, I really don't see the need for it. It does sound good on paper, but I can't really see what difference it would make if two teams owned by the same owners come up against each other in continental football. If the match is fixed by the fact the same person\s owns the clubs, then this is just like any other form of match fixing, which can happen regardless of ownership. The reason it generally doesn't happen is that it's illegal and people that engage in it are risking both sporting bans and fines or jail time.

Just like any other conflict of interest, the main thing is that it's disclosed. That way if anything suspect occurs, like one team playing a weaker line up than usual (which I dont think qualifies as match fixing but it's obviously an issue in a sporting sense), then appropriate sanctions can be implemented like kicking both teams out of the competition etc.

FWIW, I believe when the MLS started a number of teams were owned by the same company/s, and it might still be the case to this day.

 

Edited March 22, 2016 by Tesla

[malloy]

5 minutes ago, Tesla said:

I'm surprised the rule exists in the AFC (I havent bothered to read the article above, I'll trust that you guys have read it correctly), just because AFC cares a lot more about the business side of things than the football. The UEFA rule is pretty well known on the other hand.

The thing is, I really don't see the need for it. It does sound good on paper, but I can't really see what difference it would make if two teams owned by the same owners come up against each other in continental football. If the match is fixed by the fact the same person\s owns the clubs, then this is just like any other form of match fixing, which can happen regardless of ownership. The reason it generally doesn't happen is that it's illegal and people that engage in it are risking both sporting bans and fines or jail time.

Just like any other conflict of interest, the main thing is that it's disclosed. That way if anything suspect occurs, like one team playing a weaker line up than usual (which I dont think qualifies as match fixing but it's obviously an issue in a sporting sense), then appropriate sanctions can be implemented like kicking both teams out of the competition etc.

FWIW, I believe when the MLS started a number of teams were owned by the same company/s, and it might still be the case to this day.

 

What happens if multiple FFA owned clubs qualify for Champions League? 

 

[Falastur]

I should point out that you can apply for special exemption from the multiple ownership rule on a season-by-season basis. 

[belaguttman]

I think the concern is that group results could be fixed by one team deliberately losing in order to advantage a co-owned team in the following round by helping them avoid a particular opponent

[Kinnibari]

9 hours ago, jw1739 said:

Thank you for the hint. I should have looked further. It does appear to be a UEFA rule:
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/football-law/dual-ownership-of-football-clubs.htm#
http://www.danielgeey.com/multiple-football-club-ownership-disparities-between-rules/

The risk in CFG owning multiple clubs in Asia would be that a similar rule is made for the AFC in the future.

No problems. Hard to keep track of so many regs.

[Murfy1]

Exclusive: Frank Lampard says FFA, A-League clubs need to convince stars that Australia is attractive

 

by DAVID WEINER IN NEW YORK

23 March 2016

 

PREMIER League legend Frank Lampard has closed the door on a move to the A-League but has told the FFA and A-League clubs they need to “sell themselves very well” to prospective marquees to achieve their goal in a competitive and changing football landscape.

Lampard, who came within a whisker of joining Melbourne City at the start of the last A-League campaign, said Australia is a “very attractive proposition” for players in Europe at the right time of their careers – but the stakes have been raised by America and now, China – so the pitch to come down under needs to trump the riches of other destinations.

When told about the FFA’s renewed push to invest in high profile marquees again next season, Lampard warned not to look for a quick fix, but if the right player comes up, the right proposal needs to be made.

“It’s up to the league (whether Australia can compete). Australia is a very attractive proposition for a player at a certain stage of their career,” Lampard toldfoxsports.com.au in New York, where he conducted the draw for the 2016 FIFA Interactive World Cup.

“It’s not easy to compete with the top European leagues but at a certain stage of your career, Australia is a very attractive proposition.

“Clubs will have to sell themselves very well.

“If you can start, the more names you can start to get, the more names you can encourage to come.”

He added: “It’s difficult; the playing field is hard, particularly with China. That’s changed the landscape. Money talks at times.

While many fans, sponsors and media hailed the return to the strategy of adding more billboard names to help market the league, others have been critical of that idea, saying it is merely papering over the cracks and not selling the current product properly.

Lampard points to the MLS, where he is now playing alongside Andrea Pirlo and David Villa at a franchise in just its second season, as having a good balance between the two.

“I think if they (FFA) look at the model of the MLS, you build smart. You don’t just try bring one or two players on big money and expect it to change in a short period of time. You have to build.

“I know certain players have gone to Australia and improved the game there. I think you have to entice big name players to come, but you can’t just throw money at it and expect it to change.

“I know the support is huge; I know there a lot of fans watching the game, the game is growing and in time it will do (further).

“(But) they’re going to have to compete with China, the MLS – it’s not easy.”

t was reported last year that Lampard had toyed with the idea of joining the new-look Melbourne City. FFA rules at the time prevented both he and David Villa being at the club, but the man himself says he would have enjoyed the chance to play in the A-League had the stars aligned – except Manchester City came into the equation.

“It was close; when I signed for New York there was a six month period where I couldn’t play and I obviously ended up being a Manchester player. But it was mentioned to come and play in Melbourne.

“I was very up for it.

“I’ve never been to Australia; I love to travel and take in new cultures and for me, six months would have been a long time out of football. It was certainly an option. Probably only when Manchester City came in late, did that change. If that hadn’t happened, I’d probably have been out there playing (in the A-League).”

Now 37, Lampard admits that the A-League is no longer on his radar.

“Me, now I don’t know, it’s late now.

“It’s something I definitely would have looked at very closely; I was close there for a short period.

“It’s a great experience for a player. (Alessandro) Del Piero had a great time out there. It wouldn’t have been a problem for me, but I think my ship has passed now.”

 

http://www.foxsports.com.au/football/exclusive-frank-lampard-says-ffa-aleague-clubs-need-to-convince-stars-that-australia-is-attractive/news-story/6644e5c63ee0b430d4b24c73023cc709

 

 

David Villa pleased A-League club Melbourne City are in contention

 

by DAVID WEINER IN NEW YORK

24 March 2016

 

HIS time in Australia might only have been brief, but David Villa certainly talks of it fondly.

The Spanish football star traded the ‘City’ of Melbourne for the ‘City’ of New York much more quickly than A-League fans would have wanted, after scoring twice in four games, starting three.

But the striker is pleased for his former teammates that they’ve kicked on after an inconsistent first season, sitting second, a point behind Western Sydney, to contend for both the Premiership and the Championship, and revealed he’s still in regular contact with many of them.

“They start very good; I’m happy for them. I have a lot of friends there. I am happy for them,” Villa told foxsports.com.au in New York after the final of the FIFA Interactive World Cup, where he presented the trophy at the grand final.

“I am texting with some guys, sometimes. They are very happy with this year in Australia.

“I text a lot with Patrick (Kisnorbo), the guy I most stay in touch with, with him.

“Always other teammates, they (not) in the team, like Jonatan Germano, Iain Ramsey too.

“The other player I spend a lot of weeks with (is Jason) Hoffman, playing in Newcastle right now.

“I am happy for my past.”

City struggled for consistency last season after they hype of the change of ownership and Villa’s arrival — but did still make it through to the preliminary final, a derby loss to Melbourne Victory. This season, with Bruno Fornaroli, Harry Novillo and Aaron Mooy pulling the strings, they’re genuine contenders.

The MLS season has just commenced, where Villa takes his place alongside Frank Lampard and Andrea Pirlo in the New York City side.

Few have the unique vantage point that Villa has to compare and contrast two leagues in similar markets and with similar challenges luring players from abroad.

But the 2010 World Cup winner said time is the only commodity needed for the gap to be bridged.

“No (no special advice Australia should), follow work.

“Obviously the Australian league, the MLS league, need time; (they’re) young (compared to) the best leagues in the world, like the European or South American leagues.

“Keep working for growing up to be better year by year and of course, with the time, with the work, you’ll both be successful.”

 

http://www.foxsports.com.au/football/a-league/david-villa-pleased-aleague-club-melbourne-city-are-in-contention/news-story/594cac029792a0324a23e3362d4138ab

[illeatyourheart]

Villa becoming besties with the Hoff

[hakz7]

1 hour ago, illeatyourheart said:

Villa becoming besties with the Hoff

And Ramsay... And people wonder why he left the club early...

[Shahanga]

2 hours ago, illeatyourheart said:

Villa becoming besties with the Hoff

That's what I like about the Hoff.  The man is humble.  

[Kiro Kompiro]

On 3/22/2016 at 2:56 PM, jw1739 said:

I would suggest that the rules will simply sit there until something like the "Disgrace of Gijon" occurs (if it ever does) and then there will be major repercussions affecting a number of clubs.

It's early days to forecast what might happen as City Football Group expands its influence across the globe. IMO the biggest threat to a smaller club such as Melbourne City won't come directly from being a small part of the overall CFG empire, but it will come if the regulatory framework in which that club operates inhibits CFG from doing what they want to do. Global businesses don't like petty restrictions being placed on them. For the moment I think CFG are happy to try and force FFA's hand on various issues, but in the longer term I can see them walking away from the A-League if FFA continues to frustrate them.

 

Thats my concern as well.   If as you say the FFA continues to frustrate CFG I can see them give up and look to focus their resources in Asia where their exposure to the City brand is so much bigger.

 

[Shahanga]

10 hours ago, Kiro Kompiro said:

 

Thats my concern as well.   If as you say the FFA continues to frustrate CFG I can see them give up and look to focus their resources in Asia where their exposure to the City brand is so much bigger.

Oh no.

We might be an independent club again instead of football's version of Kmart. Wouldn't that be terrible.

[jw1739]

25 minutes ago, Shahanga said:

Oh no.

We might be an independent club again instead of football's version of Kmart. Wouldn't that be terrible.

Yes, it would. You would find CFA Melbourne would simply deteriorate, and there'd be no access to the CFG scouting or coaching networks - and that's just for starters. On the macro scale, the A-League would lose its wealthiest club owners, the ones that actually want progress, and so FFA would revert to its traditional mind-numbing torpor.

[Kiro Kompiro]

46 minutes ago, Shahanga said:

Oh no.

We might be an independent club again instead of football's version of Kmart. Wouldn't that be terrible.

If only it were that simple.  Look at the Jets for inspiration of what this club would become.

[Dylan]

We would be treading water again out at epping. But dont worry, we would have enough money to be funded 'forever'

[HEARTinator]

On ‎3‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 2:56 PM, jw1739 said:

I would suggest that the rules will simply sit there until something like the "Disgrace of Gijon" occurs (if it ever does) and then there will be major repercussions affecting a number of clubs.

It's early days to forecast what might happen as City Football Group expands its influence across the globe. IMO the biggest threat to a smaller club such as Melbourne City won't come directly from being a small part of the overall CFG empire, but it will come if the regulatory framework in which that club operates inhibits CFG from doing what they want to do. Global businesses don't like petty restrictions being placed on them. For the moment I think CFG are happy to try and force FFA's hand on various issues, but in the longer term I can see them walking away from the A-League if FFA continues to frustrate them.

The problem for the FFA is that it desperately wants CFG and all the owners to subsidise the HAL (and lose money) but it hasn't to date wanted to share decision making power with the owners. FFA wants to make the rules and wants the owners to bleed. That's how it's pretty much been but CFG isn't going to cop that from what we've (kind of) heard. They are agitating for more say and good on them - the words "No taxation without representation" come to mind. If CFG piss off it would signal an almighty vote of No Confidence in the HAL and hopefully FFA HQ understand this.

[Luke]

It is what it is. No ones put a gun to the owners heads and told them they have to own a club 

[Johnny Blaze]

1 hour ago, Luke said:

It is what it is. No ones put a gun to the owners heads and told them they have to own a club 

The FFA is essentially running an underperforming business. And as an underperforming business you can't tell one of your biggest stakeholders "like it or fuck off".

 

FFA is the desperate one here.

[Luke]

Would the a-league be any better off run by a billionaire cartel, doubt it 

[Johnny Blaze]

1 minute ago, Luke said:

Would the a-league be any better off run by a billionaire cartel, doubt it 

Nobody is asking for that but the owners clearly  need more of a say in how the league spends its money and the rules it makes.

 

eg: the fact the league can dictate what home colours a team can wear or if they make finals which venue you can play is absurd.

 

Maybe if the FFA was more competent, we wouldn't need to have this discussion.

[Luke]

None of that sounds absurd at all really. Sometimes the good of the game is more important than a billionaires ego

[wombegongal]

22 minutes ago, Luke said:

None of that sounds absurd at all really. Sometimes the good of the game is more important than a billionaires ego

Their egos? The good of the game has to lie in the same direction as what is good for the owners in the competition. Or else eventually you don't have any owners. Owners aren't blank check books. The fact that guys like Sage are still around running clubs at massive loses to me is amazing. The FFA would be fucked if people like him weren't such tragics.

[Luke]

1 hour ago, wombegongal said:

Their egos? The good of the game has to lie in the same direction as what is good for the owners in the competition. Or else eventually you don't have any owners. Owners aren't blank check books. The fact that guys like Sage are still around running clubs at massive loses to me is amazing. The FFA would be fucked if people like him weren't such tragics.

A-league loses are child's play compared to football worldwide. Make no mistake FFA wants whats best for the game overall and that generally means more revenue for all levels of the game

[NewConvert]

As someone who came to the A-League via the Socceroos, I prefer that the A-League to nurture the local talent for the national teams as well the ability to export the more promising talent to the top 4 leagues. As someone who was around when the VFL was tearing itself to bits because the clubs were all pulling in different directions, I can see the point that what a club wants is not necessarily good for the whole game. I have no idea on the NSL but that was not a rampaging success and I believe that was when the clubs ran the local game.

So far people have said that billionaires will want a greater say in how the competition is run. As an example somebody mentioned that clubs should be allowed to wear what colours they want in reference to have Melbourne City wear sky blue but another club known as Sydney FC opposed it. So who arbitrates? The FFA does and they went with the conservative position to leave things as they are. I suspect that if all the clubs had an identical position regarding a particular issue then the FFA would bend - as an example when the fans began the boycott earlier this season, the FFA did go into negotiations because the clubs were as one on this issue. We only hear piecemeal what the clubs want the FFA to change but we don't hear how many clubs would like those changes to occur.

It may sound like I am defending the FFA but I have criticised them before. I believe that Gallop is way out of his depth and lacks the imagination to grow the game. De Bohun proved to be a poor middle level manager and he will depart at season's end. I am disappointed with Steve Lowie's reign so far as chairman - he has done nothing new and has not instigated change (maybe DeBohun's exit was orchestrated by him but we will never know). As a former GM said to me about his position, you basically have three months to do the job: first month understand the business and your staff, second month dismiss the staff that you don't want and instigate the changes, third month heal the wounds and then move forward with the business plan. So far I have not seen any of this.

[HEARTinator]

8 hours ago, wombegongal said:

Their egos? The good of the game has to lie in the same direction as what is good for the owners in the competition. Or else eventually you don't have any owners. Owners aren't blank check books. The fact that guys like Sage are still around running clubs at massive loses to me is amazing. The FFA would be fucked if people like him weren't such tragics.

 

6 hours ago, Luke said:

A-league loses are child's play compared to football worldwide. Make no mistake FFA wants whats best for the game overall and that generally means more revenue for all levels of the game

 

IMO it's about FFA respecting the role being played by those that are subsidising the game such as the owners - who are not all billionaires and it's unlikely we'll see a situation where all clubs will be owned by mega-rich. More likely it will be a range of ownership models from very wealthy types to a spread of investors to hopefully clubs where supporters become shareholders.

Surely the general principle should apply - owners forking out money to keep teams afloat should have a say in how the competition is run. It doesn't mean IMO ripping control from FFA but all sides working cooperatively as much as possible because growing the league is in the best interest of all parties.

The recent dispute between FFA and fans arising from the publishing of the names of fans banned from attending games is also a good example. The FFA came up with a 'ban process' which was less than transparent or fair but they ran with it. It took the Wilson article for this to explode in the FFA's face with a lot of negative press for the game. If the process had been fairer to start with, had the FFA been more respectful of fans, it wouldn't have come to such a messy end.

Edited March 27, 2016 by HEARTinator

[bigapplepie]

New York City FC fan popping in to ask if you guys resent Man City as much as our fans do?

It's a love/hate relationship. We love the money but hate the association.

[Dylan]

11 minutes ago, bigapplepie said:

New York City FC fan popping in to ask if you guys resent Man City as much as our fans do?

It's a love/hate relationship. We love the money but hate the association.

I think you would find a lot of us dont like New York much after that Villa fiasco

[bigapplepie]

2 minutes ago, Dylan said:

I think you would find a lot of us dont like New York much after that Villa fiasco

Do you mean Lampard?

[Dylan]

Just now, bigapplepie said:

Do you mean Lampard?

No Villa, he was supposed to be here for 10 games and NY decided they wanted him back to take some photos. 

[Deeming]

49 minutes ago, bigapplepie said:

New York City FC fan popping in to ask if you guys resent Man City as much as our fans do?

It's a love/hate relationship. We love the money but hate the association.

And many unhappy with the colour change.

Overall I think most think its been positive but terrible communication and their obsession with 'branding' has/is hurting the relationship.

[Murfy1]

Melbourne City sponsorship and social media numbers surge
 

Apr 11 2016

John Stensholt

 

Improved on-field results, increasing crowds and a big social media presence have led to a surge in sponsorship revenue for A-League club Melbourne City.

City is on the verge of striking a new 10-year sponsorship deal with airline Etihad, which already pays the club an estimated $1.6 million annually, which makes the existing contract one of the more lucrative in Australian sport.

The Etihad deal will last for 10 years and also include City's W-League women's team, which won the competition this year, and its  Victorian state league junior side.

City, which has qualified for the A-League finals series that begins this weekend, has risen up the ladder this year thanks in particular to players such as the league's top scorer Bruno Fornaroli and star Socceroos midfielder Aaron Mooy.

Its social media presence has exceeded that of AFL clubs such as St Kilda and North Melbourne. City has about 156,000 Facebook followers, second in the A-League only to Melbourne Victory, up 225 per cent in two years. Its Twitter followers have increased about 147 per cent in the same time.

The club now has more than 100 staff, including players, and revenue will reach $20 million this year, both of which are more than double the levels they were when Manchester City's owners City Football Group purchased what was then Melbourne Heart for $11.25 million in January 2014.

"We have seen a major transformation since the acquisition across all parts of the business," City chief executive Scott Munn said. "We have a long way to go in terms of fan creation and culture, but we have owners that are committed to this in the long term. Part of that is getting results on the pitch, and we are striving to do that."

 

http://www.afr.com/business/sport/melbourne-city-sponsorship-and-social-media-numbers-surge-20160407-go11oq

[belaguttman]

I'm sure half the Facebook and Twitter traffic is supporters telling the franchise exactly what they think about JVS

[jw1739]

34 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

I'm sure half the Facebook and Twitter traffic is supporters telling the franchise exactly what they think about JVS

You may well be right, but the numbers quoted are for followers, not traffic.

What you see from the article is an example of the old adage "Money follows money." Wealthy owners are what every club in the league needs; if we had them, the league itself would grow very quickly.

[Pete Heartspur]

"City is on the verge of striking a new 10-year sponsorship deal with airline Etihad"

Geez, I hope it doesn't fall through!

[Luke]

20 million revenue is impressive. Though we don't really know just how gamed these "sponsorship" deals are