Jump to content
Melbourne Football

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


Torn Asunder
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, belaguttman said:

Man City has many of the 'stars that attract many to the EPL, both in person and on TV; these are significant sources of revenue and prestige for the EPL. Man City plays attractive football that enhances the prestige and visibility of the EPL, and they are one of the reasons that the EPL is the most viewed football competition with the most revenue. The difficulty for the EPL, at least in the short-term, is that anything that affects Man City will also impact the competition and the prestige and visibility of the competition.

Personally, if they are guilty, I'd treat them like Rangers, but this is why I don't work in the corporate sector; I'm always accused of being an idealist and 'unrealistic'ūüėā

The EPL is, or should be, fully aware of what you say, which IMO is a bit of an exaggeration. City are not the most popular club in the EPL. That honour goes to Liverpool in the UK and to Manchester United by a mile globally. Depending on what you measure it sits about fourth in the global rankings - City, Arsenal and Liverpool all rate about the same globally, lower than Chelsea at No. 2 and United at no. 1.

In the end the EPL either has to put up or shut up. As I understand it, it has charged Manchester City with breaching EPL regulations, so it has to be prepared for any backlash on itself if City is found guilty and the EPL imposes appropriate punishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

The EPL is, or should be, fully aware of what you say, which IMO is a bit of an exaggeration. City are not the most popular club in the EPL. That honour goes to Liverpool in the UK and to Manchester United by a mile globally. Depending on what you measure it sits about fourth in the global rankings - City, Arsenal and Liverpool all rate about the same globally, lower than Chelsea at No. 2 and United at no. 1.

In the end the EPL either has to put up or shut up. As I understand it, it has charged Manchester City with breaching EPL regulations, so it has to be prepared for any backlash on itself if City is found guilty and the EPL imposes appropriate punishment.

No, it isn't the biggest or most popular but if it's relegated or its budget is seriously handicapped, it has distorted the market so much with its money that many of its stars will leave the EPL, they won't all be absorbed by Chelsea, Newcastle and Liverpool or Man U. That diminishes the EPL as a whole

1 hour ago, NewConvert said:

I am sure that CFG will have the funds and influence to sway the EPL.

...and I'm sure that they will

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An article about the possible implications on how this may affect New York City FC ...

https://www.hudsonriverblue.com/2023/2/6/23587612/manchester-city-charged-with-financial-violations-nycfc

States that the impact on other clubs owned by CFG is unknown, but suggests that it potentially could impact funding down the line if sanctions were imposed on Manchester City ...

"Right now it’s unclear what these charges will mean for New York City FC. Last week, Forbes valued NYCFC at $800 million, making it the fourth-most-valuable club in MLS. But the club had an operating loss of an estimated $12 million in 2022 according to Forbes, and rely on CFG for financial support. Any punishment levied against Manchester City could send shockwaves through CFG, and choke off the funds NYCFC need to compete in MLS."

City Group made the following statement:

"Club Statement

Manchester City FC is surprised by the issuing of these alleged breaches of the Premier League Rules, particularly given the extensive engagement and vast amount of detailed materials that the EPL has been provided with.

The Club welcomes the review of this matter by an independent Commission, to impartially consider the comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence that exists in support of its position.

As such we look forward to this matter being put to rest once and for all."

I know on this forum over many years, members have often joked about the obvious nature of the CFG model, to benefit Man City and how financially a lot of things didnt make much sense in terms of their investments outside of Manchester

My view is that if even if sanctioned, the running of the clubs other than Manchester City in terms of dollars is chicken feed for CFG (compared to Manchester), and they wont throw away the investments made in these clubs recklessly, as they all operate to a degree as their own thing ... they also bring multiple benefits to CFG in terms of talent development (from a business perspective).  Ultimately, they will adjust their processes to avoid future breaches, and they will continue to operate at the top of the food chain in world football.

I do feel they value Melbourne City FC highly, especially with our future potential in the AFC.  Given the shifting of football power across the globe, as evidenced at the World Cup where European countries were not as dominant, and with promotion relegation on the horizon, Melbourne City FC's potential is continuing to grow.

Edited by Torn Asunder
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, mattyh001 said:

Very much a puff piece from the Herald Scum.

Nothing wrong with the Mooy transfer.

Caceres' transfer was dodgy on the surface, but really it was just a domestic transfer fee (i'm sure CCM were thrilled that it was not a mutual termination). Either way, rules were put in place afterwards to prevent it happening again. 

Edited by haz
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, haz said:

Very much a puff piece from the Herald Scum.

Nothing wrong with the Mooy transfer.

Caceres' transfer was dodgy on the surface, but really it was just a domestic transfer fee (i'm sure CCM were thrilled that it was not a mutual termination). Either way, rules were put in place afterwards to prevent it happening again. 

agreed thoroughly and about both transfers; nothing really in either of them and by the way we went about the Caceres transfer, we actually screwed ourselves out through things like the Lampard rule.

that said, i'd be surprised if we weren't looked at - even if it is just some witch hunt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, mattyh001 said:

agreed thoroughly and about both transfers; nothing really in either of them and by the way we went about the Caceres transfer, we actually screwed ourselves out through things like the Lampard rule.

that said, i'd be surprised if we weren't looked at - even if it is just some witch hunt

We shot ourselves in the foot with Caceres. But Lampard was a deliberate FFA attack on City because other clubs had had players here on loan where only a fraction of their salary was paid locally - e.g. Hernandez with MV.

I would say the issue with us, if there is one, would be our sponsorship by Etihad. But unless FA has some rule about that it shouldn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jw1739 said:

We shot ourselves in the foot with Caceres. But Lampard was a deliberate FFA attack on City because other clubs had had players here on loan where only a fraction of their salary was paid locally - e.g. Hernandez with MV.

I would say the issue with us, if there is one, would be our sponsorship by Etihad. But unless FA has some rule about that it shouldn't matter.

think you are being a little harsh on the FFA tbh.  unlike other clubs (eh Hernandez at the tards), our CFG could easily use their money and position elsewhere to prop us up without the Lampard rule. 

what's stopping them from loaning us three or four really good plays from NYC, etc., without that loan rule? it's not like other clubs in the league can be dodgy in that way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mattyh001 said:

think you are being a little harsh on the FFA tbh.  unlike other clubs (eh Hernandez at the tards), our CFG could easily use their money and position elsewhere to prop us up without the Lampard rule. 

what's stopping them from loaning us three or four really good plays from NYC, etc., without that loan rule? it's not like other clubs in the league can be dodgy in that way

Sydney and Victory were doing that for years for example with Rogic and Trioisi. It was only when City started looking, both clubs felt threatened and formally complained to the FFA as CFG was going to take advantage of it even more.

But those club didn’t know we were going to be strict with our budgets and it was going to mean very little.

Edited by Mr MO
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Mr MO said:

Sydney and Victory were doing that for years for example with Rogic and Trioisi. It was only when City started looking, both clubs felt threatened and formally complained to the FFA as CFG was going to take advantage of it even more.

But those club didn’t know we were going to be strict with our budgets and it was going to mean very little.

you do realise we signed both Ritchie de Laet and Ross McCormack under loan deals yeah?

the loan structure still exists.  clubs just can't be douches about it.  for us, that means we can't abuse our connections to CFG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, mattyh001 said:

you do realise we signed both Ritchie de Laet and Ross McCormack under loan deals yeah?

the loan structure still exists.  clubs just can't be douches about it.  for us, that means we can't abuse our connections to CFG.

Those are normal loan deals and their full wages counted towards the cap, normal business. Unless marquee players of course.

The Victory players mentioned weren’t marquee and 90% of their wage was paid outside the cap by their owners. That’s the loop which was close now, you play here and it will be accounted here.

Its not the same.

Edited by Mr MO
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, mattyh001 said:

you do realise we signed both Ritchie de Laet and Ross McCormack under loan deals yeah?

the loan structure still exists.  clubs just can't be douches about it.  for us, that means we can't abuse our connections to CFG.

I think that you'll find that FFA was making the assumption that CFG/Manchester City were going to overuse and therefore abuse a loophole in the loan player regulation(s) that allowed only a portion of the player's remuneration to be allocated to the A-League club. I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that any club had been doing that before the Lampard Rule was introduced, nor any evidence to suggest that our new owners were going to do that either.

FFA would definitely have realised that we might have a more ready supply of players available to be loaned to us, but I don't think there was any evidence that we were going to abuse the loan system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

I think that you'll find that FFA was making the assumption that CFG/Manchester City were going to overuse and therefore abuse a loophole in the loan player regulation(s) that allowed only a portion of the player's remuneration to be allocated to the A-League club. I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that any club had been doing that before the Lampard Rule was introduced, nor any evidence to suggest that our new owners were going to do that either.

FFA would definitely have realised that we might have a more ready supply of players available to be loaned to us, but I don't think there was any evidence that we were going to abuse the loan system.

On the evidence, I was public knowledge that Rogic got mostly paid directly by Celtic whilst being on loan to Victory and those wages didn’t count towards the cap.

Edited by Mr MO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I meant was that it was known that there were loan players in our League where only a portion of their remuneration was counted in the cap, and this was obviously tolerated by FFA. But no club was over-using that tolerance - for example no club had several such loan players at the same time. Well, I don't think so.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

I think that you'll find that FFA was making the assumption that CFG/Manchester City were going to overuse and therefore abuse a loophole in the loan player regulation(s) that allowed only a portion of the player's remuneration to be allocated to the A-League club. I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that any club had been doing that before the Lampard Rule was introduced, nor any evidence to suggest that our new owners were going to do that either.

FFA would definitely have realised that we might have a more ready supply of players available to be loaned to us, but I don't think there was any evidence that we were going to abuse the loan system.

it's easy to say that now, but can you really blame the FFA from be pragmatic?

 

20 minutes ago, Mr MO said:

Those are normal loan deals and their full wages counted towards the cap, normal business. Unless marquee players of course.

The Victory players mentioned weren’t marquee and 90% of their wage was paid outside the cap by their owners. That’s the loop which was close now, you play here and it will be accounted here.

Its not the same.

i think that proves the point if nothing else.  before what we did (which screwed the pooch), clubs could could get away with it.  are people really getting upset by this???

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

What I meant was that it was known that there were loan players in our League where only a portion of their remuneration was counted in the cap, and this was obviously tolerated by FFA. But no club was over-using that tolerance - for example no club had several such loan players at the same time. Well, I don't think so.

Well you could argue that bringing Troisi and Rogic in the same season was an over use? However we don’t know the details.

8 minutes ago, mattyh001 said:

it's easy to say that now, but can you really blame the FFA from be pragmatic?

 

i think that proves the point if nothing else.  before what we did (which screwed the pooch), clubs could could get away with it.  are people really getting upset by this???

You lost me sorry, I forgot what we are debating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mattyh001 said:

agreed thoroughly and about both transfers; nothing really in either of them and by the way we went about the Caceres transfer, we actually screwed ourselves out through things like the Lampard rule.

that said, i'd be surprised if we weren't looked at - even if it is just some witch hunt

We're debating what @mattyh001 raised in his post I've quoted above.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 07/04/2023 at 9:28 AM, Tommykins said:

While we do generally like to rip on the club, I've quite enjoyed the Academy Goal of the week segment recently - some absolutely cracking goals from the youngsters.

Some really great team play as well.

Seeing this kind of content from our (recently?) expanded academy has been awesome. Feels more like a club and less like just an a-league team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, bellydrum said:

Some really great team play as well.

Seeing this kind of content from our (recently?) expanded academy has been awesome. Feels more like a club and less like just an a-league team.

What's the URL for this? Is it on the club web-site?

I wish they'd show this sort of stuff on the big screen at home matches...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

What's the URL for this? Is it on the club web-site?

I wish they'd show this sort of stuff on the big screen at home matches...

On some of the club's social media channels. Here's one https://fb.watch/jMO8oVNFH-/

Would love a weekly round-up of academy results too and the occasional player profile. Will mention it next time I get selected for a member survey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, citypool said:

If man city win the champions league do you see it impacting our popularity in Melbourne at all especially with kids? 

I don't think so. There's very little overt connection between the two clubs these days, apart from the occasional transfer of coaches between CFG clubs and random competitions where some "lucky" person gets to go to Abu Dhabi. People support "their club" not the club owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, citypool said:

If man city win the champions league do you see it impacting our popularity in Melbourne at all especially with kids? 

I suspect that they've realised that too overt a connection to Man City actually drives support away. Will actually put off many British migrants like me because we've no love of Man City, and the whole mini Man City thing also reminds about the downside of the takeover, the loss of name and colours, and the continued failure to understand the clubs character and history.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
5 hours ago, jw1739 said:

As everyone starts to realise the current position of power that CFG hold.¬† They have been patient in Melbourne, but now, our sustained success (like a juggernaut) will roll on.¬† I've already had a Tard supporter whinge to me that the comp is now boring as we win too much¬†ūüėĚ

You have to appreciate how they have created their position of power.  Selfishly long may it continue for Melbourne City ... 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jw1739 said:

Bit wordy for me but otherwise OK. Interestingly enough, The CFG is a government organisation and I could swear that every economist is telling me that government entities are always failures...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NewConvert said:

Bit wordy for me but otherwise OK. Interestingly enough, The CFG is a government organisation and I could swear that every economist is telling me that government entities are always failures...

This "government entity" is more like a private group, hence why its not failing ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, citypool said:

I really wish man city came here for a match. Haaland is a freak like to see him in person 

We are like the distant cousin that lives interstate that you just never see. Maybe catch up once in 5-10 years or at funerals...

  • Like 3
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...