The mancityfans.net football forum

Dameerto wrote:

Justified logic wrote:How does the part sale to the Chinese fit into club profitabity and net ADUG investment?

It opens the door to the Chinese market, properly opens with full party approval. I'm still guessing it's the only way we could have done business in China - and it's kind of in keeping with how we've conducted our overseas business so far, by using local partners (initially at least) for their knowledge and expertise.

but Chinese investment doesn't affect group profitability does it? More investment is usually associated with more growth and more profit.

johnny crossan wrote:

Dameerto wrote:

Justified logic wrote:How does the part sale to the Chinese fit into club profitabity and net ADUG investment?

It opens the door to the Chinese market, properly opens with full party approval. I'm still guessing it's the only way we could have done business in China - and it's kind of in keeping with how we've conducted our overseas business so far, by using local partners (initially at least) for their knowledge and expertise.

but Chinese investment doesn't affect group profitability does it? More investment is usually associated with more growth and more profit.

Well I guess more business could lead to more profitability (and it's a huge and increasingly enthusiastic market) - there was an immediate injection of funds too. I'm not a businessman though, so might have misread something.

Dameerto wrote:

johnny crossan wrote:

Dameerto wrote:

Justified logic wrote:How does the part sale to the Chinese fit into club profitabity and net ADUG investment?

It opens the door to the Chinese market, properly opens with full party approval. I'm still guessing it's the only way we could have done business in China - and it's kind of in keeping with how we've conducted our overseas business so far, by using local partners (initially at least) for their knowledge and expertise.

but Chinese investment doesn't affect group profitability does it? More investment is usually associated with more growth and more profit.

Well I guess more business could lead to more profitability (and it's a huge and increasingly enthusiastic market) - there was an immediate injection of funds too. I'm not a businessman though, so might have misread something.

sorry I should have said 'specifically' Chinese investment but the potential of the Chinese market is also additional positive factor, as you say, probably contingent on their investment..

johnny crossan wrote:

Justified logic wrote:How does the part sale to the Chinese fit into club profitabity and net ADUG investment?

I don't think the nationality of the City Group ownership is relevant is it?

Not in the slightest, and I don't know why you think it should be.

I was merely wondering how the cash injection appeared in our accounts. Did it for instance boost income or reduce the net capital investment?

Justified logic wrote:

johnny crossan wrote:

Justified logic wrote:How does the part sale to the Chinese fit into club profitabity and net ADUG investment?

I don't think the nationality of the City Group ownership is relevant is it?

Not in the slightest, and I don't know why you think it should be.

I was merely wondering how the cash injection appeared in our accounts. Did it for instance boost income or reduce the net capital investment?

That was not clear from your original question was it? The revised version makes no sense to me either.

I notice United are pushing their huge social media presence to transfer targets. Boosts their image rights. I haven’t seen any League tables but I suspect we have some way to go here. It was suggested by Martin Samuel on Sunday Supplement that United get more coverage in the Press because stories about them get loads of clicks. City beating Leicester playing brilliantly again. Yawn. Frustrating. Another point Samuel made is we don’t have ex City players on TV as pundits because the Sheikh’s take over is quite recent and there aren’t the ex City players who have won PL titles available as TV pundits.

Rumoured to be on the verge of the biggest commercial deal in City's history.
£50m Puma kit sponsorship.

johnny crossan wrote:Rumoured to be on the verge of the biggest commercial deal in City's history.
£50m Puma kit sponsorship.

Fantastic. Getting rid of Nike and its shite being the Brucie Bonus.

Top of the financial power rankings in world football apparently, according to Soccerex.

Can't post the link from this phone but if someone could kindly oblige?

john@staustell wrote:Top of the financial power rankings in world football apparently, according to Soccerex.

Can't post the link from this phone but if someone could kindly oblige?

https://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer ... 56970.html

Rankings


1. Manchester City

2. Arsenal

3. PSG

4. Guangzhou Evergrande

5. Tottenham

6. Real Madrid

7. Manchester United

8. Juventus

9. Chelsea

10. Bayern Munich

11. Zenit St Petersburg

12. RB Leipzig

13. Barcelona

14. LA Galaxy

15. Atletico Madrid

16. Liverpool

17. Borussia Dortmund

18. Lyon

19. Monaco

20. Leicester

This is why that cunt from La Liga was trying to throw shit at us, he's worried Spain has lost ground and will probably lose even more.

Dameerto wrote:This is why that cunt from La Liga was trying to throw shit at us, he's worried Spain has lost ground and will probably lose even more.

Him and Stan Collmore will be in meltdown today. Oh and Maureen of course

Arsenal second? Sounds like fake news to me.

edge275 wrote:Arsenal second? Sounds like fake news to me.

Debt seems to weigh heavily. Hence the RAGS are 7th. Arsenal don't have any and have very rich owners and pots of money. Which they don't use of course but it's all about potential.

edge275 wrote:Arsenal second? Sounds like fake news to me.

Great result for them they usually end up 4th 5th or 6th .

john@staustell wrote:

edge275 wrote:Arsenal second? Sounds like fake news to me.

Debt seems to weigh heavily. Hence the RAGS are 7th. Arsenal don't have any and have very rich owners and pots of money. Which they don't use of course but it's all about potential.

Why would rags have so much money in the bank with such debts? It's like me having £100k in bank getting 0.5% interest and having a £100k mortgage getting charged 2.5% intrest!

", while only Manchester United have more money in the bank (£307m) than Arsenal's £300m."

city72 wrote:

john@staustell wrote:

edge275 wrote:Arsenal second? Sounds like fake news to me.

Debt seems to weigh heavily. Hence the RAGS are 7th. Arsenal don't have any and have very rich owners and pots of money. Which they don't use of course but it's all about potential.

Why would rags have so much money in the bank with such debts? It's like me having £100k in bank getting 0.5% interest and having a £100k mortgage getting charged 2.5% intrest!

", while only Manchester United have more money in the bank (£307m) than Arsenal's £300m."

So their owners can syphon it off as and when they see fit?

Tokyo Blue wrote:

city72 wrote:

john@staustell wrote:

edge275 wrote:Arsenal second? Sounds like fake news to me.

Debt seems to weigh heavily. Hence the RAGS are 7th. Arsenal don't have any and have very rich owners and pots of money. Which they don't use of course but it's all about potential.

Why would rags have so much money in the bank with such debts? It's like me having £100k in bank getting 0.5% interest and having a £100k mortgage getting charged 2.5% intrest!

", while only Manchester United have more money in the bank (£307m) than Arsenal's £300m."

So their owners can syphon it off as and when they see fit?

That's the thing, they are not really owners , the finance houses holding their loans are. The worst form of 'owner' there is, always buying on the never never.

city72 wrote:

john@staustell wrote:

edge275 wrote:Arsenal second? Sounds like fake news to me.

Debt seems to weigh heavily. Hence the RAGS are 7th. Arsenal don't have any and have very rich owners and pots of money. Which they don't use of course but it's all about potential.

Why would rags have so much money in the bank with such debts? It's like me having £100k in bank getting 0.5% interest and having a £100k mortgage getting charged 2.5% intrest!

", while only Manchester United have more money in the bank (£307m) than Arsenal's £300m."

It's safely stored in the bank of Glazer.

city72 wrote:

john@staustell wrote:

edge275 wrote:Arsenal second? Sounds like fake news to me.

Debt seems to weigh heavily. Hence the RAGS are 7th. Arsenal don't have any and have very rich owners and pots of money. Which they don't use of course but it's all about potential.

Why would rags have so much money in the bank with such debts? It's like me having £100k in bank getting 0.5% interest and having a £100k mortgage getting charged 2.5% intrest!

", while only Manchester United have more money in the bank (£307m) than Arsenal's £300m."

How would they settle the milk bill/waste money on shit players if they used all their cash to pay off the mortgage?