Chelsea & Man U debts £ 1.5 bn !

[joey55]

Thanks for that Joey.

I understood that much, but what I was really asking is that if Man Utd are crippled by debt why is it that they still spend big in the transfer market?

Profits will be come after transfer activity, so the clubs ability to be competitive shouldn't really be effective. They'd be looking to repay debt by inreasing prices, stream lining where they can and generating more income by growing in developing markets. The risk is, if this back fires, then it will start to effect their ability to compete in the transfer market, as their priority will always be to pay back debt. But, if in good hands, that shouldn't be a problem. But, the trouble is, the nature of business people is, that they think they are "good hands" until things go pear shaped.

 

[Chris12345]

You mean like Mileson couldn't to Gretna?

If Abrahmovic got ill, for example, I'm pretty sure he could recall the loan, and if he died his family could definitely insist on it's repayment

I'm not all that familiar with the Gretna situation, but as I understand it, if Roman was to walk away from Chelski, he has to continue part funding it (through money that's been put aside in some sort of trust fund or something) for a significant period of time... of course this would mean Chelski would have to sell some of their bigger earners and wouldn't be such a potent force... but they'd be pretty far away from "doing a Leeds"

Of course I'm no banker, but this is how I understand it (well, a Chelski supporter explained it too me :lol

 

[yanno]

Basically, what i'm saying is that you'll be pissed off at something that is predicatbly going to happen and therefore shouldn't you be a little pissed with the people that are actively looking/hoping it will happen? I've been for a while now and I'm just glad that I don't see the conditions for a takeover so favourable as they were, which looks as if it will resort in a change of policy for the short term at least.

Perhaps the only upside of the credit crunch is that a Glazer-type deal is now less likely to happen in the near future.

Given most EPL clubs are run by crooks, money launderers and fugitives from justice, we're in a relatively decent position. If ENIC sold to a consortium featuring the likes of genuine & wealthy Spurs supporter Steve Nash, and the deal did not require interest on debt to be repayable out of profits, then that would be fine by me. If they sold to a Glazer-type deal, then ENIC would have betrayed the club imo, which is why I'll wait and see what happens before being overly condemnatory.

 

[joey55]

Perhaps the only upside of the credit crunch is that a Glazer-type deal is now less likely to happen in the near future.

Given most EPL clubs are run by crooks, money launderers and fugitives from justice, we're in a relatively decent position. If ENIC sold to a consortium featuring the likes of genuine & wealthy Spurs supporter Steve Nash, and the deal did not require interest on debt to be repayable out of profits, then that would be fine by me. If they sold to a Glazer-type deal, then ENIC would have betrayed the club imo, which is why I'll wait and see what happens before being overly condemnatory.

The reason i started to condem them was because the stategy (and rightly so from their point of view) was clearly to attract the Glazer type of buyer. I feel this strategy restricted us in the transfer market and stopped us progressing over the last couple of years. Hence I was frustrated and I do feel ultimately right. This is why i sometimes get a bit frustrated when I read people posting "what is good for Enic, is good for Spurs", as that isn't necassarily true. The fact we are less likley to find a buyer and the negative effect Jol/Ramos will have on our balance sheet has actually now provided us with a window of opportunity in which to rebuild. Basically a period in which we can be run with less financial efficiency - hence the Woodgate signing. The sigining of Woodgate does get to me a bit, because I can't help but feel a player or two like him since 2006 and we'd have already been in the CL.

 

[nightgoat]

I'm not all that familiar with the Gretna situation, but as I understand it, if Roman was to walk away from Chelski, he has to continue part funding it (through money that's been put aside in some sort of trust fund or something) for a significant period of time... of course this would mean Chelski would have to sell some of their bigger earners and wouldn't be such a potent force... but they'd be pretty far away from "doing a Leeds"

Of course I'm no banker, but this is how I understand it (well, a Chelski supporter explained it too me :lol

From the original article:

"If the owner's enthusiasm were ever to wane, and Abramovich decided he did want his loan back, the accounts show that Chelsea would have 18 months to find the money."

Doesn't mention anything about whether or not Abramovich has a requirement to continue funding the club, but with their annual turnover at just over £190m, they'd definately have to sell, sell, sell...

 

[Sbix]

From the original article: Doesn't mention anything about whether or not Abramovich has a requirement to continue funding the club, but with their annual turnover at just over £190m, they'd definately have to sell, sell, sell...

Hope it happens, then we could buy, buy, buy!

 

[TheWaddler]

From the original article:


Doesn't mention anything about whether or not Abramovich has a requirement to continue funding the club, but with their annual turnover at just over £190m, they'd definately have to sell, sell, sell...

Jeez - how do find c.£750m in 18 months? Eek

They would be in sooo much trouble if he pulled out. ray:

 

[hashmander]

Thanks for that Joey.

I understood that much, but what I was really asking is that if Man Utd are crippled by debt why is it that they still spend big in the transfer market?

http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news;_y...7YF?slug=ys-glazers052008&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Recent published accounts show that United owes a staggering 56 million pounds (roughly $110 million) in transfer fees on players signed since May 2005.

 

[Barmy_in_Palmy]

I've said it a million times before... whatever your opinion on him... Kenyon is no mug... Abramovich can't just walk away and leave them in the shite!

Its Papa Smurf who sold the club in such a way that Abramovich would have to keep bankrolling the club even if he wants out, he just can't walk away from the club, unfortunately.

 

[Wiener]

The reason i started to condem them was because the stategy (and rightly so from their point of view) was clearly to attract the Glazer type of buyer. I feel this strategy restricted us in the transfer market and stopped us progressing over the last couple of years. Hence I was frustrated and I do feel ultimately right. This is why i sometimes get a bit frustrated when I read people posting "what is good for Enic, is good for Spurs", as that isn't necassarily true. The fact we are less likley to find a buyer and the negative effect Jol/Ramos will have on our balance sheet has actually now provided us with a window of opportunity in which to rebuild. Basically a period in which we can be run with less financial efficiency - hence the Woodgate signing. The sigining of Woodgate does get to me a bit, because I can't help but feel a player or two like him since 2006 and we'd have already been in the CL.

I think Levy's overal strategy has been to build a football club / business that is successful both on the pitch (ie winning the league and the CL) and financially (ie run on a sustainable basis and generating a good return for shareholders). So far it looks like there is good balance between the shareholders interests and the club's interests. If THFC continues to make a profit and make progress on the pitch both shareholders and fans should continue to be happy. I don't think many people are saying "what is good for Enic, is good for Spurs", but so far both seem to be profiting.

Of course Levy wants to maximise his return on investment. Having said that I don't think he would just sell to the highest bidder, irrespective of the viability of their business plan. For the moment, and this is probably where we disagree, we should give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that he will balance his own interest (ie as a shareholder) with those of the fans and the club. In other words not sell to someone who will destroy the club. We should give him the benefit of the doubt because I believe he is the single most important person in achieving our revival. Let's judge him on what he does.

Also, as one person has already pointed out, given the credit crunch, it is highly unlikely that anyone will be able to achieve the level of leverage the Glazers achieved when buying Manure.