Platini needs to pull that stick out of his ass

beachryan said:
I think Platini is right in a sense, but he's also being a bit of a git about it. Having clubs massively in debt screams of a leeds-esque disaster, adn isn't sustainable.

However. His citing of United and Chelsea are two completely different beasts.

United are run at a profit, a pretty handy one. Plus, they were purchased at fair market value, literally as it was a stock buyout. The logic would be that if the Glazers got into trouble, they would be forced to sell United to pay back the loan, however as long as United's market value has not declined considerably (and given recent successes, I wouldn't wager it has) then United would then be bought by new shareholders, and the Glazers would use the sum to pay off the debt. Happy days.

Chelsea are completely different. They operate at a massive operating loss, which is fine because their money comes from an endless pot of gold. Kenyon has repeatedly said they'd be running at profit by 2010, but if that happens I'll eat my hat, so to speak. Plus it's recently come out that Roman didn't actually just 'give' them the £550 odd he's pumped in, he 'loaned' it. Now personally I believe he'd never ask for it back, but regardless, what has happened to Chelsea is that they don't make enough money from footballing to pay their wages, hence big potential uh oh. Platini is correct in saying this is absolutely not a good thing.

For the record, my understanding of Villa, Pool etc is that it's similar to the United case - they still make an operating profit, but are 'owned' by debt. As long as that is the case, adn they're fairly valued, they could sell up and settle the debt.

Out of interest, how do AC Milan make all their dosh? Real? Inter? Are you seriuosly telling me none of the other big European clubs have shady finances?
Click to expand...
finally someone who actually knows what there talking about
 
T Butcher fan said:
It's not a very simple process - Glazer borrowed the 600m using Utd as guarantee for at least half of it. He didn't actually use any of his own money, it was all borrowed. This is what the fuss was about in the first place.

Whoever wants to buy Manchester Utd must pay the asset value (stadium, player contracts, equipment, future earnings) tempered by the outstanding debt. There is the likely possibility that Glazer would demand a premium on top of that (like Hicks and Gillett).

Once you own the club, you own the debt.

But my point is that you are £600m in debt and we are about the same. But you have to pay back interest and we don't. Why you think you'd be ok but not us is wishful thinking.

I'm not saying either club is in trouble, but with big debt comes big risk - regardless of how it is structured or who you owe. The same applies to Arsenal and Liverpool.
Click to expand...
and now the team is worth three times that... if the glazers were to sell right now, im pretty sure it would cover the debt and interest and the glazers would make a hefty profit..
 
a) The Glazers aren't going to sell now, are they? They will sell when things are bad.

b) The debt is long term debt, it's not like an overdraft. Banks lend the money on the understanding that you will repay 50m a year for X number of years. If you pay it back early, you still have to pay a fine for breaking the agreement. Otherwise the lender is losing out.

c) Utd current debt is actually £750m.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom