cityhead Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 I read in the sun today (yes I admit it) that david Sullivan of WHU has made accusations that a wealthy benefactor has bailed out more than one Premier League team with loans. Surely this is against league rules as no one person is supposed to have an interest in more than one club at a time to prevent conflicts of interest. The financial goings on truly fascinate me - sad I know. The situation at Manu also baffles me. When the Glaziers borrowed money to buy ManU they then transfered the debt to the club - surely that means they also transfered ownership of the club back to itself - the club in itself bought the debt from the Glaziers - so why are the glaziers there! Along with the Portsmouth administrator stating he does not think Portsmouth will be the last prem club to face financial ruin and their situation is not the worst he has seen, should we be bracing ourselves for the prospect of prem fotball by default? - ie the prem not having sufficient teams to fulfill the season and league sizes having to be changed - will SL's legacy be ready in time? I guess only time will tell but I foresee another financial meltdown for b(w)ankers to make huge profits from! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bringbacktherobin Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 If landsdown pulled the plug wouldnt we be in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pezo Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 I read in the sun today (yes I admit it) that david Sullivan of WHU has made accusations that a wealthy benefactor has bailed out more than one Premier League team with loans. Surely this is against league rules as no one person is supposed to have an interest in more than one club at a time to prevent conflicts of interest. The financial goings on truly fascinate me - sad I know. The situation at Manu also baffles me. When the Glaziers borrowed money to buy ManU they then transfered the debt to the club - surely that means they also transfered ownership of the club back to itself - the club in itself bought the debt from the Glaziers - so why are the glaziers there! Along with the Portsmouth administrator stating he does not think Portsmouth will be the last prem club to face financial ruin and their situation is not the worst he has seen, should we be bracing ourselves for the prospect of prem fotball by default? - ie the prem not having sufficient teams to fulfill the season and league sizes having to be changed - will SL's legacy be ready in time? I guess only time will tell but I foresee another financial meltdown for b(w)ankers to make huge profits from! The Glaziers own Man U because they purchased all the shares which meant they could pretty much do what ever they wanted with it - so the personal debt they built up buying all the shares was essentially paid off by the club, saddling the club with all the debt but once again they own the club but advantageously not the debt. Its how most big business accusations are done because a)no one just has that sort sort of money lying around unless you own an oil field and b)no one wants that level of personal debt. I dont like the practice as it basically means you strangle any money the purchased business has with debts and a fall in the market value of what has been purchased can end up costing very dearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityhead Posted March 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 The Glaziers own Man U because they purchased all the shares which meant they could pretty much do what ever they wanted with it - so the personal debt they built up buying all the shares was essentially paid off by the club, saddling the club with all the debt but once again they own the club but advantageously not the debt. Its how most big business accusations are done because a)no one just has that sort sort of money lying around unless you own an oil field and b)no one wants that level of personal debt. I dont like the practice as it basically means you strangle any money the purchased business has with debts and a fall in the market value of what has been purchased can end up costing very dearly. That makes sense - so bought it with a personal loan then mortgaged the business to pay off the loan with the mortgage secured on the business, so still hold ownership. Thick moment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith_Lemon Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 So with Man U in alot of debt could they be facing 'trimming the fat' and perhaps administration? Perhaps even liquidation I hope? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityhead Posted March 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 So with Man U in alot of debt could they be facing 'trimming the fat' and perhaps administration? Perhaps even liquidation I hope? We can hope? - however, the thing about Manu is they'll just get some other rich glory hunters on a power trip! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red_Chelt Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 That makes sense - so bought it with a personal loan then mortgaged the business to pay off the loan with the mortgage secured on the business, so still hold ownership. Thick moment! I miss the days when football was football and business was what men in suits and bowler hats did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lita For Congo Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 The situation at Utd with the Glazers is absolutely fascinating to me in that they have basically borrowed the money to buy the club, then they transferred the debt to the club and so its a win win for the Glazers. The debt they acquired will be paid off in about 10 years time (at a guess 900m debt, 75m+ income) via Man Utd shirt sales, player sales, sponsorships ect. and not by the Glazers themselves so when you look at it that way, they have bought (one of) the biggest football club(s) in the World for absolutely nothing(in theory). It is only because they are in such a strong financial position that they can borrow such vast amounts of money. All they need to do is give A.F 25million to spend (or whoever it is when hes gone) to stay competitive in Europe and they will stay afloat. I really dislike Utd so I find this rather beautiful but you can see why the fans are livid with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcbcfc Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 Talking on 5live a while ago to a pommy fan who summed it all up 'we want somebody to buy the club with money rather than debt' At this time when so much money goes into football I find it amazing that clubs are being run into 'unmanageable' debt. We should be thankful that we've got someone with their head screwed on at the top of our club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Hitler Posted March 3, 2010 Report Share Posted March 3, 2010 I miss the days when football was football and business was what men in suits and bowler hats did. That stopped the day it went professional. It used to be a big money spinner for the owners as player wages were so low that they needed a testimonial at the end in order to have soem savings to buy a pub or shop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pezo Posted March 3, 2010 Report Share Posted March 3, 2010 The situation at Utd with the Glazers is absolutely fascinating to me in that they have basically borrowed the money to buy the club, then they transferred the debt to the club and so its a win win for the Glazers. The debt they acquired will be paid off in about 10 years time (at a guess 900m debt, 75m+ income) via Man Utd shirt sales, player sales, sponsorships ect. and not by the Glazers themselves so when you look at it that way, they have bought (one of) the biggest football club(s) in the World for absolutely nothing(in theory). It is only because they are in such a strong financial position that they can borrow such vast amounts of money. All they need to do is give A.F 25million to spend (or whoever it is when hes gone) to stay competitive in Europe and they will stay afloat. I really dislike Utd so I find this rather beautiful but you can see why the fans are livid with it. The problem as I understand it though is that the deficit to service the debt is about 50mil a year and the club made about 20mil profit last year not including the selling of Ronaldo, with the sale of Ronaldo they made about 50 mil profit which disappeared into the debt to try and lower the yearly payments, the problem with this is obvious though, your never going to sell a player every year for over 30 mil and have a team capable of competing at the top of English football let alone European football (where they made the majority of there money last year) and while there not able to sell the players the overall debt increases by 50 mil a year in turn making the deficit bigger. They basically have the same problem as the country (which might work well for them). The way I see it is they must be hoping for some massive inflation to bump up the cost of everything so that the debt relative to everything else is cheaper, but im not an economist so I don't really know if that works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.