Football Banter

just referring to yodas post, i dont understand football clubs as you know lol. they are in that much debt and it never seems to go down so why arent they selling alot of players. they gave granny shagger a pay rise and hes not been the same player since before the world cup. the americans wont sell the club will they. lindor will probably be able to explain it better than me. to get out of debt then im guessing they need a saudi royal family member dont they to bail them out?

(22-03-2011 18:32 )malicious fan Wrote:  just referring to yodas post, i dont understand football clubs as you know lol. they are in that much debt and it never seems to go down so why arent they selling alot of players. they gave granny shagger a pay rise and hes not been the same player since before the world cup. the americans wont sell the club will they. lindor will probably be able to explain it better than me. to get out of debt then im guessing they need a saudi royal family member dont they to bail them out?

I dont know exactly what's going on there either with the Glazers to be honest and lindor will certainly explain things i'm sure. Nor am i too interested But as i understand it, the Glazers have the whole football club and its assets i.e players, stadium etc as collateral on the huge debt. So if they ever fail to pay the debt or an installment on the debt, then the collectors can come in and sell off the club bit by bit to pay the debt. At the moment the Glazers use money from players sold, merchandise, ticket sales etc to service the re-payments which means the club cant spend big on transfers and that was the excuse Rooney gave for wanting to leave earlier this season before he accpeted the big fat wage packet instead!!!!

It's similar to the situation Liverpool were in for a couple of seasons but on a much larger scale.

Now as i say, i may have the situation half correct or i may be off the ball altogether...lindor i'm sure will explain when he gets the chance

(22-03-2011 18:32 )malicious fan Wrote:  just referring to yodas post, i dont understand football clubs as you know lol. they are in that much debt and it never seems to go down so why arent they selling alot of players. they gave granny shagger a pay rise and hes not been the same player since before the world cup. the americans wont sell the club will they. lindor will probably be able to explain it better than me. to get out of debt then im guessing they need a saudi royal family member dont they to bail them out?

Sorry Mal, but I've never understood high finance because once you start putting an 'm' after a number to denote millions then it just goes over my head. I can't even begin to understand how clubs can be hundreds of millions of pounds in debt and yet be seen by the powers-that-be as being allowed to spend money. Words like assets etc come into it but I don't really begin to understand any of it even though I've read far more detailed articles than that which Yoda has highlighted.

The way I see it is that if the football authorities really want to bring clubs to task and into line regards spending whilst in debt then such as UEFA need only impose the ban that they've been threatening to do now for a while where clubs with debts over a certain amount will be banned from the Champions League. So Manchester United, Barcelona, numerous others across the continent and maybe Chelsea and Real Madrid as well depending on the technicalities, would all be excluded from the Champions League and would thus have to put their houses in order before being allowed back in. Starvation of Champions League revenue would soon rid clubs of owners such as the Glazers et al as they budget Champions League revenue into their finances.

But of course, UEFA won't ban United and Barcelona - probably the two most indebted clubs in Europe - because their show would then be devoid of two of its biggest players, and UEFA and their official sponsors can't be having that can they? So clubs such as Portsmouth, Plymouth Argyle and many others will continue to be punished with point deductions whilst United are somehow allowed not only to operate under a huge debt but allowed to make big-money signings and pay certain [unts a reported £250,000 a week.

Am I happy with this scenario? Take a guess!

From next season clubs will only be allowed to spend a certain percentage of their gate receipts on players' wages and transfer fees etc (or something along those lines) which will be interesting. So if Manchester City for one want to keep hold of their current squad of over-paid under-achievers then they'd better get cracking on building that 780,000 capacity stadium pretty sharpish!

Mind you, there are rumours aplenty from the same sources which suggested a Torres out/Carroll in January transfer window coup weeks before the scousers even imagined it, saying that the Qataris have some pretty big plans afoot, so watch this space...

Like the old Chinese proverb says "we live in interesting times..."

its just weird how man utd are so much in debt yet they keep winning trophys. if man city are spending so much money like they are capable of, wont it eventually get to a point where as even if they win every trophy they will only get so much prize money and tv money and sales and other stuff, it wont make a difference cos they wont get their money back what they have spent. if you win the treble how much are you guaranteed? it doesnt matter how many shirts you sell, there must come a point when teams like man city cant recoup what they have spent and what they are spending on wages every week. they must be losing money every week surely.

There are many teams these days spending way above their means. Clubs that are in the red can keep operating as a business because the banks / financiers recognise that the club is a brand, and that there are high chances of any loans being able to be paid back. It also helps of course to have a sugar daddy owner with a bottomlesss pit of chequebooks. But still, one day, that money will have to be paid back and you have to wonder what would happen if these multi-millionaire owners suddenly decided to walk away. It makes you think how many clubs in the premier league would still be financially solvent.

On another note about the England captaincy, has John Terry been awarded it again because there are doubts over Rio Ferdinand's fitness? Its still a little bit of an embarrasing u-turn from Capello. Don't get me wrong, I think JT is a good defender, its just unlike Capello to change his mind and go back on something..

if man utd or barcelona go bust then the bank that holds that debt will goes bust. ufea have been trying to introduce the same sort of financial regs as the nfl and rugby union where each can only spend a % of their money on players, this why some england players like johnny wilkinson have gone to france where there is no limit. also one the regs is that the owners/chairman are only allowed to put upto £40m a season into the club for buying players but are allowed to put as much money as they want into the clubs infrastructure, youth setup and stadia.

chelsea owe roman abramovich hundreds of millions of pounds in loans. barca owe around £250m, real madrid about the same maybe more, valencia £350m. liverpool owe £36m to rbs

the premier league, football league and the fa have a fit and proper owners test which is meant ot highlight any risks that the owner carries. obviously its not working because glazers, mike cashley, the 2 american ex-owners of liverpool are or were not fit and proper owners. there were or are questions on how roman abramovich made his billions very quickly.

(22-03-2011 21:00 )bigguy01 Wrote:  chelsea owe roman abramovich hundreds of millions of pounds in loans.

That statement is NOT true. Chelsea are debt free.

(22-03-2011 20:25 )Regenerated Wrote:  On another note about the England captaincy, has John Terry been awarded it again because there are doubts over Rio Ferdinand's fitness? Its still a little bit of an embarrasing u-turn from Capello. Don't get me wrong, I think JT is a good defender, its just unlike Capello to change his mind and go back on something..

yes jt is captain not so fantastic.

after capello leaves after euro 2012 (thats if we qualify) i would like to see more of the u21's in the england senior side and some the old guard put out to pastures new. also have a good look at the coaching setup of youngsters in belgium and spain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/9421702.stm

(22-03-2011 21:12 )admin Wrote:  

(22-03-2011 21:00 )bigguy01 Wrote:  chelsea owe roman abramovich hundreds of millions of pounds in loans.

That statement is NOT true. Chelsea are debt free.

what the about the £70m+ for torres and luiz?

well not if you google "chelsea fc debt free?"

http://www.fcbusiness.co.uk/news/article...00+million

(22-03-2011 21:23 )bigguy01 Wrote:  well not if you google "chelsea fc debt free?"

http://www.fcbusiness.co.uk/news/article...00+million

You need to improve your googling skills. The story you found was untrue and was at the time immediately corrected by Chelsea FC with the following statement:

'Contrary to media reports today, other than a small residual balance Chelsea Football Club and our parent company Chelsea FC plc are debt free and do not owe any money to our shareholder (Fordstam Ltd). Neither do we owe any money to Roman Abramovich.'

The Guardian newspaper had claimed that Chelsea's "parent company" still owed Roman Abramovich £726m, but didn't mention that Chelsea's "parent company" (Fordstam) is owned by Roman himself. Therefore, if Roman calls in the debt from Fordstam he will be effectively asking himself for the money, not Chelsea FC or Chelsea FC plc. Chelsea FC do not owe any money to Fordstam and have no liability of any kind to Fordstam.