Premier League

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Some of those figures are bollocks.

As normal with the promoted clubs it shows their Championship income, taking no account of the extra £40m they've just received, there's no way Blackpool has any debt. Also, Stoke's debt is listed as £8m, but only because Peter Coates has written off a £30m investment and given them a £15m interest free loan(same at Sunderland). And though Arsenal show a big debt, they actually trade very profitably and the debt is only the cost of the Emirates and is easily funded by income.
 
How much of that debt is what's owed to other clubs in transfer fees as well? Man U buy a player for £5M off Chelsea, who buy one for £5M off Man City etc right down to West Ham buying one from Man U. The collective debt would be £100M even though really none of them would be in a negative position on assets.
 
Ricardo said:
How much of that debt is what's owed to other clubs in transfer fees as well? Man U buy a player for £5M off Chelsea, who buy one for £5M off Man City etc right down to West Ham buying one from Man U. The collective debt would be £100M even though really none of them would be in a negative position on assets.
Click to expand...

A very large proportion of that debt is accounted for by the fact Clubs have either been bought with debt (Manchester United) or that their "Sugar Daddy" owners have not so much GIVEN the club their money to spend but have LOANED it to them (Fulham and Chelsea).
 
StrovolosTiger said:
A very large proportion of that debt is accounted for by the fact Clubs have either been bought with debt (Manchester United) or that their "Sugar Daddy" owners have not so much GIVEN the club their money to spend but have LOANED it to them (Fulham and Chelsea).
Click to expand...

They also have massive assets that in most cases mean the company valuation is still in the black. I was just trying to demonstrate how the debt figures are irrelevent if they don't also show the other side of the accounts (and for that matter the annual cost of the debts in relation to the turnover of the company) as they could easily see the figure be much higher than it really is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back