I've wondered that. Of course it's also possible he forgot he got a new phone, didn't know his password. For a long time (few years) emails didn't work, so you couldnt reset password or create a new account. It's possible he tried for months to get back in and finally gave up and joined RAWK or one of the other sites out there. Whenever I get locked out or banned, I've gone to sixcrazyminutes for refuge... ... Not that I've ever been banned from here. #denyeverything
the rules dint allow that.much cash injected by an owner. even chavs had to circumvent that via yearly debt to equity conversion by the oligarch. city are doing it via fake revenues in on end. there's not time to magic up 300mil without borrowing it.
Debt isn’t a problem necessarily, although the time do do that is gone now, it’s the amount of debt and the return on capital invested which is more critical. I’m not sure what we owe, I believe that it went as high as $200m but I read a while back that this had been paid down somewhat….for reference, Utd’s debt at the same time was c.$600m (not sure if either are £ or $ btw).
it was a short tem loan for covid and was largely given back unspent. we will only find put end of Feb I think. the orem requires accounts to be published annually but the rules either end Feb or end march I'm fairly sure when record profits and low debts is communicated people will go mad we didn't buy a cm this window
My point - borrow the £300-£400m, then the new owner (or investor) pays for it in an inflated price for the sale, and it adds value to their purchase. No different to building an extension on your house before selling it, is it? Actually, I don't know - but Chelsea seem to have gotten away with it. But the article in the Echo was written before the sale talk, so presumably, it's saying we have £300m -£400m wiggle room accounting for borrowing?
low debt right now is a good thing. High debt will need to be restructured at some point and it just got a ton more expensive to do that….and will likely get worse. We need a sugar daddy.
Especially given the economy atm, interest rates are high. Don’t want to be taking out any kind of loans.
Indeed. That's why I say IF we're being sold or getting investment (and if it's an investment it presumably is straight into us and not shared around with the Sox and the rest of the crowd) it's a way of getting £400m or so of interest-free money that circumvents FFP, providing those new owners/investors are not leveraging their stake against the club?
Isn't a fair whack of that debt what we 'owe' FSG for the stands? That doesn't come under FFP anyway, and I think that's what the article stated. And don't get me going on how FSG is billing the club for infrastructure when NESV, as it was, went to court alongside RSB against Hicks and defended the sale price on the basis that the new owners had £200m ready to build the new stadium that H&G didn't. I don't blame them for not building a new stadium, but I do think it's rich that when they eventually got around to doing it that they then billed the club for the privilege, even though it adds value to their asset. presumably, if we're sold the remaining debt is written off?
no idea tbh - football finances do my nut in. However, in terms of being fiscally astute, I completely trust FSG so I have no issue with how they structure their debt. Whatever anyone says about them now, we are in a far healthier position now than we were before they came and it is because of them. Have they taken us as far as they can, given the spending of other teams? Possibly but I wouldn’t rule them out, I guess we’ll soon find out.
Why Man Utd’s debt is set to rise a further £200m | FootballTransfers.com * *Taking it to £700m, but I suspect United are doing what I said Liverpool could do - take their debt to the limit of FFP and then sell off the club so that it;s incorporated into the price and wiped off, or get a sugar-daddy investor to pay it off.
