i am a bit confused now. on sky's sunday supplement prog they were discussing the huge debt of united chelsea liverpool etc. they also said that city despite the takeover were i think they said 137 million in debt. i thought we had no debt at all. can somone enlighten me on this?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City and debt
- Thread starter eddie c 123
- Start date
mancyman said:i am a bit confused now. on sky's sunday supplement prog they were discussing the huge debt of united chelsea liverpool etc. they also said that city despite the takeover were i think they said 137 million in debt. i thought we had no debt at all. can somone enlighten me on this?
Quote from Mr Khaldoon al mubarak; sept 09
"'I could accept the argument if we were artificially building up the club through debt,'" Khaldoon said. "'That produces a destructive end result; we have seen that happen. But in our case, the club will be in the healthiest position because there is no debt. We have funded it through equity [permanent investment], including the signing of the players. I believe what we are doing is a fair way to inject competition into football, without debt.'"
Are you enlightened my friend.??
Dubai Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2007
- Messages
- 15,234
That debt figure comes from the last set of published accounts, which was before the takeover.mancyman said:not really mate. bit thick me at times but how can we have 137 million debt when the owners say we have none. will have to explain that very simply to me with no long words mate.
It is no longer relevant.
mancyman said:not really mate. bit thick me at times but how can we have 137 million debt when the owners say we have none. will have to explain that very simply to me with no long words mate.
There are some elements to Citys finances that are simply not worth settling early.
They were put in place by Bernstein I think and amount to tens of millions that helped finance the refit of COMS and the players that ultimately failed, like McManananananannanananatwat and Fowler.
mancyman said:not really mate. bit thick me at times but how can we have 137 million debt when the owners say we have none. will have to explain that very simply to me with no long words mate.
Who to believe eh...our owners or sunday supliment..mmmmmmmmm
exactly but these blokes have a fairly large audience and many people will watch it and say. oh city are still in debt. must be the only job where you can talk shite then get well payed for not checking your facts and never get sacked for gross incompetence.
rogdogblue
Well-Known Member
scall said:We have no debt.
But we also have no stadium. Therefore, the only assets we have to sell are the players. Which, I think is a good situation to be in. We can sell the players, but we can never sell our home. Whatever happens, we'll always have a ground. Some clubs who are in the sh!t could sell their ground if they have big debts to pay. It's a great deal David Bernstein set up for us on that front.
I think it's a brilliant situation we're in.
The owners are perfectly happy with the current situation re the ground. I think we have a 250 year lease.