City and debt

Top Floor Guy there is the answer you were looking for.............


Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 5215 <a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/ju" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/ju</a> ... abramovich

Manchester City spending spree is just a present from Abu DhabiSheikhs' £500m in wages and transfer fees will not find its way on to the balance sheet
Matt Scott The Guardian, Tuesday 21 July 2009

Manchester City's record-breaking transfer-market splurge is effectively being written off as a gift by the club's Abu Dhabi owners. The sheikhs have spent more than £500m in aggregate wages and transfer fees on players such as Carlos Tevez, Robinho and Emmanuel Adebayor. But unlike for owners such as Chelsea's Roman Abramovich, the expenditure will not find its way on to the balance sheet.

Despite his immense wealth Abramovich quantified much of his acquisitions through directors' or "soft" loans, amounting to more than £700m before he converted a slug of it down to equity. That left Chelsea just under £340m in debt to its owner at the last reckoning, with critics saying it would become insolvent if Abramovich's backing were to be abruptly withdrawn.

Although Eastlands sources say the Islamic aversion to imposing debt was not a consideration, City's owners are alive to the widespread debate last yearover the levels of debt in the Premier League.

They feel the current spending is necessary to break in to the Champions League, when the club will be self-sustaining. But although that will reassure City fans, the news will only increase their rivals' sense that Abu Dhabi is "financial doping" its club.
 
If financial doping existed, United would have died of an overdose years ago.
 
nice one Pam...............

Fergie the only manager to have spent over 500 million in transfer fees..........
 
Thanks DB for your time and thoughts. You know what I meant. Anyway, I'll pass your comments on although we are in most things for the long game and so won't rush into any decisions.
 
Financial doping or not it means if Mansour does get bored and decides to sell up we won't be left owing him billions (like Chelsea and United)

That was my main fear when he took over that we could be bought and sold on a whim and have to saddle the debts.

However it has turned out to be every football fans dream - a super rich bloke giving your club millions and not wanting a penny back.


Brilliant!!!
 
Project said:
I don't like United but wouldn't want to see them mess up financially because of the leveraged takeover. It would be much more satisfying to be winning titles just ahead of them, rather than them being no competition at all. I've 25 years of hurt to pay back.

I actually agree with this sentiment except for one thing. I not bothered about about paying them back. You see, I'm not a rag hater because to hate them would mean that I would actually have to have some feelings for them and my attitude towards United is that they're beneath my contempt. It would be like some medieval king caring for an individual peasant, if you get my meaning.

P.s. thanks for the feedback on the on my question about pulling the plug on the loan
 
shepboy said:
Project said:
I don't like United but wouldn't want to see them mess up financially because of the leveraged takeover. It would be much more satisfying to be winning titles just ahead of them, rather than them being no competition at all. I've 25 years of hurt to pay back.

I actually agree with this sentiment except for one thing. I not bothered about about paying them back. You see, I'm not a rag hater because to hate them would mean that I would actually have to have some feelings for them and my attitude towards United is that they're beneath my contempt. It would be like some medieval king caring for an individual peasant, if you get my meaning.

P.s. thanks for the feedback on the on my question about pulling the plug on the loan

^^ What he said
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
kismet said:
Prestwich blue your postings are top and i enjoy reading them

on the Thaksin scenario we will have to agree to disagree..........
I admire your charitable view of him Kismet but I know things from people involved in the takeover, or people close to those that were, that give me a less benevolent view.


This!

Like PB i too know people closer to this deal and PB is spot on here!
 
shepboy said:
Project said:
I don't like United but wouldn't want to see them mess up financially because of the leveraged takeover. It would be much more satisfying to be winning titles just ahead of them, rather than them being no competition at all. I've 25 years of hurt to pay back.

I actually agree with this sentiment except for one thing. I not bothered about about paying them back. You see, I'm not a rag hater because to hate them would mean that I would actually have to have some feelings for them and my attitude towards United is that they're beneath my contempt. It would be like some medieval king caring for an individual peasant, if you get my meaning.

P.s. thanks for the feedback on the on my question about pulling the plug on the loan

Think you misinterpreted - I was implying more along the lines of friends and family who have been quite happy to ram our misfortunes down my throat over the years. Its them I care about "revenge", in a light hearted banter kind of way. All other rag fans mean nothing to me.
 
kismet said:
Top Floor Guy there is the answer you were looking for.............


Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 5215 <a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/ju" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/ju</a> ... abramovich

Manchester City spending spree is just a present from Abu DhabiSheikhs' £500m in wages and transfer fees will not find its way on to the balance sheet
Matt Scott The Guardian, Tuesday 21 July 2009

Manchester City's record-breaking transfer-market splurge is effectively being written off as a gift by the club's Abu Dhabi owners. The sheikhs have spent more than £500m in aggregate wages and transfer fees on players such as Carlos Tevez, Robinho and Emmanuel Adebayor. But unlike for owners such as Chelsea's Roman Abramovich, the expenditure will not find its way on to the balance sheet.

Despite his immense wealth Abramovich quantified much of his acquisitions through directors' or "soft" loans, amounting to more than £700m before he converted a slug of it down to equity. That left Chelsea just under £340m in debt to its owner at the last reckoning, with critics saying it would become insolvent if Abramovich's backing were to be abruptly withdrawn.

Although Eastlands sources say the Islamic aversion to imposing debt was not a consideration, City's owners are alive to the widespread debate last yearover the levels of debt in the Premier League.

They feel the current spending is necessary to break in to the Champions League, when the club will be self-sustaining. But although that will reassure City fans, the news will only increase their rivals' sense that Abu Dhabi is "financial doping" its club.


Come on Top Floor guy....

The only one spouting shite appears to be you. Is it scary being a Rag and knopwing the end is near?
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.