Sunny Coast Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 1,513
Eye catching because of the dodgy Chrysler or golden tampax deal.
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 into the top 5 of the "money league"
- Thread starter bluemc
- Start date
Manchester33
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Messages
- 6,915
No one can beat us with the financial doping stick anymore. The fact of the matter is that HHSM has played an absolute blinder, bought a big club, in a league on the cusp of a huge TV deal. Most of the money he initially invested has been paid back thanks to our Chinese partners and now he owns a club that is financially independent of him, that's worth hundreds of millions of pounds itself. He's created awareness about Abu Dhabi and created good business links with his country. He's in Manchester City council's good books and will have, close to, free reign to develop property and invest more into the second city in England.
Very, very smart man.
Very, very smart man.
Sadly debt is (apparently) a good thing. UEFA certainly don't seem to mind it otherwise FFP would still be viable.
it should be the rule of the land that any debt should be cleared before showing any profit but like uefa and the rest in football its nothing to do with anything other than challenging the big boys and if you are getting close then they change the rules
Debt should be in ffp because thats what will bankrupt a club! Look at the scum debt gone up since they not been qualifying for the champs league and that turnover is with that adidas deal of 750m over 10 years. There debt will increase again if they don't quality for champs this season, that tells you debt needs looking at to be brought into ffp
Debt should be in ffp because thats what will bankrupt a club! Look at the scum debt gone up since they not been qualifying for the champs league and that turnover is with that adidas deal of 750m over 10 years. There debt will increase again if they don't quality for champs this season, that tells you debt needs looking at to be brought into ffp
Plus they're using that debt to pay less on their taxes, so like you say, debt should 100% be included in FFP.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
The rags talk about their "net debt", which was £338m when these accounts were published. But net debt is just total debt less any cash or other liquid assets at the date of the balance sheet (which is 30th June in their case). They had £221m in the bank at that date, so their gross debt is therefore £559m. They could go out and blow that £221m on players on July 1st though.
We should do the same with revenue, quoting a figure for 'Net Revenue' which is Total Revenue - Gross Debt. That's £512m - £559m meaning they've got net revenue of -£47m. It's not a meaningful figure but it would wind the rags up enormously. If UEFA was serious about Financial Fair Play, it would ensure that clubs with non-infrastructure related debts of more than 25% of turnover were forced to get their gross debt down to that level before buying players or they should have a five year plan in place to clear those debts.
We should do the same with revenue, quoting a figure for 'Net Revenue' which is Total Revenue - Gross Debt. That's £512m - £559m meaning they've got net revenue of -£47m. It's not a meaningful figure but it would wind the rags up enormously. If UEFA was serious about Financial Fair Play, it would ensure that clubs with non-infrastructure related debts of more than 25% of turnover were forced to get their gross debt down to that level before buying players or they should have a five year plan in place to clear those debts.
The rags talk about their "net debt", which was £338m when these accounts were published. But net debt is just total debt less any cash or other liquid assets at the date of the balance sheet (which is 30th June in their case). They had £221m in the bank at that date, so their gross debt is therefore £559m. They could go out and blow that £221m on players on July 1st though.
We should do the same with revenue, quoting a figure for 'Net Revenue' which is Total Revenue - Gross Debt. That's £512m - £559m meaning they've got net revenue of -£47m. It's not a meaningful figure but it would wind the rags up enormously. If UEFA was serious about Financial Fair Play, it would ensure that clubs with non-infrastructure related debts of more than 25% of turnover were forced to get their gross debt down to that level before buying players or they should have a five year plan in place to clear those debts.
Agree never ever going to happen with Gill at the top table and his dirty scummy hands in every footballing establishments.
Blue Mooner
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2005
- Messages
- 3,139
Talksport headline on their website 'Richest football clubs in the world: See where Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal rank.....
Am I surprised?
Am I surprised?
flb
Well-Known Member
The rags talk about their "net debt", which was £338m when these accounts were published. But net debt is just total debt less any cash or other liquid assets at the date of the balance sheet (which is 30th June in their case). They had £221m in the bank at that date, so their gross debt is therefore £559m. They could go out and blow that £221m on players on July 1st though.
We should do the same with revenue, quoting a figure for 'Net Revenue' which is Total Revenue - Gross Debt. That's £512m - £559m meaning they've got net revenue of -£47m. It's not a meaningful figure but it would wind the rags up enormously. If UEFA was serious about Financial Fair Play, it would ensure that clubs with non-infrastructure related debts of more than 25% of turnover were forced to get their gross debt down to that level before buying players or they should have a five year plan in place to clear those debts.
Thanks to brexit and the weakening of the dollar isn't it nice to see their debts increase !