Once a loan is given out. There is a certain pre-agreed upon schedule that needs to be followed.
In fact there are penalties for early-repayment of debt because banks earn their profits through the interest rates they charge.
Less outstanding debt implies less interest rate for the banks.
You can't call in the money unless there has been an agreement of some sort.
Your tone makes me believe that you think I am against your owners.
Here is what I posted some time back in response to another thread:
Disclaimer:
1. I have never lived in any part of the Arab world and my knowledge is solely on the basis of what I have read in financial newspapers/magazines or what people from there have told me.
2. I am not saying that your owners are bad.
My understanding is that their investments have led to a lot of jobs in the Manchester area and for that they should be applauded. They have also been good for football by making it more competitive.
I am only commenting on risk and sustainability.
Investments can be divided into 2 parts: high risk and low-medium risk.
The world will continue to gobble up oil. Owning Oil Assets should be a low-medium risk asset.
However, due to a questionable public policy, Arab countries utilize a lot of oil money to subsidize utilities/infrastructure/goods consumed by the local population.
Not only that, the bureaucracy is inflated as funds from high oil prices have been utilized to give people jobs even though there is no need for it.
There is also a population boom across the Arab world: better nutrition, affordable healthcare, etc.
A drop in oil prices will seriously affect their ability to subsidize products for the population and may lead to an even greater amount of dissatisfaction.
Investments can also be divided into 2 other parts: low and high liquidity.
The other investments you talk about:
Corporate/Public Debt: low liquidity but sustainable cash.
Property: low liquidity.
Stocks: should be highly liquid but in reality when you have taken a significant stake in a company (say bank stocks after 2008-crash), you can't just sell without causing a market panic.
If the owner of a significant portion of a company starts to cash out, the stock prices tend to tumble.
This leads me to believe that City' owners can't immediately remove cash when required.
TBF I don't think any other owner can either but that's my point ... the financial risk for Utd at the moment is lower than City.
Also I think that the scarf people love the club but their views are misguided.
