Manchester City's £930 million spending spree.......

[Dunny]

We've seen the likes of Blackburn under Jack Walker and Chelsea in recent times invest heavily and won the league then when the heavy investment stopped they went off the boil, will Man City go on to dominate the league for the next decade, or will they be a one hit wonder?

[Lazie]

This is where I know you are a fraud. First of all Dunny's post was about City being a contender. There is a link in it to the solvency article you referenced, but it was not the main theme of the article Dunny posted. If you want to discuss the premise of the solvency article and their conclusions, that's a different story and a different thread. But on THIS THREAD (that you are attempting to hijack), the discussion is STILL - "Is City a long term contender?". But of course, that FACT is lost on you. And of course, we'll wait for a 1000 years before you ever answer, because, that's how you roll. :joker_smilie:

Of all the posts in this thread, how many discussed Man City? To me it doesn't make a difference. If they spent 1 quid of 1 billion quid they were and still are contenders. If a team park di bus or play like Barca it nuh matter as long as they achieve their objective.

I have to call out the jokers who constantly predicted the fall of MU due to the debt. Looking at the numbers the said jokers want to side step .. shows a different picture.

[Jangle]

Sock it to him yes me President. Him nuh know seh yuh a big dancer . After him nuh yuh when yuh a Cool n Deadly or a do the Water Pumpy or Horseman Scabby. Paul GO WHEY and go learn fi dance before yuh come step to me President!!!!!!

[Jangle]

To answer your question in one word - NO. The structure is not there to sustain all that excessive spending and new rule, they will buckle.

[Paul Marin]

Of all the posts in this thread, how many discussed Man City? To me it doesn't make a difference. If they spent 1 quid of 1 billion quid they were and still are contenders. If a team park di bus or play like Barca it nuh matter as long as they achieve their objective.

I have to call out the jokers who constantly predicted the fall of MU due to the debt. Looking at the numbers the said jokers want to side step .. shows a different picture.

Okay - so City are contenders. After x-million posts, you finally admit that. Now to the second point. The one of Manu**'s financial picture. I would caution you and anyone else reading that article to be careful about this article's premise that cash flow (*alone*) is the best indicator of financial health in any business. I wouldn't argue that positive cash flow is critical, but to stand up and point at cash flow without scrutinizing the balance sheet and income statement would be entirely stupid, which is the case with the article.

Secondly, it is well known that the Glazers have many layers to the formations around the club, so no one knows for sure what the debt really is nor do they know the extent of the debt terms and which (if any) entity will (or can) draw on Manure's earnings to pay off what ever obligation they might have.

The bottom line is: cash flow alone is not a sufficient indicator of financial health without full transparency into corporate structure and all other financials.

That said, if you were to believe that cash flow is all you have to worry about then consider that the the club is currently getting the benefit of unprecedented low interest rates. If interest rates take any serious upward turn, their cash flow will be severely impacted (i.e. a 2% interest rate increase on a 700m debt could move their debt service from 50M to 65M).

I presume this is part of the reason why Arsenal is running like crazy to repay their stadium loans as it is unlikely that the loans are going to be at fixed interest rates for the long term. I wouldn't be surprised if this is also the case with the Glazer's debt on manure.

Simple accounting and common sense says that the article is flawed; so jump up and down at your own peril.

[Paul Marin]

Also, I have said before that Manu**'s real challenge is replacing Slurgie and him tiefin' ways. The notion of getting a replacement as capable as him is lofty, (not impossible) but probably unlikely. So if (and when) he leaves and the club still is in debt, there is a double whammy scenario that would be catastrophic i.e. - no UCL and higher interest rates. That's the real downside. And if you don't think interest rates will rise with the American dollar's ultimate devaluation, you need to read up on your Jamaican history.

[Lazie]

Okay - so City are contenders. After x-million posts, you finally admit that. Now to the second point. The one of Manu**'s financial picture. I would caution you and anyone else reading that article to be careful about this article's premise that cash flow (*alone*) is the best indicator of financial health in any business. I wouldn't argue that positive cash flow is critical, but to stand up and point at cash flow without scrutinizing the balance sheet and income statement would be entirely stupid, which is the case with the article.

Secondly, it is well known that the Glazers have many layers to the formations around the club, so no one knows for sure what the debt really is nor do they know the extent of the debt terms and which (if any) entity will (or can) draw on Manure's earnings to pay off what ever obligation they might have.

The bottom line is: cash flow alone is not a sufficient indicator of financial health without full transparency into corporate structure and all other financials.

That said, if you were to believe that cash flow is all you have to worry about then consider that the the club is currently getting the benefit of unprecedented low interest rates. If interest rates take any serious upward turn, their cash flow will be severely impacted (i.e. a 2% interest rate increase on a 700m debt could move their debt service from 50M to 65M).

I presume this is part of the reason why Arsenal is running like crazy to repay their stadium loans as it is unlikely that the loans are going to be at fixed interest rates for the long term. I wouldn't be surprised if this is also the case with the Glazer's debt on manure.

Simple accounting and common sense says that the article is flawed; so jump up and down at your own peril.

Paul, City is 34 points better than Liverpool ... there was no question if they're contenders ... jeez!

Did anyone say cash flow alone? Stop creating escape hatches bredren.

The Telegraph conducted a unique survey of the financial health of Premier League clubs, based on the most recently available annual accounts, which are from 2010-11.

[Paul Marin]

Paul, City is 34 points better than Liverpool ... there was no question if they're contenders ... jeez!

Did anyone say cash flow alone? Stop creating escape hatches bredren.

The Telegraph conducted a unique survey of the financial health of Premier League clubs, based on the most recently available annual accounts, which are from 2010-11.

You need to take a course in reading. The article clearly states:

Our analysis in the accompanying table shows the amount of money clubs have left over after all their running costs have been paid for, along with debt-interest payments, the best measure of their solvency, their financial health as standalone entities.

To which I said:

...consider that the the club is currently getting the benefit of unprecedented low interest rates. If interest rates take any serious upward turn, their cash flow will be severely impacted (i.e. a 2% interest rate increase on a 700m debt could move their debt service from 50M to 65M).

If you don't take a course in reading...take one in accounting.

[Lazie]

You need to take a course in reading. The article clearly states:

Our analysis in the accompanying table shows the amount of money clubs have left over after all their running costs have been paid for, along with debt-interest payments, the best measure of their solvency, their financial health as standalone entities.

To which I said:

...consider that the the club is currently getting the benefit of unprecedented low interest rates. If interest rates take any serious upward turn, their cash flow will be severely impacted (i.e. a 2% interest rate increase on a 700m debt could move their debt service from 50M to 65M).

If you don't take a course in reading...take one in accounting.

Drowning man a grab at a straw! Dude there is a link to
Revealed: the financial health of the Premier League laid bare

its not only the Solvency Index. Cho ... enlighten yuhself nuh dude?

[Paul Marin]

Drowning man a grab at a straw! Dude there is a link to
Revealed: the financial health of the Premier League laid bare

its not only the Solvency Index. Cho ... enlighten yuhself nuh dude?

This is so comical. Big man give learned explanation of his critical thinking on a (not so complex) matter in straight forward accounting terms...likkle man have no acumen on the subject so randomly pulls epithets from a misguided article, and who's clutching at straws? Golly gee whiz. As my signature line below says:

I would rather the man who presents something for my consideration subject me to a zephyr of truth and a gentle breeze of responsibility rather than blow me down with a curtain of hot wind. ~Grover Cleveland

When you stop puff, and can make a learned argument, then we can chat. Until then, save your drivel for the simpletons (no Jangle, I didn't mean you. ).

Wait a minute - I just realized you were sending me to a link (it doesn't link by the way); I nearly dropped down dead laughing. No balance sheet, no management notes on debt nothing. Ha ha ha...you're a comic. Here's the link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...laid-bare.html

[Paul Marin]

To answer your question in one word - NO. The structure is not there to sustain all that excessive spending and new rule, they will buckle.

Jangle - who says the structure is not there to sustain that excessive spending? Where did you get that from? If you're saying their cash flows don't support it, I totally agree, but they have deep pocketed investors who may elect to fund the club into "forever" if they want to. That's sustainable until they bail or sell it on to someone else who is willing to eat the debt or keep it going. They are doing nothing different from what Manure did for the past 15-20 years or so.

[Lazie]

Jangle - who says the structure is not there to sustain that excessive spending? Where did you get that from? If you're saying their cash flows don't support it, I totally agree, but they have deep pocketed investors who may elect to fund the club into "forever" if they want to. That's sustainable until they bail or sell it on to someone else who is willing to eat the debt or keep it going. They are doing nothing different from what Manure did for the past 15-20 years or so.

Paul ... which deep pocket investor was pumping money into Manchester United?

[Paul Marin]

Paul ... which deep pocket investor was pumping money into Manchester United?

Debt from any source is what all these clubs are using. Even City. The question is whether or not the investor is willing to walk away from their "investment". This is more likely in City and Chelsea's case where the investor is an invdividual vs. Manure's where the investors are institutional.

[Lazie]

Debt from any source is what all these clubs are using. Even City. The question is whether or not the investor is willing to walk away from their "investment". This is more likely in City and Chelsea's case where the investor is an invdividual vs. Manure's where the investors are institutional.

LOL!!!! Paul ... manufacturing points seems to be your thing. Amazing ...

[Paul Marin]

LOL!!!! Paul ... manufacturing points seems to be your thing. Amazing ...

Typical Lazie response...make an accusation with nothing but conjecture to back it up. Manure's primary debt source is a bond offering which is held by institutional investors (and some individuals); City has no such situation nor does Chelsea. Prove me wrong and I'll stand corrected.

And of course, you'll come back with some quip and nothing demonstrating any form of critical thinking or indication of any financial knowledge whatsoever. I will have to hijack HL' s "why the 'ell do I bother" slogan when dealing with you...but wait...me figet seh hijacking is your specialty. Sarry.

And to educate your dim self further - here's a copy of Manure's Prospectus...careful not to bend your brain. They use some BIG words...like "prospectus" ... careful now. Note that they say:

The Notes will be secured by a first-ranking lien over all
of the shares in, and a first-ranking lien over substantially
all of the property and assets of, the Issuer and the
Guarantors (excluding our training ground). See

‘‘Description of the Notes—Security’’.

In short...DEBT. Secured debt to be precise. And of course, it goes without saying that they didn't put together this 322 page document for your grandaddy to throw him mattress money into...ergo...institutional investors. http//i.dailymail.co.uk/pdf/ManUtdProspectus.pdf

Try as you may, you won't find one of these for City or Chelsea, but you will for Arsenal. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from that.

Incidentally, this is how big men make arguments Lazie with facts, not fiction or incongruent drivel...keep your school boy quips for Jangle. :still_a_joker_smilie: