Soccerway

Giorgio my friend, why not look at the report from a different angle and see it as a compliment to Italy’s superior quality that it was such a shock when Italy did get beat they felt it was worthy of a story! Is the cup half full or half empty?

Chelsea4ever:

I appreciate everybody is entitled to there opinion but it is pointless me arguing with you because with due respect your comments above are fact less, but hey ho I’ll say my piece!

Firstly, as I stated, the debt that is so called attached to United is £666 million but in reality it is not attached to the club the money the Glazers borrowed are loans secured on other assets of the Glazer families assets not the club this was legally secured clause before there imminent takeover during Uniteds Plc days. If the Glazers were to fall foul of the current economic climate the only effect it would have on United as a business or football club would be that the Glazers may have to sell one of assets which may possibly be the club, if that was the case then United would have new owners (and in reality I don’t think they would have a problem finding a buyer for the biggest brand in football do you?). For the above to happen would be a slim chance as United’s basic income is £250 million per annum, more than enough to service the repayments!

Secondly, there is a huge difference between the acquisition of Manchester City by the Abu Dhabi United Group (not the Dubai Group as you incorrectly stated) and Chelsea’s ownership by Roman Abramovich. The ADU Group acquired MCFC with the sole purpose to use it as a tool to assist the Emirate in promoting other economic interests within the Emirate. The oil resources which they have heavily relied on for the past 40-50 years will in the not so distant future, run dry! Therefore during recent times they have been investing heavily in other financial interest’s one of them being sport with a view to making the Emirate the premier sporting facility in the region. Their thinking is that if they can turn MCFC into the leading club in the world (which is debatable, and they might just move onto another club if it doesn’t work) will only assist them in gaining investment and prominence to help them achieve this goal. In short the city takeover is a long term investment not just solely attached to football. Abramovich on the other hand bought Chelsea as a plaything not as an investment, admittedly the man is not stupid by any means but as with any child playing a game if doesn’t start winning all the time he could quite easily throw is toys out of the pram. If this was the case (which I personally don’t think will happen in the near future) then Chelsea would be in serious poo because unlike United their turnover doesn’t cover their operating costs, they wouldn’t necessarily be in debt unless Roman insisted on being paid the soft loans he has given to the club but they definitely would have to off load their star players as they would not be able to justify their salaries as year in year out they have been operating with record losses.

Need I say more?

Nearly every club within the European top flights will be in some kind of debt, and the debt they are in will be subject to their turnover and what they can afford to repay. English clubs are at the top of the debt league because they have higher turnovers than most other European clubs therefore can afford to borrow more against that figure. Just because they may have more £000's attached to the said figure doesn’t automatically mean that they are in any more financial trouble than a club with a smaller turnover because their debt will be comparative in terms of burden!

Don't discount the Irish NakedWake!

WorsTalent, you would get ran out of Manchester, we don't appreciate berks like you in my fair city!