Manchester United Message Board
you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
" Citys owner puts his own funds into the club.." Does he ? Maybe he should put his funds back into his country . City are less solvent, especially if it's sugar daddy gets bored.
Andy you seem to have a problem in understanding what solvency means. To be solvent a club`s expenditure needs to be the same or less than the revenue they generate - funds supplied by a sugar daddy don`t count. Revenue generated by a club isn`t subject to boredom, death or political upheaval - sugar daddies can be. The situation in the Middle East is to say the least volatile and you have to wonder what would happen to city if it became politically necessary fro their owners to spend less money abroad? abus go on and on about utd`s debt but the bottom line is that if things did go pear shaped for the Glazers the club`s huge revenue would make it easy for them to find a buyer. Whereas the gap between city`s revenue and expenditure would make that task much harder should the need ever arise.
- 2 Replies to A Yahoo! User
Actually, Devon, *you* seem to have a problem understanding what solvency is. As does the Telegraph report above. What you've defined is not solvency, it's essentially profitability. What the Telegraph is going on about I haven't the faintest idea. Chelsea just below Arsenal? That flies against all the commentary of the last few years. And why aren't City and QPR on the list?
Solvency is not profitability. You can be either one without the other. Solvency is the ability to pay your immediate and expected debts. This can be through footballing operations alone, footballing operations plus profits from property management, footballing operations plus sponsorship deals, footballing operations plus guaranteed bank loans, footballing operations plus guaranteed shareholder funds.
City and Chelsea may have been the most unprofitable clubs in the country in recent years but they have also been probably the two most solvent, due to their owners' backing. To say that they are not solvent because their owners might pull out is no more valid than to say United is not solvent because it might get relegated and lose so much of its income it can't pay off its loans.
Surely the more successful City become, the more finance they will generate. City have needed an initial boost to get them competing at a first class level. Now City have done that and are likely to prove to be the premier team in the premiership in a couple of days they will attract hordes of glory hunting fans from all over the globe, lifting the clubs status and therefore generating more funding, becoming more 'solvent' and,along with their various sponsors,setting the foundations of self generating funding needed for the future under the new regulations.
City have needed to reach the top fast. To spend big quickly, before the new rulings take effect. City have done this and are already proving a success.
It grates most supporters of other clubs i imagine. But to see you, the original glory hole dwellers whining on and hoping in VAIN that City are failing does make one CHORTLE MANICALLY.
United and Ferguson have benefitted from EXTREME LUCK with regards to the competition from other clubs failing for one reason or other the past two decades or so (Arsenal manager change,stadium move.Liverpool,bad ownership in general. Chelski owner that dabbles in matters he is clearly not expert in etc etc) Yet whenever real competition,on a more level playing field, was provided 9 times out of 10 United were beaten into second best.
Face it glory hole dwellers, your time roasting on the best sunbed by the pool is over,PERMANENTLY. I bet Alex f*cks off sharpish now in a bid to keep his largely FALSE reputation intact. The RAT leaving the ship. Quick!
One is MOST gratifyingly AMUSED.