Will Cheatski Implode?

[Row Z Royal]

The same way United have over one billion in debt? Oh wait, Chels£a

Combined debt of £1 bn - about £ 700 m each.

TOTP

So Man Utd's debt is approx 75%+ of their worth?

Questionable business sense?

[papereyes]

I think that was the point United Not For Sale and FCUM were making.

[g]

The same way United have over one billion in debt? Oh wait, Chels£a

Combined debt of £1 bn - about £ 700 m each.

TOTP

So Man Utd's debt is approx 75%+ of their worth?

Questionable business sense?

So who is going to pay it off?
Glazer's certainly are not.

[Dirk Gently]

The same way United have over one billion in debt? Oh wait, Chels£a

Combined debt of £1 bn - about £ 700 m each.

TOTP

So Man Utd's debt is approx 75%+ of their worth?

Questionable business sense?

And a couple of years ago they were the best run club in football, in terms of solvency.

[Man Friday]

Is anyone else officially bored of Chelsea being referred to as "Cheatski"?

Nope and never will be.

[Man Friday]

Is anyone else officially bored of Chelsea being referred to as "Cheatski"?

Yes and "manure"

Pathetic

[rabidbee]

TOTP

So Man Utd's debt is approx 75%+ of their worth?

Questionable business sense?

So who is going to pay it off?
Glazer's certainly are not.

The fans - another point made by United Not for Sale and FCUM.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

TOTP

So Man Utd's debt is approx 75%+ of their worth?

Questionable business sense?

So who is going to pay it off?
Glazer's certainly are not.

The fans - another point made by United Not for Sale and FCUM.

specifically the club profits will pay off the debt.

It's a fairly standard business practice when one company buys out another, in that the profits of the business taken over are used to pay off the investment over 20 years or so.

The difference, of course, is that fans see that money being used to pay off the debt and think that it could have been used to improve the team instead, whereas at a normal bought out firm, the pressure is felt in less money being available for salaries.

From a business investment perspective it's excellent business sense, because as long as the profits are high enough to keep paying off the debt, they are laughing all the way to the bank.

The Abramovich route (one which a fair few Reading fans seem to think Madejski should adopt, albeit to a considerably lesser degree) with the club losing money hand over fist with it being paid for by a rich chairman, is a far riskier strategy, which tends to implode completely when the owner withdraws his backing.

[cmonurz]

Spot on; the 'value' of the club is in its future cashflows, much more than it is its current assets.

[Tails]

to answer the question : no

[Apocalypse Now]

Chelsea will spend huge amounts trying to play football like Arsenal and Man Utd. Very few sides can play quality football and win things, see Arsenal for proof. I expect Chelsea to play better football but win much less. They won't implode for a few years yet.

[Ian Royal]

Chelsea will continue to cheat and grind out results to get towards the top of th epack for a good few seasons yet. It'll take more than a couple of seasons of no trophies and some 2nd places to dislodge The man the plunged English football back towards financial crisis.