Top 4 Into The Champions League? - Not For Much Longer...

[im]

All the talk on Sky Sports News at lunchtime was about UEFA's proposed barring of clubs from The Champions League and UEFA Cup who have serious levels of debt - indeed it was their Top Story.

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_42616...

So, I hear you say, who are the clubs most at risk?

Well here's the Top 4 they are reporting and it bears a strange resemblance to another table I'm vaguely aware of:

Man Utd £764m
Chelsea £736m
Liverpool £350m
Arsenal £317m

I wonder if theres a correlation between Debt and On-The-Pitch success?

As an aside, Real Madrid are carrying debt of Fulham-esque proportions at about £182m

I have no idea how much debt Spurs are in but its surely looking good for a Champions League place in the near future...

[sleep envy]

can you qualify for the CL from the Championship?

[vivaronaldo]

Its rather amusing what a complete platini is and how totally clueless he is. United won the Champions league in 99 a debt free club, since the Glazers put their debts onto United we have remained succesful INSPITE of the Glazers. What the complete cock hasnt realised is that interest on the debts aside United operate at a huge profit.

We dont buy our way to success as we have no money, and the players we do buy come out of funds we have generated ourselves not from our parasite owners!

We cant all steal money from the poor of Russia

[im]

vivaronaldo said:

Its rather amusing what a complete platini is and how totally clueless he is. United won the Champions league in 99 a debt free club, since the Glazers put their debts onto United we have remained succesful INSPITE of the Glazers. What the complete cock hasnt realised is that interest on the debts aside United operate at a huge profit.

We dont buy our way to success as we have no money, and the players we do buy come out of funds we have generated ourselves not from our parasite owners!

We cant all steal money from the poor of Russia

Its about Uniteds Debt Ratio I believe.

A debt ratio of greater than 1 shows that a company has more debt than assets, meanwhile, a debt ratio of less than 1 shows that a company has more assets than debt. This ratio together with other measurements of financial health can be a pointer to the level of risk the company is exposed to.

UEFA don't want a club collapsing at say the Qtr/Semi or even Final stage of the Champions League - that, from their point of view, would be a calamity.

sleep envy said:

can you qualify for the CL from the Championship?

Dunno - I'll get back to you at this this time next year on that if I may...

[maix27]

vivaronaldo said:

Its rather amusing what a complete platini is and how totally clueless he is. United won the Champions league in 99 a debt free club, since the Glazers put their debts onto United we have remained succesful INSPITE of the Glazers. What the complete cock hasnt realised is that interest on the debts aside United operate at a huge profit.

We dont buy our way to success as we have no money, and the players we do buy come out of funds we have generated ourselves not from our parasite owners!

We cant all steal money from the poor of Russia

You would if you could.

It's an ugly trait envy.

[bodhi]

vivaronaldo said:

Its rather amusing what a complete platini is and how totally clueless he is. United won the Champions league in 99 a debt free club, since the Glazers put their debts onto United we have remained succesful INSPITE of the Glazers. What the complete cock hasnt realised is that interest on the debts aside United operate at a huge profit.

We dont buy our way to success as we have no money, and the players we do buy come out of funds we have generated ourselves not from our parasite owners!

fking LOL. United didn't buy any of their success did they? So Ferdinand, Vidic, Rooney, Carrick, Tevez, Ruud etc etc were all free were they? That Berbatov bloke, he cost less than anyone at Chelsea did he?

Take your head of United's arse will you, they're the worst ones for buying success.

[vivaronaldo]

bodhi said:

vivaronaldo said:

Its rather amusing what a complete platini is and how totally clueless he is. United won the Champions league in 99 a debt free club, since the Glazers put their debts onto United we have remained succesful INSPITE of the Glazers. What the complete cock hasnt realised is that interest on the debts aside United operate at a huge profit.

We dont buy our way to success as we have no money, and the players we do buy come out of funds we have generated ourselves not from our parasite owners!

fking LOL. United didn't buy any of their success did they? So Ferdinand, Vidic, Rooney, Carrick, Tevez, Ruud etc etc were all free were they? That Berbatov bloke, he cost less than anyone at Chelsea did he?

Take your head of United's arse will you, they're the worst ones for buying success.

You misunderstand my feeble minded friend. Yes we have bought players, but we have never resorted to debt or benefactors to buy them, all the money was earned by the club through merchandise, tickets etc

The point is that Platini thinks United have gone into massive debt to achieve success, but we havent, the debt was hoisted on to the club by the owners and is nothing to do with player purchasing.

[vivaronaldo]

maix27 said:

vivaronaldo said:

Its rather amusing what a complete platini is and how totally clueless he is. United won the Champions league in 99 a debt free club, since the Glazers put their debts onto United we have remained succesful INSPITE of the Glazers. What the complete cock hasnt realised is that interest on the debts aside United operate at a huge profit.

We dont buy our way to success as we have no money, and the players we do buy come out of funds we have generated ourselves not from our parasite owners!

We cant all steal money from the poor of Russia

You would if you could.

It's an ugly trait envy.

I am highly envious that we are the CHAMPIONS OF EUROPE, CHAMPIONS OF ENGLAND

[CedA4]

im said:

All the talk on Sky Sports News at lunchtime was about UEFA's proposed barring of clubs from The Champions League and UEFA Cup who have serious levels of debt - indeed it was their Top Story.

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_42616...

So, I hear you say, who are the clubs most at risk?

Well here's the Top 4 they are reporting and it bears a strange resemblance to another table I'm vaguely aware of:

Man Utd £764m
Chelsea £736m
Liverpool £350m
Arsenal £317m

I wonder if theres a correlation between Debt and On-The-Pitch success?

As an aside, Real Madrid are carrying debt of Fulham-esque proportions at about £182m

I have no idea how much debt Spurs are in but its surely looking good for a Champions League place in the near future...

Can I ask where you got your figures for these debt amounts ?

A link will do.

[Vee]

vivaronaldo said:

Its rather amusing what a complete platini is and how totally clueless he is.

For once I agree with VR. UEFA are s, closely followed by the FA for not standng up to them.
Half the stuff that goes on abroad is ignored. Once a British club is involved UEFA suddenly are interested in the most irrelevant things.

[sleep envy]

vivaronaldo said:

Yes we have bought players, but we have never resorted to debt or benefactors to buy them, all the money was earned by the club through merchandise, tickets etc

not stricly true - when the glaziers put the club up against the loan to buy Man Utd they set aside just under £55 million for future transfers

anyone care to guess where this cash came from?

having had a chance to delv a bit into this, every single club in the premiership has varying levels of debt

what uefa want to do is work out who has servicable loans and those clubs that don't - a good example is WHU who are up against the wall following this week's collapse of the icelandic bank

even so, their situation isn't clear cut as it hasn't yet been established how the owner has financed the purchase - through his own funds or a loan through his bank against the value of his shares?

personally I'm not at all worried about Blatter's latest attempt to take a side swip at the premier league clubs, he sees them as too powerful yet can't do without them - who's going to be interested in a CL without 4 of the biggest names?

furthermore, a number of the european clubs have fairly substantial loans and whilst he may try and cull the number of english teams he may unintentionally force the likes of Real and Juve out of the competition - I can't see that happening seeing as he needs the TV money so much

Edited by sleep envy on Wednesday 8th October 21:23

[buddhabelly]

im said:

A debt ratio of greater than 1 shows that a company has more debt than assets, meanwhile, a debt ratio of less than 1 shows that a company has more assets than debt.

Not quite right, if your debts exceed your assets you are bankrupt.

[Lucas]

What a load of nonsense. You would not deny a sprinter from running if he was overdrawn so why a club?

That said efforts should be made to curb the spending rather than an all out ban should be welcomed especially in this time of stupidity.

[Fiddlemesticks]

I kinda agree with VR, but cant bring meself to fully agree

It'll never happen. The sponsors would leave in droves given the clubs mentioned. Also think about some of the foreign clubs. Only very few are financially untouchable.

Its a topical news story and nothing else.

[Percy Flage]

buddhabelly said:

Not quite right, if your debts exceed your assets you are bankrupt.

Really? I think insolvent might be a better choice of word.

On that definition, a few FTSE companies are a tad shaky, what with their current pension scheme deficits.

[cj_eds]

Genius idea by Blatter. Find the clubs with largest debts, and take away a massive lump of their income by banning them from the most profitable footie competition in the world. How many of those clubs rely on that income to pay off the debts as part of their business plan? He must be really really really bitter about the English success in the Champions League last season.

I think its also a bit unfair just bundling all the debt together and declaring a club as good or bad because of it. Arsenal's debt is all in the stadium, should they really be punished for building better facilities? Fair enough punish clubs that are just borrowing themselves into Leeds to pay for players or exorbitant wages though. That said, once one starts it the rest have to follow or be left behind. Fortunately money doesn't necessarily buy success but its bloody helpful to have it.

[MaxAndRuby]

buddhabelly said:

im said:

A debt ratio of greater than 1 shows that a company has more debt than assets, meanwhile, a debt ratio of less than 1 shows that a company has more assets than debt.

Not quite right, if your debts exceed your assets you are bankrupt.

Only with no income.

[im]

CedA4 said:

im said:

All the talk on Sky Sports News at lunchtime was about UEFA's proposed barring of clubs from The Champions League and UEFA Cup who have serious levels of debt - indeed it was their Top Story.

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_42616...

So, I hear you say, who are the clubs most at risk?

Well here's the Top 4 they are reporting and it bears a strange resemblance to another table I'm vaguely aware of:

Man Utd £764m
Chelsea £736m
Liverpool £350m
Arsenal £317m

I wonder if theres a correlation between Debt and On-The-Pitch success?

As an aside, Real Madrid are carrying debt of Fulham-esque proportions at about £182m

I have no idea how much debt Spurs are in but its surely looking good for a Champions League place in the near future...

Can I ask where you got your figures for these debt amounts ?

A link will do.

As I said above - They are the figures Sky Sports News were reporting on-screen yesterday lunchtime.

[im]

buddhabelly said:

im said:

A debt ratio of greater than 1 shows that a company has more debt than assets, meanwhile, a debt ratio of less than 1 shows that a company has more assets than debt.

Not quite right, if your debts exceed your assets you are bankrupt.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/debtratio.asp

And debts exceeding assets = bankrupt whilst true is glib as you are only truly bankrupt once declared or found to be so ie by an insolvency court etc. Many companies continue to trade with negative assets and are quite entitled to.

MaxAndRuby said:

Only with no income.

Thats a much fairer definition. Unable to service your debts is the most common 'real world' definition.

Anyway we don't want to turn this thread into a technical accounting definitions war though - so back to the footy please

Edited by im on Thursday 9th October 10:45

[vivaronaldo]

2 people agreeing with Viva!! I knew I would break you all in the end!

muuhhhhaaaaaaaa muhhhhhaaaaaaaa