0. Man Utd has a lot of debt because the Glazers dumped their loan to buy the club on the club itself. It's not because a football club by definition has a large debt. They are paying over 60m quid a year of interest alone, not counting the 700m quid of actual debt, I think that's what it is. If I'm not mistaken, they also make a lot more money than we do, and they don't have enough money to buy any good players without selling a good player. That is also due to the Glazers' noninvestment...but anyway, back to the point. Debt is bad if foisted on you suddenly and not well planned for in advance. Our debt payment was probably hastily financed.
1. What are these additonal assets, exactly? The tv channel maybe...but what else? I have no idea.
2. I think [not sure] that our 20m income came from selling our players. Operating loss doesn't count the owner's injections; that's why Chelsea's operating at a loss. Besides, is 20m income actual hard cash? Like I said, we might be getting paid in installments that don't accrue interest but trying to pay off a debt that does.
3. Profit = in - out, and that's it. Since sales went down, this shows we also cut costs a lot aka player wages. Maybe transfer fees also went into the "in" column.
Edit: I just checked the past financial statements. While I might be wrong, since they seem to be written to be deliberately obfuscating, I think at the end of 2004 our debt was only 3m. End of 2005 and 2006, the debt was around 10-15m. But this could be incorrect, the reports are so confusing. They even change format completely from year to year...
1. What are these additonal assets, exactly? The tv channel maybe...but what else? I have no idea.
2. I think [not sure] that our 20m income came from selling our players. Operating loss doesn't count the owner's injections; that's why Chelsea's operating at a loss. Besides, is 20m income actual hard cash? Like I said, we might be getting paid in installments that don't accrue interest but trying to pay off a debt that does.
3. Profit = in - out, and that's it. Since sales went down, this shows we also cut costs a lot aka player wages. Maybe transfer fees also went into the "in" column.
Edit: I just checked the past financial statements. While I might be wrong, since they seem to be written to be deliberately obfuscating, I think at the end of 2004 our debt was only 3m. End of 2005 and 2006, the debt was around 10-15m. But this could be incorrect, the reports are so confusing. They even change format completely from year to year...
Since then the so called 'fire-sale' of players to Fiorentina, Inter, Real and Barca netted enough to compensate for other lost revenues. Once back in Serie A we will be back on track to financial stability.
Ignore Chelsea. The recently announced loss of £80m is about 8 weeks interest on Abramovich's investments - mere drop in the proverbial ocean. Contrasted against this the Glazers debt at Manchester United grows each week, by a lot!! Current debts there now have climbes avove £800M
