|
Post by QPR Report on Jan 30, 2010 12:10:04 GMT
I guess we're all hoping Bhatia/Mittal take over (Given the alternatives). Well actually maybe not all. But given the lack of viable options, especially with our ever-expanding debt...
Without being naive about what a change would mean in practice. And not forgetting Bhatia/Mittal share responsibility for permitting Briatore actions... Hopefully for starters though, Bhatia is aware of his shortcomings...And wants to prove himself to Father in law.
Professional appointments...Letting them get on with it. Needless to say, a Bhatia takeover which leaves in place other people would not just be a personal disappointment but would raise major questions about how big a change.
|
|
finney
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 175
|
Post by finney on Jan 31, 2010 18:44:08 GMT
Great points report.
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Jan 31, 2010 20:17:03 GMT
Thank you Mr. Finney!
I would also imagine that those who believe that under a Bhatia "regime," things will simply continue as they have been: Well I'd be very surprised if that turned out to be the case.
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Jan 31, 2010 23:20:58 GMT
Can't really see how any investor actually could subsidise a Club, to be honest. How could the Club spend the investor's money, for example? If the investor gives the Club money - as a gift in the usual sense of the word - then the money is the Club's money, not the investor's. Otherwise it wouldn't be a gift. And the money could only appear in the Club's accounts once the Club had the money. On the other hand, if the investor uses his position as Chairman to borrow in the Club's name - creating a situation where the debt is the Club's loss, while he owns the debt himself - as Wright did repeatedly as he ran up the stupendous losses he was making towards the end of his time as Chairman - well, in that case, the money is also the Club's money, isn't it? Isn't that why loans appear as losses in the Club's accounts, rather than the investors? Because the money lost is the Club's. If it was the investor's loss, the Club wouldn't know anything about it, and wouldn't be affected by it either. It is as if you borrowed £100 from a moneylender, put it on a horse, and won £10,000. The moneylender wouldn't be entitled to the £10,000 because neither the winnings nor the stake money are his. It's your £100. The lender owns the debt, not the money. That's why so much talk about people like Abramovich is misleading. Abramovich isn't spending HIS money at Chelsea, he's losing the Club's. That's why Chelsea, rather than Abramovich, is three quarters of a billion in debt. And there are new refinements too. As United discovered, where the incoming shareholders dumped what the outgoing shareholders charged them for their shares onto the Club as debt. To me, all these 'investors', far from being assets, are liabilities. It isn't the way these things are done, but I think it would be beneficial for Clubs to treat them as such, and calculate how much money having such people around will eventually cost the Club. Because these people, Wright included, always seem to arrive rich, and leave rich, while the Club - this Club anyway - never has any money at all, just all the debts they've run up and have never bothered to repay. So personally, I find the term investor misleading, and prefer to think of them all as moneylenders. And I prefer, with all due respect, to take the view that it is the Club which is subsidising THEM - especially when they can lose millions of the Club's money trying to boost the value of their own shareholding - and not the other way around. It seems iniquitous that they can get away with this. They couldn't do it once, the League was too vigilant. And the present shambles is the consequence. But that is just my opinion , of course.
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Feb 1, 2010 2:42:19 GMT
"We will invest heavily in a team to take us into the EPL" Quote from a dream I had this morning. So I ran it through and compared it with various truthful owner statements and then measured it on my new piece of technology.
|
|