The on topic thread 3.0

[glenferry23]

That's an interesting point. What would the figure roughly be from those payouts? 50m?

It’d be almost impossible to attribute a figure to it because much would depend on the circumstances of each player. How much they were willing to negotiate for, how much the next club would pay them etc etc.

The figures would be very significant though. Aubameyang for example, £350k a week with 18 months left. Willian £250k a week with 2 years left. Ozil £300k a week with 12 months left. And so on.

Arsenal are a bit of a basket case in the way players’ contracts are managed and how/if they’re sold.

 

[Zidane98]

Arsenal’s debt has considerably increased in the last 18 months or so - there was firstly a Covid related cashflow loan that has been converted into a facility from Barclay’s.

The Kroenke’s also refinanced the remaining stadium debt into that facility, which was increased again mid last year to allow the level of spending that Arsenal undertook last summer.

Arsenal also has recent habit of drawing a bag of cash to tell players to duck off. Willian, Ozil, Mustafi, Sokratis, Kolasinac amongst others and then Aubameyang in January. Those are decent chunks of money that eats into cashflow. Fair to say that method of contract management is not sustainable.

That’s likely why the current figure is as large as it is.

Didn't those players agree to terminate their deals on the basis the club let them go with no transfer fee payable? I would imagine that their termination was juicy sign on fees in that instance.

 

[glenferry23]

Didn't those players agree to terminate their deals on the basis the club let them go with no transfer fee payable? I would imagine that their termination was juicy sign on fees in that instance.

Not sure of the correct terminology for it, however Arsenal have referred to it as ‘mutual consent’ within their announcements. Regardless, it would still come with a payout of some kind.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

A stat online today is that among league clubs across Europe only 4 are debt free.

Chelsea, Manchester City, PSG and Leicester.

One that just got sold wiping its debt. Two human rights arseh*le’s and Leicester who have very good owners.

 

[Jatz]

A stat online today is that among league clubs across Europe only 4 are debt free.

Chelsea, Manchester City, PSG and Leicester.

One that just got sold wiping its debt. Two human rights a-hole’s and Leicester who have very good owners.

Proud is an understatement. Incredibly lucky to have great ownership but also proud.

 

[SM]

A stat online today is that among league clubs across Europe only 4 are debt free.

Chelsea, Manchester City, PSG and Leicester.

One that just got sold wiping its debt. Two human rights a-hole’s and Leicester who have very good owners.

City have no debt? That surprises me.

Also not hugely relevant as there's nothing wrong with debt.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

City have no debt? That surprises me.

Also not hugely relevant as there's nothing wrong with debt.

Of course not. Only a minute percentage of clubs with debts are in positions where they cannot service it.

Ours since being converted to long term debt is less per year than the money we earn off NFL and concerts.

 

[Zidane98]

A stat online today is that among league clubs across Europe only 4 are debt free.

Chelsea, Manchester City, PSG and Leicester.

One that just got sold wiping its debt. Two human rights a-hole’s and Leicester who have very good owners.

Not surprising that City / PSG have no debt when they are bankrolled by Abu Dhabi & Qatar respectively. Won't be long before Newcastle Arabia are in the same position.


Sovereign wealth funds should have no involvement in running of football clubs, it just isn't a level playing field.

 

[Jatz]

Not surprising that City / PSG have no debt when they are bankrolled by Abu Dhabi & Qatar respectively. Won't be long before Newcastle Arabia are in the same position.


Sovereign wealth funds should have no involvement in running of football clubs, it just isn't a level playing field.

When has it ever been? It's not a salary cap run sport. It won't ever be a level playing field.

You're now feeling like Liverpool can't keep up with these clubs - that's what supporters have felt about Liverpool forever.

 

[Zidane98]

When has it ever been? It's not a salary cap run sport. It won't ever be a level playing field.

You're now feeling like Liverpool can't keep up with these clubs - that's what supporters have felt about Liverpool forever.

Since when have sovereign wealth funds funded clubs in the past?

Thats a different ball game.

 

[moomba]

Oh good this again.

 

[largebus]

If we do get taken over by an oppressive oil rich state I just hope its Turkmenistan.
Awesome cult of personality, burning craters and the cleanest prostitutes in the region.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

How quickly do they generally recover from that debt? Arsenal's stadium was a while ago.

Depends on many variables. Are the loans amortising, is the interest serviced or rolled up, interest rates, etc?

Debt is fine generally if it is well structured, for a good reason and not too high. Some of those debt figures are concerning though.

 

[Magma]

Not surprising that City / PSG have no debt when they are bankrolled by Abu Dhabi & Qatar respectively. Won't be long before Newcastle Arabia are in the same position.


Sovereign wealth funds should have no involvement in running of football clubs, it just isn't a level playing field.

since when is sport meant to be fair?

 

[Memphis]

Pretty surprised Juve is that high in debt.

 

[SM]

since when is sport meant to be fair?

If it wasn't, why is there a set of rules?

 

[Jatz]

Since when have sovereign wealth funds funded clubs in the past?

Thats a different ball game.

Why? The wealth gap has always been there. Your point was that it's no longer a level playing field.

It never was.

 

[Cruyff14]

Why? The wealth gap has always been there. Your point was that it's no longer a level playing field.

It never was.

Yeah but in this instance it really disadvantages Liverpool, so that's why.

 

[Zidane98]

Why? The wealth gap has always been there. Your point was that it's no longer a level playing field.

It never was.

The wealth gap was nowhere near what it was before states started buying up clubs.

 

[Zidane98]

Yeah but in this instance it really disadvantages Liverpool, so that's why.

Its not Liverpool that are really disadvantaged by oil clubs. Its other clubs of a similar size & standing to the oil clubs that simply now have little to no chance of success.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

 

[Bradesmaen]

Yeah but in this instance it really disadvantages Liverpool, so that's why.

Poor Liverpool... the share holders of FSG are so poor...

 

[Latro]

 

[largebus]

 

[Art Vandelay_]