- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Your loan example doesn’t really make sense. Why would the choice be between loaning 10k at 10% or 100k at 2%? You’d loan ten lots of 10k at 10% and make 10k profit rather than 2k.
And profits don’t go to the board, the board is just representatives for shareholders.
paying ridiculous amounts with money loaned from banks.
That’s how most of these transfers are paid though. It’s particularly obvious with release clauses.
Clubs offer better value for transfer with a significant amount upfront. The buying club hasn’t got that money but the interest they pay will be lower than the premium the selling club wants for more installments. Take out a loan and it’s ok. Clubs are fairly low risk in terms of lending. Even a club massively in debt will almost always pay their loans eventually.
This is true. What my point was no loan has ever been taken to pay wages. As far as I am aware. I would be open to stand corrected with valid sources though.
Neither me or the person I responded to mentioned loans to pay wages. Did you mean to respond to someone else?
Ohh yeah, sorry. I am at work and saw wages pop up in some comments, and replied as per that. But I do agree, loans are taken to pay for transfer fees. It’s standard for every major transfer irrespective of the club.
No worries
People don’t read articles here, or anywhere on reddit tbh. One of my professors has his tests just be like from the first 3 pages of each textbook chapter, and people still don’t read it. It’s like 5 minutes of work lol.
Cant even win that title as an United fan. The rivalry is on.
Can we convince Boehly to sign the Glazers?
The red bull multi ownership model is not good for the sport so the comment about business first and football second is a bit ironic
Not good for the sport but very good for red bull and the clubs they own. That’s not ironic.
I am not basing my comment exclusively on the Premiere League, every professional league and club is a business, just like Red Bull.
funny to see english fans argue who the worst team is in their league
Flair of a corporation that started this multi-ownership bullshit
Huh never thought of it, was Red Bull really the first?
Can we convince Boehly to sign the Glazers?
Let’s be realistic, where would all that money Chelsea spent on players go if they didn’t spend it? To the fans? To the community? No. It would still be in the bank account of a billionaire. If they want to splash £100m on a single player from a club deemed smaller, then I don’t see the issue. A club like Brighton can easily spend that £100m on a decent replacement and then some. Also doesn’t guarantee Chelsea trophies and doesn’t wreck a club like Brighton. Brighton also seem to spend that £100m on obscure but high potential players from much smaller clubs abroad, which helps those clubs.
*Man City
Chelsea poster boys
No, Chelsea is the proof of football going right. Thinking they could buy quick success and end up in failures.
City are the true poster boys for where football has gone wrong.
No Chelsea are the most recent trailblazers who’ve been overtaken by the poster boys
The poster boys are City, PSG and Newcastle
It’s a lot more okay because it indicates his intentions are more likely to boost his local team of which he was presumable a lifelong fan.
It’s a far cry from Abramovich using Chelsea to shore up his political and personal security, or the UAE using Man City as a sportswashing vessel to for PR gain for their theocratic police state.
I’m not pissed about teams with rich backers spending more money. I’m pissed about what interests are being furthered by football clubs being used as cynical political tools.
Newcastle were before Chelsea. I’d say the reason for their recent takeover was the previous sugar daddy period
I fail to understand your point. How is getting a loan “ruining the sport”?
Also where do you get that they get loans with hardly any interest, if any? What kind of bank or financial institution is gifting money away?
How so? It seems more stable from the players perspective, they have these nice long contracts so they know they’re still a part of Chelsea despite being bounced from club to club and country to country on expiring contracts.
for players its fantastic, their future is secured for a long time and they are in a (hopefully) stable environment. For the club its a massive risk to make such long commitments
Roman was just as scummy as they are
sorry, no matter how you dress it up an Oligarch isn’t as scummy as a state that has executed hundreds of people, commits human rights abuses, and creates humanitarian disasters in other countries