trousers

Because tapping into a finite capital base isn't necessarily as financially astute as tapping into a favourable loan facility. Why burn the capital that is the foundation of your security as a company when you can borrow money at zero risk? I do the same with my household budget. I don't tap into my savings to buy a new sofa if the furniture store are offering favourable hire purchase deals.

It gets mentioned on here a lot but it's got the whiff of one of those self perpetuating myths. Perhaps if you post a few of these definitive quotes from the Liebherr family then we can dissect what they were actually saying rather than what we think they might be saying about "debt".

http://www.twohundredpercent.net/?p=20627

Intend

P.s. I've got a mortgage which the bank insists is secured against my house for the next 10 years but I intend to pay it off sooner than that...it's cheaper money that way...

Maybe that's just a formality that these loan companies insist upon. Who knows? All I'm highlighting (with my MLG tribute hat on) is that we don't yet know if Cortese has done a Nick Clegg on his "no borrowing beyond our means" pledge. This may just be a clever, tax efficient, way of managing the club's cash flow for all we know (thus making us more self-sufficient in the long run, not less) Posting the Cortese quote for the next 18 months until the accounts are published won't alter the level of uncertainty or prove anything outright.

How do we know when this loan will be paid off? Cortese cites "two years" in that quote but what if it's a 6 months bridging loan to manage cash flow in this case?

Yep, the most revealing aspect of the interview was not what she said (per se) but the alarmed 'penny dropping' expression on her face as she watched clips of the documentary. You could palpably see several pieces of jigsaw slotting into place in her mind. I was in the 'benefit of doubt' camp before the documentary but I don't think there's much room for doubt anymore after watching it last night.

You can make money by borrowing at favourable rates and investing the funds in assets which give a higher cash flow return than the loan repayment terms. Maybe this is what Nicola 'Investment Banker' Cortese has up his sleeve? Of course, this would only work as an investment vehicle if the likes of Ramirez generate enough additional revenue to exceed the amount needed to service the loan. Either that or the Liebherrs have pulled the plug on their financial support of the club and we're stuffed...

Well, that was as damning as it gets.

Good debt...? http://biggsuccess.com/2012/08/15/the-dirty-secret-to-getting-rich/

I accept that 'concern' is a valid stance to take given we don't know why the club has done what it's done and on what terms. Maybe 'intrigued' or 'curious' are better words than 'concerned' but my gut feel is that there'll be a rational explanation for it. I could be wrong.

Here's hoping we cheat our way to winning the FA Cup this year so they can truly compare like with like

Not all 'debt' is bad. As I keep saying, I 'm reserving judgement on this until I know more details about the terms of the loan and the context behind it. Apologies if such pragmatism isn't befitting of an Internet football messageboard.

Just waiting for him to publish the Virgin Island loan arrangement details now...j

Wise and rational words sir. Shame they'll be largely wasted on here though....

Perhaps we've taken the moral high ground and joined in voluntarily? (Said Trousers on a straw clutching roll this evening)

Fair points. Like everyone else, in the absence of any specific details, I'm clutching at straws.

@jordansibley: Surprised to see a mountain being made out of a molehill regarding the pause in work at Staplewood. SFC and Leabitter have agreed to pause process whilst details of a specific aspect of the specification is confirmed. Project will be resuming very soon and both parties are looking forward to the project being completed ahead of the 2013-14 season. Nothing to be concerned about at all!

Isn't there some new rule from this season onwards (Financial Fair Play?) whereby owners can only inject their personal cash up to a percentage of turnover? Maybe they've hit that limit and this is the only legit way to provide the short term injection of funds we needed to hit the ground running this season? I've no idea but might this have something to do with it?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2212445/Gary-Glitter-sex-underage-girl-Jimmy-Saviles-BBC-dressing-room.html?ITO=socialnet-twitter-mailonline

@frankieboyle: Ed Miliband wants to turn us into one nation. Unfortunately it’s Greece.

Have they started highlighting the number of charities and tax payers we've ripped off yet? One assumes they're comparing like for like...? They'll be comparing our respective administrations next and coming to the conclusion the circumstance were identical

I'll concede that one - I did take a leap of faith there somewhat! :-)

Given we have a guaranteed income from being in the Premier League for the next 5 years, I'm not sure I agree with the word "gambling". These loans have to be approved by the Premier League so they are obviously "OK" with it. I have a small degree of discomfort about it but that's more down to the fact that we don't know the details. It might be "ok", it might not be. We shall see.