I mean, ignore my flair for a bit, but that’s how loans usually work. 10% interest on 10k loan is 1k profit.
2% interest on 100k loan is 2k profit.
That is just doing simple calculation without factoring in duration of loans.
Also, RM and Barca(till recently) have been able to pay all those loans easily (except in some situations), and again they still pay whatever they make. There’s no State/Billionaire pumping 10-20 mil in bogus sponsorship to bail them out(again, until recently).
What you’re alternative is let RM make 100mil a year but they can only pay 30mil to their staff/players combined.
What would they use 70mil for ? To pay dividends? Which they do btw. But I would rather see those pushed to employees (players/staff) than going into board’s pocket.
And the result of this is that we can afford to offer thise wages, even taking loans, which btw, we took for renovation of Bernabeu.
I cannot think of one example where we took loan to pay wages as suggested.
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.
Off the top of my head: real sold their old training ground to the municipal govt for a fee far, far in excess of what it was worth. The govt then sold/gave them long lease on new facilities for a peppercorn sum.
I mean yeah I get it, but that’s leaving out a relevant historical context as to why those things happened.
I agree that Chelsea should not be seen as “where things gone wrong”, but pointing out to Nazi Germany to say things have always been wrong just seems whataboutism with a really low bar
I mean, ignore my flair for a bit, but that’s how loans usually work. 10% interest on 10k loan is 1k profit. 2% interest on 100k loan is 2k profit.
That is just doing simple calculation without factoring in duration of loans.
Also, RM and Barca(till recently) have been able to pay all those loans easily (except in some situations), and again they still pay whatever they make. There’s no State/Billionaire pumping 10-20 mil in bogus sponsorship to bail them out(again, until recently).
What you’re alternative is let RM make 100mil a year but they can only pay 30mil to their staff/players combined. What would they use 70mil for ? To pay dividends? Which they do btw. But I would rather see those pushed to employees (players/staff) than going into board’s pocket.
And the result of this is that we can afford to offer thise wages, even taking loans, which btw, we took for renovation of Bernabeu.
I cannot think of one example where we took loan to pay wages as suggested.
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.
The government was helping Real 20 years ago with some shady deals.
Like what?
Like /u/espret’s story! Like how the government helped Real with shady deals 20 years ago… … Duh
Like what?
Off the top of my head: real sold their old training ground to the municipal govt for a fee far, far in excess of what it was worth. The govt then sold/gave them long lease on new facilities for a peppercorn sum.
Daz just gud business!
No, he’s using Nazi Germany as an example of how football has been corrupted by less than benevolent interests for a very long time.
I mean yeah I get it, but that’s leaving out a relevant historical context as to why those things happened.
I agree that Chelsea should not be seen as “where things gone wrong”, but pointing out to Nazi Germany to say things have always been wrong just seems whataboutism with a really low bar