Really, McQuaid? Really.

[thehog]

well they are still massively in debt. so sponsorship and ticket sales are not making profits for them. Barcelona massively in debt. Man U only covering the % payments on the debt not actually repaying their debt. 3 of the biggest clubs in the world and best attended stadiums in the world, all in debt. go figure!

Most companies are in debt with borrowing’s and lines of credit – its how they do business. They all turn a good profit and as long as they are servicing the debt by its terms then its an operating expense. What a stupid post.

 

[ultimobici]

Most companies are in debt with borrowing’s and lines of credit – its how they do business. They all turn a good profit and as long as they are servicing the debt by its terms then its an operating expense. What a stupid post.

Not that stupid at all.

Many of the Premiership clubs are only afloat due to massive injections of personal wealth by their owners.

10 clubs are in effect insolvent according to this article, with Chelsea one of the worst. Portsmouth had to call the Official Receiver in.

 

[Benotti69]

Most companies are in debt with borrowing’s and lines of credit – its how they do business. They all turn a good profit and as long as they are servicing the debt by its terms then its an operating expense. What a stupid post.

they are only servicing their debts based on achieving success, if ManU don't qualify for champions league they might not be able to service those debts....

it aint stupid if you look at what happened to Leeds U or the current liverpool situation of even portsmouth.

 

[ChrisE]

OK, I didn't want to derail this thread on arguments about this. Some good comments, though.

My point is that cycling, pretty much more than all other major professional sports, rely on sponsorship more than just about any other. That I think leads to higher potential for coverup or laziness in catching dopers for obvious reasons I stated earliler. It hurts their bottom line, and is against their best interest. Is it better to catch a bunch of dopers and catch all this bad press and lose sponsorship, or keep quiet about it and retain sponsorship and $?

I liken it to stock options the smart CEO's get. They get bonuses based upon stock performance. Low and behold, books start getting cooked. I wonder why?

 

[ultimobici]

OK, I didn't want to derail this thread on arguments about this. Some good comments, though.

My point is that cycling, pretty much more than all other major professional sports, rely on sponsorship more than just about any other. That I think leads to higher potential for coverup or laziness in catching dopers for obvious reasons I stated earliler. It hurts their bottom line, and is against their best interest. Is it better to catch a bunch of dopers and catch all this bad press and lose sponsorship, or keep quiet about it and retain sponsorship and $?

I liken it to stock options the smart CEO's get. They get bonuses based upon stock performance. Low and behold, books start getting cooked. I wonder why?

in general I'd agree with you. However, the scale of sponsorship in football is enormous and reliant on continuous success. In addition to this the monetary rewards for sporting success are equally rich. Qualifying for the Champion's League can be the difference between solvency and insolvency for many clubs. So, in the search for an edge, the temptation to cheat is very real. Couple that with the attitude that football has with testing and you have a receipe for it to flourish.
Cycling has a problem in doping, but imo major sports like football are decades behind in terms of accepting there is a problem and doing something about it.