This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
Liverpool leveraged their purchase and takes money out. by CuzTeahan
City purchased outright and sold two tranches of ownership for 25% to Chinese and American investment groups with the funds invested in the City group. They also don't take money out and the club had the good fortune of inheriting a free stadium in which they have made substantial additional investment.
As much as fans of the American owned clubs bray about dirty oil money and sports washing their own club's financial models tend to be leveraged and extractive from football and their team's cash flow. I'm pretty sure the Burnley owners only put in 20% equity with debt service severely limiting player and other investment.