Which is how Utd’s came about. But that aside if we were to lose £50m a year for 50 years we’d still be inside the rules if we could keep up the debt repayments on the £2.5bn we’d borrowed. All that matters is the number in any given year.
...my issue is how they were allowed to get so far into debt in the first place.
They're surely just paying interest, and that debt might never actually be paid off in full. Is that fair? To be able to spend so much without consequence?
Theoretically, one team in the shit, because they spend £50m more then their income over 3 years, but £1bn in debt is not even considered an issue.
and as Utd, even with the Glazers’ mismanagement, is a cash making behemoth they’re easily able to meet the payment without making a loss in any financial year.
Lots of that is debt from the original takeover, their yearly spend in relation to turnover is probably within the rules. Perhaps another factor is other clubs are better creative accounting?
Speaking of tedious...here's Mazzzzzzz