im not being funny, but im not here to do the maths for you.
pur debt has increase over the past six years, and our assets have also decreased, which is also a massive problem as we have used up pretty much all of our liquidity apart from the playing staff.
you can either go and work it out, or not. its upto you mate, i know my reasons for my opinions, but it seems your opinions are based off BK being a nice guy and us having less debt than united liverpool and arsenal. i dont need to keep backing up my opinion, but educating yourself on the issues before posting may be useful.
And Villa, and Spurs, and Sunderland. Not to mention Pompey, Bolton and two of the teams relegated last season, Newcastle and Boro.
I know my reasons for my opinions as well, and it's got nothing to do with BK 'being a nice guy'. Just to reiterate my original point, in case you missed it - football has become all about buying success, which I think is not only a shame, it is putting the future of clubs at risk. All clubs borrow money to invest in the team to try to win trophies, so it becomes a matter of balancing debt against success. A tiny few - Chelsea and now Man City - are fortunate enough to have super-rich investors who hand them interest free loans. These are a tiny minority and not really anything to aspire to as attracting a billionaire who's prepared to invest hundreds of millions out of their own pocket is highly unlikely. Others - like Man Utd and Arsenal - have developed a big enough 'brand' over many years of success to make large-scale borrowing viable. Most teams fall somewhere in the middle - even those with rich 'investors' most often use them to leverage more borrowing in the form of guaranteeing loans. As I said, it then becomes a question of balancing borrowing to invest in the team with success on the pitch - if you stretch yourself too far and success doesn't follow, you're in trouble, as seen by Leeds, Newcastle, Pompey, West Ham and, potentially, Liverpool.
So i think BK's biggest 'crime' is caution - he could have gone hell for leather and borrowed more and more to try and strive for the top four, but he knew the risks to the club's future if we didn't get there. In either case, to some sections of the club's support he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't - if he borrows too much, he gets slammed for the levels of debt, if he doesn't invest in the team, he gets slammed for that too.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I accept fully that we're never gonna get to where we want to be without serious investment, which will mean the end of BK's time in charge. But the facts as I see them are that we've been better run for the past ten years than a hell of a lot of other football clubs, which means we've got a better chance of attracting the right kind of investment than we did when BK took over.