Debt and proper perspective

[wabashcannonball 0]

The Hearts debt announced today puts our own into a somewhat better light on a common ratio, why no horror stories about Hearts. I suppose we will get the usual excuses...it's different Hearts owe mad Vlad.....it aint different it's debt. http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/sport/Hearts-cut-losses-but-results.6269634.jp

 

 

Anyone managed to get sight of MIH accounts. http://tiny.cc/5z4r8

Edited May 4, 2010 by wabashcannonball

[Bluedell 5,488]

The big differences are the level of facility that your bank are willing to give you and whether the finance is internal or external.

[chilledbear 16]

We are Rangers, super Rangers, says it all really.:robbo:

[ascender 352]

The difference is that the Hearts debt is owed to the owner's bank. You're right though, its a massive level of debt and wage bill to have for any club, but particularly one outside of the OF. If Vlad gets fed up with it all then it could get very messy for them.

[calscot 0]

Debt is debt but it's not actually the debt itself that gets you into financial trouble, it's the demands to repay quicker than you can comfortably afford that does. That's why we're in trouble and Hearts aren't. Same with Chelsea.

 

If your affluent father lends you a load of dosh and tells you to pay it back when you can, it's different from borrowing from a loan shark that wants his money back next week. Both are still debt...

 

The problem is that Hearts are closer to the benevolent patriarch scenario, while we're closer to the patella damaging one.