So, now its borrowing money to gamble with. That is normally the way to financial ruin
Gambling is dangerous enough without borrowing the money to gamble.
Your scenario may mean that the extra 3 places higher ( if it happens) pays off the cost of the loan, it doesn't however replace the money you have spent now, so you do not have it for next season. The club will not earn enough money to pay the cost of the loan and to replace the funds it has taken early
You can't spend the same pot of money twice. If it is spent this season, then there is a shortfall in the money for next season
No, sorry, this is an insane take.
Let me break it down.
The PL gives us a minimum of £122m via TV payments for finishing bottom. This is the minimum guaranteed income, however it is paid in installments, meaning we won't have received £122m until the end of the season, and the installments only cover TV money, not prize money which isn't known. By a rough estimate, around £30m will come in between January-April 2026, which is the amount they are 'borrowing' against. This is really what is known as a 'rolling credit facility' - a financial instrument to cash flow-positive/low liquidity businesses to spend money without needing to reshuffle assets or 'save up' to spend money they know is coming.
Premier League clubs are often in constant need of that liquid cash. The amount of costs that they incur, and the sheer scale of them, make them unlike most businesses. Most importantly, there is a competitive disadvantage to not being able to spend cash that you
know will come in. As a promoted club, that is particularly true, as to not have access to that cash would mean we were spending £10-20m in a league of £100m-200m competitors. This is why every club, even the biggest, has a rolling credit facility. It means the club can spend money before it comes in, without owners needing to sign cheques and move their personal money around from illiquid assets, for reasonable expenses that they approve of.
So there's no gamble at this stage. The money for this ~£30m is already guaranteed. It is maybe - maybe - to give them flexibility to do a deal or two that fits with where our range of finishing positions is in January. For example, if we finish 10th, we'll actually get £36m more in TV money this year. If we're around that position in January, getting a player in to cover an injury or AFCON absence will require some kind of up-front fee, even if the rest of the payments are spread out. The credit facility covers that, and most importantly, the owners will likely have established a 'floor' of where we can finish by that stage. If we're back in the mix, they may see a player as essential. If not...
And I want to touch on one point very specifically:
Your scenario may mean that the extra 3 places higher ( if it happens) pays off the cost of the loan, it doesn't however replace the money you have spent now, so you do not have it for next season
This is not the model they are looking to pursue, and I'd be surprised if that has changed off the back of 6-7 solid results.
The entire premise of the sustainable player trading model is that we will likely sell 1-3 of the players we bought this year for a
significant profit. I think the likes of Sadiki, Roefs, Diarra, Talbi, Mayenda, Rigg, Isidor, Mukiele and several others are all likely to turn a huge % profit if sold. This is the backbone of the model, that if you do sell 1-2 players and bring in £100m, you do not spend £100m in the transfer market, you spend maybe £60m instead on 2-3 players who you think could do the same, and the £40m you keep is profit that impacts the rest of the business positively, gives you financial reserves, pays off debts, invests in infrastructure, and builds a cash flow positive model that grows Brighton-style with calculated risks every year, rather than huge gambles. Even then, you keep a rolling credit facility open because of the nature of the business.
