Paul Wilson in The Observer:
Manchester City's position in the begging queue is anyone's guess, but after disclosing debts of just over £50m last week they are not too proud to admit they need help. For which read: just money.
There are other ways to put it. 'We are looking for further equity,' chairman John Wardle said. 'Anyone who is worrying about us doing a Leeds is worrying unnecessarily. We do have a debt but it is manageable, and we still want to drive the club forward.'
Supporters are worried, though. Wardle has conceded he would have no problem if any major investor wanted boardroom representation in return, which makes him sound a little desperate. On the club forums there is no shortage of contributions from fans concerned that City are beginning to make the same noises as Leeds. 'Go back three years and you would find Peter Ridsdale saying similar things, claiming the debt was well structured and denying any reckless spending,' said a supporter from Stretford.
Some suspect the position at City may be even worse than that at Leeds. The debt is probably larger than the latest figures indicate, more likely to be nudging £60m or more by this stage, and City do not have a Rio Ferdinand to raise a quick £30m. They have Anelka, who is not the moneyspinner he once was even if reports of a Manchester United swoop during the transfer window are true. At the moment Anelka is not looking particularly good value for the £13m Keegan paid, and even if United turn to City after failing to land Jermain Defoe, Mark Viduka or Alan Smith, they would be unlikely to offer a great deal more than half that.
City might not have problems on the Leeds scale yet, though neither do they have Leeds's assets. They have very few fixed assets, in fact, certainly not £50m worth, which makes them vulnerable. They no longer own their own ground, but are tenants of the council on a 250-year lease. The favourable terms of that lease mean that City's move to a state-of-the-art new stadium did not incur any extra debt - the club keep the revenue from the first 35,000 spectators at each game and pay the council a percentage of the rest of their attendances as rent - though the arrangement means the stadium cannot be used as a guarantee against loans raised to re-finance existing debt. Hence the begging bowl.