This is probably true, but two other things should be said at the same time. 1. Our liabilities may have gone up, but so too have our assets - whatever their performance, our playing squad is stronger now than a year ago. 2 and most importantly, I'd rather be staring down the barrell of relegation with an owner who has the financial clout to deal with that than with a group of shareholders who do not and from where the only feasible conclusion would be another stint in administration and -15 points to start from.
The threat of administration does not disappear because MM owns the club. Relegation would require MM to put a very large amount of his own money in.
Perhaps the FT can clarify this point, but do we know whether MM has put one penny of his own money into LCFC yet? I'm pretty sure the people he bought the club from are yet to see a penny from him.
He has no obligation to save the club financially, just like Ken Bates didn't at Leeds. Having a wealthy owner means diddley squat unless he is prepared to put his own money in. I believe there was a condition of sale that required certain amounts to be invested by MM, but I have no idea how binding these are and whether he's done it? Regardless, the amount he's personally cost us with his poor decision-making and general incompetance must far outweigh his contribution.
MM said last season that the finances of the club were very worrying if we'd gone down. He hinted that the club wouldn't have survived relegation without administration. With our financial position, and liabilities on wages etc, now far greater than last season, it is difficult to see how he would make the club more likely to avoid admin this year compared to last?
Just where do you think these extra millions spent over the last year have come from? It's nothing more than accrued debt in the club's name. MM can walk away at anytime without liability. In all honesty, he is under no more obligation to put his money into the club than you or I. However, I do get annoyed when stories abound about his £25m takeover (in the Mercury again this week celebrating his first anniversary) and his saviour status, when in reality the man has done nothing positive for the club.
Linking to your first point, the added value of a squad is severely limited by the associated costs, most notably, wages. I think that the increased wage liability is likely to be higher than the increased value in the squad. And as we saw a few years ago, administration is not necessarily the cue to other clubs offering us transfer fees or players being willing to leave.
PS - FAO FT. Apologies but I won't be joining you, although I'm not as anti-FT as many are. Good luck in getting anything worthwhile or honest out of MM and PA. Personally, I think you're on a hiding to nothing there.