A lot of us are questioning this. With SB, the financial return made more sense. There was ancillaries that could have generated the yield. With the Triangle, you get the stadium, hotel and a few conferencing/multi-use rooms but is that really enough to start chipping away at £150m to make a return? I struggle to see it personally.
But, wealthy people don't stay wealthy by making bad decisions and sticking by things that aren't financially viable. That Bakrie, Geicke and co are still here despite the talk of increased costs is something. Maybe I'm clinging to that now. If this wasn't viable to them, they would have packed up and left.
Debt is only unsustainable when even the minimum payment cannot be paid off. Like a mortgage, the thought of paying off the whole lot seems terrifying but break it down into smaller payments over a series of years (considering interest % too) and it becomes viable.
But, I take your point. The club can only carry so much debt and to think of us as a League 1 club (for that is our natural position, really) with that level of debt, you do start to wonder how that kind of debt can ever be serviced.
It is a symptom of the game though. In the constant chase for CL/EL/ECL places, titles, promotions and avoiding relegations, almost every club throws money around to get to the next step meaning that the majority of PL/EFL sides are 'technically insolvent' and reliant on sugar daddies to plug the gaps. 63 of the 92 recorded losses in the 2021-22 season (one not impacted by COVID) and I suspect even more since will have done (
link).
Something needs to change and a bubble needs to burst. But I've been hearing that since the 1990s when Alan Shearer was the most expensive player in the world. Those older than me would have heard the same.