If they get sold for 3bn well done to Roman. He gets his £1.5bn back so effectively Cheslea "only" cost £1.5bn?
But I think with them needing a new stadium the days of spending £100m on players is probably over.
I think a consortium will buy them.
Indeed you can't just wipe out 1.5bn into thin air.
Uefa and Fifa need to get involved asap.
You'd better write to your local MP, the FA as well as the Premier League if you have concerns.
Or you can just keep your weak theories based on little to no evidence on a small football forum where the less people see it the better for you.
can i filter the word Abramovich
Have Chelsea have managed to circumvent FFP rules by claiming the cash injections from Abramovich were 'loans' which it now appears will not need to be repaid?
=====
Technically this is what FFP was established to prevent.
I thought ffp was established to help prevent clubs bankrupting themselves.
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 7 minutes ago
You'd better write to your local MP, the FA as well as the Premier League if you have concerns.
Or you can just keep your weak theories based on little to no evidence on a small football forum where the less people see it the better for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is this shіt.
This is not a 'weak theory based on little to no evidence' as you put it.
Abramovich DID give £1.5bn in 'loans' to Chelsea and HAS said they no longer need to be repaid. This being the case means that £1.5b has become a huge gift and that DOES breach FFP rules.
comment by פlǝuƃɥᴉs (U19365)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 7 minutes ago
You'd better write to your local MP, the FA as well as the Premier League if you have concerns.
Or you can just keep your weak theories based on little to no evidence on a small football forum where the less people see it the better for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is this shіt.
This is not a 'weak theory based on little to no evidence' as you put it.
Abramovich DID give £1.5bn in 'loans' to Chelsea and HAS said they no longer need to be repaid. This being the case means that £1.5b has become a huge gift and that DOES breach FFP rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Get in touch with the powers that be then if you think you have a case. Just posting on a little football forum isn't enough. Get busy. I look forward to hearing all your future updates on the matter.
comment by Phenom (U20037)
posted 22 minutes ago
can i filter the word Abramovich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haha I’ll join you on that. About 10 posters absolutely obsessed with it all
On the op, I would wager as chelsea have been ffp compliant now for years that the loans can be deemed
Before ffp came into place and initial investment. Not sure though.
FFP doesn’t take into account debt.
comment by Hezzman (U21558)
posted 30 minutes ago
If they get sold for 3bn well done to Roman. He gets his £1.5bn back so effectively Cheslea "only" cost £1.5bn?
But I think with them needing a new stadium the days of spending £100m on players is probably over.
I think a consortium will buy them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's my feeling too, in which case I'd be surprised if he gets 3bn, I think it'll be nearer to 2bn.
That's why I asked the question. I don't understand why some of your fellow Chelsea 'fans' have gone so defensive.
Was the whole £1.5bn 'loaned' before FFP?
I suppose the new owners could pay 1.5bn for the naming rights to the stadium
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 9 minutes ago
FFP doesn’t take into account debt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But an owner is limited on how much they can put into the club. That's why it was classified as debt because if it wasn't it would have contravened FFP. Now that its no longer a debt but a gift, it is therefore 1.5b put into the club by the owner, which is contrary to the spirit of FFP>
comment by I Don't Trusty the Process - Kroenke Out (U21076)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Hezzman (U21558)
posted 30 minutes ago
If they get sold for 3bn well done to Roman. He gets his £1.5bn back so effectively Cheslea "only" cost £1.5bn?
But I think with them needing a new stadium the days of spending £100m on players is probably over.
I think a consortium will buy them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's my feeling too, in which case I'd be surprised if he gets 3bn, I think it'll be nearer to 2bn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine if they missed out on CL might be a fitting end to the era.
Most of the loans were pre-FFP, and actually his ownership saw the development of FFP gain momentum .
He has covered off other losses over the years, and that will include the £145m loss made through the pandemic.
Chelsea are sustainable, in FFP terms, but any operating loss will not sit against the club as RA effectively pays it off with loans from him, interest free and non repayable. But those operating losses must still comply with FFP which allows £105m over three previous years.
But Roman was putting his investment down as debt before FFP came along, I suspect there would have been some tax advantages to it. Owner investment is limited by the books, Chelsea’s books under FFP always allowed for Roman to invest plenty.
But I’ll repeat, FFP has never looked at debt. It’s why United, Spurs and Barca have been able to spend heavily despite obscene debts.
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 9 minutes ago
FFP doesn’t take into account debt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But an owner is limited on how much they can put into the club. That's why it was classified as debt because if it wasn't it would have contravened FFP. Now that its no longer a debt but a gift, it is therefore 1.5b put into the club by the owner, which is contrary to the spirit of FFP>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RA pumped in his money in a big way in the early/mid 00s and before the current FFP came in in 2009. Whatever debt the club had then (owed to RA) was irrelevant. It is only since 2009 that they have had to comply - no more than £105m loss over preceding 3 years - and as far as I am aware they have never been sanctioned by UEFA for breaching it
Can't believe all the trouble man city went to trying to dope the club with dodgy sponsors etc when they could have just called it a loan
in all seriousness though RA was well before ffp? and theyve been pretty much self sufficient for ages now buying squad after squad of top youth and selling them for good money to fund the first team purchases.
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
But I’ll repeat, FFP has never looked at debt. It’s why United, Spurs and Barca have been able to spend heavily despite obscene debts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't confuse Spurs debt through investment in infrastructure (generating huge revenues) with United debt from borrowing to buy the club (generating no revenues) and Barca's total mismanagement of their finances leading to huge debt.
I’m not, I know exactly why those clubs are in that much debt. My point is that it doesn’t matter.
comment by InBefore (U20589)
posted 4 minutes ago
in all seriousness though RA was well before ffp? and theyve been pretty much self sufficient for ages now buying squad after squad of top youth and selling them for good money to fund the first team purchases.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, they are extremely well run now and a model to most clubs. Last summer they made about £90m from Abraham & Tomori (both academy) and Zouma (bought aged 19), and regularly make 10s of millions from the sale of academy players.
I think their average net spend over the last 5 years or so is about £25m which is about a third of City & United.
Sign in if you want to comment
Elephant in the room
Page 1 of 4
posted on 4/3/22
If they get sold for 3bn well done to Roman. He gets his £1.5bn back so effectively Cheslea "only" cost £1.5bn?
But I think with them needing a new stadium the days of spending £100m on players is probably over.
I think a consortium will buy them.
posted on 4/3/22
Indeed you can't just wipe out 1.5bn into thin air.
Uefa and Fifa need to get involved asap.
posted on 4/3/22
You'd better write to your local MP, the FA as well as the Premier League if you have concerns.
Or you can just keep your weak theories based on little to no evidence on a small football forum where the less people see it the better for you.
posted on 4/3/22
can i filter the word Abramovich
posted on 4/3/22
Have Chelsea have managed to circumvent FFP rules by claiming the cash injections from Abramovich were 'loans' which it now appears will not need to be repaid?
=====
Technically this is what FFP was established to prevent.
posted on 4/3/22
I thought ffp was established to help prevent clubs bankrupting themselves.
posted on 4/3/22
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 7 minutes ago
You'd better write to your local MP, the FA as well as the Premier League if you have concerns.
Or you can just keep your weak theories based on little to no evidence on a small football forum where the less people see it the better for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is this shіt.
This is not a 'weak theory based on little to no evidence' as you put it.
Abramovich DID give £1.5bn in 'loans' to Chelsea and HAS said they no longer need to be repaid. This being the case means that £1.5b has become a huge gift and that DOES breach FFP rules.
posted on 4/3/22
comment by פlǝuƃɥᴉs (U19365)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 7 minutes ago
You'd better write to your local MP, the FA as well as the Premier League if you have concerns.
Or you can just keep your weak theories based on little to no evidence on a small football forum where the less people see it the better for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is this shіt.
This is not a 'weak theory based on little to no evidence' as you put it.
Abramovich DID give £1.5bn in 'loans' to Chelsea and HAS said they no longer need to be repaid. This being the case means that £1.5b has become a huge gift and that DOES breach FFP rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Get in touch with the powers that be then if you think you have a case. Just posting on a little football forum isn't enough. Get busy. I look forward to hearing all your future updates on the matter.
posted on 4/3/22
comment by Phenom (U20037)
posted 22 minutes ago
can i filter the word Abramovich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haha I’ll join you on that. About 10 posters absolutely obsessed with it all
posted on 4/3/22
On the op, I would wager as chelsea have been ffp compliant now for years that the loans can be deemed
Before ffp came into place and initial investment. Not sure though.
posted on 4/3/22
FFP doesn’t take into account debt.
posted on 4/3/22
comment by Hezzman (U21558)
posted 30 minutes ago
If they get sold for 3bn well done to Roman. He gets his £1.5bn back so effectively Cheslea "only" cost £1.5bn?
But I think with them needing a new stadium the days of spending £100m on players is probably over.
I think a consortium will buy them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's my feeling too, in which case I'd be surprised if he gets 3bn, I think it'll be nearer to 2bn.
posted on 4/3/22
That's why I asked the question. I don't understand why some of your fellow Chelsea 'fans' have gone so defensive.
Was the whole £1.5bn 'loaned' before FFP?
posted on 4/3/22
I suppose the new owners could pay 1.5bn for the naming rights to the stadium
posted on 4/3/22
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 9 minutes ago
FFP doesn’t take into account debt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But an owner is limited on how much they can put into the club. That's why it was classified as debt because if it wasn't it would have contravened FFP. Now that its no longer a debt but a gift, it is therefore 1.5b put into the club by the owner, which is contrary to the spirit of FFP>
posted on 4/3/22
comment by I Don't Trusty the Process - Kroenke Out (U21076)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Hezzman (U21558)
posted 30 minutes ago
If they get sold for 3bn well done to Roman. He gets his £1.5bn back so effectively Cheslea "only" cost £1.5bn?
But I think with them needing a new stadium the days of spending £100m on players is probably over.
I think a consortium will buy them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's my feeling too, in which case I'd be surprised if he gets 3bn, I think it'll be nearer to 2bn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine if they missed out on CL might be a fitting end to the era.
posted on 4/3/22
Most of the loans were pre-FFP, and actually his ownership saw the development of FFP gain momentum .
He has covered off other losses over the years, and that will include the £145m loss made through the pandemic.
Chelsea are sustainable, in FFP terms, but any operating loss will not sit against the club as RA effectively pays it off with loans from him, interest free and non repayable. But those operating losses must still comply with FFP which allows £105m over three previous years.
posted on 4/3/22
But Roman was putting his investment down as debt before FFP came along, I suspect there would have been some tax advantages to it. Owner investment is limited by the books, Chelsea’s books under FFP always allowed for Roman to invest plenty.
posted on 4/3/22
But I’ll repeat, FFP has never looked at debt. It’s why United, Spurs and Barca have been able to spend heavily despite obscene debts.
posted on 4/3/22
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 9 minutes ago
FFP doesn’t take into account debt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But an owner is limited on how much they can put into the club. That's why it was classified as debt because if it wasn't it would have contravened FFP. Now that its no longer a debt but a gift, it is therefore 1.5b put into the club by the owner, which is contrary to the spirit of FFP>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RA pumped in his money in a big way in the early/mid 00s and before the current FFP came in in 2009. Whatever debt the club had then (owed to RA) was irrelevant. It is only since 2009 that they have had to comply - no more than £105m loss over preceding 3 years - and as far as I am aware they have never been sanctioned by UEFA for breaching it
posted on 4/3/22
Can't believe all the trouble man city went to trying to dope the club with dodgy sponsors etc when they could have just called it a loan
posted on 4/3/22
in all seriousness though RA was well before ffp? and theyve been pretty much self sufficient for ages now buying squad after squad of top youth and selling them for good money to fund the first team purchases.
posted on 4/3/22
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
But I’ll repeat, FFP has never looked at debt. It’s why United, Spurs and Barca have been able to spend heavily despite obscene debts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't confuse Spurs debt through investment in infrastructure (generating huge revenues) with United debt from borrowing to buy the club (generating no revenues) and Barca's total mismanagement of their finances leading to huge debt.
posted on 4/3/22
I’m not, I know exactly why those clubs are in that much debt. My point is that it doesn’t matter.
posted on 4/3/22
comment by InBefore (U20589)
posted 4 minutes ago
in all seriousness though RA was well before ffp? and theyve been pretty much self sufficient for ages now buying squad after squad of top youth and selling them for good money to fund the first team purchases.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, they are extremely well run now and a model to most clubs. Last summer they made about £90m from Abraham & Tomori (both academy) and Zouma (bought aged 19), and regularly make 10s of millions from the sale of academy players.
I think their average net spend over the last 5 years or so is about £25m which is about a third of City & United.
Page 1 of 4