Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a Chelsea fan so I'll refrain just incase "Haha. Still waiting to find out the charges levied against Chelsea. But one thin is for certain .I looked at your accounts and cash flow. You had 63m when boehly took over in cash and spent money that your liquidity didn't have. Definitely smells fishy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a Chelsea fan so I'll refrain just incase
Haha. Still waiting to find out the charges levied against Chelsea.
But one thin is for certain .I looked at your accounts and cash flow. You had 63m when boehly took over in cash and spent money that your liquidity didn't have. Definitely smells fishy"The thing with Chelsea's spending is that its mostly deferred. They're now looking into historic stuff from Ambramovich's reign. I will say though, what's happening to Everton is fucking ridiculous. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a Chelsea fan so I'll refrain just incase "Wouldn't Chelsea be relegated if they are docked points?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a Chelsea fan so I'll refrain just incase
Wouldn't Chelsea be relegated if they are docked points? "That's a possibility regardless | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a Chelsea fan so I'll refrain just incase
Wouldn't Chelsea be relegated if they are docked points?
That's a possibility regardless " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a Chelsea fan so I'll refrain just incase
Haha. Still waiting to find out the charges levied against Chelsea.
But one thin is for certain .I looked at your accounts and cash flow. You had 63m when boehly took over in cash and spent money that your liquidity didn't have. Definitely smells fishy
The thing with Chelsea's spending is that its mostly deferred. They're now looking into historic stuff from Ambramovich's reign.
I will say though, what's happening to Everton is fucking ridiculous. "Aaaah. You're not thinking like an accountant. What you are thinking of is the anortisation( balance sheet) Not the cash flow. Chelsea didn't have the cash in the bank for the purchases they made in their accounts to make tbe purchases. You can certainly give a 7 year contract to a player to amortised it over a 7 year period. It doesn't mean you had the (net liquid cash) of 700m available that was spent on players. Indont see Southampton accepting Chelsea spending 50m and paying them over 7m a year for 7 years. Something VERY fishy has gone on under bohly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I heard that Everton had a simple case that was easy to adjudicate on. ManCity have so many , and can afford so many delaying tactics that it's taking ages to come to a conclusion " agreed Everton is harsh 19m over spend for some accounting differences on tbe expenses. I sympathise and think they should have been able to expense Gylfis contract without consequence. However some of it was dumb. Wanting legal fees fkr the stadium waved....NO ABSOLUTELY NOT. That was just cheeky. I think on appeal the points deduction will be lower. But they'll likely face legal battles now vs relegated teams. Man city if found guilt should be sent to the bottom rungs like Glasgow rangers. They absolutely fiddled the books for 10 years. And thisnis just based on the stuff they can prove. We all know they never deserved those sponsorship deals from the state. But sadly they just about covered their arses. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a Chelsea fan so I'll refrain just incase
Wouldn't Chelsea be relegated if they are docked points?
That's a possibility regardless "You'll be fine under Poch. Great manager. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a Chelsea fan so I'll refrain just incase
Haha. Still waiting to find out the charges levied against Chelsea.
But one thin is for certain .I looked at your accounts and cash flow. You had 63m when boehly took over in cash and spent money that your liquidity didn't have. Definitely smells fishy
The thing with Chelsea's spending is that its mostly deferred. They're now looking into historic stuff from Ambramovich's reign.
I will say though, what's happening to Everton is fucking ridiculous.
Aaaah. You're not thinking like an accountant.
What you are thinking of is the anortisation( balance sheet)
Not the cash flow.
Chelsea didn't have the cash in the bank for the purchases they made in their accounts to make tbe purchases.
You can certainly give a 7 year contract to a player to amortised it over a 7 year period.
It doesn't mean you had the (net liquid cash) of 700m available that was spent on players.
Indont see Southampton accepting Chelsea spending 50m and paying them over 7m a year for 7 years.
Something VERY fishy has gone on under bohly."The way the Premier league looks at it isn't necessarily 'cash at bank'. If a player is bought for 70m on a 7 year deal, that fee can be amortised over the length of the contract regardless of how its actually paid. So in effect on this year's balance sheet, its only cost 10m. The Premier League pretty much admitted it was a legit loophole when they closed it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a Chelsea fan so I'll refrain just incase
Haha. Still waiting to find out the charges levied against Chelsea.
But one thin is for certain .I looked at your accounts and cash flow. You had 63m when boehly took over in cash and spent money that your liquidity didn't have. Definitely smells fishy
The thing with Chelsea's spending is that its mostly deferred. They're now looking into historic stuff from Ambramovich's reign.
I will say though, what's happening to Everton is fucking ridiculous.
Aaaah. You're not thinking like an accountant.
What you are thinking of is the anortisation( balance sheet)
Not the cash flow.
Chelsea didn't have the cash in the bank for the purchases they made in their accounts to make tbe purchases.
You can certainly give a 7 year contract to a player to amortised it over a 7 year period.
It doesn't mean you had the (net liquid cash) of 700m available that was spent on players.
Indont see Southampton accepting Chelsea spending 50m and paying them over 7m a year for 7 years.
Something VERY fishy has gone on under bohly.
The way the Premier league looks at it isn't necessarily 'cash at bank'.
If a player is bought for 70m on a 7 year deal, that fee can be amortised over the length of the contract regardless of how its actually paid. So in effect on this year's balance sheet, its only cost 10m.
The Premier League pretty much admitted it was a legit loophole when they closed it.
"Yeah. Agreed. The premier league is post fact. But it seems you somehow magic'd up 700m in cash. The amortisation omisnthe depreciation kf the contract. You still need to pay the fee up front. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a Chelsea fan so I'll refrain just incase
Haha. Still waiting to find out the charges levied against Chelsea.
But one thin is for certain .I looked at your accounts and cash flow. You had 63m when boehly took over in cash and spent money that your liquidity didn't have. Definitely smells fishy
The thing with Chelsea's spending is that its mostly deferred. They're now looking into historic stuff from Ambramovich's reign.
I will say though, what's happening to Everton is fucking ridiculous.
Aaaah. You're not thinking like an accountant.
What you are thinking of is the anortisation( balance sheet)
Not the cash flow.
Chelsea didn't have the cash in the bank for the purchases they made in their accounts to make tbe purchases.
You can certainly give a 7 year contract to a player to amortised it over a 7 year period.
It doesn't mean you had the (net liquid cash) of 700m available that was spent on players.
Indont see Southampton accepting Chelsea spending 50m and paying them over 7m a year for 7 years.
Something VERY fishy has gone on under bohly.
The way the Premier league looks at it isn't necessarily 'cash at bank'.
If a player is bought for 70m on a 7 year deal, that fee can be amortised over the length of the contract regardless of how its actually paid. So in effect on this year's balance sheet, its only cost 10m.
The Premier League pretty much admitted it was a legit loophole when they closed it.
Yeah. Agreed. The premier league is post fact. But it seems you somehow magic'd up 700m in cash.
The amortisation omisnthe depreciation kf the contract.
You still need to pay the fee up front."This is the enzo deal for instance: "The Blues will pay a first instalment of £30m with the rest of the fee paid in five further instalments." Not all transfer fees are paid up front, every deal is different though. Chelsea probably still have spent more than they could afford but not sure until accounts are submitted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a Chelsea fan so I'll refrain just incase
Haha. Still waiting to find out the charges levied against Chelsea.
But one thin is for certain .I looked at your accounts and cash flow. You had 63m when boehly took over in cash and spent money that your liquidity didn't have. Definitely smells fishy
The thing with Chelsea's spending is that its mostly deferred. They're now looking into historic stuff from Ambramovich's reign.
I will say though, what's happening to Everton is fucking ridiculous.
Aaaah. You're not thinking like an accountant.
What you are thinking of is the anortisation( balance sheet)
Not the cash flow.
Chelsea didn't have the cash in the bank for the purchases they made in their accounts to make tbe purchases.
You can certainly give a 7 year contract to a player to amortised it over a 7 year period.
It doesn't mean you had the (net liquid cash) of 700m available that was spent on players.
Indont see Southampton accepting Chelsea spending 50m and paying them over 7m a year for 7 years.
Something VERY fishy has gone on under bohly.
The way the Premier league looks at it isn't necessarily 'cash at bank'.
If a player is bought for 70m on a 7 year deal, that fee can be amortised over the length of the contract regardless of how its actually paid. So in effect on this year's balance sheet, its only cost 10m.
The Premier League pretty much admitted it was a legit loophole when they closed it.
Yeah. Agreed. The premier league is post fact. But it seems you somehow magic'd up 700m in cash.
The amortisation omisnthe depreciation kf the contract.
You still need to pay the fee up front.
This is the enzo deal for instance:
"The Blues will pay a first instalment of £30m with the rest of the fee paid in five further instalments."
Not all transfer fees are paid up front, every deal is different though. Chelsea probably still have spent more than they could afford but not sure until accounts are submitted. "Exactly. But not in the history of football havecubs ever done those deals before which is why it fails the sniff test. Why would you wait 7 years down tbe line I football terms to get the cash of 100m? Look at what inflation did ymto yours and my wage in just 2 years. And football inflation has rune at about 10+ cpi. Like I said. It fails the stiff test. I can u derating 1 club doing it for 1 transaction bur across 25 clubs and 26 players. The sniff test is well and truly failed for me. Definitely some brown envelopes going round. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a Chelsea fan so I'll refrain just incase
Haha. Still waiting to find out the charges levied against Chelsea.
But one thin is for certain .I looked at your accounts and cash flow. You had 63m when boehly took over in cash and spent money that your liquidity didn't have. Definitely smells fishy
The thing with Chelsea's spending is that its mostly deferred. They're now looking into historic stuff from Ambramovich's reign.
I will say though, what's happening to Everton is fucking ridiculous. "No-one stuck up for Wigan Athletic and Volton when they were shafted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As an Arsenal fan, I wish they are docked points from the 2022/23 season retrospectively " And I’ll be there at the retrospective parade when they hand over the retrospective trophy… and we will all laugh and sing! We all know it just won’t feel like the others which is a shame | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a Chelsea fan so I'll refrain just incase
Haha. Still waiting to find out the charges levied against Chelsea.
But one thin is for certain .I looked at your accounts and cash flow. You had 63m when boehly took over in cash and spent money that your liquidity didn't have. Definitely smells fishy
The thing with Chelsea's spending is that its mostly deferred. They're now looking into historic stuff from Ambramovich's reign.
I will say though, what's happening to Everton is fucking ridiculous.
Aaaah. You're not thinking like an accountant.
What you are thinking of is the anortisation( balance sheet)
Not the cash flow.
Chelsea didn't have the cash in the bank for the purchases they made in their accounts to make tbe purchases.
You can certainly give a 7 year contract to a player to amortised it over a 7 year period.
It doesn't mean you had the (net liquid cash) of 700m available that was spent on players.
Indont see Southampton accepting Chelsea spending 50m and paying them over 7m a year for 7 years.
Something VERY fishy has gone on under bohly.
The way the Premier league looks at it isn't necessarily 'cash at bank'.
If a player is bought for 70m on a 7 year deal, that fee can be amortised over the length of the contract regardless of how its actually paid. So in effect on this year's balance sheet, its only cost 10m.
The Premier League pretty much admitted it was a legit loophole when they closed it.
Yeah. Agreed. The premier league is post fact. But it seems you somehow magic'd up 700m in cash.
The amortisation omisnthe depreciation kf the contract.
You still need to pay the fee up front.
This is the enzo deal for instance:
"The Blues will pay a first instalment of £30m with the rest of the fee paid in five further instalments."
Not all transfer fees are paid up front, every deal is different though. Chelsea probably still have spent more than they could afford but not sure until accounts are submitted. "A) very few deals are paid all in one go… it is one of the things about top flight football… B) the loophole Chelsea were using has been partly closed.. in the enzo deal, for the purpose of FFP the whole deal 106 million was allowed to be spread across the 8 years contract he signed… but fifa says the longest contract any player is allowed to sign is 5 years So what FIFA have said is that the transfer fee can only be split over 5 years rather than 8 for the balance sheet (which is why it perversely still made sense to buy him at 106 over 8 years, rather than buy him in the summer for 80 which would have been spread over 5 years) So enzo contract is an 8 year contract, but isn’t!… it’s technically a 5 year contract with an automatic club option for another 3 years… that is the other loophole Chelsea were using as other clubs only had 1 year club options (basically to stop people walking away from contracts under bosman) Also… for the purpose of the balance sheet for FFP, you also need to be aware of this… on the people you buy in, the transfer amount is spread over the term of the contract, up to a maximum of 5 years… On players leaving a club… the entire transfer amount comes off the balance sheet immediately!!!!… this is partly where the creative accounting comes in! Because A) remember Chelsea sold a few of their home grown players… mason mount, rueben loftus cheek, Lewis hall ect… these players would have had zero amount on the incoming.. but you get full amount on the outgoing! So it’s complete profit Something to bear in mind if for example Conor Gallagher or Levi Colwill do leave B) remember also Chelsea sold a lot of their older players in the summer (remember kante and others ended up in Saudi) …. 20% of the boehly consortium is owned by a company called ‘colwell capital’ … a large chunk of that company is owned by something you may know…. The Saudi Arabia royal investment fund (PIF) … same people who own a 90% share of Newcastle! The 4 richest clubs in Saudi Arabia… are all bankrolled by the Saudi PIF | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could Chelsea have taken a loan? " No | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could Chelsea have taken a loan? No" why not ? Isn't that how companies buy assets when they don't have cash ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could Chelsea have taken a loan? Nowhy not ? Isn't that how companies buy assets when they don't have cash ?" It's an injection of capital. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could Chelsea have taken a loan? Nowhy not ? Isn't that how companies buy assets when they don't have cash ? It's an injection of capital." is that not allowed ? Is that specific for Chelsea or on general ? Or have I misunderstood your point which was, I thought, how could Chelsea buy a load of players without cash in the bank. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This was why ffp was initiated. To stop large capital injections and make clubs self sustaining. 3rd party cash injections are limited. You can take loans for example to exand a stadium. But not buy players." totally. But I thought your point wasbt about FFP but lack of cash. Eg how could they afford to buy the players in practice, rather than how it was accounted for. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could Chelsea have taken a loan? Nowhy not ? Isn't that how companies buy assets when they don't have cash ? It's an injection of capital.is that not allowed ? Is that specific for Chelsea or on general ? Or have I misunderstood your point which was, I thought, how could Chelsea buy a load of players without cash in the bank. " It's not allowed.theres some instances it is. It's capped at a 3 season limit. And not even near to 50m let alone 700m Yes the point was Chelsea dpnt have the cash to buy the players they had 63m in the bank. Yet seemingly they've got a net spend of 700m. On transfer fees. Given most tra sfer fees are 70-80% up front. Chelsea didn't bot have the cash to generate these purchases. It screams something shady has gone on. But as the league only look retrospectively, they dont care fkr the time being. Which is sad. It's why ma city got away with the clear violtion of 3rd party sponsorships. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could Chelsea have taken a loan? Nowhy not ? Isn't that how companies buy assets when they don't have cash ? It's an injection of capital.is that not allowed ? Is that specific for Chelsea or on general ? Or have I misunderstood your point which was, I thought, how could Chelsea buy a load of players without cash in the bank. It's not allowed.theres some instances it is. It's capped at a 3 season limit. And not even near to 50m let alone 700m Yes the point was Chelsea dpnt have the cash to buy the players they had 63m in the bank. Yet seemingly they've got a net spend of 700m. On transfer fees. Given most tra sfer fees are 70-80% up front. Chelsea didn't bot have the cash to generate these purchases. It screams something shady has gone on. But as the league only look retrospectively, they dont care fkr the time being. Which is sad. It's why ma city got away with the clear violtion of 3rd party sponsorships. " clearly I'm not an expert, but I thought the cap was an accounting cap on losses. 50m seems a very low number for a cap on bank loans etc. How on earth do the finance stadium Devs? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could Chelsea have taken a loan? Nowhy not ? Isn't that how companies buy assets when they don't have cash ? It's an injection of capital.is that not allowed ? Is that specific for Chelsea or on general ? Or have I misunderstood your point which was, I thought, how could Chelsea buy a load of players without cash in the bank. It's not allowed.theres some instances it is. It's capped at a 3 season limit. And not even near to 50m let alone 700m Yes the point was Chelsea dpnt have the cash to buy the players they had 63m in the bank. Yet seemingly they've got a net spend of 700m. On transfer fees. Given most tra sfer fees are 70-80% up front. Chelsea didn't bot have the cash to generate these purchases. It screams something shady has gone on. But as the league only look retrospectively, they dont care fkr the time being. Which is sad. It's why ma city got away with the clear violtion of 3rd party sponsorships. clearly I'm not an expert, but I thought the cap was an accounting cap on losses. 50m seems a very low number for a cap on bank loans etc. How on earth do the finance stadium Devs?" No. Ffp is literally thousands of pages long ranging from accounting rules to capital injection and how contracts are to be drawn up I explained the stadium above. With regards to ffp stadiums are not counted and thus out of scope. You can't take a loan to buy players | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could Chelsea have taken a loan? Nowhy not ? Isn't that how companies buy assets when they don't have cash ? It's an injection of capital.is that not allowed ? Is that specific for Chelsea or on general ? Or have I misunderstood your point which was, I thought, how could Chelsea buy a load of players without cash in the bank. It's not allowed.theres some instances it is. It's capped at a 3 season limit. And not even near to 50m let alone 700m Yes the point was Chelsea dpnt have the cash to buy the players they had 63m in the bank. Yet seemingly they've got a net spend of 700m. On transfer fees. Given most tra sfer fees are 70-80% up front. Chelsea didn't bot have the cash to generate these purchases. It screams something shady has gone on. But as the league only look retrospectively, they dont care fkr the time being. Which is sad. It's why ma city got away with the clear violtion of 3rd party sponsorships. clearly I'm not an expert, but I thought the cap was an accounting cap on losses. 50m seems a very low number for a cap on bank loans etc. How on earth do the finance stadium Devs? No. Ffp is literally thousands of pages long ranging from accounting rules to capital injection and how contracts are to be drawn up I explained the stadium above. With regards to ffp stadiums are not counted and thus out of scope. You can't take a loan to buy players" I get expenditure on stadium is out of scope. But that doesn't cover the loan bit. How does one determine if a loan is for a player or stadium? After all spurs have had a huge injection recently, which was legit. My sense was that they can do this as they aren't breaching the 5m loss. Do you have anything that bridges the 1000s of pages to something readable ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could Chelsea have taken a loan? Nowhy not ? Isn't that how companies buy assets when they don't have cash ? It's an injection of capital.is that not allowed ? Is that specific for Chelsea or on general ? Or have I misunderstood your point which was, I thought, how could Chelsea buy a load of players without cash in the bank. It's not allowed.theres some instances it is. It's capped at a 3 season limit. And not even near to 50m let alone 700m Yes the point was Chelsea dpnt have the cash to buy the players they had 63m in the bank. Yet seemingly they've got a net spend of 700m. On transfer fees. Given most tra sfer fees are 70-80% up front. Chelsea didn't bot have the cash to generate these purchases. It screams something shady has gone on. But as the league only look retrospectively, they dont care fkr the time being. Which is sad. It's why ma city got away with the clear violtion of 3rd party sponsorships. clearly I'm not an expert, but I thought the cap was an accounting cap on losses. 50m seems a very low number for a cap on bank loans etc. How on earth do the finance stadium Devs? No. Ffp is literally thousands of pages long ranging from accounting rules to capital injection and how contracts are to be drawn up I explained the stadium above. With regards to ffp stadiums are not counted and thus out of scope. You can't take a loan to buy playersI get expenditure on stadium is out of scope. But that doesn't cover the loan bit. How does one determine if a loan is for a player or stadium? After all spurs have had a huge injection recently, which was legit. My sense was that they can do this as they aren't breaching the 5m loss. Do you have anything that bridges the 1000s of pages to something readable ?" The ffp does. You must shows how tbe money is used. It would also be against bank covenants if they used the funds to buy a player when they were given for a stadium. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could Chelsea have taken a loan? Nowhy not ? Isn't that how companies buy assets when they don't have cash ? It's an injection of capital.is that not allowed ? Is that specific for Chelsea or on general ? Or have I misunderstood your point which was, I thought, how could Chelsea buy a load of players without cash in the bank. It's not allowed.theres some instances it is. It's capped at a 3 season limit. And not even near to 50m let alone 700m Yes the point was Chelsea dpnt have the cash to buy the players they had 63m in the bank. Yet seemingly they've got a net spend of 700m. On transfer fees. Given most tra sfer fees are 70-80% up front. Chelsea didn't bot have the cash to generate these purchases. It screams something shady has gone on. But as the league only look retrospectively, they dont care fkr the time being. Which is sad. It's why ma city got away with the clear violtion of 3rd party sponsorships. clearly I'm not an expert, but I thought the cap was an accounting cap on losses. 50m seems a very low number for a cap on bank loans etc. How on earth do the finance stadium Devs? No. Ffp is literally thousands of pages long ranging from accounting rules to capital injection and how contracts are to be drawn up I explained the stadium above. With regards to ffp stadiums are not counted and thus out of scope. You can't take a loan to buy playersI get expenditure on stadium is out of scope. But that doesn't cover the loan bit. How does one determine if a loan is for a player or stadium? After all spurs have had a huge injection recently, which was legit. My sense was that they can do this as they aren't breaching the 5m loss. Do you have anything that bridges the 1000s of pages to something readable ? The ffp does. You must shows how tbe money is used. It would also be against bank covenants if they used the funds to buy a player when they were given for a stadium. " my understanding is the recent spurs injection can be used on players. Is that wrong? From the athletic Explained: What Tottenham Hotspur’s £150m capital increase really means for the club | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could Chelsea have taken a loan? Nowhy not ? Isn't that how companies buy assets when they don't have cash ? It's an injection of capital.is that not allowed ? Is that specific for Chelsea or on general ? Or have I misunderstood your point which was, I thought, how could Chelsea buy a load of players without cash in the bank. It's not allowed.theres some instances it is. It's capped at a 3 season limit. And not even near to 50m let alone 700m Yes the point was Chelsea dpnt have the cash to buy the players they had 63m in the bank. Yet seemingly they've got a net spend of 700m. On transfer fees. Given most tra sfer fees are 70-80% up front. Chelsea didn't bot have the cash to generate these purchases. It screams something shady has gone on. But as the league only look retrospectively, they dont care fkr the time being. Which is sad. It's why ma city got away with the clear violtion of 3rd party sponsorships. clearly I'm not an expert, but I thought the cap was an accounting cap on losses. 50m seems a very low number for a cap on bank loans etc. How on earth do the finance stadium Devs? No. Ffp is literally thousands of pages long ranging from accounting rules to capital injection and how contracts are to be drawn up I explained the stadium above. With regards to ffp stadiums are not counted and thus out of scope. You can't take a loan to buy playersI get expenditure on stadium is out of scope. But that doesn't cover the loan bit. How does one determine if a loan is for a player or stadium? After all spurs have had a huge injection recently, which was legit. My sense was that they can do this as they aren't breaching the 5m loss. Do you have anything that bridges the 1000s of pages to something readable ? The ffp does. You must shows how tbe money is used. It would also be against bank covenants if they used the funds to buy a player when they were given for a stadium. my understanding is the recent spurs injection can be used on players. Is that wrong? From the athletic Explained: What Tottenham Hotspur’s £150m capital increase really means for the club" Not on loans no. You can used 45m of investment. thats it.vyou can't use loans to buy players nd youc ant as the owner Contominally inject cash. This was the while point of FFP | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could Chelsea have taken a loan? Nowhy not ? Isn't that how companies buy assets when they don't have cash ? It's an injection of capital.is that not allowed ? Is that specific for Chelsea or on general ? Or have I misunderstood your point which was, I thought, how could Chelsea buy a load of players without cash in the bank. It's not allowed.theres some instances it is. It's capped at a 3 season limit. And not even near to 50m let alone 700m Yes the point was Chelsea dpnt have the cash to buy the players they had 63m in the bank. Yet seemingly they've got a net spend of 700m. On transfer fees. Given most tra sfer fees are 70-80% up front. Chelsea didn't bot have the cash to generate these purchases. It screams something shady has gone on. But as the league only look retrospectively, they dont care fkr the time being. Which is sad. It's why ma city got away with the clear violtion of 3rd party sponsorships. clearly I'm not an expert, but I thought the cap was an accounting cap on losses. 50m seems a very low number for a cap on bank loans etc. How on earth do the finance stadium Devs? No. Ffp is literally thousands of pages long ranging from accounting rules to capital injection and how contracts are to be drawn up I explained the stadium above. With regards to ffp stadiums are not counted and thus out of scope. You can't take a loan to buy playersI get expenditure on stadium is out of scope. But that doesn't cover the loan bit. How does one determine if a loan is for a player or stadium? After all spurs have had a huge injection recently, which was legit. My sense was that they can do this as they aren't breaching the 5m loss. Do you have anything that bridges the 1000s of pages to something readable ? The ffp does. You must shows how tbe money is used. It would also be against bank covenants if they used the funds to buy a player when they were given for a stadium. my understanding is the recent spurs injection can be used on players. Is that wrong? From the athletic Explained: What Tottenham Hotspur’s £150m capital increase really means for the club Not on loans no. You can used 45m of investment. thats it.vyou can't use loans to buy players nd youc ant as the owner Contominally inject cash. This was the while point of FFP " so new equity is fine but a bank loan isn't when it comes to capital injections ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could Chelsea have taken a loan? Nowhy not ? Isn't that how companies buy assets when they don't have cash ? It's an injection of capital.is that not allowed ? Is that specific for Chelsea or on general ? Or have I misunderstood your point which was, I thought, how could Chelsea buy a load of players without cash in the bank. It's not allowed.theres some instances it is. It's capped at a 3 season limit. And not even near to 50m let alone 700m Yes the point was Chelsea dpnt have the cash to buy the players they had 63m in the bank. Yet seemingly they've got a net spend of 700m. On transfer fees. Given most tra sfer fees are 70-80% up front. Chelsea didn't bot have the cash to generate these purchases. It screams something shady has gone on. But as the league only look retrospectively, they dont care fkr the time being. Which is sad. It's why ma city got away with the clear violtion of 3rd party sponsorships. clearly I'm not an expert, but I thought the cap was an accounting cap on losses. 50m seems a very low number for a cap on bank loans etc. How on earth do the finance stadium Devs? No. Ffp is literally thousands of pages long ranging from accounting rules to capital injection and how contracts are to be drawn up I explained the stadium above. With regards to ffp stadiums are not counted and thus out of scope. You can't take a loan to buy playersI get expenditure on stadium is out of scope. But that doesn't cover the loan bit. How does one determine if a loan is for a player or stadium? After all spurs have had a huge injection recently, which was legit. My sense was that they can do this as they aren't breaching the 5m loss. Do you have anything that bridges the 1000s of pages to something readable ? The ffp does. You must shows how tbe money is used. It would also be against bank covenants if they used the funds to buy a player when they were given for a stadium. my understanding is the recent spurs injection can be used on players. Is that wrong? From the athletic Explained: What Tottenham Hotspur’s £150m capital increase really means for the club Not on loans no. You can used 45m of investment. thats it.vyou can't use loans to buy players nd youc ant as the owner Contominally inject cash. This was the while point of FFP so new equity is fine but a bank loan isn't when it comes to capital injections ? " No. New equity isn't fine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could Chelsea have taken a loan? Nowhy not ? Isn't that how companies buy assets when they don't have cash ? It's an injection of capital.is that not allowed ? Is that specific for Chelsea or on general ? Or have I misunderstood your point which was, I thought, how could Chelsea buy a load of players without cash in the bank. It's not allowed.theres some instances it is. It's capped at a 3 season limit. And not even near to 50m let alone 700m Yes the point was Chelsea dpnt have the cash to buy the players they had 63m in the bank. Yet seemingly they've got a net spend of 700m. On transfer fees. Given most tra sfer fees are 70-80% up front. Chelsea didn't bot have the cash to generate these purchases. It screams something shady has gone on. But as the league only look retrospectively, they dont care fkr the time being. Which is sad. It's why ma city got away with the clear violtion of 3rd party sponsorships. clearly I'm not an expert, but I thought the cap was an accounting cap on losses. 50m seems a very low number for a cap on bank loans etc. How on earth do the finance stadium Devs? No. Ffp is literally thousands of pages long ranging from accounting rules to capital injection and how contracts are to be drawn up I explained the stadium above. With regards to ffp stadiums are not counted and thus out of scope. You can't take a loan to buy playersI get expenditure on stadium is out of scope. But that doesn't cover the loan bit. How does one determine if a loan is for a player or stadium? After all spurs have had a huge injection recently, which was legit. My sense was that they can do this as they aren't breaching the 5m loss. Do you have anything that bridges the 1000s of pages to something readable ? The ffp does. You must shows how tbe money is used. It would also be against bank covenants if they used the funds to buy a player when they were given for a stadium. my understanding is the recent spurs injection can be used on players. Is that wrong? From the athletic Explained: What Tottenham Hotspur’s £150m capital increase really means for the club Not on loans no. You can used 45m of investment. thats it.vyou can't use loans to buy players nd youc ant as the owner Contominally inject cash. This was the while point of FFP so new equity is fine but a bank loan isn't when it comes to capital injections ? No. New equity isn't fine." You can get loans and equity injections for stadium, training grounds etc. These are not related to the team. You can not put in loans and bew equity for player spending. It is capped at iirc 45m | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Spurs had 150 equity (well, possibly 100 in reality) as per the article I pointed to. You can't really earmark equity injections so how do they account for what is players and what is stadia (say). " Not equity for player purchases. Ffp does t allow it. As stated to you several tomes now. and this is where you get annoying. You can input equity and loans for stadium etc.NOT purchasing players | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You state things without seeking to help to explain or help understanding. I'm happy to tap out here. I will do my own diggging into how spurs did their EI and why The Athlete was linking this with player purchases. " I didn't really think it would warrant explaining time and time again. If clubs owners could willy nilly Inject any amount of they wished. You wouldn't have FFP and man city and Newcastle wouldn't need sponsorships deals from their state owned companies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To be exact, clubs can spend up to €5million more than they earn per assessment period (three years). However it can exceed this level to a certain limit, if it is entirely covered by a direct contribution/payment from the club owner(s) or a related party. This prevents the build-up of unsustainable debt. The limits are: • €45m for assessment periods 2013/14 and 2014/15 • €30m for assessment periods 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 For you hovis. " thx and I understand this. The disconnect for me is between a P&L number, and cash in the bank. Especially as the p&l include ammotisation and the like. Maybe its worth you checking my working. I'm not an accountant. Too exciting for me. I can buy 100m of players on 5 years deals and this is a 20m expense in tart 1 as I can ammortise. I believe if I sell a player for 20m, I can bank that today I believe. So I'm p&l zero. FPL fair. But still need to find 80m cash. If I get a loan for 80m and buy 100m of players for using that Loan plus cash, that's neutral ln my balance sheet right. I have assets and liabilities offsetting. So no FPP hit based on above. Therefore it sounds like there must be other rules that prevent this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To be exact, clubs can spend up to €5million more than they earn per assessment period (three years). However it can exceed this level to a certain limit, if it is entirely covered by a direct contribution/payment from the club owner(s) or a related party. This prevents the build-up of unsustainable debt. The limits are: • €45m for assessment periods 2013/14 and 2014/15 • €30m for assessment periods 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 For you hovis. thx and I understand this. The disconnect for me is between a P&L number, and cash in the bank. Especially as the p&l include ammotisation and the like. Maybe its worth you checking my working. I'm not an accountant. Too exciting for me. I can buy 100m of players on 5 years deals and this is a 20m expense in tart 1 as I can ammortise. I believe if I sell a player for 20m, I can bank that today I believe. So I'm p&l zero. FPL fair. But still need to find 80m cash. If I get a loan for 80m and buy 100m of players for using that Loan plus cash, that's neutral ln my balance sheet right. I have assets and liabilities offsetting. So no FPP hit based on above. Therefore it sounds like there must be other rules that prevent this. " You can buy 100 players yes. For simplicity sake. You lose 100m I the bank and you create 100m of assets. You reduce that value over 5 years by 20m each year to your p+l. Yes if you sell a player you bank the 20m but you then fully amortised the asset. A working example. You buy Ronaldo for 100m and after 2 years sell him for 80m You have amortised him for 2 years. And so as an asset he's worth 60m om your balance sheet. You release that 60m and gain the 80m the difference of 20m is the gain on sale. You can not get a loan to buy players. It is against ffp. So that part of your scenario can't happen. Again you've been told this several times now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To be exact, clubs can spend up to €5million more than they earn per assessment period (three years). However it can exceed this level to a certain limit, if it is entirely covered by a direct contribution/payment from the club owner(s) or a related party. This prevents the build-up of unsustainable debt. The limits are: • €45m for assessment periods 2013/14 and 2014/15 • €30m for assessment periods 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 For you hovis. thx and I understand this. The disconnect for me is between a P&L number, and cash in the bank. Especially as the p&l include ammotisation and the like. Maybe its worth you checking my working. I'm not an accountant. Too exciting for me. I can buy 100m of players on 5 years deals and this is a 20m expense in tart 1 as I can ammortise. I believe if I sell a player for 20m, I can bank that today I believe. So I'm p&l zero. FPL fair. But still need to find 80m cash. If I get a loan for 80m and buy 100m of players for using that Loan plus cash, that's neutral ln my balance sheet right. I have assets and liabilities offsetting. So no FPP hit based on above. Therefore it sounds like there must be other rules that prevent this. You can buy 100 players yes. For simplicity sake. You lose 100m I the bank and you create 100m of assets. You reduce that value over 5 years by 20m each year to your p+l. Yes if you sell a player you bank the 20m but you then fully amortised the asset. A working example. You buy Ronaldo for 100m and after 2 years sell him for 80m You have amortised him for 2 years. And so as an asset he's worth 60m om your balance sheet. You release that 60m and gain the 80m the difference of 20m is the gain on sale. You can not get a loan to buy players. It is against ffp. So that part of your scenario can't happen. Again you've been told this several times now. " thank you for clarifying the sale. That makes sense you can only profit if cash is greater than the lost asset on your BS. I thought you meant the quote ruled out the ability to take a loan. It doesnt look like that bit does as per my example. It's another part of FFP. That's fine, I will do my own looking at this. I need a bit more than just someone saying something is true. But that's on me... I was hoping you may be able to give me something to go on if you've looked at this in the past. I'm guessing you didn't read the full 000s if pages but had read summaries somewhere. De nada. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To be exact, clubs can spend up to €5million more than they earn per assessment period (three years). However it can exceed this level to a certain limit, if it is entirely covered by a direct contribution/payment from the club owner(s) or a related party. This prevents the build-up of unsustainable debt. The limits are: • €45m for assessment periods 2013/14 and 2014/15 • €30m for assessment periods 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 For you hovis. thx and I understand this. The disconnect for me is between a P&L number, and cash in the bank. Especially as the p&l include ammotisation and the like. Maybe its worth you checking my working. I'm not an accountant. Too exciting for me. I can buy 100m of players on 5 years deals and this is a 20m expense in tart 1 as I can ammortise. I believe if I sell a player for 20m, I can bank that today I believe. So I'm p&l zero. FPL fair. But still need to find 80m cash. If I get a loan for 80m and buy 100m of players for using that Loan plus cash, that's neutral ln my balance sheet right. I have assets and liabilities offsetting. So no FPP hit based on above. Therefore it sounds like there must be other rules that prevent this. You can buy 100 players yes. For simplicity sake. You lose 100m I the bank and you create 100m of assets. You reduce that value over 5 years by 20m each year to your p+l. Yes if you sell a player you bank the 20m but you then fully amortised the asset. A working example. You buy Ronaldo for 100m and after 2 years sell him for 80m You have amortised him for 2 years. And so as an asset he's worth 60m om your balance sheet. You release that 60m and gain the 80m the difference of 20m is the gain on sale. You can not get a loan to buy players. It is against ffp. So that part of your scenario can't happen. Again you've been told this several times now. thank you for clarifying the sale. That makes sense you can only profit if cash is greater than the lost asset on your BS. I thought you meant the quote ruled out the ability to take a loan. It doesnt look like that bit does as per my example. It's another part of FFP. That's fine, I will do my own looking at this. I need a bit more than just someone saying something is true. But that's on me... I was hoping you may be able to give me something to go on if you've looked at this in the past. I'm guessing you didn't read the full 000s if pages but had read summaries somewhere. De nada. " I did an entire 15000 word document on it for university with input from Sunderland Angela lowes about the efficacy of ffp. And tbe amortisation of player contracts. It was my dissertation choice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
