Chelsea

[Shaggy]

IF Chelsea do go belly up - and you we could get one player, who would it be?

I'm thinking I'd take either Mount or Kovacic.

Kovacic for me. He's brilliant. Not sold on Mount personally and no clue where he'd fit into our side.

[Exiled_red]

Uh oh.

https://twitter.com/martynziegler/st...89820761088003

I've asked this before but in the event of a sale how do Chelsea ever go about reconciling those loans with FFP (such that it actually exists)? Those were loans from Abramovic to invest in the squad, the fact that they were loans meaning they had to be paid back meant it wasn't Abramovic pumping money into the club which falls foul of FFP.

The only way I can see around it is if Abramovic sells on those loans to the new owners who keep them as loans. If they are repaid Chelsea have had a £1.6bn investment from their owner, which is against the rules, but I'm not seeing much mentioned about this unless it's behind the pay wall part of that article.

[ntto]

especially now he's telling the government he has changed his mind and now wants the loans repaid

[frank the tank]

i dont think FFP is actually serious......there will be some way around it. Probably a fine to pay for UEFAs christmas party or something

[RedAndWhite]

So Chelsea are now valued at 1.5B with the same level of debt?

[Rigadon]

https://twitter.com/frankieboyle/sta...24528375074817

[Le Chef]

I've asked this before but in the event of a sale how do Chelsea ever go about reconciling those loans with FFP (such that it actually exists)? Those were loans from Abramovic to invest in the squad, the fact that they were loans meaning they had to be paid back meant it wasn't Abramovic pumping money into the club which falls foul of FFP.

The only way I can see around it is if Abramovic sells on those loans to the new owners who keep them as loans. If they are repaid Chelsea have had a £1.6bn investment from their owner, which is against the rules, but I'm not seeing much mentioned about this unless it's behind the pay wall part of that article.

I think Kevin Maguire - (priceoffootball) did a piece on how they get around the loan without it hitting FFP, but I can't find it anywhere. That said, how can the EPL allow such a hit to happen if they do find a workaround

[Exiled_red]

I think Kevin Maguire - (priceoffootball) did a piece on how they get around the loan without it hitting FFP, but I can't find it anywhere. That said, how can the EPL allow such a hit to happen if they do find a workaround

This is what I am concerned about FFP is worthless if you can just loan the money and then write off the loan. £1.6bn is a massive owner investment that they would never be able to pay off. Under current rules of allowed losses or owner investment of £40m a year it would take 40 years to repay. The club would have to live within it's means for that period to write it off or the owners would have to take money out of the club to speed up the process. This loan has always been about cheating FFP. If the football authorities allow it it is outrageous

[Kenneth]

I’m not sure as simple as writing off the loan to the club. As I understand it, Abramovich created a holding company which owns the club and hotel etc etc. He gave that company a loan of 1.whatever billion pounds. The holding company has then invested in and loaned to the club, and they will argue that those investments/loans were within permitted levels. So the club itself doesn’t have this huge loan. So if the loans are written off, Chelsea holdings then owns the club and is no longer indebted, but that doesn’t affect the finances of the club itself. FFP would be about the money flows between the holding company and the club. Equivalent would be a bank that has loaned FSG a load of money writing off that loan, it wouldn’t impact our FFP position.

So what’s for sale? If the holding company is sold, it owns the club and owes Abramovich a billion and a half that can’t be legally paid. If the club is sold from under the holding company, Abramovich will own a billion and a half in equity of holding company with no assets so I assume the government is trying to make the latter work, ie force an asset sale of the club and keep the cash to distribute as they see fit.

[Exiled_red]

I’m not sure as simple as writing off the loan to the club. As I understand it, Abramovich created a holding company which owns the club and hotel etc etc. He gave that company a loan of 1.whatever billion pounds. The holding company has then invested in and loaned to the club, and they will argue that those investments/loans were within permitted levels. So the club itself doesn’t have this huge loan. So if the loans are written off, Chelsea holdings then owns the club and is no longer indebted, but that doesn’t affect the finances of the club itself. FFP would be about the money flows between the holding company and the club. Equivalent would be a bank that has loaned FSG a load of money writing off that loan, it wouldn’t impact our FFP position.

So what’s for sale? If the holding company is sold, it owns the club and owes Abramovich a billion and a half that can’t be legally paid. If the club is sold from under the holding company, Abramovich will own a billion and a half in equity of holding company with no assets so I assume the government is trying to make the latter work, ie force an asset sale of the club and keep the cash to distribute as they see fit.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation, but loans don't fall within the FFP rules unless the repayments mean the club can't meet FFP because of repayments. If a club say us borrowed £500m from a bank an blew it all on players as long as we could afford the repayments in the coming years we wouldn't be breaking FFP rules. If our owners gave us £500m to spent from outside the club we would be breaking FFP. My understanding of the Abramovic loan to Chelsea be it through a holding company or not is that as long as he owned the club he never expected that loan to be repaid. It is a gift in all but name and the only reason for that is to get around the FFP rules.

[baitman]

The holding company is clearly owned by the billionaire who is trying to hide the fact he is loaning his money to his other company/club.
Its so transparent that to have uefa or the fa allow it is means they are clearly complicit in this corruption.

[wiw]

The holding company is clearly owned by the billionaire who is trying to hide the fact he is loaning his money to his other company/club.
Its so transparent that to have uefa or the fa allow it is means they are clearly complicit in this corruption.

It's literally disclosed in the accounts What is he hiding exactly?

[baitman]

It's literally disclosed in the accounts What is he hiding exactly?

He has found a way to bypass ffp, it's so obvious to outsiders and anyone who sees the accounts but he's allowed to walk all over the rules. Makes a mockery.

[wiw]

He has found a way to bypass ffp, it's so obvious to outsiders and anyone who sees the accounts but he's allowed to walk all over the rules. Makes a mockery.

You said this though: The holding company is clearly owned by the billionaire who is trying to hide the fact he is loaning his money to his other company/club.

Whatever anyway Reading accounts isn't my strong point

[baitman]

You said this though: The holding company is clearly owned by the billionaire who is trying to hide the fact he is loaning his money to his other company/club.

Whatever anyway Reading accounts isn't my strong point

Maybe better worded if I'd said gives the impression of complying with ffp, but we all know it's a farce and the checks aren't worth ****.
Still, "hidden" from directly propping up Chelsea, but still directly funding.