Jump to content
talkfootball365
  • Welcome to talkfootball365!

    The better place to talk football.

Premier League Fails to Close FFP Loophole


Recommended Posts

Sign up to remove this ad.
  • Replies 7
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Subscriber

While I think FFP submissions need to be based mostly on football-related incomings and outgoings for there ever to be a cat in hell's chance of movement in the competitive order, I don't feel *that* strongly that clubs shouldn't be able to sell assets to balance the books like Chelsea have done.

The problem is them selling it to another company owned by their owner. It makes a mockery of the whole thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Subscriber

Time to set some companies up then. Total fools if we don't.

I can't get annoyed at Chelsea. It's the clowns at the Premier League again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, The Palace Fan said:

 

 

Aren't they going to reintroduce a rule change but make it more specific to what Chelsea's scenario was exactly? I think I'd read that somewhere.

I think there should be a general ban on deals between related parties. Clearlake buying non-football assets Chelsea owned is clearly a related party transaction - that should be banned the same way City's sponsored by dozens of UAE owned entities or Newcastle's trying to pump money into it with other PIF related sponsors. They're all FFP loopholes and unless there can be some clear standard of demonstrating these deals have been negotiated as "arms length transactions" - which I'm pretty sure is a standard for other industries relating to related party transactions, they should just generally be blanked banned because it's just skirting the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Aren't they going to reintroduce a rule change but make it more specific to what Chelsea's scenario was exactly? I think I'd read that somewhere.

I think there should be a general ban on deals between related parties. Clearlake buying non-football assets Chelsea owned is clearly a related party transaction - that should be banned the same way City's sponsored by dozens of UAE owned entities or Newcastle's trying to pump money into it with other PIF related sponsors. They're all FFP loopholes and unless there can be some clear standard of demonstrating these deals have been negotiated as "arms length transactions" - which I'm pretty sure is a standard for other industries relating to related party transactions, they should just generally be blanked banned because it's just skirting the rules.

Leicester - Kingpower banning sponsorships for the sake of it will lead to a situation where the top 6 can do what they like they will be financially untouchable.  The issue isnt sponsors, it is making up fake sponsors to mislead financial reports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

football forum
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Sign up or subscribe to remove this ad.


×
×
  • Create New...