Dave Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 7 Author Share Posted June 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted June 7 Subscriber Share Posted June 7 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber Dan+ Posted June 7 Subscriber Share Posted June 7 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 Of course it failed, the cartel supported it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6666 Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 They sold shit to themselves and it was all good. Great system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.