• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Cheatski are still scum

Lilbaz said:
They are an investment consortium. They have borrowed the money they are spending. Now it is possible they keep borrowing and spending but it is also possible that (like fsg at liverpool) the spending stops and the investors try to get a return on their investment.
Click to expand...

Like at the time of the discussion, I'm not arsed about whatever fancy words are used to describe whatever they are, or are doing but I do hope your time learning about the horrors of finance / economics seems worthwhile - They've continued to make a mockery of football and we can sit around hoping it goes tits up which exactly the same as our position beforehand.
 
tw12yid said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1620774474013630467

Anyone seen any credible sources as to if there is any truth in tweets like these.
Click to expand...

It doesn't even matter at this stage, it's going to create a reaction

- European clubs are already complaining to UEFA about the unfairness of the PL
- Chelsea has basically outspent multiple European leagues combined
- The constant public (perceived) flaunting of FFP/Accounting rules
- Chelsea unlike PSG (or even us) have no friends in UEFA

Quite honestly it's fudging stupid, UEFA has already made the change to the amortization, there is zero chance Chelsea isn't going to be inspected with special vigor re FFP.
 
Lilbaz said:
It doesn't matter how many payments are made it's about amortisation when it comes to the ffp rules. Uefa are limiting it to 5 years i believe. So any player bought that's contract is over 5 years the fee would be split into 5.
Click to expand...

I understand that, it’s more to do with the alleged source of the loan/funds.
 
tw12yid said:
According to an image in the tweet the funds came from a company which is owned by Millhouse LLC. Which it also claims is owned by Abramovich.
Click to expand...

Ah ok. Since he is sanctioned he could only own a minority share if true. Otherwise the company would be in the same situation chelsea were last season and wouldn't be able to lend money or receive income.
 
Lilbaz said:
Ah ok. Since he is sanctioned he could only own a minority share if true. Otherwise the company would be in the same situation chelsea were last season and wouldn't be able to lend money or receive income.
Click to expand...

Its absolutely dodgy as fcuk, even if he is a minority shareholder or an ex shareholder its too much of a coincidence that the shell should be used to pay the fees. The whole thing is bent

With this deal I saw an interesting summary earlier, 100+M for a player who made the Argentina squad through the backdoor as a replacement for Gio, who was purchased by Benfica for 8m and seemingly valued at 100+m off the back off a world cup run, what could go wrong
 
Potter is going to have a nightmare managing their squad. Only a matter of time before a group of them who aren't starting start to stir up trouble. Just impossible to keep that number of players happy, particularly when lots of them have arrived with big reputations and salaries
 
AdamB said:
Potter is going to have a nightmare managing their squad. Only a matter of time before a group of them who aren't starting start to stir up trouble. Just impossible to keep that number of players happy, particularly when lots of them have arrived with big reputations and salaries
Click to expand...

All ready alluded to it, easy for people to paint it as "players for the future" but they all came from playing games regular and despite being young were near enough stars of their clubs. Imagine that to not even being in match day squads. Plus its the disruption to those they only just purchased in summer, can't imagine Koulibaly, Fofana or Silva will fancy it out on the bench. Ziyechs in the side after nearly being loaned out? Its a mess
 
Grays_1890 said:
All ready alluded to it, easy for people to paint it as "players for the future" but they all came from playing games regular and despite being young were near enough stars of their clubs. Imagine that to not even being in match day squads. Plus its the disruption to those they only just purchased in summer, can't imagine Koulibaly, Fofana or Silva will fancy it out on the bench. Ziyechs in the side after nearly being loaned out? Its a mess
Click to expand...

Yes, agreed. Would have been better off spending the same but on fewer players.

For example, rather than sign Madueke and Fofana (the CF) and Snatos (never heard of him), sign one decent CF so they dont need to pick Havertz as a CF. Makes their squad less bloated too
 
AdamB said:
Yes, agreed. Would have been better off spending the same but on fewer players.

For example, rather than sign Madueke and Fofana (the CF) and Snatos (never heard of him), sign one decent CF so they dont need to pick Havertz as a CF. Makes their squad less bloated too
Click to expand...

I think people give them a pass for the summer too when they were the owners and went out to get Auba and Sterling, one that can't get on the pitch over the Jan signings and one thats now been frozen out. Its all scatter gun, but its ok, they spent 300m so must be a plan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back