• 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

Gazza Dazzla said:
No I think he said it was kids in business and the first team in economy. It’s a pretty terrible idea and very antagonistic. However, you’d have to be a proper C@@t to behave like Terry did over it and an even bigger one to then proudly boast about it on a podcast years later!!
Click to expand...

He's a professional footballer, they have no self awareness in their bubble.
 
Gazza Dazzla said:
No I think he said it was kids in business and the first team in economy. It’s a pretty terrible idea and very antagonistic. However, you’d have to be a proper C@@t to behave like Terry did over it and an even bigger one to then proudly boast about it on a podcast years later!!
Click to expand...
Can't stand Terry, think he's scum but I actually don't disagree with him on this one. That was really clueless management from AVB. No wonder he failed so badly there.
 
dingdongo said:
Apparently Chelsea have done some dodgy deal to sell the training ground to themselves (or something like that!), raising 100-150m and getting out of FFP trouble this summer


https://twitter.com/x/status/1789767112744906885
Click to expand...

This loophole should have been closed when they started doing it in the lower leagues.

It still may break one of the prem rules (can't remember it's name). Basically you have to do stuff in good conscience.
 
dingdongo said:
Apparently Chelsea have done some dodgy deal to sell the training ground to themselves (or something like that!), raising 100-150m and getting out of FFP trouble this summer


https://twitter.com/x/status/1789767112744906885
Click to expand...
The whole thing stinks doesn't it.
I wonder if the PL have approved it, or will do so?

Also - and this may well just be me not grasping the logic - but if spending on infrastructure is permitted without having to take FFP/PSR into account, then should it not follow that any profits raised from the sale ( or "sale" in this instance) of infrastructure should also sit outside FFP calculations?
 
Glenda's Legs said:
The whole thing stinks doesn't it.
I wonder if the PL have approved it, or will do so?

Also - and this may well just be me not grasping the logic - but if spending on infrastructure is permitted without having to take FFP/PSR into account, then should it not follow that any profits raised from the sale ( or "sale" in this instance) of infrastructure should also sit outside FFP calculations?
Click to expand...
That would make too much sense.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
The whole thing stinks doesn't it.
I wonder if the PL have approved it, or will do so?

Also - and this may well just be me not grasping the logic - but if spending on infrastructure is permitted without having to take FFP/PSR into account, then should it not follow that any profits raised from the sale ( or "sale" in this instance) of infrastructure should also sit outside FFP calculations?
Click to expand...

Yes it should be left out. Or not allowed in the first place. Clubs should not be able to sell their stadium or training grounds to their parent companies. Or anyone else.
 
I don’t have that much of an issue with it.

Presumably going forward they will pay or at least account for a commercial rent on their training ground. It is just good fortune they had assets such as this sitting inside the appropriate division when the rules were formed.

When we think of Spurs we will have a big portfolio of commercial properties and other businesses which we can trade when needed. When I have pointed out my own objections to these helping to meet ffp as it is not core business I found most posters were annoyed I would even bring it up.
 
johnola said:
I don’t have that much of an issue with it.

Presumably going forward they will pay or at least account for a commercial rent on their training ground. It is just good fortune they had assets such as this sitting inside the appropriate division when the rules were formed.

When we think of Spurs we will have a big portfolio of commercial properties and other businesses which we can trade when needed. When I have pointed out my own objections to these helping to meet ffp as it is not core business I found most posters were annoyed I would even bring it up.
Click to expand...

They sold the hotels and training grounds to their parent company. They won't pay rent and if anyone buys them they'll get the whole lot.

The hotels, chelsea is named as the management company. So can even add the turnover onto their books.
 
Chrissivad said:
So they could buy it back for the same price, and that won't be counted as part of FFP, and just keep selling it when they need extra cash?
Click to expand...

Theoretically i guess?

Still not sure if this gets by uefas rules. Don't think european clubs have tried it (not for ffp purposes). Barca did their levers for la liga rules.

Dunno.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back