salfordbluetrue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Jul 2013
- Messages
- 3,670
When Platini suggested that regulation should tackle the problem of debt members of the G 14 threatened a breakaway lague AND legal action. I have never concealed my belief that financing a club through debt is both legal and potentially disastrous unless it is part of a coherent investment strategy. The strategy is no business of UEFA's and I do not criticise Abramovitch for spending his own money on Chelsea. What I do criticise him for is hypocrisy, for spending a fortune and then rallying to Platini's plans to control spending because he thought it would prevent City competing. I believe the first time Chelsea made a profit wasduring the first accounting period for FFP! The second thing I criticise him for is his cynicism. He is no better, and may be a good deal worse, than those at Leeds and Portsmouth, who ruined the clubs by borrowing rather than investing. Abramovitch has given Chelsea no choice. The club has been financed through interest free loans. There is, I believe no time limit for repayment apart from repayment in full within 180 days of him leaving the club, but the club still owes him well over £1 billion. It is clear Chelsea will never be able to repay this but if he does ever want out Chelsea would have no choice but to sell the ground and any other assets they have, including the squad. I don't think regulation by UEFA could do anything to protect Chelsea from Abramovitch because football, like any other economic activity is already regulated by the law and quite clearly FFP hasn't helped protect Chelsea at all. As PB has explained to us in considerable detail and on many occasions, FFP actually encourages debt and, just like United, Barcelona etc etc etc Chelsea's debt has increased since FFP was introduced. The only hope, in my eyes, to encourage more rational financial management in football is not through any ban on debt, through which investment for many clubs (eg Spurs and their new ground) would be impossible) or through controls on spending, which effectively dictates a club's investment policies to it, but by deterring the cowboys (not only the American ones!) from buying clubs and encouraging owners of sound and sensible judgement allied to high level management skills to come in. This may need the ending of the obsession with CL and of avoiding relegation, both for financial reasons, but it means much greater attention to who exactly is a "fit and proper person". People may argue that it's okay for a City fan to argue this but such owners do exist and I have argued before that Gibson at Middlesborough is a good example. The trouble is that his job is made impossible by unscrupulous owners with their sky high directors' fees, dodgy sponsorship deals and so on.
Not saying anything above is right or wrong but did not Abramovitch try blackmailing the Chelsea fans into selling their shares in the ground a couple of years ago?