CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)

[pardoeofftomexico]

I'm interested in the sale of Chelsea and in particular the loans that RA made to the club. I understand that the club never broke the break even rule and that they never had to pay a penny in interest on these interest-free loans. What I find problematic is that RA has said many times that he does not want one penny of the £1.65 billion he "loaned" the club back. In what way then were they loans? They appear to be that most hideous of threats to the game, disguised owner investment. Or perhaps one of our accountants could put me right?

They would have been loans when the money was paid in. In the normal way he would have sold the club in the future and he would have had the loans repaid. There is no way he would have written off the loans in that situation as repayment would have been tax free. It is only the sanctions that have made him accept there was no way of getting them back.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Annual smear campaign - almost like another trophy now. If we finished sixth you wouldn't hear a thing about this. Pure bitterness

 

[Stoned Rose]

Why is any fan bothered about some anti city twerp spouting his negative bullshit about us?

And why are people bothered about these premier league rumours of them gunning for us? They would have done something by now.

The premier league are currently planning out ten haags easy introduction into English football to be bothered about us.

Everyone needs to chill, keep on celebrating and get geared up for the beast in blue next season.

You’re planning on wearing that hot blue g-string on Matchdays next season mate?

 

[bluesmith]

I'm interested in the sale of Chelsea and in particular the loans that RA made to the club. I understand that the club never broke the break even rule and that they never had to pay a penny in interest on these interest-free loans. What I find problematic is that RA has said many times that he does not want one penny of the £1.65 billion he "loaned" the club back. In what way then were they loans? They appear to be that most hideous of threats to the game, disguised owner investment. Or perhaps one of our accountants could put me right?

They are now loans turned into equity. Which is what Sheikh Mansour did with us with the exception he turned the loans to equity right after the loan.

This is the wrong drum to be beating.

Manchester City accounts show Sheikh Mansour has put £1.3bn into club

Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan of the Abu Dhabi ruling family has spent more than £1.3bn directly investing into Manchester City since he took over in 2008

www.theguardian.com

 

[daveoswald]

I completely stumped a dipper a few weeks ago, he was giving it the usual state owned garbage, we only got got away with the uefa sanctions because we have clever lawyers, time barred etc. Then i pointed out to him the specific charges, the sponsorship money was being paid by our owner sheikh Mansour, not the state owned assets Etihad etc. You can believe we are state owned, or you can believe we were cheating ffp. They c'ant both be true. no reply.

 

[Jesus H Gabz]

Citizen Green thank you for reminding me with your clear and succinct explanation. It would be great if you or someone with a similar grasp of the UEFA case against us rang up Talksport and put the numpty Jordan firmly back in his box.

You don’t think clued up City fans would make it through their filtration system do you?

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

You don’t think clued up City fans would make it through their filtration system do you?

Wishful thinking

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

They would have been loans when the money was paid in. In the normal way he would have sold the club in the future and he would have had the loans repaid. There is no way he would have written off the loans in that situation as repayment would have been tax free. It is only the sanctions that have made him accept there was no way of getting them back.

They are now loans turned into equity. Which is what Sheikh Mansour did with us with the exception he turned the loans to equity right after the loan.

This is the wrong drum to be beating.

Manchester City accounts show Sheikh Mansour has put £1.3bn into club

Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan of the Abu Dhabi ruling family has spent more than £1.3bn directly investing into Manchester City since he took over in 2008

www.theguardian.com

Thanks for the replies. What interests/puzzles me is how these loans square with FFP. Is it that FFP permits all kinds of investment such as new stadia and that if these loans are used for permissible purposes and that the break even rule identifies any revenue used for the improper purpose of player acquisition? Because what interests me are the stories of £150 million "loaned" to Spurs for use in the transfer market. How does this square with FFP. Or is this money to help pay some of the capital and all of the interest on the new stadium to allow some spending on players?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I'm interested in the sale of Chelsea and in particular the loans that RA made to the club. I understand that the club never broke the break even rule and that they never had to pay a penny in interest on these interest-free loans. What I find problematic is that RA has said many times that he does not want one penny of the £1.65 billion he "loaned" the club back. In what way then were they loans? They appear to be that most hideous of threats to the game, disguised owner investment. Or perhaps one of our accountants could put me right?

There's nothing to see here.

It was over the period from 2003, and owner investment was allowed for the 10 years (roughly). £709 million by 2009 according to wikipedia, when that was turned into equity.
It also covers all the infrastructure work done, which would be exempt from FFP anyway.

Chelsea are owned by a holding company called Fordstam. Fordstam 'loan' the money, Abramovich funded Fordstam.
Whether he wants the money back or not is entirely up to him, unless he wants to write it off (unlikely).

Relation to FFP:
None basically.
FFP accounts are not the same as club accounts - things like infrastructure are exempt. There is no point trying to equate them as accounting practices make them different animals.

e.g. the 150 million:
The club gains 150 million, but owes 150 million.
If it's spent on infrastructure, the effect on FFP accounts is zero.
If it's spent on players (say 5 year contracts), it appears as 30 million/year for 5 years.
So you can see there isn't a 'standard' comparison.

 

[bluesmith]

Thanks for the replies. What interests/puzzles me is how these loans square with FFP. Is it that FFP permits all kinds of investment such as new stadia and that if these loans are used for permissible purposes and that the break even rule identifies any revenue used for the improper purpose of player acquisition? Because what interests me are the stories of £150 million "loaned" to Spurs for use in the transfer market. How does this square with FFP. Or is this money to help pay some of the capital and all of the interest on the new stadium to allow some spending on players?

It doesn't make any difference within Ffp. Ffp deals with money earnt compared to money spent, you still must spend within your means. What it does allow you to do is pay upfront for players which will help in agreeing deals. Or paying off debts to lessen interest.