Of course I’m fine with it. My club benefited from it. I wouldn’t really have cared if it was City but hey.
Chelsea Thread - 2022/23 | Pochettino confirmed as new manager
- Thread starter MAG
- Start date
- Status
Of course I’m fine with it. My club benefited from it. I wouldn’t really have cared if it was City but hey.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,078
Still can’t believe they got away with that.
I’m not “on uefa’s side”, but I find the irony rather delicious.
Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich backs Michel Platini's bid for 'financial fair play'
Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich has emerged as an unlikely ally to Uefa president Michel Platini's crack down on football clubs playing in Europe who spend beyond their means.www.telegraph.co.uk
Especially as Chelsea were one of the 8 that wrote to CAS asking for a quick decision as they thought it would kick City out of Europe.
You said it’s excellent so that would by definition mean you’re a UEFA supporter on this, which is fine, it’s immaterial anyway. Just saying it as it is
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,078
I think it’s excellent that it’s not just City and PSG in the firing line.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Who knows what happened there. I'm not totally convinced it was genuinely written off.
But the salient point is that the debt was partly incurred via Roman's original purchase of the club and then increased as he put money in to fund their spending, which they struggled to fund out of revenue/cashflow. But the media never picked up on that and we were the ones targeted (wrongly) over continual owner investment.
And unless things have changed dramatically at Chelsea, it's hard to see how they can sustain their current level of spending without their cashflow being propped up by their new owners.
richards30
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 May 2009
- Messages
- 28,147
Its a piss take mate! Then they even qualify for the new owner rule of spending???
It’s never been just City and PSG. We had an entire transfer ban.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,421
It really isn't difficult. The intangible asset will be fully amortised after 5 years, so year six the amortisation would be zero. If the contract is extended at the end of 3 years for another 6 years, that would be 8 years from year 3, so 5 more years of amortisation at the new amount, then three years free of amortisation.
I think people are getting confused between accounting for a tangible asset, such as a building, which can have a residual value to reduce the annual amortisation charge, and an intangible asset. Unless slavery wasn't abolished, then the amounts in the balance sheet aren't for ownership of a tangible footballer asset, so estimated useful lives of the underlying assets aren't relevant. They are amounts paid for an intangible asset, the right to use the footballer's services for a period, and as such it is absolutely right to amortise these fully over the life of the contract as, at the end of the contract, the asset is worthless. To do anything else would be imprudent and would open the doors for "clever" people like at Chelsea to do away with amortisation of the intangible asset altogether.
richards30
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 May 2009
- Messages
- 28,147
Shouldnt that have still be shown properly on their accounts still though Colin?
- Status