FanchesterCity
Well-Known Member
mrtwiceaseason said:Being thick again,why take the loan if they don't need it then.FanchesterCity said:mrtwiceaseason said:Well what is he lending Chelsea money for then ?
Surely if they are using the money to pay staff ,the milkbill the electric bill etc this is freeing up other money to stop them running at a loss.
If the accounts are audited how do they explain what they had an extra £56m for ?
Imagine the loan was just like you might get a loan from a company...
But your salary and your outgoings wouldn't change (if it was 0% interest loan for an unspecified period of time).
You could use that loan to do whatever you like, but it wouldn't influence FFP....
Let's say (just as an example):
Chelsea sell a player for 50m
Chelsea get a loan from Abramovich for 100m
Chelsea buy a player for 150m
Chelsea's income is 50m
Chelsea's spend is 150m
They'd be -100m in terms of FFP (since the loan isn't counted as revenue)
Alternatively, they could sell a player for 50m, buy a player for 40m and that would leave them +10m for FFP. The 100m loan could be spent on a hotel, or infrastructure etc.
However, all of this is a moot point as CFC don't owe that money, a parent company does.
If the loan is used for infrastructure etc ,wouldn't they still have the money they would have to spend on infrastructure left in the pot then ? To pay for things that do count towards ffp ?
Well, there's a few issues
1) The loan isn't one massive sum, it's been accumulated over a number of years
2) Before FFP, the money was allowed to be spent on players (just isn't anymore). Chelsea managed to spend hundreds of millions (borrowed) before FFP was introduced.
3) Yes, if they spend on infrastructure, that would leave them with money in the pot that they would have had to spend otherwise. But that's precisely the same situation as us.... We've built new training facilities that otherwise we'd have to save up for (nigh on impossible).
The only real difference between us and Chelsea is that our owner isn't lending the money to us, he's giving it.
It would have been virtually impossible for us to ever have afforded the new training complex by 'saving up', so our owner gave us the money, thus allowing us to spend in the transfer market instead of trying to save up.
As it happens, spending on infrastructure is exempt from FFP, but that doesn't really matter much - we could never have saved up enough money and still managed to buy top players.