City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

[dasblues]

What about Chelski then, they're in debt to the tune of over £1billion and they aren't exactly worth much.

Chelsea aren't very open and transparent so they dont publish their financial statements online ie we cant see their balance sheet to establish weather the £1bn you quote is a liabilty or equity

Unless you know different?

If I understand it correctly the debt was moved to the holding company and is interest free but would have to be repaid if notice given.

I would imagine that this would be still part of the consolidated group statements though. I can be arsed paying the £1 to companies house to find out ...!

 

[dasblues]

What about Chelski then, they're in debt to the tune of over £1billion and they aren't exactly worth much.

Chelsea aren't very open and transparent so they dont publish their financial statements online ie we cant see their balance sheet to establish weather the £1bn you quote is a liabilty or equity

Unless you know different?

It's a liability, owed to Roman Abramovich by their holding company, whose financial statements are available from Companys House.

Thanks , I'm guessing you have paid the fee to get access to the accounts then?

Or is this information online?

 

[aguero93:20]

Chelsea aren't very open and transparent so they dont publish their financial statements online ie we cant see their balance sheet to establish weather the £1bn you quote is a liabilty or equity

Unless you know different?

It's a liability, owed to Roman Abramovich by their holding company, whose financial statements are available from Companys House.

Thanks , I'm guessing you have paid the fee to get access to the accounts then?

Actually no, I'm taking somebody else's word for it who has but I've seen a printout, it's £958m to be exact to Abramovich as well as some smaller liabilities.

 

[dasblues]

It's a liability, owed to Roman Abramovich by their holding company, whose financial statements are available from Companys House.

Thanks , I'm guessing you have paid the fee to get access to the accounts then?

Actually no, I'm taking somebody else's word for it who has but I've seen a printout, it's £958m to be exact to Abramovich as well as some smaller liabilities.

So its a liabilty which carries no finance costs and had no settlement date......sounds a bit like equity to me.

Its probably some kind of insurance policy for him in case he needs to get out at some point...

 

[aguero93:20]

Thanks , I'm guessing you have paid the fee to get access to the accounts then?

Actually no, I'm taking somebody else's word for it who has but I've seen a printout, it's £958m to be exact to Abramovich as well as some smaller liabilities.

So its a liabilty which carries no finance costs and had no settlement date......sounds a bit like equity to me.

Its probably some kind of insurance policy for him in case he needs to get out at some point...

It sounds like equity but it's not equity, precisely because he can get his money back. So it's debt and it leaves Chelsea in an unhealthy position financially. If he didn't want an opportunity to get it back, he'd just turn it into equity as Mansour has done with City.

 

[dasblues]

Actually no, I'm taking somebody else's word for it who has but I've seen a printout, it's £958m to be exact to Abramovich as well as some smaller liabilities.

So its a liabilty which carries no finance costs and had no settlement date......sounds a bit like equity to me.

Its probably some kind of insurance policy for him in case he needs to get out at some point...

It sounds like equity but it's not equity, precisely because he can get his money back. So it's debt and it leaves Chelsea in an unhealthy position financially. If he didn't want an opportunity to get it back, he'd just turn it into equity as Mansour has done with City.

Yes, I agree..although he would get his money back anyway if he sold the company on to someone else, or did an IPO

I would be worried about this if I was a Chelsea supporter....

 

[blueparrot]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/more-than-1billion-in-12-years--roman-abramovichs-backing-for-chelsea-10248343.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 48343.html</a>

"Roman Abramovich’s interest free-loan to Chelsea has exceeded £1billion for the first time, according to the latest accounts for Fordstam, the company through which the Russian billionaire owns the club.

The loan from Abramovich now totals £1,041,243,000 which is, according to Fordstam’s accounts up to June last year, repayable at 18 months’ notice. That amount was up from £984m from the accounts of the previous year.

There is no suggestion that Abramovich, who has owned the club for almost 12 years, is seeking repayment of his loan within the near future. In the accounts’ strategic report, the company secretary Paul Heagren notes that “the company has received confirmation from the ultimate controlling party that sufficient funds will be provided to finance the business for the foreseeable future”.
Chelsea announced in November a profit of £18.4m in the club’s financial results up to the end of June last year. The accounts for Fordstam encompass the group’s additional assets including a hotel management company, the health club behind the stadium and the club’s digital media company as well as the football club itself. Fordstam reported profits of £14.2m.

There was a profit on player trading of £65.1m which included the deals to sell Juan Mata, Kevin De Bruyne and David Luiz, all of which went through before the end of June.
Since these accounts were compiled, Chelsea have sold Andre Schurrle and Ryan Bertrand in January for around £34m, and acquired Juan Cuadrado from Fiorentina for £27m.

In the Fordstam accounts, the club values its total playing staff at £353m, a dramatic increase from the £272.2m the previous year. The accounts also include £13.7m of investment on facilities at Stamford Bridge and Cobham. The Cobham training ground that Abramovich acquired soon after taking over the club in 2003 and turned into one of the leading facilities in the game has already been extended and improved. The group made £2.9m in charitable donations.

The Fordstam accounts also show that Abramovich spent £1m last season on his executive box, one of the premium Millennium Suites in the West Stand from which he watches games at Stamford Bridge.

“These sales were made at current market rates in line with other corporate hospitality box sales,” the accounts say.

 

[mrtwiceaseason]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/more-than-1billion-in-12-years--roman-abramovichs-backing-for-chelsea-10248343.html

"Roman Abramovich’s interest free-loan to Chelsea has exceeded £1billion for the first time, according to the latest accounts for Fordstam, the company through which the Russian billionaire owns the club.

The loan from Abramovich now totals £1,041,243,000 which is, according to Fordstam’s accounts up to June last year, repayable at 18 months’ notice. That amount was up from £984m from the accounts of the previous year.

There is no suggestion that Abramovich, who has owned the club for almost 12 years, is seeking repayment of his loan within the near future. In the accounts’ strategic report, the company secretary Paul Heagren notes that “the company has received confirmation from the ultimate controlling party that sufficient funds will be provided to finance the business for the foreseeable future”.
Chelsea announced in November a profit of £18.4m in the club’s financial results up to the end of June last year. The accounts for Fordstam encompass the group’s additional assets including a hotel management company, the health club behind the stadium and the club’s digital media company as well as the football club itself. Fordstam reported profits of £14.2m.

There was a profit on player trading of £65.1m which included the deals to sell Juan Mata, Kevin De Bruyne and David Luiz, all of which went through before the end of June.
Since these accounts were compiled, Chelsea have sold Andre Schurrle and Ryan Bertrand in January for around £34m, and acquired Juan Cuadrado from Fiorentina for £27m.

In the Fordstam accounts, the club values its total playing staff at £353m, a dramatic increase from the £272.2m the previous year. The accounts also include £13.7m of investment on facilities at Stamford Bridge and Cobham. The Cobham training ground that Abramovich acquired soon after taking over the club in 2003 and turned into one of the leading facilities in the game has already been extended and improved. The group made £2.9m in charitable donations.

The Fordstam accounts also show that Abramovich spent £1m last season on his executive box, one of the premium Millennium Suites in the West Stand from which he watches games at Stamford Bridge.

“These sales were made at current market rates in line with other corporate hospitality box sales,” the accounts say.

Is it me but how come Chelsea can loan another £57m and have no ffp sanctions ?
Why carnt the sheikh loan the money to city then. ?
Or is that to simplistic ?
How can the post £18.4 million profit if they are just basically putting the debt onto their overdraft ?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It's amazing isn't it.

Gross debt is £400mill and rising, and UEFA aren't interested.

Their gearing ratio (debt / debt + equity) is still within an acceptable tolerance level of 50% though, so shouldn't be a concern.

The debt situation is a complete red herring that people use to try and beat them with. It means fuck all.

In business it is widely accepted that debt is the cheapest form of finance (beween debt & equity) as you get tax savings on the debt interest.

Businesses that operate with no debt are not pursuing the best strategy to maximise shareholder wealth.

You're right that their gearing as it stands probably isn't a problem but you've made an assumption about their debt which is completely wrong.

Most businesses use debt to invest in something that creates a positive cash flow on which the return on investment exceeds the cost of the debt. So if you can borrow at 5% and get a return of 7% then it's worth doing.

Arsenal have taken on debt to build their stadium and have paid for it via higher match day revenues and naming rights. That's a classic and acceptable use of debt, as you described.

United's debt is not there to produce a return for the club but for the owners. They borrowed money to finance the purchase of the club then had to increase revenues to support that debt. That's a typical private equity model where individuals borrow money but secure it on the assets they've purchased using that debt. They didn't need that debt to increase revenue; they could just as easily done that without being a penny in debt. It was non-productive debt and the problem was that it could have crushed them, particularly when the credit crunch hit in 2008.

So if UEFA was really interested in ensuring the financial sustainability of football clubs, it would have introduced a process where clubs had to justify their level of debt and its use in their business model. Because unsustainable debt is what has sunk most clubs and what nearly finished us off in 2008.

 

[Combat Carl]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/more-than-1billion-in-12-years--roman-abramovichs-backing-for-chelsea-10248343.html

"Roman Abramovich’s interest free-loan to Chelsea has exceeded £1billion for the first time, according to the latest accounts for Fordstam, the company through which the Russian billionaire owns the club.

The loan from Abramovich now totals £1,041,243,000 which is, according to Fordstam’s accounts up to June last year, repayable at 18 months’ notice. That amount was up from £984m from the accounts of the previous year.

There is no suggestion that Abramovich, who has owned the club for almost 12 years, is seeking repayment of his loan within the near future. In the accounts’ strategic report, the company secretary Paul Heagren notes that “the company has received confirmation from the ultimate controlling party that sufficient funds will be provided to finance the business for the foreseeable future”.
Chelsea announced in November a profit of £18.4m in the club’s financial results up to the end of June last year. The accounts for Fordstam encompass the group’s additional assets including a hotel management company, the health club behind the stadium and the club’s digital media company as well as the football club itself. Fordstam reported profits of £14.2m.

There was a profit on player trading of £65.1m which included the deals to sell Juan Mata, Kevin De Bruyne and David Luiz, all of which went through before the end of June.
Since these accounts were compiled, Chelsea have sold Andre Schurrle and Ryan Bertrand in January for around £34m, and acquired Juan Cuadrado from Fiorentina for £27m.

In the Fordstam accounts, the club values its total playing staff at £353m, a dramatic increase from the £272.2m the previous year. The accounts also include £13.7m of investment on facilities at Stamford Bridge and Cobham. The Cobham training ground that Abramovich acquired soon after taking over the club in 2003 and turned into one of the leading facilities in the game has already been extended and improved. The group made £2.9m in charitable donations.

The Fordstam accounts also show that Abramovich spent £1m last season on his executive box, one of the premium Millennium Suites in the West Stand from which he watches games at Stamford Bridge.

“These sales were made at current market rates in line with other corporate hospitality box sales,” the accounts say.

Is it me but how come Chelsea can loan another £57m and have no ffp sanctions ?
Why carnt the sheikh loan the money to city then. ?
Or is that to simplistic ?
How can the post £18.4 million profit if they are just basically putting the debt onto their overdraft ?

Because Roman isn't an Arab. Get with the program.

 

[Centurions]

It's amazing isn't it.

Gross debt is £400mill and rising, and UEFA aren't interested.

They are in a very strong borrowing position though, every club operates with some level of debt. You would have to be mad not to lend to them given you are guaranteed your money back on the revenue they make, it does obviously come with risks but it is a much safer bet then you would think.

FFP allows for debt because the debt repayment is leveraged against revenue like any expenditure and providing their profit/loss is within FFP limits it is irrelevant. This happens at every club in Europe, the only exception are those like ours who are able to convert debt to equity which is what the Sheikh does, he 'lends' us money and converts it into a share of the club. He already owns 100% obviously but the value of that 100% increases. The Glazers will not do this because they want to harvest dividends from their revenue, doing what the Sheikh does requires cash so it would mean they would have to cough up.

I thought the rags were reducing the debt, anyone any idea on why it's gone up? In KISS terms preferably ;)

 

[SilverFox2]

It's amazing isn't it.

Gross debt is £400mill and rising, and UEFA aren't interested.

They are in a very strong borrowing position though, every club operates with some level of debt. You would have to be mad not to lend to them given you are guaranteed your money back on the revenue they make, it does obviously come with risks but it is a much safer bet then you would think.

FFP allows for debt because the debt repayment is leveraged against revenue like any expenditure and providing their profit/loss is within FFP limits it is irrelevant. This happens at every club in Europe, the only exception are those like ours who are able to convert debt to equity which is what the Sheikh does, he 'lends' us money and converts it into a share of the club. He already owns 100% obviously but the value of that 100% increases. The Glazers will not do this because they want to harvest dividends from their revenue, doing what the Sheikh does requires cash so it would mean they would have to cough up.

I thought the rags were reducing the debt, anyone any idea on why it's gone up? In KISS terms preferably ;)

Read somewhere it was $ >. £ exchange rate problem which if true seems strange.
Surely they would have taken a forward value from this to fix the exchange rate for a while ?

 

[Bill]

It mus be obvious to all that the claims that these regulations had anything at all to do with level playing fields, financial stability or sporting integrity are nothing more than claptrap to give a veneer of respectability to what was a crude ploy to make it impossible for one, then two, Arab owned clubs to compete with those clubs which Platini felt had been essential to the success of the CL, and which depended on CL revenues. City and PSG were fined so much simply because everyone knows they can afford it. Just like the fine facing QPR, it was a greedy, grasping bargain agreed by competitors to further their own unlawful interests. What the courts will see clearly is that shareholders are to be told how they must spend their money and how they must not, while American corporations without any other interest in the game are to be allowed to bankroll clubs for as long as it serves their interests. The machinery set up by UEFA to enforce these regulations has just shown that it won't enforce them consistently or even handedly, but this is irrelevant. There are four, five, six legal challenges currently before the courts? UEFA's regulations must surely be laughed out of court.

We all know why the rules were made and who the target was. It will leave a sour taste in the mouth if after taking our punishment and being labelled as cheats, these rules are suddenly relaxed or scrapped altogether.
The damage has already been done, and our reputation has taken a battering.
In terms of challenging for the title or bringing in the best players, then it was just a "pinch" However, in the wider scheme of things our reputation has taken a real mauling. We got caught financially doping our club(whatever that means). We know its nonsense, but our rivals and the media will always have that stick to beat us with. Which is why we should not have accepted FFP and should have fought it through every legal channel we could.

on the fucking money.

 

[birchwoodgingerste]

It mus be obvious to all that the claims that these regulations had anything at all to do with level playing fields, financial stability or sporting integrity are nothing more than claptrap to give a veneer of respectability to what was a crude ploy to make it impossible for one, then two, Arab owned clubs to compete with those clubs which Platini felt had been essential to the success of the CL, and which depended on CL revenues. City and PSG were fined so much simply because everyone knows they can afford it. Just like the fine facing QPR, it was a greedy, grasping bargain agreed by competitors to further their own unlawful interests. What the courts will see clearly is that shareholders are to be told how they must spend their money and how they must not, while American corporations without any other interest in the game are to be allowed to bankroll clubs for as long as it serves their interests. The machinery set up by UEFA to enforce these regulations has just shown that it won't enforce them consistently or even handedly, but this is irrelevant. There are four, five, six legal challenges currently before the courts? UEFA's regulations must surely be laughed out of court.

We all know why the rules were made and who the target was. It will leave a sour taste in the mouth if after taking our punishment and being labelled as cheats, these rules are suddenly relaxed or scrapped altogether.
The damage has already been done, and our reputation has taken a battering.
In terms of challenging for the title or bringing in the best players, then it was just a "pinch" However, in the wider scheme of things our reputation has taken a real mauling. We got caught financially doping our club(whatever that means). We know its nonsense, but our rivals and the media will always have that stick to beat us with. Which is why we should not have accepted FFP and should have fought it through every legal channel we could.

on the fucking money.

i agree matey i just read an article on news now headline pogba to manchester club?" but which one will he choose the club thatregard him as the one that got away or the club that attracts big name players with the lure of big wages and champions league football.Then another article labelled chelsea flop on his way to city.i think mud sticks and accepting the ffp money is just rubbing our noses in it .

 

[blue b4 the moon]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/more-than-1billion-in-12-years--roman-abramovichs-backing-for-chelsea-10248343.html

"Roman Abramovich’s interest free-loan to Chelsea has exceeded £1billion for the first time, according to the latest accounts for Fordstam, the company through which the Russian billionaire owns the club.

The loan from Abramovich now totals £1,041,243,000 which is, according to Fordstam’s accounts up to June last year, repayable at 18 months’ notice. That amount was up from £984m from the accounts of the previous year.

There is no suggestion that Abramovich, who has owned the club for almost 12 years, is seeking repayment of his loan within the near future. In the accounts’ strategic report, the company secretary Paul Heagren notes that “the company has received confirmation from the ultimate controlling party that sufficient funds will be provided to finance the business for the foreseeable future”.
Chelsea announced in November a profit of £18.4m in the club’s financial results up to the end of June last year. The accounts for Fordstam encompass the group’s additional assets including a hotel management company, the health club behind the stadium and the club’s digital media company as well as the football club itself. Fordstam reported profits of £14.2m.

There was a profit on player trading of £65.1m which included the deals to sell Juan Mata, Kevin De Bruyne and David Luiz, all of which went through before the end of June.
Since these accounts were compiled, Chelsea have sold Andre Schurrle and Ryan Bertrand in January for around £34m, and acquired Juan Cuadrado from Fiorentina for £27m.

In the Fordstam accounts, the club values its total playing staff at £353m, a dramatic increase from the £272.2m the previous year. The accounts also include £13.7m of investment on facilities at Stamford Bridge and Cobham. The Cobham training ground that Abramovich acquired soon after taking over the club in 2003 and turned into one of the leading facilities in the game has already been extended and improved. The group made £2.9m in charitable donations.

The Fordstam accounts also show that Abramovich spent £1m last season on his executive box, one of the premium Millennium Suites in the West Stand from which he watches games at Stamford Bridge.

“These sales were made at current market rates in line with other corporate hospitality box sales,” the accounts say.

Is it me but how come Chelsea can loan another £57m and have no ffp sanctions ?
Why carnt the sheikh loan the money to city then. ?
Or is that to simplistic ?
How can the post £18.4 million profit if they are just basically putting the debt onto their overdraft ?

Because Roman isn't an Arab. Get with the program.

A good reply and possibly even correct but its a good question how can their oilman get away with this but ours can't?

My own question is how can both Chelsea and seemingly the rags via Caymen Islands only make part of their accounts public? Can we trust UEFA to tell the truth is only they are shown figures?

 

[Chippy_boy]

Is it me but how come Chelsea can loan another £57m and have no ffp sanctions ?
Why carnt the sheikh loan the money to city then. ?
Or is that to simplistic ?
How can the post £18.4 million profit if they are just basically putting the debt onto their overdraft ?

Because Roman isn't an Arab. Get with the program.

A good reply and possibly even correct but its a good question how can their oilman get away with this but ours can't?

My own question is how can both Chelsea and seemingly the rags via Caymen Islands only make part of their accounts public? Can we trust UEFA to tell the truth is only they are shown figures?

The relevant figures for both football clubs are in the publc domain, and aslo remember that the FFP break-even results are not analysed by a bunch of UEFA cronies, but by independant accountants.

And to answer the original question, Sheikh Mansour can loan City whatever he likes - just as Abramovic can. But neither loan counts as income for the FFP break-even calculation.

In order to buy a player, you need to (a) be able to "afford" it - i.e. the cost of the transfer fees and wages is within your allowable budget which is determine by how much revenue your club has. And (b) have sufficient actual cash available to pay for the transfer on whatever terms you agree with the selling club. A cash loan from Sheik Mansour or Abramovic will help (b), but does nothing for (a).

 

[FanchesterCity]

Because Roman isn't an Arab. Get with the program.

A good reply and possibly even correct but its a good question how can their oilman get away with this but ours can't?

My own question is how can both Chelsea and seemingly the rags via Caymen Islands only make part of their accounts public? Can we trust UEFA to tell the truth is only they are shown figures?

The relevant figures for both football clubs are in the publc domain, and aslo remember that the FFP break-even results are not analysed by a bunch of UEFA cronies, but by independant accountants.

And to answer the original question, Sheikh Mansour can loan City whatever he likes - just as Abramovic can. But neither loan counts as income for the FFP break-even calculation.

In order to buy a player, you need to (a) be able to "afford" it - i.e. the cost of the transfer fees and wages is within your allowable budget which is determine by how much revenue your club has. And (b) have sufficient actual cash available to pay for the transfer on whatever terms you agree with the selling club. A cash loan from Sheik Mansour or Abramovic will help (b), but does nothing for (a).

Correct - the 'Cayman Islands' accusation is a red (pardon the pun) herring. A lot of clubs have complex structures and eventually you'll find some parent company on foreign shores. The club is a distinct business with it's own accounts in the public domain.

The only thing I would say though is that (a) is incorrect. It's not revenue, but profit, a technicality, but important one. Most of the media and UEFA themselves keep referring to to FFP being related to revenue (which is a bit misleading). It's the break even aspect that's critical.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Fair enough, I always assumed that as details passed through less than transparent accounts (for want of a better phrase) that no one could be 100% sure that there is no book cooking going on.

 

[M18CTID]

Dalglish and Shearer telling us what we all know - FFP has killed the dream for most clubs and if it existed 20 years ago Blackburn would've had no chance of winning the league:

"No-one could do it so quickly again," Dalglish told BBC Radio 5 live's 'Joy of the Rovers show', which will be aired on Thursday, 14 May at 19:30 BST and the same time on Sunday, 17 May.
"It would have to be a long time from start to finish if they were ever going to do it. It is one team who has been fantastically successful and won the biggest trophy in this country - the Premier League.
"For every romantic one there are about 20 who are going out of business. You can understand the financial fair play rules but if they had been in place it would never have happened for us."
Walker's money helped Rovers twice break the British transfer record for strikers Alan Shearer and Chris Sutton, for £3.4m and £5m from Southampton and Norwich respectively, and sign Tim Flowers in a £2.4m record deal for a goalkeeper.
On a dramatic final day in May 1995, Blackburn won the title at Anfield despite losing 2-1 to Liverpool. Dalglish's side finished one point ahead of Manchester United, who could only draw 1-1 at West Ham.
Now, with the Premier League's Financial Fair Play regulations stopping clubs from losing a certain amount of money a season, Shearer has ruled out a repeat of Rovers's remarkable rise.
"For a team the size of Blackburn it is now impossible," said Shearer, who scored 131 goals in four seasons at Ewood Park.
"Whoever you are, you need the finances to try and challenge. The dream has gone for a vast majority of clubs.
"No-one can do what Jack did, be born and bred in that town, want that football club to have a good time and to try and entertain the fans. It is not allowed."

 

[Wilf Wild 1937]

It mus be obvious to all that the claims that these regulations had anything at all to do with level playing fields, financial stability or sporting integrity are nothing more than claptrap to give a veneer of respectability to what was a crude ploy to make it impossible for one, then two, Arab owned clubs to compete with those clubs which Platini felt had been essential to the success of the CL, and which depended on CL revenues. City and PSG were fined so much simply because everyone knows they can afford it. Just like the fine facing QPR, it was a greedy, grasping bargain agreed by competitors to further their own unlawful interests. What the courts will see clearly is that shareholders are to be told how they must spend their money and how they must not, while American corporations without any other interest in the game are to be allowed to bankroll clubs for as long as it serves their interests. The machinery set up by UEFA to enforce these regulations has just shown that it won't enforce them consistently or even handedly, but this is irrelevant. There are four, five, six legal challenges currently before the courts? UEFA's regulations must surely be laughed out of court.

We all know why the rules were made and who the target was. It will leave a sour taste in the mouth if after taking our punishment and being labelled as cheats, these rules are suddenly relaxed or scrapped altogether.
The damage has already been done, and our reputation has taken a battering.
In terms of challenging for the title or bringing in the best players, then it was just a "pinch" However, in the wider scheme of things our reputation has taken a real mauling. We got caught financially doping our club(whatever that means). We know its nonsense, but our rivals and the media will always have that stick to beat us with. Which is why we should not have accepted FFP and should have fought it through every legal channel we could.

on the fucking money.

When this is proved in the courts to be against European law I would trust that the club will seek to be reimbursed for the 20 million euros
that we have already had withheld. I would also hope that we seek damages for potential loss of earnings caused by the squad restrictions
and damage to our reputation. We may not get much or indeed any compensation but we need to get maximum publicity for being wronged.
We need to act a bit like the scousers here: we are the victims not the villains!