svennis pennis
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 12,038
Don’t release clauses have to be paid in full? If so, I’d assume higher offers would be structured payments.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Enzo Fernandez
- Thread starter itisrising
- Start date
HaalandEffect
Well-Known Member
Think he will sign for Real Madrid, Kroos and Modric will retire soon.
nmc
Well-Known Member
Enzo to Chelsea, Jude to City
Liverpool in the mud. Now that would be glorious
Rice to the Dippers - ? He can hailed as Englands best and be installed as England captain.
I stand to be corrected on this but as far as I was aware the 90,80 and then 70% figures also take into account the transfer amortisation and agents fees as well, so Chelsea simply getting some high earners off the books won’t in itself necessarily be enough.Before takeover they were at roughly 75%
need to be at 90% for next season, then 80% then 70% for 2025. they'll prob be fine they've lost a fair few big earners.
Werner, Rudger, Alonso, Lukaku, and some decent ones Emerson, Chirstensen, Batshuayi, Drinkwater, Barkley CHO etc
I still don’t see how the Chavs were allowed to wipe out 1.6b of loans from Abramovich without penalty. He was putting 900k per week into the club at zero % interest, we were charged with overstating Sponsorships and false accounting, we should have just put a billion in the bank as a soft loan and used that money, I still don’t get the difference.This really pisses me off , double standard cunts, make rule as you go but as long city gets fucked.
richards30
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 May 2009
- Messages
- 28,093
I still don’t see how the Chavs were allowed to wipe out 1.6b of loans from Abramovich without penalty. He was putting 900k per week into the club at zero % interest, we were charged with overstating Sponsorships and false accounting, we should have just put a billion in the bank as a soft loan and used that money, I still don’t get the difference.
Yeah that defo doesn’t sit right mate!
That’s not the point, they got away with throwing the money into a pot that’s was not earned, if they’d paid a commercial rate of interest on it (like the Rags do) that would be fair enough.They weee allowed to right of that 1.6b because is was going to a good cause the Ukrainian people…
That’s not the point, they got away with throwing the money into a pot that’s was not earned, if they’d paid a commercial rate of interest on it (like the Rags do) that would be fair enough.
It was complicated because it was Abramovich money and it was the only way he would let them have that money.