Marc Cucurella

  • Thread starter Thread starter ElleBla
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Man_City_Loyal said:
Seems only clubs with massive debts get away with FFP
Click to expand...
At least the Rags pay the interest on their debts out of their earnings, all Ambramovich did was top up his loan year on year without interest, an interest rate akin to a Commercial rate should have been applied to that debt for the purposes of FFP.
 
hammocity said:
I still don’t get how Chelsea got away with that, FFP meant you can only spend what you earn, 1.5b in loans that was actually debt is surely not allowed, it’s baffling. We were investigated over related sponsorship, why didn’t we just put a couple of billion in as loans and save all the hassle we went through?
Click to expand...
It is allowed, and we have done similar we turned the debt into equity periodically as we incurred it.

FFP only relates to money in and money out.

Lots of chelsea debt predated FFP too.
 
Thenumber1blue said:
How would that work with no time to replace him
Click to expand...

That would of been Brighton’s problem it would just make Bloom react quicker as in he could say not for sale or get proper negotiations going Unlike now Bloom is revelling in it know he has weeks before the window shut!
 
Keeper! said:
Or could it be our American investor wanting to see some return?

Another possibility is the seemingly imamate recession, could the transfer market crash in the next 6 months?
Click to expand...

Yeah that’s fair and we know the loan we took out for our football group of 650m has be paid back by 2027/28 if am right?
 
Why wouldn't you look at City as a model to follow - our sporting results and business growth have been phenomenal. I take it as a compliment, actually.
 
ShedDweller said:
This...
Chelsea are now owned by a private equity fund not a single owner/benefactor.
Am I right in thinking they dismantled their football technical/scouting organisation during the transition?

On the face of it it looks a bit like - "City are after that player so they must have done the homework and he must be good, lets get that player".

To be fair its probably what you would do until you've sorted out the technical staff again.

It a dangerous game though, Utd have done it for a few years and ended up with some right dross such as Sanchez, Maguire etc...
Click to expand...

Yep and just think if they don’t get top four that’s around 60/100m loss of income! Everything will have to go perfectly for Chelsea in the next 2/3 years or they will be in deep shit! Another thing you seen the players they have on there books?
 
bluesmith said:
It is allowed, and we have done similar we turned the debt into equity periodically as we incurred it.

FFP only relates to money in and money out.

Lots of chelsea debt predated FFP too.
Click to expand...
But Chelsea were still doing it after FFP, it was unsustainable as the debt increased every year. Anyway, the new rules won’t allow Chelsea to use that Business model anymore, I think players will be signing on longer contracts to amortise the fees to keep within the spending and wages rules.
 
Keeper! said:
Why though, what's the point?

It would piss me off as the seller and in a negotiation is that not the last thing you want to do?
Click to expand...
Exactly
Why piss off billionaires. We ain’t spurs and Omar and Txiki ain’t Levy. Why pocket pinch just to show interest. This is a big position to fill and and we don’t even have a Delph or Zinc to convert them into LBs

Ake Laporte ain’t LBs.
 
hammocity said:
But Chelsea were still doing it after FFP, it was unsustainable as the debt increased every year. Anyway, the new rules won’t allow Chelsea to use that Business model anymore, I think players will be signing on longer contracts to amortise the fees to keep within the spending and wages rules.
Click to expand...
So were we. Its not relevant to FFP.

That's rich! Manchester City owner Mansour writes off club's £305m debts

Manchester City owner Sheik Mansour has sensationally wiped out the club's £305million debts. The mega-rich Abu Dhabi businessman has transformed the club's huge debt into equity.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
Keeper! said:
All over the world, reality is going to bite in the next 12 months.
Click to expand...

Yep and seems city dealings this window are looking ahead to what’s might be down the line! With Ukraine war and how long that’s going to last? Plus the Taiwan with China situation…
 
The slaughtered lamb said:
Regardless, they’d have had a better argument if they compared Cucurella to Mendy.
Click to expand...
When we signed Mendy he was regarded as one of the best young defenders in Europe and had just won the French League and reached the CL semi-final with a star-studded Monaco team. Before then he had been successful at Marseille. We know it all ended in tears but when we signed Mendy he was rated much higher than Cucurella is now. I think City did the right thing walking away.
If the reports are true that Bloom refused to talk directly to City (essentially taking the piss) than I can't see what else we could have done. The days of clubs taking the piss out of City are over.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
We bought Danilo for £26.5m on a 5 year deal. He’d be worth £21m on our books when we sold him.

Anything else is accountancy balance. He’s down as a €37m part exchange on Wikipedia, which seems €10-15m too high.
Click to expand...

I agree. My point is it is not entirely disingenuous to refer to Cancelo as a 60m signing. Since we paid 60m for him. While getting 30m back for Danilo.

In the same way Phillips is a 42m signing, despite us getting 5m back for an outhing youngster, and Cucurella will be a 52-55m or whatever signing, and not 30-40m depending on what they get back for their Colville.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top