That would be my guess too. I wonder it will be be disclosed/unveiled?tshirtman said:mancity dan said:From the article:
When Chelsea spent big, there were no such rules so legally they were not doing anything wrong. Now there is FFP and who brought that in, was it Chelsea, Liverpool or Arsenal? No, it was UEFA. Chelsea are trying their best to follow the rules by selling their best player, Juan Mata, when a good bid arrived. If FFP was not there he wouldn't be sold. Manchester City sold image and intellectual property rights to an unnamed party for close to £50m, allowing the club to cut its losses by almost half. Is this something fishy? Yes. So other clubs have every right to complain.
Era Var, Åland Islands
Look at the origins of financial fair play and where it ended up, I think the elite clubs had a bigger influence on its final draft than you imagine. Also, I know where those intellectual property rights have gone and why it cannot be disclosed. When City can make an announcement, more will be understood.
What does he mean here? Who has bought the rights?
could mean city's getting it's own own TV channel?
ifiwasarichfan said:That's beautiful.
It's the New York/Melbourne link, presumably.tshirtman said:mancity dan said:From the article:
When Chelsea spent big, there were no such rules so legally they were not doing anything wrong. Now there is FFP and who brought that in, was it Chelsea, Liverpool or Arsenal? No, it was UEFA. Chelsea are trying their best to follow the rules by selling their best player, Juan Mata, when a good bid arrived. If FFP was not there he wouldn't be sold. Manchester City sold image and intellectual property rights to an unnamed party for close to £50m, allowing the club to cut its losses by almost half. Is this something fishy? Yes. So other clubs have every right to complain.
Era Var, Åland Islands
Look at the origins of financial fair play and where it ended up, I think the elite clubs had a bigger influence on its final draft than you imagine. Also, I know where those intellectual property rights have gone and why it cannot be disclosed. When City can make an announcement, more will be understood.
What does he mean here? Who has bought the rights?
could mean city's getting it's own own TV channel?
Actually he writes off the debt every year. Or at least he did, I haven't been keeping track of how it works.Skashion said:I'd raise one issue with Martin Samuel's argument. He basically says that Abramovich did the same thing with Chelsea, so shut the fuck up Mourinho. This is not true. Chelsea FC might be debt free but Fordstam Ltd, Chelsea's holding company, owes Abramovich a billion quid. Now it's quite possible that Abramovich never intends to collect on that debt but it is still owed in theory whereas it's all equity with us.
Please could you read my post before attempting to contradict it. Chelsea's holding company does not write off debt every year, actually it accumulates it. Money is loaned to Chelsea at 0% by the holding company and that is used to write off the debt to keep Chelsea FC debt free. The holding company, who ONLY own Chelsea assets, owes Abramovich nearly a billion quid. I doubt he'll ever call that loan in but in theory he could. If you want to check Fordstam Ltd's accounts and confirm I'm right, the company number is 04784127. It'll cost you a quid so you shouldn't need to hit Abramovich for a loan but I'll save you the time:Castiel said:Actually he writes off the debt every year. Or at least he did, I haven't been keeping track of how it works.Skashion said:I'd raise one issue with Martin Samuel's argument. He basically says that Abramovich did the same thing with Chelsea, so shut the fuck up Mourinho. This is not true. Chelsea FC might be debt free but Fordstam Ltd, Chelsea's holding company, owes Abramovich a billion quid. Now it's quite possible that Abramovich never intends to collect on that debt but it is still owed in theory whereas it's all equity with us.
Creditors falling due after more than one year of £938.2m include £894.6m on an interest free loan account repayable on eighteen months notice.
I'm surprised to see you on here given what you said about City fans earlier in the week. Got a peg on your nose, have you?Castiel said:Actually he writes off the debt every year. Or at least he did, I haven't been keeping track of how it works.Skashion said:I'd raise one issue with Martin Samuel's argument. He basically says that Abramovich did the same thing with Chelsea, so shut the fuck up Mourinho. This is not true. Chelsea FC might be debt free but Fordstam Ltd, Chelsea's holding company, owes Abramovich a billion quid. Now it's quite possible that Abramovich never intends to collect on that debt but it is still owed in theory whereas it's all equity with us.
I think it's all hypocritical bullshit but that's football. They're obviously trying to slam the door. I think Mourinho's comments were more to do with our game than anything else though and he just wanted to put you under more pressure. He's spent the whole season trying to frame City as overwhelming favourites and Chelsea as not even contenders when that clearly isn't the case. I'd be disappointed if the club actually did try to sue, just mind your own business and play football.
Well I'm not an accountant but when a similar claim was reported in the media a few years ago, the club released this statement:Skashion said:Please could you read my post before attempting to contradict it. Chelsea's holding company does not write off debt every year, actually it accumulates it. Money is loaned to Chelsea at 0% by the holding company and that is used to write off the debt to keep Chelsea FC debt free. The holding company, who ONLY own Chelsea assets, owes Abramovich nearly a billion quid. I doubt he'll ever call that loan in but in theory he could. If you want to check Fordstam Ltd's accounts and confirm I'm right, the company number is 04784127. It'll cost you a quid so you shouldn't need to hit Abramovich for a loan but I'll save you the time:
What did I say?Bert Trautmann's Parachute said:I'm surprised to see you on here given what you said about City fans earlier in the week. Got a peg on your nose, have you?
Because he hasn't given his eighteen months notice yet... He probably never will, but if he does, all that exists to pay him back are Chelsea's assets.Castiel said:and do not owe any money to our shareholder (Fordstam Ltd). Neither do we owe any money to Roman Abramovich.'