Media thread 2022/23

[KS55]

I still can’t get why Abramovich was allowed to pump in around 1.5b in soft loans and not be penalised under FFP rules (I know they didn’t exist when he first bought the club). Why did we go through the pain of CAS when all our owners needed to do was put in soft loan money. Same with Chelsea now, debt written off under the acquisition but Chelsea have spent so heavily how are they getting away with it?

Loans, even from owners, are not subject to ffp as they are debts.
City received multiple loans from Mansour, subsequently converted into new shares. False allegations of clandestine funding would have been raised by Liverpool as a separate matter since they were desperate to get Champs league place.
Liverpool could do the same as City now, issuing new shares rather than FSG selling existing shares. Those proceeds would be available to spend.

 

[Roy Munson]

I still can’t get why Abramovich was allowed to pump in around 1.5b in soft loans and not be penalised under FFP rules (I know they didn’t exist when he first bought the club). Why did we go through the pain of CAS when all our owners needed to do was put in soft loan money. Same with Chelsea now, debt written off under the acquisition but Chelsea have spent so heavily how are they getting away with it?

I'm sure others know far more about it than me, but the 1.5bn wouldn't be classed as income for FFP purposes, would it?

 

[KS55]

One thing the Liverpool coverage is overlooking?

Even a buy in stake would not allow the Dippers to spend an extra bean in the transfer market?

That money goes into Henry's pocket, it is not club revenue, for the purposes of FFP?

No. The new company would give a loan subsequently converted into newly issued shares. That loan would be available to spend. Just what Mansour and City did. Loans are Debts not subject to ffp.

 

[hammocity]

I'm sure others know far more about it than me, but the 1.5bn wouldn't be classed as income for FFP purposes, would it?

No, but it was obviously loans they needed to pay for wages and players which is effectively what FFP covers. Like you, I’m sure others know better but still not read a definitive reason how they got away with it.

 

[aguero93:20]

No. Loan subsequently converted into newly issued shares. That loan would be available to spend. Just what Mansour and City did. Loans are Debts not subject to ffp.

It would help them out for liquid cash but it's no advantage when it comes to FFP. Your football related income still needs to cover your expenditure (although there's a small bit of leeway for owner investment it's not much).

 

[hammocity]

Loans, even from owners, are not subject to ffp as they are debts.
City received multiple loans from Mansour, subsequently converted into new shares. False allegations of clandestine funding would have been raised by Liverpool as a separate matter since they were desperate to get Champs league place.
Liverpool could do the same as City now, issuing new shares rather than FSG selling existing shares. Those proceeds would be available to spend.

Yep but interest on loans is included in FFP but Abramovich didn’t charge interest so there was no jeopardy on it. Surely if it’s FFP a market rate should be applied to stop this even if there is nothing to pay. What’s stopping any owner lending billions of pounds on a soft loan basis?

Are you sure your last paragraph is correct? I thought it was only income generated by the Clubs that could be used for FFP and not just share issue money.

 

[KS55]

It would help them out for liquid cash but it's no advantage when it comes to FFP. Your football related income still needs to cover your expenditure (although there's a small bit of leeway for owner investment it's not much).

See my answer below to hammocity.

 

[Resurrection Joe...]

Maybe Standard Chartered know some people with loads of cash to buy them, they could start with those they money laundered for.

isn;t this local businessman due out soon?

 

[KS55]

Yep but interest on loans is included in FFP but Abramovich didn’t charge interest so there was no jeopardy on it. Surely if it’s FFP a market rate should be applied to stop this even if there is nothing to pay. What’s stopping any owner lending billions of pounds on a soft loan basis?

Are you sure your last paragraph is correct? I thought it was only income generated by the Clubs that could be used for FFP and not just share issue money.

I must admit I am not entirely up to date with UEFA ffp rules or PL ffp rules.(note to self: do some homework)
Under the old rule clubs borrowed millions and spent it on players and their wages: see Barca etc. The interest on such loans was subject to ffp but not the capital. This was a result of G14 telling Platini that his proposal to include loans would result in them leaving UEFA competitions. He caved. There was indeed nothing in the regs to stop soft loans.
Again, if a loan was used to pay for infrastructure, that would preserve other income for football spend. So, if Liverpool got new shareholders via a loan and subsequent debt for equity swop, it would help them out in terms of monies available for players if the loan were used for paying off their debts associated with Anfield upgrade. (This answer subject to my future homework on latest rules!)

 

[stan bowles]

He really is an incredibly strange and bitter man.

City's auditors (BDO) need to have have a word as well, as he's implicitly suggesting incompetence on their part as well.

Incompetence and complicity.