Media thread 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
hammocity said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
hammocity said:
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?
Click to expand...
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?
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Roy Munson said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
KS55 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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).
 
KS55 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
aguero93:20 said:
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).
Click to expand...
See my answer below to hammocity.
 
hammocity said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!)
 
Eds said:
BBC sports section inferred we are state owned earlier. Can’t remember the name of the guy but it wasn’t Mike Whateverisnamei.
Click to expand...
Today BBC football page gives state financial backing for City as a reason Liverpool want (partially?) out. It is not in quotes as a Liverpool statement but in the main body of the text as a fact. Complaint registered.
 
KS55 said:
Today BBC football page gives state financial backing for City as a reason Liverpool want (partially?) out. It is not in quotes as a Liverpool statement but in the main body of the text as a fact. Complaint registered.
Click to expand...
Yep,
"It has become increasingly difficult for clubs to compete financially with sides backed by wealthy states, such as Paris St-Germain (Qatar), Manchester City (Abu Dhabi) and Newcastle (Saudi Arabia)"
Two lies in one statement. United, Chelsea and Liverpool have all spunked vast amounts of money and are financially able to compete with us.
 
KS55 said:
Today BBC football page gives state financial backing for City as a reason Liverpool want (partially?) out. It is not in quotes as a Liverpool statement but in the main body of the text as a fact. Complaint registered.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the lie has been promulgated and it’s trotted out as a fact now. Cockroaches.
 
You’ve gotta love all this blame for Henry selling up. If I’m not mistaken, he’s trying to sell while their stock is high so that he can maximise his profits while the the followers scream ‘Victim’ once again.

They need to take a hard look in the mirror. They’re pathetic.
 
Elbow beards said:
Yep,
"It has become increasingly difficult for clubs to compete financially with sides backed by wealthy states, such as Paris St-Germain (Qatar), Manchester City (Abu Dhabi) and Newcastle (Saudi Arabia)"
Two lies in one statement. United, Chelsea and Liverpool have all spunked vast amounts of money and are financially able to compete with us.
Click to expand...

Club should be on that, read it and thought “wtf?”, pure shit from our national subsidised broadcaster
 
In fact made a complaint myself to the pricks, obvious bias - filed under “cunts being cuntish”, will be opting out of the licence fee since getting iptv I think

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63555465 is the article, complain here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints I’d say as many as possible get on it, I messed up a bit as I moaned about “state owned” where it says “state backed” but the argument is the same as is the sentiment
 
Last edited:
Uwe Already said:
In fact made a complaint myself to the pricks, obvious bias - filed under “cunts being cuntish”, will be opting out of the licence fee since getting iptv I think
Click to expand...
I opted out a while ago as I don’t see why I should pay people to take the piss out of me. That was my reason to Sky and BT as well.

Conscience clear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top