Why would anyone question it? We’ve all seen them spend.
Posting a loss has nothing to do with being wealthy.
Correct and why one of the PSR rules should be if an owner covers the losses they can spend what they want
Why would anyone question it? We’ve all seen them spend.
Posting a loss has nothing to do with being wealthy.
But that's not fair play. Your owner's richer than everyone else's & what happens to us if other minted owners arrive & buy up other sleeping giants?Correct and why one of the PSR rules should be if an owner covers the losses they can spend what they want
But that's not fair play. Your owner's richer than everyone else's & what happens to us if other minted owners arrive & buy up.sleeping giants?
Nah... To make things fair on us, we're gonna FFP your arse!
And we know exactly why that's not allowedCorrect and why one of the PSR rules should be if an owner covers the losses they can spend what they want
Correct and why one of the PSR rules should be if an owner covers the losses they can spend what they want
This is EXACTLY what City suggested, plus new owners being allowed an defined period of owner investment to enable them to challenge, & we got fucked off.I’d agree but only if they put the money they owe in contracts into escrow. Can’t have people coming in, buying loads of players, running out of money and killing the club.
Is this how Chelsea's new owners have been able to spend loads?This is EXACTLY what City suggested, plus new owners being allowed an defined period of owner investment to enable them to challenge, & we got fucked off.
HOWEVER, as soon as the two Milan clubs faced difficulties selling up because of FFP restrictions, the rules were quickly changed by UEFA/G14 to allow unrelated new owners, three seasons of unlimited owner investment to get their new clubs up & running.
This is EXACTLY what City suggested, but we were told in no uncertain terms to fuck off.
They were allowed to write off £2bn in the form of soft loans’ - ie they were never ever intended to or going to be paid back - due to Russia’s war crime invasion of Ukraine, and the fact that Abramovich is a Putin bagmanIs this how Chelsea's new owners have been able to spend loads?
That’s a good point.They most probably gambled the good sheikh would've sold up and moved on by this point and so scarring off other investors
I know it definitely applies in the CL & I think the PL have mirrored it too.Is this how Chelsea's new owners have been able to spend loads?