Jackie Broon

Yeah, seems strange not to play his first eleven together but It looks like he's split it and played his first choice back four with second choice midfield and forward line.

It seems likely that he'd want to play his first choice back four together for their final preseason match.

It's likely that Eddie sees this back four as his first choice, Botman will probably have to wait for his chance like Bruno did.

He's been so poor all preseason, whereas Miggy has shown he's worth his place in the squad he's shown he's just not good enough, even as an emergency backup.

Liquid Silk football

Yeah Chelsea aren't actually that far behind Man U, £530m vs £650m turnover in the last season pre covid, whereas we're starting miles behind at about £150m.

Would it actually be illegal? Admittedly it is not my area of expertise but as far as I can tell it's perfectly legal for an owner of a company to gift money to their company. Anyway, that is beside the point. Because it's pretty much universally thought to be the case (you're the first person I've seen suggest that it might not be funded that way) and IIRC fillings on Companies House suggest that to be the case.

You used the term "directly" I was just using your terminology. Sorry I assumed by "Owner’s directly injecting cash into the club isn’t a related party transaction" you were referring to owners transferring funds directly into the club's account. But, that doesn't alter my original point that there is benefit in the club having a loan facility immediately available rather than having to arrange the issue and purchase of shares each time funds are required, particularly given the complexities of each member of the consortium having to provide their relative share.

It was indirectly through issuing and purchasing shares. So did our owners earlier this year. But that probably takes a bit longer to organise than having an immediately available loan facility.

I think you're wrong there, directly injecting cash would be an associated party transaction as far as I can see from the PL's rules: Rule A.1.17 An “Associated Party” is a Person that is associated with the Club. 1. A Person is associated with a Club if that Person: (a) has Control or joint control over the Club; (b) holds a Holding in excess of 5% of Shares; A.1.18. “Associated Party Transaction” means, in respect of any Club, a Transaction that is, whether directly or indirectly, between: (a) a Club and an Associated Party; E.51. Each Associated Party Transaction must be submitted to the Board (in such form and including such detail as required by the Board) in order for the Board to conduct a Fair Market Value Assessment of it. Although, indirectly injecting cash through payment for shares would not be. Neither would make a difference to FFP other than providing secure funding to cover the allowed losses. But it does seem to make sense for the club to have a credit facility to have cash immediately available.

I suppose it might make sense in that all related party transactions need to be pre-approved by the PL, which could potentially cause a cash flow issue. A credit facility would give the club immediate access to money if there is a delay caused by PL approval of a related party transaction?

I don't think so. In fact the rules specifically prohibit loans being used as secure funding to offset losses for FFP.

Burn miles better than Lascelles in every area, he just needs to cut out the daft rush of blood he seems to get once per match. Even with that he's miles better than Lascelles who is shite 99% of the time as opposed Burn's 1% rush of blood moments.

Comment from my wife: "What's that?" me: "Chris Wood" "ergh, Chris Wouldn't"

Miggy to score more than Grealish this season.

Doesn't look bad here in April last year: https://www.google.com/maps/@54.9748336,-1.6198578,3a,87.3y,316.42h,104.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOXsi0SLstdowvgWMKg5usQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 I think it's going to look a bit austere all painted black, or patchy if they only do part. Just cleaning it regularly would be a better option IMO, but I'll be happy to be proved wrong when it's complete.

Not sure I'm a fan of that, looks ok on the other side but not sure how it's going to work well there.

Interest payments would impact on FFP I think but in Chelsea's case I don't think Abramovic was charging interest. Anyway, it's not an FFP loophole.

It doesn't, FFP is based on opperating profit/loss on specific activities, writing off debt isn't relevant to it.

A sizeable chunk of that will be written off with covid allowances but yes, it's hard to see how they comply with FFP, but it's not because there's a loophole in an owner loaning money to the club, there isn't.

That's not how it works. It makes no difference to the profit/loss, only losses of up to £115m over three years can be covered by an owner putting in money. Chelsea's debt to Abramovic had been built up over a long period of time, some of which was before FFP.

If reports are true the people running the club seem to be. These are people who I'm sure are staunch believers in free markets and the ability of the market to decide. The market is what it is, they either participate in it or we fall behind other clubs who are.

It's no different to our 'interest free loan' from Ashley, which was cleared when we were sold. Other than being 10x as much and not used an an excuse for free advertising, obviously.

The market isn't going to change because one club opts out, the market is what it is, I doubt we're specifically being quoted different prices to everyone else.

To some extent they were out of the blue as well, we'd been linked with Trippier but it was a surprise when it happened and everyone thought the Botman deal was dead in the water before it suddenly went through.