Other clubs' transfers

[jack j]

Haha love owt like that

[et tu brute]

1 minute ago, BeloEmre said:

 

Just backs up what I've been saying the whole window, don't take any media/journalist reports as gospel, as nearly all of it is clickbait guesswork.

[jack j]

But Fabrizio here we go said so

[et tu brute]

1 minute ago, jack j said:

But Fabrizio here we go said so

Most of his info usually comes out just after someone else has reported it. 

 

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by et tu brute

[Manxst]

this is why I don’t get people saying wiping Chelsea’s debt shouldn’t have any bearing on their ffp:

 

“Chelsea's Premier League rivals are questioning whether owner Roman Abramovich can act on his promise to write off the club's £1.5bn debt without breaking profit and sustainability rules.

Chelsea have been clear that he can but some clubs want the issue investigated, which could ultimately lead to a points deduction or the debt having to be repaid, complicating an already-complex transaction. The Premier League board would ultimately make the decision whether to charge the club.

 

The Premier League's Profit and Sustainability rules are its version of UEFA's Financial Fair Play rules, though far more generous.

 

Premier League clubs can make losses of £105m over three years if the owners guarantee £90m worth of secure funding. But anything greater than that is subject to disciplinary action, which can results in a points penalty.

Leading football QC Nick De Marco, who acted for Newcastle United in the Saudi takeover, believes that the Premier League may have to take action, just as the English Football League did when QPR's owners tried to write off a much smaller debt to get round the Football League's Financial Fair Play rules. QPR ended paying a £20m in fines and legal costs.

Under current Premier League rules, the owners are only allowed to put in £90m over three years and anything in excess of that is treated as a debt. So, if Chelsea's owner had written off the £1.5bn debt it would likely then become a £1.5bn debt for Profit and Sustainability accounting purposes. 
 

De Marco said: 'It may not be treated as debt for the purposes of an annual return under UEFA's Financial Fair Play or the Premier League's Profit and Sustainability rules. And large parts of the debt was entered into before Premier League or UEFA rules existed.

'If a club normally had a debt of £1.5bn it would obviously be in significant breach of those rules, and likely be subject to a substantial points deduction.

'However, what is the accounting treatment of writing off that debt? This was a direct issue in the QPR Financial Fair Play case.

 

'It was a different set of rules [EFL] and circumstances but when QPR were charged, the owners said: "We will write off the £60m shareholders debt. And that will then improve the accounts, so the club won’t be in breach." The Football League looked at that and had expert accounting advice which said that if you do that, that’s treated as an equity contribution by the owner. In other words, the owner putting in £60m in that year.

 

'Under current Premier League rules, the owners are only allowed to put in £90m over three years and anything in excess of that is treated as a debt. So, if Chelsea’s owner had written off the £1.5bn debt it would likely then become a £1.5bn debt for Profit and Sustainability accounting purposes.

 

‘Things are made more complicated by the government sanctions, which are likely to mean Roman Abramovich can neither write off the debt or be paid it. Unless the government relaxes the sanctions, anyone who buys Chelsea isn’t allowed to pay back the debt to Roman Abramovich. 

'But if that means that Chelsea gets an unfair advantage under the Profit and Sustainability rules because of government sanctions, it’s still an unfair advantage.

‘The fact that the debt can't be paid back is a defence Chelsea might run in any charge were forthcoming. Maybe the Premier League will say you have to pay the £1.5bn back but it's legally impossible to pay it to Abramovich so you're going to have to set up a charity or foundation or pay it that way, so that neither Abramovich nor the club get the benefit.”
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10631815/amp/Chelseas-rivals-question-Roman-Abramovich-write-debt-without-breaking-rules.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The College Dropout]

34 minutes ago, Mikky said:

Levi Colwill to Brighton is such a clever signing 

Buy back clause. 

[beardsleymagic]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

Buy back clause. 

Hate this with a passion… shouldn’t be allowed at all

[astraguy]

Kasper has gone leaving Leicester needing a goalie....would leave us short tbh mind

 

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by astraguy

[Kid Icarus]

8 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Most of his info usually comes out just after someone else has reported it. 

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure 'here we go' has a 100% record. Tap in merchant or not, he's good because he's accurate.

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, beardsleymagic said:

Hate this with a passion… shouldn’t be allowed at all

I think it’s better than sell-on clauses. 
 

Everyone knows at the start what the best/worst case scenario is. 

[The College Dropout]

There’s pictures of the lad in the Chelsea kit. It may not be official but it will happen 99%.  

[snakzz]

 

[Coffee_Johnny]

7 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

There’s pictures of the lad in the Chelsea kit. It may not be official but it will happen 99%.  

Do you think something has gone awry at the last moment? Or just someone has jumped the gun reporting a done deal? 

[BoSelecta]

Just now, snakzz said:

 

Ronaldo?

[Shearergol]

Pique isn't it?

[et tu brute]

9 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

I'm pretty sure 'here we go' has a 100% record. Tap in merchant or not, he's good because he's accurate.

Because he usually reports things based on someone else's exclusive. I'll give him credit that he has a wide range of contacts though

[joeyt]

9 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

There’s pictures of the lad in the Chelsea kit. It may not be official but it will happen 99%.  

 

The one Romano tweeted? It's photoshopped

[snakzz]

1 minute ago, jack j said:

 

Bernardo Silva

He goes Paqueta. 

[jack j]

Be fucking class if it was Cucurella

[Kid Icarus]

1 minute ago, et tu brute said:

Because he usually reports things based on someone else's exclusive. I'll give him credit that he has a wide range of contacts though

You don't get a 100% record just by doing that like.

 

He gets plenty of stuff about ongoing talks etc and even just on us he was the only one saying adamantly from the start that Lucas Digne wasn't coming.

[et tu brute]

4 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

You don't get a 100% record just by doing that like.

 

He gets plenty of stuff about ongoing talks etc and even just on us he was the only one saying adamantly from the start that Lucas Digne wasn't coming.

Ok he's just got one wrong in the last couple of hours looking at that Brighton statement

 

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by et tu brute

[Kid Icarus]

5 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Ok he's just got one wrong in the last couple of hours looking at that Brighton statement

 

 

 

I know mate, that's why we're having this conversation

[et tu brute]

1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said:

I know mate, that's why we're having this conversation

So not quite 100% then 

[et tu brute]

There's growing speculation that DCL's injury is a bad one. Everton could be totally fucked this season (what a shame). Thank fuck we didn't end up signing him, IF we were ever really interested of course.

 

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by et tu brute

[SUPERTOON]

24 minutes ago, snakzz said:

 

Got to be Ronaldo