- May 17, 2018
- 11,872
- 47,993
The simplified matter that I feel is missing between the back and to's here is this:
Regardless of what an owner invests, the club needs to be sustainable to meet FFP.
That is, an owner can't "invest" money that props the club up without risking FFP sanctions - which is entirely correct. A club shouldn't crumble as soon as the owner stops paying for it, like a rich adult kid with pocket money. That's the reason PSG and Man City (and now Newcastle) end up under scrutiny - because the owners misrepresent investment as income, and pretend that some airline genuinely wants to sponsor them for £200m per season, when it's just a mechanism.
So whilst "owner loans" aren't necessarily an issue with FFP, the underlying factors can be. A lot of FFP exist because of how Chelsea were doing things, let's not forget. We just see continuing tactics that look to bend the rules, like a company sponsoring a club for £400m, and independently via related companies, the club's owner gifts someone a bunch of money that ends up being the sponsor money.
In many ways, you wouldn't ever know how genuine a club's income is until a dodgy board is no longer there. What we do know is that Chelsea have both a 40k stadium, and a fanbase that doesn't necessarily match the "Made in Chelsea" affluence of the area, so they would naturally have the same limitations for their income as we had at the lane. Granted, they have won lots of stuff that is also revenue-generating, but Chelsea aren't exactly "well run" in terms of how any money is spent, so I suspect that all of the stuff that makes them look sustainable, and the owner loan things, is more likely to be a well-structured scheme to keep them out of the crosshairs of FFP.
I imagine that many of the bidders will end up having a lot of transparency over just whether buying Chelsea is going to end up making or costing them money.
Regardless of what an owner invests, the club needs to be sustainable to meet FFP.
That is, an owner can't "invest" money that props the club up without risking FFP sanctions - which is entirely correct. A club shouldn't crumble as soon as the owner stops paying for it, like a rich adult kid with pocket money. That's the reason PSG and Man City (and now Newcastle) end up under scrutiny - because the owners misrepresent investment as income, and pretend that some airline genuinely wants to sponsor them for £200m per season, when it's just a mechanism.
So whilst "owner loans" aren't necessarily an issue with FFP, the underlying factors can be. A lot of FFP exist because of how Chelsea were doing things, let's not forget. We just see continuing tactics that look to bend the rules, like a company sponsoring a club for £400m, and independently via related companies, the club's owner gifts someone a bunch of money that ends up being the sponsor money.
In many ways, you wouldn't ever know how genuine a club's income is until a dodgy board is no longer there. What we do know is that Chelsea have both a 40k stadium, and a fanbase that doesn't necessarily match the "Made in Chelsea" affluence of the area, so they would naturally have the same limitations for their income as we had at the lane. Granted, they have won lots of stuff that is also revenue-generating, but Chelsea aren't exactly "well run" in terms of how any money is spent, so I suspect that all of the stuff that makes them look sustainable, and the owner loan things, is more likely to be a well-structured scheme to keep them out of the crosshairs of FFP.
I imagine that many of the bidders will end up having a lot of transparency over just whether buying Chelsea is going to end up making or costing them money.