They can loan the club 150m, that is not an issue. Loaning money is purely cash flow (balance sheet), and can come in formats such as loan, equity increase etc. there is no difference per se to owners lending money to their own company rather than a bank lending money.(although one usually comes interest free, the other doesn’t). That does not get them round FFP though.Thanks to the experts we had here earlier, but at the risk of appearing to be a total idiott, why do the likes of man city dope their club via sponsorship and get in trouble, when they could legitimately just loan the club £150m every year then write it off the next, or convert it into shares?
FFP does(well did as it is not really a thing now since COVID) not deal with balance sheet, but P&L. Man City overstate “inter company” sponsorship to increase their profit/reduce their loss to try and stay within FFP,l (the greater their income, the more costs they can spend) Chelsea have never needed to do that, they have always met FFP without the need for any dodgy accounting practices. What Man City have done is deliberately try and find a way around FFP and to all intents and purposes succeeded, not necessarily because they were clever, more because it took so long for case to be filed against them, Chelsea haven’t needed to resort to those means
Last edited: