Won’t help them though, as UEFA have already ruled that any deal between co-owned clubs won’t be counted as income.
4 Likes
That’s UEFA. Saudi clubs won’t be counted there. There’s a huge investment from PIF to clearlake.
1 Like
My post was in response to the tweet about Chelsea selling a striker to Strasbourg. If they complete the deal, it will have no effect on Chelseas PSR as both clubs are under the same ownership, so the transfer feewon’t be counted as income by UEFA
1 Like
FAO: @Sweeting
1 Like
They also strengthened restrictions on transfers between clubs within multi club ownership groups, which is what prevented Utd signing Todibo from Nice this summer. So given that I dont know what is going on with this story.
EDIT: I think the critical factor is if they are supposed to be playing in the same competition that season so shouldnt affect this signing
1 Like
Chelsea trying to sign Osimhen now and Arsenal trying to loan Sterling.
1 Like
Sounds like a game of musical chairs. Whoever has a club at the end wins a set of Crayola colours. Or, at least, a knock off set from Birkenhead market.
2 Likes
Term bottlers being taken to a new definition.
What was the logic behind sending Sterling out on loan, only to go and take Sanchez on loan?
It makes absolutely no sense at all to me
Huh?
3 Likes
Seriously. WHAT is going on?!
5 Likes
Extending contracts to monetize their selling value later.
Chelsea see them basically as sellable assets where the duration of contracts matter to the overall transfer value.
not sure that helps that much given the contract ran to 3031 before the extension.
5 Likes
It’s Chelsea.
1 Like
As I said it’s some form of Pyramid scheme.
Can we loan the guy that’s taking care of all their player’s contracts, just for a like a week to get our guys sorted out?