They had a lot of money to spend after the transfer ban and the sale of Hazard.
1 Like
I think that’s being capped next season? It’s been on the agenda for a while at least.
2 Likes
It currently only applies to senior players on international loans. It’s more geared to resolving issues like Morata and Batshuayi than changing the way they hoard kids, who for chelsea most are on loan domestically. Basically the idea the idea is it forces big teams to take a bath on the expensive signings they made who failed by selling them for a loss rather than keeping them out on loan for years at a time.
I think the would already be in compliance this year with what the rule will be next year. The kicker will be that it gets stricter each year so i’s more an issue of how they manage their failed signings moving forward than what they will do with the players already out on loan.
2 Likes
Don’t care about Chelsea’s transfer budget, I just want a massive boot up Abramovich’s ass.
3 Likes
Is he getting it? We’ve seen Usmanov and Moshiri`s holding companies mentioned but what about his? He’s been up Putin’s arse for decades.
2 Likes
I highly highly doubt it. BoJo won’t tackle a big bad Ruski…but put a Japanese kid in front of him.
2 Likes
Would be scandalous if he got away with it. He’s one of the original asset strippers and enablers.
1 Like
I forgot he used to comb his hair for his propaganda pieces…
Well, his name keeps being brought up in the discussions by MPs and the media so i think there is a good chance he gets included. There was an issue a few years ago where he had some difficulty getting a visa to enter the UK or something that might be related to this.
I don’t think he has one still. Didn’t he get Israeli citizenship or something?
Interested to know how an asset freeze on him would impact Chelsea. Kind of feels that it should.
2 Likes
He was denied UK citizenship, wasn’t he?
1 Like
I believe so.
I remember he applied to extend his visa i dont remember if he was applying for citizenship.
2 Likes
The near-term effect would be minimal, because Chelsea moved to put themselves in a position to comply with FFP with a corporate structure that has a holding company controlled by Abramovich carrying the debt, the capital having been moved into before the FFP regime came into force. So the effect of a freeze would simply be that Abramovich could not call that debt.
2 Likes
Ta. I was wondering if such a freeze would go further and actually stop them operating at a business level i.e. not being able to pay staff etc.
Part of me feels that it should even though Abramovich has separated himself from them more of late, but fundamentally they decided to sell their souls to the devil
Chelsea have been generating some cash for years, and their transfer earnings have been significant - basically, they got a big pot of free money before FFP reporting started, and have been turning it over by flowing it through the transfer market. Cash needs are easily met by the massive PL income.
1 Like
yes, but I assume it’s in a bank?
Perhaps the PL (and UEFA) should also take a stand on this?
The funds are in Chelsea’s control, they just owe a massive debt up through a holding company to Abramovich.
1 Like
Presumably its the clubs money until Abramovic calls it in. Sanctions prevent him taking it.
1 Like
Yes I appreciate that but Chelsea is fundamentally an operating asset. Therefore, perhaps they should be stopped from operating? It’s operations are fundamentally related to its value. Do that and devalue them as an entity.
If Chelsea were a business that made missile components I’m sure they would be stopped. I’m asking whether it should be taken further and include everything he has a stake in.
3 Likes