| Lavia to Chelsea for 58 million then 22:47 - Aug 15 with 1366 views | onehunglow |
And £113 for the Brighton player
Yet, FFP issues still around
A joke |  |
| |  |
| Lavia to Chelsea for 58 million then on 01:10 - Aug 16 with 1313 views | ModeratorD |
Totally agree.
If anything ( as was argued today on the wireless ) it is there to keep the elite where they are and the also rans down | | | |
| Lavia to Chelsea for 58 million then on 06:13 - Aug 16 with 1283 views | pencoedjack |
Signing Elise from Palace for 35 million as well.
It’s a joke. |  | | |
| Lavia to Chelsea for 58 million then on 08:02 - Aug 16 with 1242 views | raynor94 |
Spreading the payments over 8 years! |  |
| |
| Lavia to Chelsea for 58 million then on 08:41 - Aug 16 with 1209 views | Thornburyswan |
Think, with Olise, it will take them passed £1bn spent in the last 12 months!! FFP alive & well in the EPL. | | | |
| Lavia to Chelsea for 58 million then on 08:42 - Aug 16 with 1209 views | shandyjack |
Simon Jordan explained how they are getting around this quite intelligently on Talksport Monday. Well worth a listen.
Not morally right but is breaking no rules in terms of FFP |  |
| |
| Lavia to Chelsea for 58 million then on 10:02 - Aug 16 with 1176 views | KeithHaynes |
| Lavia to Chelsea for 58 million then on 08:42 - Aug 16 by shandyjack |
Simon Jordan explained how they are getting around this quite intelligently on Talksport Monday. Well worth a listen.
Not morally right but is breaking no rules in terms of FFP |
But burdened with long term contracts, they have two players on eight years with four year options.
Recent dealings not Inc the OP’s player.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |
| Lavia to Chelsea for 58 million then on 15:40 - Aug 17 with 955 views | max936 |
They clearly have lawyers/advisers/accountants that know how to play the rules!
Their player sales and the length of their players contracts seem to allow for their lavish spending, clearly a loophole FFP has missed, hardly a surprise though, the whole thing as been a shambles from the very start. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Lavia to Chelsea for 58 million then on 17:53 - Aug 17 with 923 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Lavia to Chelsea for 58 million then on 15:40 - Aug 17 by max936 |
They clearly have lawyers/advisers/accountants that know how to play the rules!
Their player sales and the length of their players contracts seem to allow for their lavish spending, clearly a loophole FFP has missed, hardly a surprise though, the whole thing as been a shambles from the very start. |
They are just pushingthe debt down the line. They are paying inflated fees and I can't guess at these players wages. What if they deide to sell but nobody wants these players or just cannot afford the fees and wages?
It's like piling up debt on a credit card and only paying the minimum each month, eventually the card is maxed out and you can never repay what you owe.
This debt will be left for future owners, when Boehly walks away, assuming he can find someone willing to buy the club. | | | |
| Lavia to Chelsea for 58 million then on 16:20 - Aug 18 with 865 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Lavia to Chelsea for 58 million then on 15:40 - Aug 17 by max936 |
They clearly have lawyers/advisers/accountants that know how to play the rules!
Their player sales and the length of their players contracts seem to allow for their lavish spending, clearly a loophole FFP has missed, hardly a surprise though, the whole thing as been a shambles from the very start. |
It just goes to prove UK accountants are not very bright. Their reputation great exceeds their intellect. They spend 5 years studying and thin see a wide boy get around the rules in seconds. The dim accountant are auditors and the bright accountants are advisors. |  |
| |
| Lavia to Chelsea for 58 million then on 16:44 - Aug 18 with 849 views | onehunglow |
| Lavia to Chelsea for 58 million then on 15:40 - Aug 17 by max936 |
They clearly have lawyers/advisers/accountants that know how to play the rules!
Their player sales and the length of their players contracts seem to allow for their lavish spending, clearly a loophole FFP has missed, hardly a surprise though, the whole thing as been a shambles from the very start. |
Lawyers!
You re not suggesting our legal boys are in some way slippery  | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
