http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jan/30/chelsea-links-third-party-ownership

 

Article up on The Guardian's site that says documents suggest that the club is putting funds into companies that have links to third party ownership of footballers. 

 

Third party owned players are banned in the Premier League but the practice of third party ownership itself does not break any FIFA/UEFA rules. 

 

There's two reason I can see for Chelsea getting involved with this, one, as suggested in the article is to gain first refusal on any players that we may have helped fund via the third party ownership.

 

The other is to increase our revenues. 

 

No doubt what we are doing is going to be frowned upon by some but in my eyes this is consequences that UEFA have created by attempting to bring in FFP. 

 

When you look at how much more money Arsenal and Manchester United get from match day revenues simply by having a larger stadium how are we and other clubs similar to ourselves meant to compensate for that lower income?

 

Arsenal have just signed a £30m a season kit deal with Puma which is the largest kit deal in Premier League history. Manchester United's current deal with Nike expires next season with Nike, Adidas, Puma and Warrior rumoured to be interested in securing the rights to the next deal that could apparently be as much as £70m per season. 

 

Again, how can you claim to be creating a "fair" system when one is able to securing much bigger commercial deals than their rivals? 

 

Clubs are being forced to look at creating revenues in new ways and I think this is why we have 24 players out on loan right now, we've stock piled young talent throughout Europe and those that do not develop to stage that can be integrated into our own team are being sold for a profit with the view of balancing the books. 

 

Good post, thought provoking. Old Trafford has effectively double our capacity, I agree that we have to look at at method possible to make up the loss of revenue from having a small stadium.

Regarding the kit deals we only have our board to blame for agreeing to such a sh*t deal. We could have got a much better deal else where.

PS that article was a complete headache to read.

PS that article was a complete headache to read.

 

I've read it through about three times before sharing on the forum because I wanted to make sure I understood it before sharing with everyone else.

 

Essentially I think it comes down to us not breaking any rules but it could be considered morally wrong to invest in third party ownership when the Premier League has banned those players from the league.

PS that article was a complete headache to read.

I started reading it then skipped to the diagram. The whole thing reminds me of that "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon" game.

Whats 6 degrees of kevin bacon about? hah

Edited January 31, 201412 yr by Zola

The general consensus on another forum I frequent is it's a deflection article by a city fan to distract everyone a week before city releases their financials.

 

Make of that what you will.

I wouldn't be surprised if other clubs did the same to be honest. 

The general consensus on another forum I frequent is it's a deflection article by a city fan to distract everyone a week before city releases their financials.

 

Make of that what you will.

 

City already released their finances.

 

They lost £51m last season which is half of what they lost the previous year... Which was also half of what they lost the year before that.

 

They're on track for FFP if anything. 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25951455

Ah rereading they actually said 24 hours after.

 

Either way seems like a nothing story to me. It's not against the rules so what's the problem.

Ah rereading they actually said 24 hours after.

 

Either way seems like a nothing story to me. It's not against the rules so what's the problem.

 

Richard Scudamore is massively against 3rd party ownership and described it as "indentured slavery".

 

Platini isn't a fan either:

 

"We cannot accept that players are owned by an agent or an entity, or financial institutions. It is hard to understand that footballers, who have battled so much to be independent of clubs, ending the old contract situation [with the 1995 Bosman ruling], are now controlled by third-party funds. I do not accept that. I am going to fight with all my strength against that."

 

So although we aren't breaking any rules, it's a practice that both the Premier League and UEFA seem strongly apposed to and appear to be working on finding ways to outlaw it. 

How can our league ban it but FIFA cant?

How can our league ban it but FIFA cant?

 

 

In the same way UEFA can implement FFP and for it not to be a FIFA requirement.

 

The different associations are allowed to set their own rules and restrictions. 

FFP is a joke, glad were thinking on our feet.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25410320

I'd be surprised if there were any large big spending clubs that aren't finding loopholes like this.

 

Look at Barca with Neymar...

I'd be surprised if there were any large big spending clubs that aren't finding loopholes like this.

 

Look at Barca with Neymar...

Loopholes ? You mean backdoors for £riends of £ifa.

Edited January 31, 201412 yr by coco

I love the bit that has "apparent involvement" on the diagram. What a crock of sh*t.

Third party ownership of players registered to play in the EPL is banned. It is not banned in quite a number of European Leagues. As far as I am aware it is banned in England & France. Third Party Ownership is rife in Spain & Portugal in particular

Chelsea aren't breaking any rules indeed, I very much doubt that we are the only EPL that own a share of a player (wasn't Wallace subject to such arrangements)

The trouble in all these things UEFA by introducing FFP is in effect forcing clubs to use rules to their advantage.

I find all of it quite amusing as clubs , such as Arsenal & Man Utd, go on and on about RA and all this financial doping lark. They really don't get it that owners taking money out of football are far more dangerous than the likes of RA & SM at Man City. Make no bones about it at some point in the future investors at a lot of FPL will be declaring dividends and taking a return on their investments. FFP should quite simply control debt and not spending. Its easier to monitor and would achieve the supposed aims and objectives of FFP

Having said all that I was very interested to read that Man City may well have to explain about £45 million of their income.

I know some people suggest that we have been creative but the wider suggestion is that Man Citys creativity is something to behold.

City already released their finances.

 

They lost £51m last season which is half of what they lost the previous year... Which was also half of what they lost the year before that.

 

They're on track for FFP if anything. 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25951455

 

Anyone else notice that when we released our finances a loss of 49M Sky title was " Chelsea announce huge loss".But when City released there a loss of £51M sky title was "City slash losses"

 

isn't the chairman of Man City also the owner/chairman of etihad and the clubs sponsor? so realisitically he cam make the spnshorship deals whatever the club needs for FFP. Load of horse manure tbh

Quote on City's losses is interesting:

 

 

City's matchday and TV income were similar to 2011-12, but other commercial income, principally from sponsorship by the Abu Dhabi airline Etihad, and other Abu Dhabi and international sponsors, rose from £107m in 2011-12 to £143m. City's income also included £47m from selling "intellectual property", including £22m-worth to related City companies. These sales were not explained further in the accounts.

According to this article http://www.chelseatrueblue.com/2013/08/chelsea-sponsorships-and-unhappy-fans-an-analysis.html, our sponsorships bring in £70m -odd a year. Man City's losses are being hidden by drastically increased sponsorship by their owners, and some dubious 'intellectual property sale worth about two-thirds of our total sponsorship income. Without these vast sums their losses would be some £120m higher than the £52m announced.

 

I'm sure the FFP rules are going to be really rigidly enforced.....

Edited January 31, 201412 yr by Backbiter

So how come City are spending so much money and yet their losses are falling so much more rapidly than ours have? We've had more incoming money than them from European football for the last decade.

Its all to do with who has the better finance department in the headquarters.

Edited January 31, 201412 yr by Zola

So how come City are spending so much money and yet their losses are falling so much more rapidly than ours have? We've had more incoming money than them from European football for the last decade.

 

They are basically paying themselves.

 

It's all way over my head but that's the gist of what I've been reading around based on opinion.

Edited January 31, 201412 yr by Stim