• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About west_londoner

  • Rank
    CFCnet Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    United Kingdom

Previous Fields

  • Team
    Chelsea FC!
  1. If the debt was converted to equity I.e. shares, there is no issue. It's neither a loan or a gift. The only thing that can happen is that the shares are sold to someone else. If Fordstam was financed through debt, that has no effect on the club. If RA recalled the loan, Fordstam would either have to sell the club to a new owner or go into receivership in which case the official receiver would sell the club to a new owner. The club won't have to pay anything nor does it owe anything because the debt relates to the shares, not the club.
  2. Chelsea Finances Thread

    The article is wrong. Break even calculations include amortisation as defined in Annex X, not just wages, and you can only write off one year (2011-2012). Also, "All clubs must amortise all transfer fees" is wrong. Annex X says that Amortisation is one of two methods allowed. The other is Expenses which allow you to write off transfer fees when you pay them.
  3. Chelsea Finances Thread

    Actual UEFA FFP document is here There are two methods allowed in the rules for player accounting; Amortisation method or Expenses method. Amortisation method spreads the transfer cost over the player's contract. Expenses method incurs the cost when it is actually paid. For rich clubs, it would be better to use the second method and pay everything up front before the rules come into effect in 6 month's time. Man City could use the second method and write off all the transfer costs before the rules come into effect. Also, each year, you have to estimate the transfer value of your players and any increase/decrease will be counted as profit/loss so obviously, having younger players whose transfer value goes up each year is beneficial. Rules come into effect in 2013 but it is based on the previous 2 year's accounts so for us, that would mean it starts on 1 July of this year since that is the start of our financial year. The rules allows the owner to invest up to £4 mill each year for the first team and an unlimited amount for the academy and stadium. In those 2 years before 2013, we are allowed to make a combined loss of £40 mill. In subsequent seasons, the loss allowed reduces. There are some get out clauses. You can exclude players you acquired before 1 June 2010 if you are over the limit. If you can show that you are heading for break even in the following year (2014), you get a pass.
  4. Gael Kakuta

    No but I am "keyboard challenged" so typing is strenuous for me. But I have read this forum a few times a days since joining.
  5. Gael Kakuta

    You've quoted 17.4 which as I said before, is without merit. The compensation clauses are in other parts of section 17. Basically, Chelsea have to help the player pay the compensation but the club cannot be banned from registering new players.
  6. Gael Kakuta

    No, according to FIFA, as an amateur, he is still bound by his contract and would still be treated as an unjust termination.
  7. Gael Kakuta

    FIFA do recognise amateur contracts and the pre-contract deal hadn't expired. It expires 3 years after he signs it.
  8. Gael Kakuta

    The compensation/damages for a player terminating his contract, and the club two transfer windows ban are separate rules. FIFA do recognise local contract law so I think the player is guilty of the first offense (rule 17.3). The second offense (rule 17.4) concerning the club however, is without merit. The FIFA statute specifically says that it can only apply to professional players and it defines what a professional players is. Clearly, Kakuta was an amateur and not a professional player so Chelsea cannot be charged with breaking rule 17.4 and therefore cannot be banned from registering new players.
  9. Gael Kakuta

    According to FIFA rules (25.5), a claim has to be made within 2 years. So I guess Lens waited the maximum time and probably chose the Kakuta case because they thought it would get them the most compensation.
  10. Michael Essien

    I missed the tackle when it first happened because I was incensed by the upending of Duff a split second earlier. I've now watched the video on my PC and it was not intentional. Events are: 1 Duff gets fouled and stumbles but manages to poke the ball towards Essien. 2 Referee blows his whistle and runs towards Duff 3 Essien and Gerrard both go for the 50/50 ball 4 Essien, seeing that Gerrard will get there first, lifts his leg to move it out the way 5 Hamann comes in from behind Essien and his leg makes contact with Essien Observations: The referee does not see it. The incident happens to the left side of him because he is running towards Duff. He blows his whistle before the Essien tackle. Essien and Gerrard are running towards each other to get the 50/50 ball. Essien is watching Gerrard and does not see Hamann running in from behind. Just before contact, Gerrard and Essien pull up because they are heading straight into each other (or they hear the whistle). Gerrard can see Hamann steaming in from behind Essien. At the point of contact, Essien is hardly moving and his leg is trailing in the air pointed away from Gerrard. Unfortunately for him it is pointed towards Hamann. Hamann should not be going for the ball after the whistle was blown.