Brucie to City
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:55 am
160 million. With Jesus going the other way.
The deluded cunts will need him.
The deluded cunts will need him.
Hammers Chat
https://www.hammerschat.com/forum/
Brucie to City
https://www.hammerschat.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=13612
Page 1 of 2
Re: Brucie to City
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:09 am
But FFP
Re: Brucie to City
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:56 am
Always been a funny one that. Let's say you borrow a £100M from the banks or an investors consortium, buy a player with that money.
The player is than an asset on your books and balances the loan. If the player value appreciates then that covers the interest dividends nicely.
Now that kind of construct,doesn't break any FPP rules. So why don't all clubs get massive bank loans. Might be the banks are very selective who they grant them to.
And in West Ham's case,certainly fucking not - have you seen the way they waste money...
Re: Brucie to City
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:59 am
But on the other hand if the players happen to be called Anderson and Haller.BlackDiamond wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:56 amAlways been a funny one that. Let's say you borrow a £100M from the banks or an investors consortium, buy a player with that money.
The player is than an asset on your books and balances the loan. If the player value appreciates then that covers the interest dividends nicely.
Now that kind of construct,doesn't break any FPP rules. So why don't all clubs get massive bank loans. Might be the banks are very selective who they grant them to.
And in West Ham's case,certainly fucking not - have you seen the way they waste money...
And if you were a bank would you lend money to a club run by our present ownership ?
Re: Brucie to City
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2021 11:18 am
Ya both sayin the same thingWhiskyman wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:59 amBut on the other hand if the players happen to be called Anderson and Haller.BlackDiamond wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:56 am
Always been a funny one that. Let's say you borrow a £100M from the banks or an investors consortium, buy a player with that money.
The player is than an asset on your books and balances the loan. If the player value appreciates then that covers the interest dividends nicely.
Now that kind of construct,doesn't break any FPP rules. So why don't all clubs get massive bank loans. Might be the banks are very selective who they grant them to.
And in West Ham's case,certainly fucking not - have you seen the way they waste money...
And if you were a bank would you lend money to a club run by our present ownership ?
Re: Brucie to City
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2021 11:35 am
Think they scrapped or significantly reduced any punishment now though coz of covid. So even if we did break them, it would prob only cost us a couple of boxes of dodgy vids out the back of a rollsBlackDiamond wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:56 amAlways been a funny one that. Let's say you borrow a £100M from the banks or an investors consortium, buy a player with that money.
The player is than an asset on your books and balances the loan. If the player value appreciates then that covers the interest dividends nicely.
Now that kind of construct,doesn't break any FPP rules. So why don't all clubs get massive bank loans. Might be the banks are very selective who they grant them to.
And in West Ham's case,certainly fucking not - have you seen the way they waste money...
Re: Brucie to City
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:11 pm
They did. But DS wants to say that West Ham's expenditure is still constrained by these rules, even though on a fundamental level they are no longer being enforced.JayK wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 11:35 amThink they scrapped or significantly reduced any punishment now though coz of covid. So even if we did break them, it would prob only cost us a couple of boxes of dodgy vids out the back of a rollsBlackDiamond wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:56 am
Always been a funny one that. Let's say you borrow a £100M from the banks or an investors consortium, buy a player with that money.
The player is than an asset on your books and balances the loan. If the player value appreciates then that covers the interest dividends nicely.
Now that kind of construct,doesn't break any FPP rules. So why don't all clubs get massive bank loans. Might be the banks are very selective who they grant them to.
And in West Ham's case,certainly fucking not - have you seen the way they waste money...
Like saying, i would love to invest more but as you can see,my hands are tied...
Re: Brucie to City
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:17 pm
I wish the little cunts hands were tied behind his back, just about to drop through a trapdoor.BlackDiamond wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:11 pmThey did. But DS wants to say that West Ham's expenditure is still constrained by these rules, even though on a fundamental level they are no longer being enforced.
Like saying, i would love to invest more but as you can see,my hands are tied...
Re: Brucie to City
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:18 pm
Into the ocean with a large weightBrookbonds73 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:17 pmI wish the little cunts hands were tied behind his back, just about to drop through a trapdoor.BlackDiamond wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:11 pm
They did. But DS wants to say that West Ham's expenditure is still constrained by these rules, even though on a fundamental level they are no longer being enforced.
Like saying, i would love to invest more but as you can see,my hands are tied...
Re: Brucie to City
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:18 pm
He thinks we’re stupid. Well some of us are but we’re not THAT stupidBlackDiamond wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:11 pmThey did. But DS wants to say that West Ham's expenditure is still constrained by these rules, even though on a fundamental level they are no longer being enforced.
Like saying, i would love to invest more but as you can see,my hands are tied...