PDA

View Full Version : Can a chairman spend his own cash on players ?


anto1208
29/07/2008, 10:22 AM
Was wondering what is the official line on this i reckon he cant that he can use his wealth to succure loans on the clubs behalf ( ala Roman and chelsea ) rather than just giving the club x amount to spend.
Dodge
29/07/2008, 10:25 AM
Loads of clubs chairmen would do it, particularly lower down the food chain
Schumi
29/07/2008, 10:56 AM
Why wouldn't a chairman be able spend his money on players? It's no different to him sponsoring something.
anto1208
29/07/2008, 11:24 AM
Why wouldn't a chairman be able spend his money on players? It's no different to him sponsoring something.


thats what im asking i seem to remember something about it when Roman took over chelsea that he wouldnt be aloud to spend his own money that it would have to be the club borrowing that he could act as security on the loan allright. Thats why they have such massive debts now.

Would it not lead to ownership rights problems like Tevez
Dodge
29/07/2008, 11:29 AM
thats what im asking i seem to remember something about it when Roman took over chelsea that he wouldnt be aloud to spend his own money that it would have to be the club borrowing that he could act as security on the loan allright. Thats why they have such massive debts now.

Would it not lead to ownership rights problems like Tevez
The really rich people never ever use their own money for anything. Michael o'Leary uses money from one company to pay for the taxis fares in the taxi he bought iwth another company.

Its all tax related.
OwlsFan
30/07/2008, 7:10 AM
thats what im asking i seem to remember something about it when Roman took over chelsea that he wouldnt be aloud to spend his own money

As far as I am aware they are allowed. Here's a list of chairmen who have spent vast amounts of their own money.

http://www.midfielddynamo.com/owners/best_british.htm
minty
18/08/2008, 11:00 AM
they are definitely allowed to
pete
18/08/2008, 11:31 AM
thats what im asking i seem to remember something about it when Roman took over chelsea that he wouldnt be aloud to spend his own money that it would have to be the club borrowing that he could act as security on the loan allright. Thats why they have such massive debts now.


The advantage of borrowing through the company (e.g. Chelsea Ltd or whatever they called) is he can walk away debt free. Might be different if he is securing the loans.
Mayo_Bhoy
24/08/2008, 2:21 AM
Surely if it's a PLC it's not that straightforward?:confused:

dermotdesmondcsc