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

Originally Posted by Schumi

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

Originally Posted by anto1208

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

Originally Posted by anto1208

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

Originally Posted by anto1208

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.