FSG's plan is to live within its means. Until the the next set of figures come out we wont know how much of their own cash they have invested....
The FFP is not a license to run a club recklessly. It’s the opposite. Just because you can spend millions on a stadium, it doesn’t mean that you should. The FFP is a calling to live with your means, not blow it on projects that are not viable.
If City or Chelsea’s owners weren’t there, they’d be bankrupt tomorrow. That’s not a business. It’s a hobby - and it’s a hobby that’s costing you money! Every time Abramovitch blows another £50m on a Torres, it inflates the cost of players and wages. You pay for that. I pay for that. Whether is via Sky or at the match.
So you’re right, FSG want no part of that. Without FFP they wouldn’t have bothered (they did say as much). They don’t want to try to compete on a playing field where some clubs can piss millions away with impunity.
***
If FSG are good to their word, we will see that they will have invested
zero of their own money (since the time they bought the club) when the next figures come out. That’s a good thing.
Because of the ‘urgent need’ for players, they might have invested some of their money or they might have borrowed the money. If they’ve lent it to us or borrowed it from a bank, it will be based on earnings. That’s still living within their means (and ours).
Any first five years exemption of ‘personal investment’ would be a transition period from the old system to the new. Clearly the intention would be that that would not be part of any exempt payments (towards a stadium, for example - because it’s exempt already!). Frankly it’s a bit of a kop-out. If it were me I’d be saying, get your house in order five years before we start with FFP. How long does Chelsea need to wriggle?!!
And if there is £180m ‘personal investment’ exemption and again if FSG are true to their word,
none of it will be spent. Whether it’s players or stadium or jets to the Bahamas,
unless such a loan to the club both produces additional income
and can be substantiated by earnings. Living within our means.
***
A huge stadium standing there in all it’s glory adds bugger all to the value of the club.
If we spend £300m on a new stadium we have a £300m cost. The ‘income’ on the other hand - the money that comes in through the door, generates the value. But if the cost exceeds the income then the value of the stadium and the value of the club as a whole goes
down.
Or as in this case, if the cost
equals the (additional) income, the value stays the same (and that assumes a
guaranteed income). The only saving grace, the only source of money for the team, is naming rights. So, the entire source of funds for the team and the only increase in value of the club (from the stadium) is down to hard-to-find, come-day, go-day, annual, naming rights.
There may come a time when the costs of a new stadium are nil - ie., when it’s paid off. It is however in the nature of property development (particularly in relation to tax) that that time tends to be when the asset is exhausted ie., a major re-fit is required and the whole cycle starts again.
While all that shit is going on, a redevelopment would be earning money (for the team and even increasing value of the club) almost from day one - without the unlikely prospect of actually getting naming rights and without the risk of losing them.
***
As it happens, FSG don’t give a fig for value. They say if value comes, so be it - but their goal is a great club and a great football team.
.