http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jan/30/chelsea-links-third-party-ownership

The article can be a bit of a heavy read, to sum it up for those who don't fancy going through it:

- Chelsea have set up funds in tax havens that are about "sports investments".
- Co-operation and co-ownership with agent Jorge Mendes.
- In practice these funds buy economic rights in players, i.e. third-party ownership deals, in territories where third-party ownership is allowed (in England it isn't).
- What this gives to Chelsea:

1. Share of the transfer fee if a player they partly own is sold (all of his rights). For example, it appears that when Norwich bought Van Wolfsvinkel, Chelsea got part of the transfer fee because they had bought 50% of his rights.
2. Capability to buy such players cheaper to Chelsea. If they already own 50% of a player coming to Chelsea and the transfer fee would really be 10m, they have to pay only 5m.
3. Capability to prevent the sale of players they partially own, in some cases.

Chelsea or anyone involved have so far declined to comment on this. However, they might not be breaking any rules (the FA have not commented on it either).

Any thoughts on this?

I don't know the full rules and regulations, but it sounds like some shady stuff

Especially this part

3. Capability to prevent the sale of players they partially own, in some cases.

Hm. While this sounds economically clever for Chelsea, I strongly dislike the idea of third party ownership in general as that way transfers will get only more complicated.

I wonder if the players have a say in this matter, too. I mean, suddenly you belong 50% to X and 50% to Y - this would complicate any further move you want to make as there are even more people involved who have to agree on things.

1. Share of the transfer fee if a player they partly own is sold (all of his rights). For example, it appears that when Norwich bought Van Wolfsvinkel, Chelsea got part of the transfer fee because they had bought 50% of his rights.

how f*cking ridiculous

Firenze wrote:I don't know the full rules and regulations, but it sounds like some shady stuff

Especially this part

3. Capability to prevent the sale of players they partially own, in some cases.

Yeah. Say Man United want to buy a player from Brazil that is partly owned by Chelsea. The Brazilian club willing to sell their share. Chelsea refuse to sell theirs. The English FA says "sorry, can't use a player here that is not completely owned by you". And Abramovich can flash that charming smile of his.

why am I not surprised by this....oh right Abramovich

Lex wrote:

1. Share of the transfer fee if a player they partly own is sold (all of his rights). For example, it appears that when Norwich bought Van Wolfsvinkel, Chelsea got part of the transfer fee because they had bought 50% of his rights.

how f*cking ridiculous

Or Genius?

Look, if it doesn't break any rules, I don't see why they can't do things like this.

tbh, what is stopping Abramovich from being a third party himself? Anytime we sell off a player to say Portugal, he could then buy them while their value is low and make a bundle should it rise.

Kick wrote:

Lex wrote:

1. Share of the transfer fee if a player they partly own is sold (all of his rights). For example, it appears that when Norwich bought Van Wolfsvinkel, Chelsea got part of the transfer fee because they had bought 50% of his rights.

how f*cking ridiculous

Or Genius?

No, it's just plain ridiculous

these *bleep* need to be STOPPED!!

B-Mac wrote:why am I not surprised by this....oh right Abramovich

Hey B-Mac, who is that in your sig and how can I find that video?

it's Kate Upton, I'm not sure where you can find the video tho lol

ffs why is Chelsea so dodgy

No surprise that Mendes is involved too, hes hardly a saint himself

Kick wrote:

Lex wrote:

1. Share of the transfer fee if a player they partly own is sold (all of his rights). For example, it appears that when Norwich bought Van Wolfsvinkel, Chelsea got part of the transfer fee because they had bought 50% of his rights.

how f*cking ridiculous

Or Genius?

Look, if it doesn't break any rules, I don't see why they can't do things like this.

tbh, what is stopping Abramovich from being a third party himself? Anytime we sell off a player to say Portugal, he could then buy them while their value is low and make a bundle should it rise.

The idea isn't necessarily bad itself, but when clubs (or their owners) start doing this it can have a very adverse effect on the transfer market and should be prevented, imo.

Imagine if the top, say, thirty richest clubs in the world start doing this. We'd have hundreds of players out there who would be partially owned by rich clubs without actually playing for them. That would make transfer activities very complicated and even hostile when Club A would like to buy a player that is third-party owned by Club B who either refuse to sell or demand an unproportional fee. It would only do harm on the sport.

i'm guessing after a decade abramovich finally figured out that buying players only launders the money, "investing" in players also gives you potential to make more

but i'm fully expecting fifa to come down on this if they actually intervene in transfers, a 50,000 euro fine and a sternly worded letter should show them

Hapless_Hans wrote:these *bleep* need to be STOPPED!!

you are doing lot of *bleep* these days