So why was the club paying it through third party entities if it incurred no benefit for doing so then soft lad
An awful lot of hassle for no benefit isn't it.
Greasing palms as it were is sadly everywhere. Many of the payments were made to individuals who had influence if you like but because they aren’t accredited intermediaries they couldn’t technically be paid to facilitate / aidin transfers hence why “ creative “ ways were adopted . Of course that activity is not right and it gives advantage.
Likewise some most of those payments came because the services contracted between RAs companies and the likes of Frank Arnesen were judged to be to the benefit of the club as opposed to RA directly. For instance payments were made to a solicitor to take a view on FFP paid for by RA but again deemed to be to the benefit of the club.
If you read my posts I found it odd that the PL in the sanctions agreement went out of their way to not even acknowledge the likelihood of sporting advantage.
I don’t want to get into what about City because they will answer for their own “ creative” ways . But from image rights to second contracts theirs seems more clear cut but who knows.
Ultimately people do things as we have to either avoid tax, which doesn’t seem to be the case here, or avoid a set of rules to gain advantage be that from a business sense or as most understandably believe from a sporting sense.
Does it make sense to do it in the way it’s been reported if having all been paid by Chelsea the FFP /PSR numbers would still have been ok ?
Had they indeed gone through Chelsea books then they would have been spotted by UEFA/PL&FA and charges made . As we know none of those bodies had a clue and dare I say they won’t have a clue about other clubs third party payments which I would put money on is commonplace.
