PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[waspish]

The question is why clubs can do this in the PL when both the EFL and UEFA have rules that disallow such profits, and when they themselves set the rules for excluding infrastructure costs from PSR.

It's almost like they don't know what they are doing.

Should be only one rule "don't spend money you don't have"

 

[Centurions]

Chelsea.sale of the hotel is basically a paper exercise to get round PSR. the valuation is subjective because it's not been market tested. By approving this deal the Premier League have left themselves exposed to the City argument that the charges of over valuation of sponsorship money are also subjective

Have the PL 'approved' the sale? Or will it need to be considered when the books are put in where the profit appears?

The PL have no say over whether it's sold or not, or who to. Their only concern would be the treatment of the income.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

A long post from Stefan on the Chelsea situation:



@projectriver is this the new rule that potentially threatens Abu Dhabi based sponsorships and is the one we object to culminating in the threat of legal action against the PL?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Should be only one rule "don't spend money you don't have"

This is true, it's just mind-bogglingly stupid that a club with owners who have another billion to spend are forced to sell the club's assets in order to meet financial rules that are supposed to make clubs sustainable ..... It's almost as if that wasn't the real purpose.

Chelsea are in such deep shit this year, they may have to sell the leasehold on the Bridge ..... how will that go down?

 

[Sofiablu]

A long post from Stefan on the Chelsea situation:



@projectriver is this the new rule that potentially threatens Abu Dhabi based sponsorships and is the one we object to culminating in the threat of legal action against the PL?

Having read that post it’s clear that the PL are once again setting themselves up as judge and jury. This is clearly the danger for City during the assessment of our charges. Whilst I have every confidence in the City board and management having done things correctly I have zero confidence in impartiality of the PL and its so called independent commission.

 

[projectriver]

A long post from Stefan on the Chelsea situation:



@projectriver is this the new rule that potentially threatens Abu Dhabi based sponsorships and is the one we object to culminating in the threat of legal action against the PL?

One of them I think

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

By reading some of these latter posts I am getting the apparent message that the decision to abandon the idea of the European Super League was a little hasty. Major businesses like top football clubs of today need proper administration and planning without a bunch of small time clubs ganging up together shouting to the media IT’S NOT FAIR.

 

[WRicko]

How much is Chelsea hotel worth ? I mean the figure seems high but it’s London and it could be worth more if the ground is redeveloped on the other hand it could be worth less if the redevelopment means knocking it down or relocating Chelsea no away fans. I thought I read it has been loosing money do not know how in London

 

[WRicko]

It's in the 2022/23 accounts and, as far as I know, only Everton and Forest are being done for breaches for the 2021-23 period, so, yes I assume it means Chelsea's accounts were OK.

Which is very interesting, if the PL really are looking at the sales of image rights and other IP in 2013.

But this sale has only just been mentioned in the press. After sanction of Everton and Nottingham Forrest which came after the accounting period so surely any sanction or not is still to come

 

[halfcenturyup]

But this sale has only just been mentioned in the press. After sanction of Everton and Nottingham Forrest which came after the accounting period so surely any sanction or not is still to come

It was 28 June 2023, so in the 2022/23 accounts that have just been filed.