City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

[Gordyola]

Our owners are starting to get a lot of their money back now

Only if they start to take it which they haven’t

 

[Silva2021]

Our owners are starting to get a lot of their money back now

Not really, but they have built up an asset value that would see them make a profit.

UEFA are so small time, with a view a business has to break even over a period of time or so much of their revenue can be spent etc.

 

[meltonblue]

Not really, but they have built up an asset value that would see them make a profit.

UEFA are so small time, with a view a business has to break even over a period of time or so much of their revenue can be spent etc.

I don’t think there’s much wrong with that view to an extent as plenty of clubs have gone under from spending beyond their means. The issue to me has always been they only look at the p&l and not the balance sheet. If owners can cover the debts and it’s not put on the clubs themselves, then the risk to the club is gone. If they really cared about protection of clubs, they’d reduce the amount of debt allowed to be on the clubs book.

Current FFP isnt really about caring for the protection of clubs though, as we all know…

 

[Dribble]

I'm still convinced we've been canny with our pennies in preparation for a major, staged rebuild which started last summer with the departures of Sterling, Jesus, Zinchenko & Fernandinho.

The last thing we want is UEFA breathing down our necks, whilst we're trying to handle our business. With our net-spend track record over the last 4 years, surely we must have built up a sizeable war chest?

Accruing the funds is one thing, the other is making every penny count, whilst getting as much value for money as possible. It's time to get our balls out & make a statement of intent...

 

[Ederson1000YardDrive]

So, Leicester write off 130 debpt paid off by owner (for a second time) and Chelsea wipe oo 1.5bn debt to Abromovich....

Why can't our owners give us a huge loan and then wipe it off???

Have to pay tax on that write off...

Not sure if the 1.5b write off is true or you're joking. But be a tax charge at 23% for Chelsea if its in this yrs accounts.

Not sure what their bottom line is but be surprised if it could take that hit without making a massive loss.

Be a big p&l hit for Leicester too.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

I don’t think there’s much wrong with that view to an extent as plenty of clubs have gone under from spending beyond their means. The issue to me has always been they only look at the p&l and not the balance sheet. If owners can cover the debts and it’s not put on the clubs themselves, then the risk to the club is gone. If they really cared about protection of clubs, they’d reduce the amount of debt allowed to be on the clubs book.

Current FFP isnt really about caring for the protection of clubs though, as we all know…

You're right of course but what really matters is that the EPL and UEFA are cartels and they don't want some Johnny Come Lately pushing their way in with all their money and spoiling things for the cartel.

 

[meltonblue]

You're right of course but what really matters is that the EPL and UEFA are cartels and they don't want some Johnny Come Lately pushing their way in with all their money and spoiling things for the cartel.

Agreed, like I said, we all know the real purpose behind the current implementation!

 

[meltonblue]

Have to pay tax on that write off...

Not sure if the 1.5b write off is true or you're joking. But be a tax charge at 23% for Chelsea if its in this yrs accounts.

Not sure what their bottom line is but be surprised if it could take that hit without making a massive loss.

Be a big p&l hit for Leicester too.

There’s no p&l hit to Leicester is there?

 

[Keepingthefaithsince1976]

Have to pay tax on that write off...

Not sure if the 1.5b write off is true or you're joking. But be a tax charge at 23% for Chelsea if its in this yrs accounts.

Not sure what their bottom line is but be surprised if it could take that hit without making a massive loss.

Be a big p&l hit for Leicester too.

I'm sure i saw reports that terms of sale for Chelsea included writing off the debt to Abramovich & investing 1.5bn in the club to include players and new stadium. Maybe that's how they are affording the massive outlay.

 

[Silva2021]

I don’t think there’s much wrong with that view to an extent as plenty of clubs have gone under from spending beyond their means. The issue to me has always been they only look at the p&l and not the balance sheet. If owners can cover the debts and it’s not put on the clubs themselves, then the risk to the club is gone. If they really cared about protection of clubs, they’d reduce the amount of debt allowed to be on the clubs book.

Current FFP isnt really about caring for the protection of clubs though, as we all know…

I think there is no issue with investment and no issue with owners running how they want to reason.

Think leveraged buy outs should not be allowed and there should be regulation.

However, 70% of turnover on wages, transfers, agent fees. Leaving 30% for investment in infrastructure etc. It’s far too restrictive.

UEFA are wrong on not allowing people to have 8 year contracts if they want them, any one could do them and seems a risk to me, but one people should be allowed to make.

Just against this, someone doesn’t like it and UEFA react.

Platini was the worst actually changed the rules once on owner investment for Italian clubs and then back (even said they can’t make up their mind). Surely it’s your rules on what you think is best.

No club has a right to always be at the top and football does not work that way (as we have seen), but these rules always give the select clubs away back to the top (seeing United coming competitive again despite years of mismanagement, Juve will bounce back etc). That’s what this does and with the latest changes an excuse for owners to create a profit.

 

[meltonblue]

I think there is no issue with investment and no issue with owners running how they want to reason.

Think leveraged buy outs should not be allowed and there should be regulation.

However, 70% of turnover on wages, transfers, agent fees. Leaving 30% for investment in infrastructure etc. It’s far too restrictive.

UEFA are wrong on not allowing people to have 8 year contracts if they want them, any one could do them and seems a risk to me, but one people should be allowed to make.

Just against this, someone doesn’t like it and UEFA react.

Platini was the worst actually changed the rules once on owner investment for Italian clubs and then back (even said they can’t make up their mind). Surely it’s your rules on what you think is best.

No club has a right to always be at the top and football does not work that way (as we have seen), but these rules always give the select clubs away back to the top (seeing United coming competitive again despite years of mismanagement, Juve will bounce back etc). That’s what this does and with the latest changes an excuse for owners to create a profit.

Agree with all of your points there.

On the contracts bit, I’m pretty sure the five year limitation is an existing fifa regulation and has been for some time. I agree I don’t think UEFA or the pl should enforce it though. Should be entirely up to the club and the player and I said on a different thread, how Chelsea have done it to me is a huge risk that could screw them up for a long time.

 

[Silva2021]

Agree with all of your points there.

On the contracts bit, I’m pretty sure the five year limitation is an existing fifa regulation and has been for some time. I agree I don’t think UEFA or the pl should enforce it though. Should be entirely up to the club and the player and I said on a different thread, how Chelsea have done it to me is a huge risk that could screw them up for a long time.

I think you are right on FIFA and is risky to Chelsea and seems unlikely someone so new to the game would change from the norm and get it right (whereas ones experienced in the game, have not done it)…

But, if he has then he deserves the awards that have gone with it.

Do think Chelsea football club have been very fortunate with the 1.75 billion on effectively owner investment. They where supposedly brought for 4.25 billion but they where not, it was surely just 2.5 billion (so sold by the Govt at a knocked down price).

Guaranteeing that 1.75 billion of the sale price is available for infrastructure and team building does not make it part of the purchase price.

We could not go buy a £1 million pound house and say I’ll give you 500K and I’m also going to spend another 500K on improving the property.

It’s no wonder Chelsea have gone mad, they have money burning a hole in their pocket.

 

[meltonblue]

I think you are right on FIFA and is risky to Chelsea and seems unlikely someone so new to the game would change from the norm and get it right (whereas ones experienced in the game, have not done it)…

But, if he has then he deserves the awards that have gone with it.

Do think Chelsea football club have been very fortunate with the 1.75 billion on effectively owner investment. They where supposedly brought for 4.25 billion but they where not, it was surely just 2.5 billion (so sold by the Govt at a knocked down price).

Guaranteeing that 1.75 billion of the sale price is available for infrastructure and team building does not make it part of the purchase price.

We could not go buy a £1 million pound house and say I’ll give you 500K and I’m also going to spend another 500K on improving the property.

It’s no wonder Chelsea have gone mad, they have money burning a hole in their pocket.

Completely agree with that. Going to be interesting to see Chelsea’s accounts over the next few years.

To the owner, he’s replicating the US model of tieing players into the franchise. US sports are a closed model though (and the draft reduces risk of doing it too) so I’m not sure it is going to replicate well to over here. They’re going to need some luck in all those transfers working out for it not to harm them in future years. If it doesn’t, then they’re at serious risk.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Agree with all of your points there.

On the contracts bit, I’m pretty sure the five year limitation is an existing fifa regulation and has been for some time. I agree I don’t think UEFA or the pl should enforce it though. Should be entirely up to the club and the player and I said on a different thread, how Chelsea have done it to me is a huge risk that could screw them up for a long time.

Times, last week:
Fifa's regulations state that players' contracts should be a maximum of five years unless they are allowed to be longer under the laws of a particular country, and there is no restriction in the UK.

That may be one of the more bizarre ideas:
"no longer than 5 years if it's not legal"

 

[meltonblue]

Times, last week:
Fifa's regulations state that players' contracts should be a maximum of five years unless they are allowed to be longer under the laws of a particular country, and there is no restriction in the UK.

That may be one of the more bizarre ideas:
"no longer than 5 years if it's not legal"

Yep. Be interesting to see if Uefa do try to enforce it, if anyone challenges it.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Yep. Be interesting to see if Uefa do try to enforce it, if anyone challenges it.

I don't see there is anything to challenge. They aren't outlawing the contracts, they are setting out how they will be included in FFS costs. As we know, they can do what they want there, pretty much, and have a good reason for doing it at the European level. All IMHO.

 

[Ederson1000YardDrive]

There’s no p&l hit to Leicester is there?

Write off debt goes as a positive movement through p&l which increases profit. Profit means tax. Tax is a p&l hit/expense.

So in Leicester's case it will improve their reported profit (or loss) by £194m.

Whatever their final profit or loss position is in the year they do the write off they will have to pay tax on. Before 1 April 2023 its 19%/after 23%...

I could be wrong as there could be ways around it and also football sometimes seems to have its own rules. But that's the way it works for normal businesses.

 

[Keeper!]

Agree with all of your points there.

On the contracts bit, I’m pretty sure the five year limitation is an existing fifa regulation and has been for some time. I agree I don’t think UEFA or the pl should enforce it though. Should be entirely up to the club and the player and I said on a different thread, how Chelsea have done it to me is a huge risk that could screw them up for a long time.

"Chelsea have done it to me is a huge risk that could screw them up for a long time"


It could also prove to be a master stroke if they become dominant again.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Yep. Be interesting to see if Uefa do try to enforce it, if anyone challenges it.

I don't see there is anything to challenge. They aren't outlawing the contracts, they are setting out how they will be included in FFS costs. As we know, they can do what they want there, pretty much, and have a good reason for doing it at the European level. All IMHO.

I think the latter is likely - they can change the FFP rules without needing external agreement.

I wonder if some other countries have a limit of 5 years though, and this is more to level the playing field across UEFA rather than to stop some exploiting it.
They'll presumably have to allow Chelsea some leeway as the contracts are in place before the rule.

 

[waspish]

I think the latter is likely - they can change the FFP rules without needing external agreement.

I wonder if some other countries have a limit of 5 years though, and this is more to level the playing field across UEFA rather than to stop some exploiting it.
They'll presumably have to allow Chelsea some leeway as the contracts are in place before the rule.

They can have a ten year contract but amortisation has to be over 5 years