Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
Ta mate.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
I think profits on real estate sales aren't included in PSR profits / losses for the simple reason that infrastructure costs when they are built and depreciated aren't considered costs. So it doesn't matter who they sell too and for how much.
Edit: Apparently, I was wrong. The profits are excluded from EFL PSR, but it's allowed as profit under PL PSR. How fucking stupid is that? Add it to the list of "The PL doesn't know what it's doing!". So you can lose as much money as you want, as long as you strip the club of its assets to compensate. Sustainability my arse.
So I suppose the only issue is fair value (and this profit is the only reason they didn't fail PSR. Remarkable).
Yes, it’s ultimately might be a get out of jail card for that year but it is then going to give them more money to find the next.
The next question is if infrastructure (real estate) is excluded as a cost what in theory stops Chelsea just buying it back and putting those costs as owner investment.
If that can be done fair dues to them, make Masters and co, look like an absolute shambles.
Look forward to an amendment after the next PL meeting.
So we are sure they have passed PSR for the period when they sold this ?I think profits on real estate sales aren't included in PSR profits / losses for the simple reason that infrastructure costs when they are built and depreciated aren't considered costs. So it doesn't matter who they sell too and for how much.
Edit: Apparently, I was wrong. The profits are excluded from EFL PSR, but it's allowed as profit under PL PSR. How fucking stupid is that? Add it to the list of "The PL doesn't know what it's doing!". So you can lose as much money as you want, as long as you strip the club of its assets to compensate. Sustainability my arse.
So I suppose the only issue is fair value (and this profit is the only reason they didn't fail PSR. Remarkable).
It’s clear as mud.So we are sure they have passed PSR for the period when they sold this ?
So we are sure they have passed PSR for the period when they sold this ?
Yep and Chelsea be looking to sell more assists buildings property to not fail PSR next season! Surprised really they they haven't closed that loop hole? Meaning a club can sell assets to pass PSR then buy them back later for less then in the duster do the same again! Fair play to Chelsea hedge fund owners finding that loop hole..
feedmpenzaandhewillscore
Well-Known Member
Yep and Chelsea be looking to sell more assists buildings property to not fail PSR next season! Surprised really they they haven't closed that loop hole? Meaning a club can sell assets to pass PSR then buy them back later for less then in the duster do the same again! Fair play to Chelsea hedge fund owners finding that loop hole..
Fair play to them for looking at the rule book and seeing what they could recoup. The Co-Op Live arena cost something like £365 million to build, I’m not sure what the split is on ownership between the CFG and Silverlake but it’s another potential lever to pull to boil some piss on revenue in the future. Not like we would need to mind.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,915
So we are sure they have passed PSR for the period when they sold this ?
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.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,915
Yep and Chelsea be looking to sell more assists buildings property to not fail PSR next season! Surprised really they they haven't closed that loop hole? Meaning a club can sell assets to pass PSR then buy them back later for less then in the duster do the same again! Fair play to Chelsea hedge fund owners finding that loop hole..
It really is incredible that they can do that. But it looks like they can, as long as it's all at fair value. The PL really is hopeless. They are encouraging owners to strip a club's assets to compensate for idiot financial rules which are meant to ensure a club's sustainability in the community. It's bizarre.
Last edited:
It really is incredible that they can do that. But it looks like they can, as long as it's all at fair value. The PL really is hopeless. They are encouraging owners to strip a club's assets to compensate for idiot financial rules which are meant to ensure a club's sustainability in the community. It's bizarre.
Agree some clubs who don't have assets of a hotel or car park can sell there training ground to a pass PSR which in the long run isn't good for the club! Can see this loop hole being closed!
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,915
Agree some clubs who don't have assets of a hotel or car park can sell there training ground to a pass PSR which in the long run isn't good for the club! Can see this loop hole being closed!
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.
dadnlad
Well-Known Member
It,ll be knocked down when ground expand anywayAs long as it's not a related party they'll be fine...
bluemanc16
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 550
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
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,915
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
....... and the monies received from the sale of image rights to Fordham and the sale of IP to CFG in 2013 which, apparently, were part of the allegations.
Not until we try to use it.Agree some clubs who don't have assets of a hotel or car park can sell there training ground to a pass PSR which in the long run isn't good for the club! Can see this loop hole being closed!
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
Well-Known Member
Have the PL 'approved' the sale? Or will it need to be considered when the books are put in where the profit appears?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
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
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 May 2014
- Messages
- 2,643
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?
@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?
Last edited:
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,915
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?
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.
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