Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Yes, the numbers are based on his assumptions and we don't know if these are correct or the PL will accept them. He doesn't think UEFA will accept some of their claimed allowances, so they could meet PSR but fail FFP.Not actually what SR's numbers say. Or mine. They will fail unless they have a £150m non-football intra group transfer (Women's team or property). I think Keiran does mean Chelsea but I'm inclined to think they have played the game well on permitted intra group transfers to balance the PSR position. Certainly at the operating line they will lose over £200m again
When we set up the two subsidiary companies, City Football Services and City Football Marketing, I recall UEFA changed FFP to expand the 'reporting perimeter' so those two entities were included in our FFP assessment. The (presumed) purpose was to ensure we couldn't 'hide' any expenses outside MCFC Limited. However the two companies were cross-charging City and the other CFG clubs for their services so there was a contra-entry, meaning if City paid CFS £1m, that would also be revenue in CFS's accounts so would balance out.
UEFA also said as part of the 2014 settlement that any intra-group transactions would be discounted. If Chelsea have sold assets to group companies then UEFA will presumably disqualify these. That begs the question that if they submit accounts for PSR that they know are incorrect for FFP purposes, are they at risk of being accused of misreporting their finances under PL rules?