PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Chelsea have sold their women's team to themselves for £200m. What EBITDA multiplier did they use to arrive at that valuation, 1000 ?

What about related parties?

Hilarious, talk about sticking two fingers up at the PL and their PSRules.

And we get hauled over the coals for a possible £1m odd payment to a manager from 10 plus years ago and some hacked emails deliberately taken out of context.

The whole thing is an utter joke and a witch hunt.
 
Last edited:
Prophet of Doom said:
This is the madness the PL have signed themselves up for. Doomsday.

If it’s bad news for City in the hearing then the PL as we know it is finished ( or will be fairly quickly ).

City the PL and some other clubs will enter a dog fight that will last years have serious casualties.
Click to expand...

IMHO it all needs culling anyway, imagine doing this to your own product? The money men have another plan.

Money moved to Italy, then it fucked off to Spain until it finally ended in blighty, what next auf wiedersehen pet?
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
Chelsea are NOT circumventing any rules because the Premier League do not have any rules to prevent this. The PL wanted to introduce a rule to prevent it but it only 11 clubs voted for it (needing 14) and 9 against.
From Stefan's twitter:

Click to expand...


And yet illegal rules invented to try & stop us always get the 14……

Curious & curiouser.
 
terraloon said:
Bohley suggested the other day that the value of the club is now greater than the sum paid to buy it
Click to expand...

He's a genius, imagine buying 42 players and making the bold statement the club is worth more than before he bought them.

Pissing and hemorrhaging cash for absolutely no return, genius :)
 
terraloon said:
​



​
Based on the fact that our ownership group involves several individuals/ entities withe the bulk of the shares 60+% owned by Clearlake Capital and are still majority owned by chap born in Iran and another born in Puerto Rico I don’t think it’s quite as easy as you are suggesting
Click to expand...

Come on. You clearly have something to add to this debate because of your experience but rather than just pooh-poohing City fans' natural suspicion around this whole process, on a City forum no less, answer just one question for me. Why the difference in the approach between City and Chelsea by the PL and the press?

Chelsea have committed the same offences City are alleged to have done: inflating profits through the involvement of the club's owners and making off-the-books payments. Apparently, in City's case, these are heinous crimes that require, at a minimum, the removal of trophies but for Chelsea, crickets.

For Chelsea, the PL seem to think there isn't a specific rule for selling assets to a parent company so they have to accept the accounts. Unless I am very much mistaken, there is no specific rule for owners funding sponsors, yet here we are. You may tell me that Chelsea have been open about it .... not for years they weren't. You may tell me all the Chelsea transactions were at fair value .... so, within the bounds of materiality, were City's sponsorships. You may tell me Chelsea have changed owners since the off-the-books payments ... so what?

So, if it isn't owner's ethnicity, what else do you have?
 
Last edited:
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
Chelsea are NOT circumventing any rules because the Premier League do not have any rules to prevent this. The PL wanted to introduce a rule to prevent it but it only 11 clubs voted for it (needing 14) and 9 against.
From Stefan's twitter:

Click to expand...


Show me the specific rule that says owners can't fund sponsors? Chelsea will have broken the same rules City are alleged to have broken if the PL would have wanted to pursue it.

That was always a nonsense argument from the PL.
 
billblu said:
Didn't chelsea cost £100 million less to cover the fine there gonna get for flagging up the corruption for the Russian gangsters misdemeanours??
Click to expand...

Apparently, but that should have nothing at all to do with the sanction applied to said misdemeanors.
 
Kakhaber The Great said:
CITY HIT WITH LEGAL SLEDGEHAMMER BLOW STUNNER!

Club found guilty of 'rule breach 115', reports The Bum’s Chief Spurt Correspondent Finlay Foghonker.

Manchester City were today said to be “reeling” as the PL’s investigatory panel upheld the view that treacle toffee should never be stored in a paper bag near a working radiator thereby COMPLETELY DISMISSING City’s defence that the bag had been deposited there by an external trophy polisher’s pet ferret. It was revealed that the trophy polisher, who cannot be named for medical reasons, DID NOT own a pet ferret but did IN FACT have a pet alligator which he claimed never left the back of his van and therefore COULD NOT have transferred ANY treacle toffee to the position described. City’s concerning and flagrant breach of ‘Rule 115’ could see a fine totalling in the region of tens of pounds casting a dark cloud of suspicion over the club’s otherwise brutal legal ‘victory’ over the PL.

We also understand German news website Der Spewgal is set to release further DAMAGING emails which are reportedly “INFINITELY MORE DAMAGING” than the DAMAGING emails released by UEFA and the SLIGHTLY MORE DAMAGING THAN THE DAMAGING UEFA EMAILS gathered by the Premier League. Talksport regular Stefan Borson commented “I think I would very much like to see an alligator eating treacle toffee…”
Click to expand...
Somebody had to be first.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Chelsea have sold their women's team to themselves for £200m. What EBITDA multiplier did they use to arrive at that valuation, 1000 ?

What about related parties?

Hilarious, talk about sticking two fingers up at the PL and their PSRules.

And we get hauled over the coals for a possible £1m odd payment to a manager from 10 plus years ago and some hacked emails deliberately taken out of context.

The whole thing is an utter joke and a witch hunt.
Click to expand...
Side note: Elon Musk is the richest man in the world because the shares of Tesla are valued at a PE Ratio of 184. Maybe not for long.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Chelsea have sold their women's team to themselves for £200m. What EBITDA multiplier did they use to arrive at that valuation, 1000 ?

What about related parties?

Hilarious, talk about sticking two fingers up at the PL and their PSRules.

And we get hauled over the coals for a possible £1m odd payment to a manager from 10 plus years ago and some hacked emails deliberately taken out of context.

The whole thing is an utter joke and a witch hunt.
Click to expand...
There is no EBITDA but it is a related party transaction so they will need to prove FMV
 
halfcenturyup said:
Show me the specific rule that says owners can't fund sponsors? Chelsea will have broken the same rules City are alleged to have broken if the PL would have wanted to pursue it.

That was always a nonsense argument from the PL.
Click to expand...
In fairness, City are accused of lying. Chelsea have carried all this out in plain sight.

It is the off book payments that Chelsea have admitted that require sanction but I sense the appetite has gone and, amazingly, the other clubs appear fairly relaxed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top