PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

bladdered said:
Chelsea tearing the rules apart again...
www.bbc.co.uk

Chelsea report pre-tax £128.4m profit after sale of women's team

Chelsea report a £128.4m profit in their latest financial results for the year ending June 2024, having sold their women's team to a parent company.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

You know these hotel sales and woman's teams sale?

The premier in the premier meeting last year voted if they should allow clubs to be able to sell assets like hotels woman's teams! Guess what they voted yes it's fine! Now imagine Man City had did the same what do you reckon that vote would be?

All to do with American clubs sticking together!
 
Damanino said:
hahahahaha, well done Chelsea I guess. sadly their lawyers imo levels better than ours who only help us once we are in the trouble. their lawyers make sure they dont get into trouble despite driving a lorry through the building.
hotel sales last year, woman team sale for 200m and all counts as proper revenue that way it helps with all PSR calculations? YES.
and you can bet they wouldnt hold back on journos if their club would be attacked like City.
Click to expand...
Have you considered supporting them?
 
Damanino said:
hahahahaha, well done Chelsea I guess. sadly their lawyers imo levels better than ours who only help us once we are in the trouble. their lawyers make sure they dont get into trouble despite driving a lorry through the building.
hotel sales last year, woman team sale for 200m and all counts as proper revenue that way it helps with all PSR calculations? YES.
and you can bet they wouldnt hold back on journos if their club would be attacked like City.
Click to expand...
Chelsea's lawyers are all 9 foot tall and so can header away any legal challenges with ease. How tall is Pannick!? From the photos he looks about 5'10 at best & 75kg piss wet through - it's why we have to keep dealing with these challenges in the witness box.
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
They definitely need to qualify for next season's champions league and they've the chance of winning the Club World Cup this summer. The 2 combined could be a c£200mil boost to their revenues and a major step in the right direction with what is still a very young squad.
Click to expand...
It's all ifs, buts and maybes.

They've achieved nothing as a club on or off the pitch for a long time, and this is a short term solution to get them over the line, in the hope (or gamble) that they qualify for the champions league or win the CWC.

Personally, I've not seen anything in that squad to suggest it will do either, especially given the games they have left to play.
 
halfcenturyup said:
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?
Click to expand...
Think you are linking too many things at the same time here.

We are yet to see what, if anything happens re Chelsea with regard to the matters that were self reported. Of course I have read the articles in the press but ,we simply don’t know the extent of what Chelsea’s new owners uncovered or more relevant the completeness. It could be everything reported in the press but at the same time it could be far more. We simply don’t know.

The point remains that the new owners and therefore almost certainly the PL won’t have been able to access to our ex owner or his records to conduct a full investigation. Add to that as you well know from your background if you don’t grant concessions when people self report you are in grave danger that issues uncovered by current or even future owners will remain hidden if there is no advantage by coming clean indeed ,we have absolutely no idea what skeletons are in other clubs closets!

Do I you think for one second Chelsea would have self reported if RA was still the owner? No i certainly dont so, at this stage Chelsea ,if they hadn’t self reported would following the leaks be looking at some point of charges akin to Cities.


When it comes inter club transactions of course they should be disallowed when it comes to PSR . But, as Stephan points out the clubs made a conscious decision not to ban them. The fact that they won’t count when it comes to FFP sort of suggests that they may well have ploughed on with them regardless .That said the tariffs structure published by UEFA isn’t really that much of a deterrent.

The hotels from my limited understanding based on location / land value % occupancy etc seemed to be high valuation wise but not unreasonable. However the information re the woman’s team seems to be a crazy valuation but the mechanism is there to challenge.
Like your owners ours are far from novices when it comes to money matters so no doubt will have their justifications already lined up.

Who knows ? What we do know is that even after UEFa and indeed the PL stepped into restrict the length a transfer fee can be amortised, Chelsea still are handing out contracts in excess of 5 years so they may have carried out these transactions irrespective . We simply don’t know!

Bohley and company aren’t getting close to the best press that’s for sure but, there again most clubs supporters genuinely believe their clubs receive unfair treatment. I am far from blinkered in this regard and feel many of the press reports have a certain merit but certainly not all of them

As for City I don’t actually think this has anything to do with your owners colour, your owners background or anything other than it’s down to a quirk in British thinking in that we for some reason like the plucky underdog and don’t like winners. My take is the press here feed on that narrative and will do everything it can to tap into that negativity and, in a blink of an eye the whole nation ( save fans associated with the club being hammered) buys into that school of thought.

As I said earlier If RA was still our owner would it be right to say we were being treated differently because he is a Jew ? Of course not

If you weren’t winning things you would be termed almost plucky or a great role model a bit like Brighton or come to that Bournemouth both who have used the rules to their advantage . One running up hugely beneficial owner loans the other writing off huge ownership loans but to a large degree their other indiscretions go un reported , In the case of Brighton there have been some interesting other matters that didn’t even get a line in the national press.

Of course the PL have had to investigate the Chelsea matters . If you read my postings on this forum re this I have always said I expect a sanction of some sort indeed , it was me that flagged up months before there was a suggestion in the press that it might actually not result in charges but be settled by agreement.

It’s easy to think that I am suggesting that Chelsea should be treated differently but what has gone on at Chelsea’s treatment is different for one simple reason and that’s because the PL ,once RA sold up will not have had the same ability to conduct a complete investigation.
 
Last edited:
Paladin said:
Are you implying that the PL will just punish Chelsea on the basis of their admitted cheating, without the necessity to forensically examine their accounts in order to determine whether or not there are any unconfessed crimes that are being hidden?

If so, very good point.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what your trying to suggest.

My point is for Chelsea to admit stuff they must have some evidence themselves which they should have to provide to the PL
 
chris85mcfc said:
It's all ifs, buts and maybes.

They've achieved nothing as a club on or off the pitch for a long time, and this is a short term solution to get them over the line, in the hope (or gamble) that they qualify for the champions league or win the CWC.

Personally, I've not seen anything in that squad to suggest it will do either, especially given the games they have left to play.
Click to expand...
Slightly different topic, but how did they even qualify for the CWC?
 
terraloon said:
What’s been admitted. ?

We know something yes Chelsea reported themselves for what appears to be incomplete matters but what does that mean ?

Be interested to know what you believe has been reported
Click to expand...
Off the books payments to Hazzard and others.

Much more direct link to your success than our success via alleged wrong doing through sponsorships.

Also when you think about it what we are accused of is more the lying than the figures being too high revenue to high.

Look at PSG Qatari deals way over inflated but not an issue as fair market value is subjective and the authorities don’t want a fight.

If we have done what’s alleged we would have been better coming to a deal with the sponsors inflating the deals but declaring them as related party or something.

It’s partly why I don’t think we have done anything
 
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