How do we know it’s allowed ? I thought these things happened then the premier league looked at them
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
Think it would run into issues, I can’t say for certain but there should be some market value rules with connected parties.Is there anything to stop Chelsea buying the hotel back for a quid and then selling it again the week after for 70m?
It would be very dodgy obviously but would there be anything in the rules that would actually stop it?
The more interesting question for me is what is stopping them buying it back through owner investment as development costs (which are not included in the PSR calculation.
So in theory could they buy it back for £70 million and as such then continue to be able to account for the revenue as income.
I don’t know for certain on any of this (mostly based on the fact these are ridiculous made up rules that are anti business so makes little to no sense). Be interested to know the view of the experts to see if I’m on the right track with my thinking.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 9,517
Think it would run into issues, I can’t say for certain but there should be some market value rules with connected parties.
The more interesting question for me is what is stopping them buying it back through owner investment as development costs (which are not included in the PSR calculation.
So in theory could they buy it back for £70 million and as such then continue to be able to account for the revenue as income.
I don’t know for certain on any of this (mostly based on the fact these are ridiculous made up rules that are anti business so makes little to no sense). Be interested to know the view of the experts to see if I’m on the right track with my thinking.
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).
Last edited:
Would love to see the rival bid!They'll be fine if the other company is not a third party or they could have got better value elsewhere.
SatOnTheWall
Well-Known Member
So definitely not a related party then. Glad we have cleared that up.Todd B is the CEO of both involved
How do we know it’s allowed ? I thought these things happened then the premier league looked at them
Well if they are not we should find out in the next few weeks because it's out there now
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
Ta mate.The 36 million is the operating loss before profit on player sales of 122 million. So, as long as they are consistent with the other clubs, that is fine.
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 ?