Chelsea hit with 74 FA charges for alleged rule breaches

mancboy said:
Arent payments to agents represented in the club accounts tho and if proven that other payments have been made to agents and third parties then surely the accounts presented to the PL would be false which is exactly what they are after us for.
Click to expand...
The point is that Chelsea didn’t make this payments to agents a third party did which under every governing bodies rules is not allowed .
If the records showed that Chelsea had indeed made the payments and not included them in the accounts then that would be a whole different matter.
 
The BBC seem to have stuck their fingers in their ears and covered their eyes, 74 charges and it seems like it's yesterdays news :)

www.bbc.co.uk

Football - latest news today, results & video highlights - BBC Sport

Football news, scores, results, fixtures and videos from the Premier League, Championship, European and World Football from the BBC.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
moggymoz said:
It starts...
Click to expand...
This is why the 'negotations' have taken so long.
PL were realising that to avoid the aspersions of obsequious behaviour towards the cartel (and as a result heavily biased behaviour specifically towards us) that Pannick and Co doubtlessly cast afore the panel, they had to be able to show that they would pursue others in a similarly vehement manner. Which to date they hadn't.

While I am a conjectural KFA, my hope is that part of our 'terms' would be that they publicly and vigorously do so, and that this is the first of many more to come, (including being a sign that our verdict is near)...
ChatGPT Image Sep 12, 2025, 10_24_41 AM.png
 
mexico1970 said:
The BBC seem to have stuck their fingers in their ears and covered their eyes, 74 charges and it seems like it's yesterdays news :)

www.bbc.co.uk

Football - latest news today, results & video highlights - BBC Sport

Football news, scores, results, fixtures and videos from the Premier League, Championship, European and World Football from the BBC.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
Simple reason is that we are more of a threat to the darling pet club.
Chelsea weren't even mentioned at all when I was listening to 5 live yesterday.
The contrast between the way the media has reported this and when are charges were announced could not be more stark. The situations are of comparable seriousness and the amount of financial gain by Chelsea as a result of the admitted off the book payments is probably higher.
 
We're Chelsea's auditors concerned about polonium laced tea because how did they sign off the audit if it was evident in due diligence.
 
terraloon said:
indeed that’s correct in terms of the whose rules cover what but my point is, and it’s something I haven’t quite got an understanding of, is around the PLs claims around 3rd party investment.
If for instance the PLs claim around say Mancini is proven then funding of his contract came from a 3rd party which as you say is the FAs area.similarly if the image rights issue is proven was that another 3rd party issue.
Your matters aren’t so much amount non contracted payments being made the vast bulk of the allegations aren’t the same but if and of a course it’s a big if they get proven then will the FA look as to what that means in terms of their areas of responsibility?
Click to expand...
If you're referring to us then I don't think image rights come into it (although after so long and so many other bits going on I may be wrong).

Fordham was dealt with by UEFA at least (I think) a long way back and we were asked simply to stop using it so it was wound down. As far as I'm aware the PL were quite happy with that.

If you're not referring to us then ignore the above :)
 
terraloon said:
The point is that Chelsea didn’t make this payments to agents a third party did which under every governing bodies rules is not allowed .
If the records showed that Chelsea had indeed made the payments and not included them in the accounts then that would be a whole different matter.
Click to expand...
But surely the payments were funded via chelsea or with chelseas knowledge so the accounts were misrepresented in that aspect, the assertion for our charges is that a third party funded mancinis wage so our accounts are misrepresented does that not amount to the same?
 
Blue Mist said:
All the shit is being aimed at Chelsea. How about the PL and FA do something positive.
All people involved, football agents especially, should be investigated and if found liable, banned for life from doing deals in this country.

I suppose that's too much like hard hard work for the wankers.
Click to expand...
Looking at the huge agent fees we pay, by far the largest every year, by some margin over over top teams, seems we must be the only top club declaring them all properly.
 
mancboy said:
But surely the payments were funded via chelsea or with chelseas knowledge so the accounts were misrepresented in that aspect, the assertion for our charges is that a third party funded mancinis wage so our accounts are misrepresented does that not amount to the same?
Click to expand...
The Cyprus’s leaks suggest that all the “ illegal payments “ came from RA or should I say from other companies owned by him not Chelsea FC.

As for were they with Chelsea’s knowledge I guess that depends on what you mean by when you say Chelsea. RA was Chelsea’s owner so yes however were those agreements personal to him and without any others knowledge?

The FA charges are coming at it from two angles1) Payments were made outside what has been reported and 2) Those payments came from a third party.

You ask do your issues amount to the same re Mancini.

I suppose looking at it at this time no.

The point first would have to be ruled that the second of his contracts were a sham. Not that it didn’t exist , not that it didn’t get paid by an other but was the second contract a means of rewarding him for his main job as it were.

If that’s proven then I guess you move on to the question of potential third party but no I don’t believe even if that is proven that your accounts are misrepresented because the governing bodies would be acknowledging that the funds came from a third party which is doesn’t meant that the contracts plural weren’t lawful indeed I don’t think that’s within their jurisdiction to make such a ruling

Believe me since Adam was a boy directors and owners of football clubs have made payments that aren’t contracted.

I knew an ex professional who played for Arsenal and he told the story of how he in the days of the maximum wage would be employed out of season to paint a directors house yet he never picked up a paint brush or indeed knew where the director lived .
 
Not trying to minimise any of this but what’s interesting is that the FA are the “ prosecutor “ in this matter and indeed it will only be part of the story because I have no doubt that the PL will likewise will be concluding their investigation. I have received pelters on here but I still maintain that in all likelihood will be an agreed settlement.
The FA case is apparently the case thats most advanced and as I said earlier in this thread I wonder if all this is in effect following a process already agreed between club and governing body.
In 2014 Brighton were charged , fined and warned about future behaviour following breaches of the same rules as we are now charged.
In 2022 Brighton were charged, fined and warned again under the same rules this time the matter was with regard to their dealings with intermediaries etc during the periodsJan 15-Jan 18. This time it was in relation to around 24 charges .
 
terraloon said:
Not trying to minimise any of this but what’s interesting is that the FA are the “ prosecutor “ in this matter and indeed it will only be part of the story because I have no doubt that the PL will likewise will be concluding their investigation. I have received pelters on here but I still maintain that in all likelihood will be an agreed settlement.
The FA case is apparently the case thats most advanced and as I said earlier in this thread I wonder if all this is in effect following a process already agreed between club and governing body.
In 2014 Brighton were charged , fined and warned about future behaviour following breaches of the same rules as we are now charged.
In 2022 Brighton were charged, fined and warned again under the same rules this time the matter was with regard to their dealings with intermediaries etc during the periodsJan 15-Jan 18. This time it was in relation to around 24 charges .
Click to expand...
If expect some form of punishment from the FA, probably financial, possibly a transfer ban. What more can they do?

The real test will be when the PL lay their charges. Sporting advantage has definitely been derived from these signings, so I would expect severe punishment from them.
 
So Chelsea are the only club to have done this under the table payments,I’m certain they aren’t and haven’t been the only club,brush and carpet springs to mind we know fine rightly certain other clubs if heavily investigated would be banged to rights,would Chelsea have been caught out further down the line at some point,if they hadn’t reported themselves (new owners)..
 
Paladin said:
If expect some form of punishment from the FA, probably financial, possibly a transfer ban. What more can they do?

The real test will be when the PL lay their charges. Sporting advantage has definitely been derived from these signings, so I would expect severe punishment from them.
Click to expand...
Doubt it. Already the narrative has been set.
It was the previous owner, not us. It would be unjust to punish us and the fans for the actions of a criminal mob boss, who is no longer here. Also, we've been very cooperative. Won't do it again, honest. Hardly being reported on too.

By the way, I agree with you. They definitely received a sporting advantage, especially with Hazard, who was a target of ours.

What they should have done when they were looking at the accounts prior to the purchase, is to renegotiate the price to account for the coming shit storm. They couldn't divulge their findings due to signed NDAs which are part of the due diligence process. They might have been able to get a lower price before taking their lumps.
 
terraloon said:
Not trying to minimise any of this but what’s interesting is that the FA are the “ prosecutor “ in this matter and indeed it will only be part of the story because I have no doubt that the PL will likewise will be concluding their investigation. I have received pelters on here but I still maintain that in all likelihood will be an agreed settlement.
The FA case is apparently the case thats most advanced and as I said earlier in this thread I wonder if all this is in effect following a process already agreed between club and governing body.
In 2014 Brighton were charged , fined and warned about future behaviour following breaches of the same rules as we are now charged.
In 2022 Brighton were charged, fined and warned again under the same rules this time the matter was with regard to their dealings with intermediaries etc during the periodsJan 15-Jan 18. This time it was in relation to around 24 charges .
Click to expand...
I think that's what annoys City fans. It goes on, they agree a deal so it doesn't damage the PL product. We all carry on. They've done that for decades, but in our case they've thrown the book at us and made it as public as they can.
 
No One Understands said:
Doubt it. Already the narrative has been set.
It was the previous owner, not us. It would be unjust to punish us and the fans for the actions of a criminal mob boss, who is no longer here. Also, we've been very cooperative. Won't do it again, honest. Hardly being reported on too.

By the way, I agree with you. They definitely received a sporting advantage, especially with Hazard, who was a target of ours.

What they should have done when they were looking at the accounts prior to the purchase, is to renegotiate the price to account for the coming shit storm. They couldn't divulge their findings due to signed NDAs which are part of the due diligence process. They might have been able to get a lower price before taking their lumps.
Click to expand...
The silence from the media is bleedin deafening, does any City fan honestly believe we would have been afforded the same tone had Shinawatra been the perpetrator in our case , not the current regime ,cos I bloody don't!
 
deano ou812 said:
So Chelsea are the only club to have done this under the table payments,I’m certain they aren’t and haven’t been the only club,brush and carpet springs to mind we know fine rightly certain other clubs if heavily investigated would be banged to rights,would Chelsea have been caught out further down the line at some point,if they hadn’t reported themselves (new owners)..
Click to expand...

Surely there needs to be an investigation into why some clubs say Chelsea are charged with of the book payments to agents, yet despite the bbc panorama investigation into pisscan and his agent son was ignored.

Ok Chelsea admit it but the bbc had good prove that rags transfers were dodgy. Yet the authorities did nothing.
Yet City get 115 after our emails are hacked and cut n paste to set us up.

So why the authorities ignore the bbc panorama programme and not act on the finds ?
So why did the authorities act on stolen and doctored emails ?

Pisscan didnt do after match interviews with the bbc for a decade because of the panorama programme.
 
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