Chelsea Thread - 2023/24

[No One Understands]

View attachment 114005

Just read that today. What a fucking joke. Those corrupt wankers. If that is not the definition of a related party then nothing is.

Selling their hotels to themselves. They should offer a uni course in creative accounting.

 

[waspish]

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/39939468/chelsea-meet-premier-league-finance-rules-boehly

What a fucking joke. They met FFP by selling their hotels for 76 odd million to themselves.

How is this even allowed to count as income?
Doesn't their parent company count as a related party?

I tell you what. If that was us we'd never hear the end of it. The whole thing should be scrapped instead of making creative rules for some that don't apply to others. So sick of the top 4 cartel from the noughts era.

Apparently it's allowed even though Boehley is one of the three who bought it

 

[MadchesterCity]

Just become The Chelsky. It worked for their BFF in Govan.

Sevco 5089

 

[bell_mcfc]

I’ve seen it’s been approved by the premier league but not uefa. So depending on how ffp goes next couple of years could be an issue for them in Europe.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I’ve seen it’s been approved by the premier league but not uefa. So depending on how ffp goes next couple of years could be an issue for them in Europe.

Question. They are representing UEFA at the Club World Cup next year. Do they have to comply with UEFA FFP to do that?

Or will UEFA push Liverpool in through the back door? :)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/39939468/chelsea-meet-premier-league-finance-rules-boehly

What a fucking joke. They met FFP by selling their hotels for 76 odd million to themselves.

How is this even allowed to count as income?
Doesn't their parent company count as a related party?

I tell you what. If that was us we'd never hear the end of it. The whole thing should be scrapped instead of making creative rules for some that don't apply to others. So sick of the top 4 cartel from the noughts era.

I need to check, but when we reached our settlement with UEFA in 2014, I seem to recall that we agreed not to include inter-company transactions after selling IP to City Football Marketing and City Football Services.

While that was UEFA rather than the PL, you have to question the wisdom of allowing one part of the group to subsidise another in this way. Isn't this just equity investment disguised as revenue after all?

 

[bell_mcfc]

Question. They are representing UEFA at the Club World Cup next year. Do they have to comply with UEFA FFP to do that?

Or will UEFA push Liverpool in through the back door? :)

I’m not sure how it works. Do you still get to compete but then have ramifications? ie fined and given to those at the top.

I’d like not to see Liverpool there as I can’t stand them.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I need to check, but when we reached our settlement with UEFA in 2014, I seem to recall that we agreed not to include inter-company transactions after selling IP to City Football Marketing and City Football Services.

While that was UEFA rather than the PL, you have to question the wisdom of allowing one pet of the group to subsidise another in this way. Isn't this just equity investment disguised as revenue after all?

Iirc, the settlement (at, least the announcement of the settlement) only said the club wouldn't include revenues from the sale of assets within the wider group in future FFP calculations.

It's a mystery why the PL hasn't followed that principle.

And I know your last question was rhetorical, but I will answer it anyway: yes, it bloody well is.

 

[waspish]

I need to check, but when we reached our settlement with UEFA in 2014, I seem to recall that we agreed not to include inter-company transactions after selling IP to City Football Marketing and City Football Services.

While that was UEFA rather than the PL, you have to question the wisdom of allowing one pet of the group to subsidise another in this way. Isn't this just equity investment disguised as revenue after all?

It's pretty remarkable that this is a loop hole? You'd thought that be one of the first on the list of PSR!

So in theory cheslea could sell the ground to another company who has Boehly partly own?!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

It's pretty remarkable that this is a loop hole? You'd thought that be one of the first on the list of PSR!

So in theory cheslea could sell the ground to another company who has Boehly partly own?!

Chelsea don't actually own Stamford Bridge. It's owned by a company owned by the fans.

But if Chelsea sold the hotel, then presumably they were claiming the revenue from it (as City will be when our development is finished). Probably a drop in the ocean compared to football income though.