City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

Re: "City face Euro Expulsion"

Just to get things straight, as I understand it:

1) We've got to fail FFP.
2) We have to be sanctioned for (1).
3) The sanction has to be one that we find unacceptable.
4) We've got to agree a plea bargain.
5) An interested party has to challenge that.
6) The challenge has to be successful.

Strictly speaking (1) will happen but if everything is kosher then (2) won't. (3) to (6) then become irrelevant.
 
Re: "City face Euro Expulsion"

The legal challenge to ffpr is imminent and the cabal probably know it aint gonna stand up so wouldnt surprise me if dodgy moves were afoot to do short term damage to us
 
Re: "City face Euro Expulsion"

Can someone explain how this makes sense:

Under the rules, which cover the most recent two years of annual accounts, Chelsea would meet the criteria by virtue of their £1.4m profit in 2012, even though they then lost £49.4m in 2013.

Quelle et le difference?

If pre-2010 wages are £80m we make a "profit" this year,

Tevez was costing us nearly £20m a year on accounting terms (wages + amortisation)
With the sale of balotelli, new contracts for silva and toure amortisation costs further down.
£80m summer 2013 spend adds about £20m/year. Wages for all 5 supposed to be same as just for Mario and Carlos.

Therefore highly likely we have actually cut costs this year compared to last

Big problem with FFP reporting is lack of appreciation of accounting principles.

Chelsea selling mata and de bruyne and purchase of 4 players made out to be at a profit but those 2 were not on high wages therefore costs of the 4 are actually more than the 2
 
Re: "City face Euro Expulsion"

FFP has a lot to answer for ..... £60 for a Footy Shirt ........ UFFA barstards!!
 
Re: "City face Euro Expulsion"

Prestwich_Blue said:
Just to get things straight, as I understand it:

1) We've got to fail FFP.
2) We have to be sanctioned for (1).
3) The sanction has to be one that we find unacceptable.
4) We've got to agree a plea bargain.
5) An interested party has to challenge that.
6) The challenge has to be successful.

Strictly speaking (1) will happen but if everything is kosher then (2) won't. (3) to (6) then become irrelevant.

That's what I'm saying. But the press go big on 5 = clubs will gang up on us ....and that has sent a lot of blues off hating these mythical clubs and wanting a big fight over something that hasn't happened. For the press job done!
 
Re: "City face Euro Expulsion"

My main annoyance about FFP is it is so obviously aimed at us but you can't prove it. When Chelsea got taken over and spunked the cash and won the league x number of times nothing was said. The minute we did it's suddenly a disgrace that must be stopped by bringing in new laws which not only stop us but any other small club from being bought and invested in. I can't wait for it to fail to shut every single person who says we "ruined football" when they'd been at it for years themselves.
 
Re: "City face Euro Expulsion"

Chelsea are actually in a bit of trouble this year as far as FFP goes.

We can use the June 2010 wage exemption because we have shown a positive flow in our accounts. We lost £100m the first year and £50m the next.

Chelsea made £2m the first year and lost £50m the second year so they are moving in the wrong direction thus ccan't use the June 2010 wage exemption. If they do not break even this year (and they've already spent £109m on players), they will fail MP2. One of the major reasons Mata had to go before the end of the season (and financial year in May), to try and reclaw some of that money
 
Re: "City face Euro Expulsion"

I would love to see them try... Not a chance in hell that they'd be able to ban us. It'd only end in disaster for UEFA!
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.