PBFunnily enough I've just replied to one of Stefan's posts on Twitter which gave me a thought I hadn't had before and I realised I hadn't joined some dots.
He was talking about Chelsea's spending spree and that his view was that it was a calculated breach, potentially of both PL and UEFA rules, in order to accelerate their spending and take any fines as the cost of doing that, as they absolutely have to get back in the top four.
We tried the accelerated spending thing in 2009 and 2010, knowing FFP would slow that plan to upgrade the squad down. However, we thought we'd escape sanction, due to the pre-June 2010 clause in Annex XI, assuming we could hit certain revenue and loss targets. UEFA, as we now know, pulled the rug from under that plan in 2013, after we'd published our 2012 accounts. But before that, we were short of the revenue to hit the loss we needed in order to meet the requirements of that transitional arrangement.
To get more revenue in, we sold the image rights IP to Fordham, which brought in the £25m we needed to get inside the aggregate loss that would enable us to claim mitigation under that Annex XI clause. My reasoning of why we'd be OK over Fordham was that it was apparently all discussed with UEFA long before 2018 and the Der Spiegel hatchet job, and they certainly didn't pursue it in 2019.
The point of Fordham though was primarily to get revenue ON the books, not off them.
Funnily enough I've just replied to one of Stefan's posts on Twitter which gave me a thought I hadn't had before and I realised I hadn't joined some dots.
He was talking about Chelsea's spending spree and that his view was that it was a calculated breach, potentially of both PL and UEFA rules, in order to accelerate their spending and take any fines as the cost of doing that, as they absolutely have to get back in the top four.
We tried the accelerated spending thing in 2009 and 2010, knowing FFP would slow that plan to upgrade the squad down. However, we thought we'd escape sanction, due to the pre-June 2010 clause in Annex XI, assuming we could hit certain revenue and loss targets. UEFA, as we now know, pulled the rug from under that plan in 2013, after we'd published our 2012 accounts. But before that, we were short of the revenue to hit the loss we needed in order to meet the requirements of that transitional arrangement.
To get more revenue in, we sold the image rights IP to Fordham, which brought in the £25m we needed to get inside the aggregate loss that would enable us to claim mitigation under that Annex XI clause. My reasoning of why we'd be OK over Fordham was that it was apparently all discussed with UEFA long before 2018 and the Der Spiegel hatchet job, and they certainly didn't pursue it in 2019.
The point of Fordham though was primarily to get revenue ON the books, not off them.
If insurance companies had that knowledge what if anything does it say about auditing practice?Re the Chelsea theory PB, Banks and Insurance companies were factoring in regulatory fines back in the day, knowing their sales practices and products were dodgy. I assume it still goes on.
It wouldn't have been picked up as a definite entry per say, or maybe a notional figure. It was reflected in their pricing of products and the knowledge that a lot of people just didn't fit the need for the product (e.g. PPI ) but they couldn't be arsed to develop a sales process to filter it out They knew the fine imposed would be a drop in the ocean against the profit - just like Chelsea, if the theory is correct - and it looks it.If insurance companies had that knowledge what if anything does it say about auditing practice?
It's the PL who have accused Sheikh Mansour (not City) of making payments to Roberto Mancini back in 2008..five years before FFP was introduced. It was totally legal consultancy fee of £1.75m but apparently breaches the PL's own rules from 15 years ago despite not being an issue for UEFA or CAS. That's what I call dragging things out.When Manchester City stop “dragging it out” apparently. Even that’s our fault, though we have virtually no control over proceedings.
You can't blame Chelsea. They have no choice but to invest heavily to remain at the top table. They are gambling that FFP can't possibly survive in its present format not least because of the threat from the Saudi league. Perhaps they are happy to miss out on Europe next season and take a fine. This latest tactic of reporting themselves for historic breaches is probably part of their plea for leniency.PB
And, what better way to mitigate for sanctions - which could potentially include a transfer ban- than recruit enough high calibre young players on long contracts to fill a Ben-Hur action set?
I’ll happily blame Chelsea seeing as their former owner was one of the cunts pushing for FFP to be introduced.You can't blame Chelsea. They have no choice but to invest heavily to remain at the top table. They are gambling that FFP can't possibly survive in its present format not least because of the threat from the Saudi league. Perhaps they are happy to miss out on Europe next season and take a fine. This latest tactic of reporting themselves for historic breaches is probably part of their plea for leniency.
Fair point. I suppose I mean in the broadest sense. New owners of any club must be given some leeway to invest into their new business. It is crazy that the PL and UEFA are attacking people who are investing in football. An improved Chelsea will increase competition at the top end of the PL.I’ll happily blame Chelsea seeing as their former owner was one of the cunts pushing for FFP to be introduced.
You can't blame Chelsea. They have no choice but to invest heavily to remain at the top table. They are gambling that FFP can't possibly survive in its present format not least because of the threat from the Saudi league. Perhaps they are happy to miss out on Europe next season and take a fine. This latest tactic of reporting themselves for historic breaches is probably part of their plea for leniency.