PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Everton, iirc, were punished heavily because they didn't take FFP seriously despite repeated warnings. Chelsea on the other hand, have been a good FFP citizen by spending a billion in two years, trying to get around amortisation rules with stupid contracts and .... hang on a minute ......

Chelsea are in a bit of a pickle :)

First, the PL investigation for the concealment 2012-2019 as reported by Ziegler in the Times and reported by Chelsea.

Second, over and above that there was the additional concealment stuff reported by the Guardian from the Cyprus Confidential cache.

Then there are the current problems with the likely large breach for 23/24 if Swiss Ramble and projectriver are right of a £100mil+ plus breach. Both are trusted with their info albeit both say they will have a clearer picture after they see the final figures for 22/23. And of course Chelsea could reduce the scale of the breach for 23/24 if they get sales through this month or if they conjure up additional income from somewhere in what remains the last few months of 23/24.

Also, of course, it fucks them further if they don't make Champions League this year for big £££ in 24/25.

 

[halfcenturyup]

But couldn't that be possibly counterbalanced by spending nothing on transfers over that period?

That could be £70m - £100m per season not including player sales, increased sponsorship, stadium & merchandising revenue, more money for a higher league finish & any prize monies accrued.

Actual cash outlay on transfers in doesn't come into the P/L in year one, so doesn't affect FFP. If Chelsea spend a billion in one year it is the amortisation of that amount, 200 million a year, plus wages, say the same again, that shows in the FFP calculation. Even if they spend nothing for the next four years, the FFP costs will stay at 200+200 for the five years.

What they have to do is increase revenue to cover it: new sponsorships, more rewarding competitions and profit on player sales.

As @projectriver says, they were likely trying your approach, happy to take a fine. That was blown out of the water by the Everton judgment and now they are panicking. United too, to a lesser extent. Shame.

Unless I misunderstood your point.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Chelsea are in a bit of a pickle :)

First, the PL investigation for the concealment 2012-2019 as reported by Ziegler in the Times and reported by Chelsea.

Second, over and above that there was the additional concealment stuff reported by the Guardian from the Cyprus Confidential cache.

Then there are the current problems with the likely large breach for 23/24 if Swiss Ramble and projectriver are right of a £100mil+ plus breach. Both are trusted with their info albeit both say they will have a clearer picture after they see the final figures for 22/23. And of course Chelsea could reduce the scale of the breach for 23/24 if they get sales through this month or if they conjure up additional income from somewhere in what remains the last few months of 23/24.

Also, of course, it fucks them further if they don't make Champions League this year for big £££ in 24/25.

They aren't in a pickle. They are fucked. I said it twelve months ago, and six. I don't know what they were thinking.

 

[mancboy]

As much as i dont like to give this **** clicks, its well worth listening to his youtube channel for his comments on this today. Totally misses the point.

this figure couldnt find the point if there was a sign in front of his face with the point written on it

 

[citizen_maine]

They aren't in a pickle. They are fucked. I said it twelve months ago, and six. I don't know what they were thinking.

I guess they thought they'd 'only' get a fine

 

[halfcenturyup]

Chelsea are in a bit of a pickle :)

First, the PL investigation for the concealment 2012-2019 as reported by Ziegler in the Times and reported by Chelsea.

Second, over and above that there was the additional concealment stuff reported by the Guardian from the Cyprus Confidential cache.

Then there are the current problems with the likely large breach for 23/24 if Swiss Ramble and projectriver are right of a £100mil+ plus breach. Both are trusted with their info albeit both say they will have a clearer picture after they see the final figures for 22/23. And of course Chelsea could reduce the scale of the breach for 23/24 if they get sales through this month or if they conjure up additional income from somewhere in what remains the last few months of 23/24.

Also, of course, it fucks them further if they don't make Champions League this year for big £££ in 24/25.

Oh, I just had a thought. Do they have to comply with UEFA FFP to play in the CWC? I know, different association, but they are representing UEFA?

 

[Dribble]

Actual cash outlay on transfers in doesn't come into the P/L in year one, so doesn't affect FFP. If Chelsea spend a billion in one year it is the amortisation of that amount, 200 million a year, plus wages, say the same again, that shows in the FFP calculation. Even if they spend nothing for the next four years, the FFP costs will stay at 200+200 for the five years.

What they have to do is increase revenue to cover it: new sponsorships, more rewarding competitions and profit on player sales.

As @projectriver says, they were likely trying your approach, happy to take a fine. That was blown out of the water by the Everton judgment and now they are panicking. United too, to a lesser extent. Shame.

Unless I misunderstood your point.

You kind of understood my point, but I wasn't talking a bonkers £1bn outlay like Chelsea, more like £300m - £400m amortised over 5 years, £80m per season?

 

[citizen_maine]

Oh, I just had a thought. Do they have to comply with UEFA FFP to play in the CWC? I know, different association, but they are representing UEFA?

Good point. They only qualify for it as recent CL winners

 

[citizen_maine]

You kind of understood my point, but I wasn't talking a bonkers £1bn outlay like Chelsea, more like £300m - £400m amortised over 5 years, £80m per season?

It would depend how badly they breached the break even figure, and how the independent review viewed their attempts to comply

 

[halfcenturyup]

You kind of understood my point, but I wasn't talking a bonkers £1bn outlay like Chelsea, more like £300m - £400m amortised over 5 years, £80m per season?

Is fine, as long as revenue goes up to cover it, but again the FFP costs will be fixed at +80 for each of the next five years, plus probably another 80 for wages. So revenue would have to go up by 160 to cover it. And not one-off revenue either, recurring revenue to cover each of the next five years' costs, even if they invest nothing more for the next five years.