PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

So we are sure they have passed PSR for the period when they sold this ?

It's in the 2022/23 accounts and, as far as I know, only Everton and Forest are being done for breaches for the 2021-23 period, so, yes I assume it means Chelsea's accounts were OK.

Which is very interesting, if the PL really are looking at the sales of image rights and other IP in 2013.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Yep and Chelsea be looking to sell more assists buildings property to not fail PSR next season! Surprised really they they haven't closed that loop hole? Meaning a club can sell assets to pass PSR then buy them back later for less then in the duster do the same again! Fair play to Chelsea hedge fund owners finding that loop hole..

It really is incredible that they can do that. But it looks like they can, as long as it's all at fair value. The PL really is hopeless. They are encouraging owners to strip a club's assets to compensate for idiot financial rules which are meant to ensure a club's sustainability in the community. It's bizarre.

 

[waspish]

It really is incredible that they can do that. But it looks like they can, as long as it's all at fair value. The PL really is hopeless. They are encouraging owners to strip a club's assets to compensate for idiot financial rules which are meant to ensure a club's sustainability in the community. It's bizarre.

Agree some clubs who don't have assets of a hotel or car park can sell there training ground to a pass PSR which in the long run isn't good for the club! Can see this loop hole being closed!

 

[halfcenturyup]

Agree some clubs who don't have assets of a hotel or car park can sell there training ground to a pass PSR which in the long run isn't good for the club! Can see this loop hole being closed!

The question is why clubs can do this in the PL when both the EFL and UEFA have rules that disallow such profits, and when they themselves set the rules for excluding infrastructure costs from PSR.

It's almost like they don't know what they are doing.

 

[dadnlad]

As long as it's not a related party they'll be fine...

It,ll be knocked down when ground expand anyway

 

[bluemanc16]

Chelsea.sale of the hotel is basically a paper exercise to get round PSR. the valuation is subjective because it's not been market tested. By approving this deal the Premier League have left themselves exposed to the City argument that the charges of over valuation of sponsorship money are also subjective

 

[halfcenturyup]

Chelsea.sale of the hotel is basically a paper exercise to get round PSR. the valuation is subjective because it's not been market tested. By approving this deal the Premier League have left themselves exposed to the City argument that the charges of over valuation of sponsorship money are also subjective

....... and the monies received from the sale of image rights to Fordham and the sale of IP to CFG in 2013 which, apparently, were part of the allegations.

 

[Chappie]

Agree some clubs who don't have assets of a hotel or car park can sell there training ground to a pass PSR which in the long run isn't good for the club! Can see this loop hole being closed!

Not until we try to use it.

 

[waspish]

The question is why clubs can do this in the PL when both the EFL and UEFA have rules that disallow such profits, and when they themselves set the rules for excluding infrastructure costs from PSR.

It's almost like they don't know what they are doing.

Should be only one rule "don't spend money you don't have"

 

[Centurions]

Chelsea.sale of the hotel is basically a paper exercise to get round PSR. the valuation is subjective because it's not been market tested. By approving this deal the Premier League have left themselves exposed to the City argument that the charges of over valuation of sponsorship money are also subjective

Have the PL 'approved' the sale? Or will it need to be considered when the books are put in where the profit appears?

The PL have no say over whether it's sold or not, or who to. Their only concern would be the treatment of the income.