PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

Chelsea are getting increasingly creative / desperate to get out of their PSR bind. This exclusive has gone viral for Stefan

 

[waspish]

Chelsea are getting increasingly creative / desperate to get out of their PSR bind. This exclusive has gone viral for Stefan

Well if it's all legal they found the loop hole that will let them spend again this summer! Maybe if we tried this 10 year ago the loop hole would have been tied off! Because we know the media would be all over it till it was changed..

 

[jim tolmies perm]

Chelsea are getting increasingly creative / desperate to get out of their PSR bind. This exclusive has gone viral for Stefan

And people try to call us bent? Fucking Chav/yank weasels

 

[jimmygrimblesboots]

Half a dozen ? I didn’t realise there were that many. The sponsorship income, Mancini’s salary? CFG transfers, non cooperation. What are the others?

We ran out of chips for the Newcastle home game a couple of seasons ago and Klippety complained our goal lines were to wide in 2019 , keep up :)

 

[ganganvince]

And people try to call us bent? Fucking Chav/yank weasels

At least they did/do own the land other clubs spend millions on not building a new ground on land they don't own

 

[jim tolmies perm]

At least they did/do own the land other clubs spend millions on not building a new ground on land they don't own

Even billions, with help from crooks such as our owner ;)

 

[Cobwebcat]

 

[Asa's left peg]

Surprised at Stefan. There is obviously nothing to see here - move on. Everyone else will.

 

[Asa's left peg]

Chelsea are getting increasingly creative / desperate to get out of their PSR bind. This exclusive has gone viral for Stefan

How very Real Madrid!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

One of the rules in question relates to the provision of audited accounts that give a true and fair view. That can only really mean the statutory accounts filed at Companies House. I am 100% sure we have filed accounts and provided them to the PL, so they must be saying those accounts are incorrect.

Incredible, really.

And my guess would be that they're claiming we've overstated sponsorship income, and that we should only have recorded the £8m Etihad provided rather than the £50+m that Etihad were given from central Abu Dhabi funds.

I assume they're saying that latter figure should have been recorded as equity, which is utterly bizarre. As long as the additional money didn't come from ADUG then it's none of their business. The evidence presented at CAS proved pretty comprehensively that the funds didn't come from ADUG.