[Football] Chelsea avoid failing FFP via loop hole

[SAC]

If there is/was a loophole then clubs are going to use it, just like lot's off companies (and individuals) use loopholes to avoid paying tax.

No, it's not right and yes, someone should have seen it coming. However if the loophole is there, we can't be surprised that Chelsea have exploited it. My hope is that Chelsea failed to get PL approval of the sale (within the time limit) and that it can't be used for PSR.

 

[BRIGHT ON Q]

How many hotels do Man City own?

115

 

[Pavilionaire]

This grubby story makes me ashamed to be an accountant.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

If they do nothing then the Premier League are creating a problem for themselves that will never go away, i.e. one rule for the Big Six and one rule for everybody else.

To all intents and purposes, the Big Six ARE the Premier League brand - take those away and where would they be? It's like taking away Johnnie Walker, Smirnoff, Captain Morgan, Tanqueray, J&B and Guinness from Diageo.

People talk about US professional sport having no promotion or relegation, yet the Premier League have - in effect - created that within their league without people noticing because they are distracted by the hype. It's only now that the Emperor's New Clothes are starting to drop.

If Chelsea get away with this then all any oligarch or sheikh has to do now to circumvent PSR is place an appreciating asset within a football club's asset listing then sell that asset back to themselves when necessary. And if that asset happens to be a group of hotels then so much the better.

It won't happen but I wouldn't blame the other 14 clubs for dumping the Premier League and forming a new league of 20 with Leeds, Leicester, Southampton , Norwich, Celtic and Rangers. At least that league would be competitive.

Stalybridge Celtic and Stafford Rangers are probably not quite top flight standard.

If you mean the odious Glaswegian clubs - no thanks. They would ruin our league with their sectarian nonsense.

 

[um bongo molongo]

They haven't stopped associated party transactions, but it has to be proven to be fair market value.

This is the problem. The associated party transactions should have been banned, but weren’t.

 

[lhughes]

Another reason to hate this joke of a club.

I'm just gutted that it looks fairly likely they'll finish above us this season

 

[maltaseagull]

How many hotels do Man City own?

115?

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

If there is/was a loophole then clubs are going to use it, just like lot's off companies (and individuals) use loopholes to avoid paying tax.

No, it's not right and yes, someone should have seen it coming. However if the loophole is there, we can't be surprised that Chelsea have exploited it. My hope is that Chelsea failed to get PL approval of the sale (within the time limit) and that it can't be used for PSR.

This is a loophole in the way that the way that the wound in the side of the titanic could be described one.

If it's as simple as just buying property in the club name in a PSR good year and selling it to another part of the club on a bad PSR year, there is no PSR

 

[nwgull]

Such transactions apparently are not allowed to offset profits under UEFA rules and limits. Also, the amortisation of player transfers has a maximum of 5 years under UEFA rules. Chelsea would be f***ed if they qualified for Europe.

 

[Jim in the West]

Such transactions apparently are not allowed to offset profits under UEFA rules and limits. Also, the amortisation of player transfers has a maximum of 5 years under UEFA rules. Chelsea would be f***ed if they qualified for Europe.

I'd love to know more about this - potentially from a Dullard. Chelsea could easily finish 7th (or, possibly, win the FACup)....what happens in such circumstances? Would they be barred from taking part? And if so, would that mean their European place would go to the team finishing 8th (or, in the case of the FACup, the losing finalist)? And what about next season - it would seem that the same FFP/PSR issues would continue to bite?

 

[nwgull]

I'd love to know more about this - potentially from a Dullard. Chelsea could easily finish 7th (or, possibly, win the FACup)....what happens in such circumstances? Would they be barred from taking part? And if so, would that mean their European place would go to the team finishing 8th (or, in the case of the FACup, the losing finalist)? And what about next season - it would seem that the same FFP/PSR issues would continue to bite?

It's a genuinely interesting question. Do UEFA assess their accounts for the current season, in which they qualify for Europe, or do they only have jurisdication on accounts for seasons in which they compete in Europe? What sanctions can they then impose?

And you're right, even if UEFA don't assess their 23-24 accounts, there is no way that they can meet FFP/PSR for 24-25 given their ongoing huge wage bill and amortisation charge.

 

[Change at Barnham]

115?

They are facing 115 charges of financial irregularities from the Premier League.
A bit of NSC black humour I think.

 

[Hiheidi]

So, looks like Chelsea will pass FFP this year by selling one part of their training ground to BlueCo. With four other parts of the training ground left to sell, I assume they'll be able to meet FFP for numerous years to come

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This grubby story makes me ashamed to be an accountant.

Lucky I no longer had a mouth full of wine when I read that.

"And the national blood shortage in the transfusion service makes me ashamed to be a vampire. "

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

They are facing 115 charges of financial irregularities from the Premier League.
A bit of NSC black humour I think.

Isn't that racist?

If I'd fallen down the stair backwards this morning like I, ahem, apparently do, metaphorically speaking, on occasion then, yes, yes it's definitely racist.

All I need to do now is consider whether to give you a thumbs up, or boo. Boo!. Boo.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

So, looks like Chelsea will pass FFP this year by selling one part of their training ground to BlueCo. With four other parts of the training ground left to sell, I assume they'll be able to meet FFP for numerous years to come

The transaction for the sale of the ground is proceeding, but the question of whether this can in some world be considered to count against the PSR losses is still unanswered.

Surely, surely they can't get away with this

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

The transaction for the sale of the ground is proceeding, but the question of whether this can in some world be considered to count against the PSR losses is still unanswered.

Surely, surely they can't get away with this

Even if they do for the domestic league aren't the UEFA requirements even stricter?

 

[nwgull]

Even if they do for the domestic league aren't the UEFA requirements even stricter?

Yes they are. And they won’t allow player values to amortise over anything more than 5 years either.

 

[ElectricNaz]

Yes they are. And they won’t allow player values to amortise over anything more than 5 years either.

Hasn't that been grandfathered in though?

Also, the sale of the ground etc... is nothing new. Real Madrid are just one that comes to mind that have been pulling this for years, all supported by the Spanish government.

In my mind, property sales should be completely separate from any FFP calculations (unless its a sale due to actually moving). But that would be too easy to administer and regulate, wouldn't it

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Hasn't that been grandfathered in though?

Also, the sale of the ground etc... is nothing new. Real Madrid are just one that comes to mind that have been pulling this for years, all supported by the Spanish government.

In my mind, property sales should be completely separate from any FFP calculations (unless its a sale due to actually moving). But that would be too easy to administer and regulate, wouldn't it

It just means they are becoming even more screwed in the long term.....