Football Finance
- Thread starter King Binny
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
That’s right. They’ve had two deductions this season. One relates to last year, one to the year before. I think this one would be worse because the commission clearly bottled it. And I still think those other clubs might sue, but they would have had to wait for the outcome of the appeal first. Same again here.
Am out this pm mate, will take a look tonight. Thanks for flagging it.
This confuses me immensely
OK, hang on to your hats.
First of all, Chelsea FC's accounts (being the company that has the licence to trade as a football club) - loss of £166.8m. Wages £373.4m. Amortisation of £203m.
This company is bang to rights on PSR on its 2023 results alone. It lost a further £263m in the previous 2 years. They must have some hidden deal with the PL to ignore costs of stadium development (the ill-fated Battersea Power Station project and others) plus an allowance for the sanctions against the Russian. Even so, something stinks there, before we get to the shifty accounting trickery.
On that point, let's start with a picture of the corporate structure (simplified).
IMAGE WON'T SAVE FOR SOME REASON - WILL TRY AGAIN LATER
I believe they are reporting results for the companies within the dotted line for PSR purposes. Their argument is probably that Chelsea Football Club doesn't run the entirety of the football operation on its own (but there's no reason why it shouldn't - it's what most other clubs do, although some have their (newly-built) stadiums in separate subsidiary companies for entirely legitimate financing reasons - it's what Arsenal did and what Everton are doing). The main trading company is in red, and that is the football club. But the holding company (green) has sold properties at a gain of £76.5m (this profit is NOT in Chelsea Football Club's books, it's in the green company's books). The sale was to Blueco22 Properties Limited, a new company which was set up purely for this purpose. Because Blueco22 Properties sits outside the dotted line (for which I believe PSR is reported), the profit on the inter-company sale (NOT paid for in cash, by the way) sits within the PSR accounts and is not cancelled out when preparing the groups combined results because the buying company is not part of the (PSR-reporting) group.
I don't think the rules prohibit this, but in my view they are bloody cheats and should be hauled up by the PL for manufacturing a false profit which isn't attributable to their football business. Unlike City, there probably isn't an issue with valuation here (the property is probably worth what they sold it for) but the PL should insist that they exclude Chelsea FC Holdings from their reporting group, and in so doing they wouldn't be able to count the profit against their PSR. This is basically the same as all those Championship clubs that sold (but then leased back) their stadiums to get around FFP. It shouldn't be allowed, but it's probably not against the rules.
First of all, Chelsea FC's accounts (being the company that has the licence to trade as a football club) - loss of £166.8m. Wages £373.4m. Amortisation of £203m.
This company is bang to rights on PSR on its 2023 results alone. It lost a further £263m in the previous 2 years. They must have some hidden deal with the PL to ignore costs of stadium development (the ill-fated Battersea Power Station project and others) plus an allowance for the sanctions against the Russian. Even so, something stinks there, before we get to the shifty accounting trickery.
On that point, let's start with a picture of the corporate structure (simplified).
IMAGE WON'T SAVE FOR SOME REASON - WILL TRY AGAIN LATER
I believe they are reporting results for the companies within the dotted line for PSR purposes. Their argument is probably that Chelsea Football Club doesn't run the entirety of the football operation on its own (but there's no reason why it shouldn't - it's what most other clubs do, although some have their (newly-built) stadiums in separate subsidiary companies for entirely legitimate financing reasons - it's what Arsenal did and what Everton are doing). The main trading company is in red, and that is the football club. But the holding company (green) has sold properties at a gain of £76.5m (this profit is NOT in Chelsea Football Club's books, it's in the green company's books). The sale was to Blueco22 Properties Limited, a new company which was set up purely for this purpose. Because Blueco22 Properties sits outside the dotted line (for which I believe PSR is reported), the profit on the inter-company sale (NOT paid for in cash, by the way) sits within the PSR accounts and is not cancelled out when preparing the groups combined results because the buying company is not part of the (PSR-reporting) group.
I don't think the rules prohibit this, but in my view they are bloody cheats and should be hauled up by the PL for manufacturing a false profit which isn't attributable to their football business. Unlike City, there probably isn't an issue with valuation here (the property is probably worth what they sold it for) but the PL should insist that they exclude Chelsea FC Holdings from their reporting group, and in so doing they wouldn't be able to count the profit against their PSR. This is basically the same as all those Championship clubs that sold (but then leased back) their stadiums to get around FFP. It shouldn't be allowed, but it's probably not against the rules.
Last edited:
In case anyone missed it, the BlueShite have a loan repayment deadline "today". I've seen it reported that the loan is secured against Moshiri's shares in the club, so if Everton were to default the lenders could, theoretically, take control of the club. I haven't checked if this is true, and it's not always possible to tell. If they haven't been able to agree an extension on the repayment terms, then it will be a test of Moshiri's supposed wealth. If he has the cash, he should put it into the club so they can repay the debt (and he keeps his shares, which should still be worth more than the amount of the debt - £160m).
The deadline for all of this is supposedly midnight New York time, so it should be resolved overnight. But if it isn't, tomorrow will be an interesting day. A lot of the red-tops are reporting a risk of administration tonight, but I think that is probably premature.
The deadline for all of this is supposedly midnight New York time, so it should be resolved overnight. But if it isn't, tomorrow will be an interesting day. A lot of the red-tops are reporting a risk of administration tonight, but I think that is probably premature.
I’ve just had a wank
Midnight New York time (5am UK). Hope you can hold out.
My morning wood will be put to good use.
it's @momoWASboss i'd be apologizing to. Wasted a wank on nothing
No such thing as a wasted wank, even my worst one was ace.
I’ll need to find another use for my morning wood.
You could give Darwin an opportunity to improve his “finishing”.
OKX and Manchester City launch ‘Unseen City Shirts' featuring re-designed jerseys as digital collectibles
Apr 22, 2024
Absolutely nothing to see. Not a dodgy £50 million going into the accounts.
Im sure I'd heard a few months ago it was expected to start around the end of the summer or early autumn
Do does a spending cap put a hard limit on how much a club spends? If so then no amount of getting your cousins dog to sponsor the urinals for £100M per year will increase how much you can spend, right? So how come City & Newcastle voted for it?
@Beamrider - answers on a (small) postcard please
EDIT: In fact doesn't a spending cap mean that any revenue increases, via whatever route, just ends up being additional profit for the owners? Or is the cap set so high that it is irrelevant?
OK - maybe a medium sized post card.
@Beamrider - answers on a (small) postcard please
EDIT: In fact doesn't a spending cap mean that any revenue increases, via whatever route, just ends up being additional profit for the owners? Or is the cap set so high that it is irrelevant?
OK - maybe a medium sized post card.
Similar threads
