Manxst

this is why I don’t get people saying wiping Chelsea’s debt shouldn’t have any bearing on their ffp: “Chelsea's Premier League rivals are questioning whether owner Roman Abramovich can act on his promise to write off the club's £1.5bn debt without breaking profit and sustainability rules. Chelsea have been clear that he can but some clubs want the issue investigated, which could ultimately lead to a points deduction or the debt having to be repaid, complicating an already-complex transaction. The Premier League board would ultimately make the decision whether to charge the club. The Premier League's Profit and Sustainability rules are its version of UEFA's Financial Fair Play rules, though far more generous. Premier League clubs can make losses of £105m over three years if the owners guarantee £90m worth of secure funding. But anything greater than that is subject to disciplinary action, which can results in a points penalty. Leading football QC Nick De Marco, who acted for Newcastle United in the Saudi takeover, believes that the Premier League may have to take action, just as the English Football League did when QPR's owners tried to write off a much smaller debt to get round the Football League's Financial Fair Play rules. QPR ended paying a £20m in fines and legal costs. Under current Premier League rules, the owners are only allowed to put in £90m over three years and anything in excess of that is treated as a debt. So, if Chelsea's owner had written off the £1.5bn debt it would likely then become a £1.5bn debt for Profit and Sustainability accounting purposes. De Marco said: 'It may not be treated as debt for the purposes of an annual return under UEFA's Financial Fair Play or the Premier League's Profit and Sustainability rules. And large parts of the debt was entered into before Premier League or UEFA rules existed. 'If a club normally had a debt of £1.5bn it would obviously be in significant breach of those rules, and likely be subject to a substantial points deduction. 'However, what is the accounting treatment of writing off that debt? This was a direct issue in the QPR Financial Fair Play case. 'It was a different set of rules [EFL] and circumstances but when QPR were charged, the owners said: "We will write off the £60m shareholders debt. And that will then improve the accounts, so the club won’t be in breach." The Football League looked at that and had expert accounting advice which said that if you do that, that’s treated as an equity contribution by the owner. In other words, the owner putting in £60m in that year. 'Under current Premier League rules, the owners are only allowed to put in £90m over three years and anything in excess of that is treated as a debt. So, if Chelsea’s owner had written off the £1.5bn debt it would likely then become a £1.5bn debt for Profit and Sustainability accounting purposes. ‘Things are made more complicated by the government sanctions, which are likely to mean Roman Abramovich can neither write off the debt or be paid it. Unless the government relaxes the sanctions, anyone who buys Chelsea isn’t allowed to pay back the debt to Roman Abramovich. 'But if that means that Chelsea gets an unfair advantage under the Profit and Sustainability rules because of government sanctions, it’s still an unfair advantage. ‘The fact that the debt can't be paid back is a defence Chelsea might run in any charge were forthcoming. Maybe the Premier League will say you have to pay the £1.5bn back but it's legally impossible to pay it to Abramovich so you're going to have to set up a charity or foundation or pay it that way, so that neither Abramovich nor the club get the benefit.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10631815/amp/Chelseas-rivals-question-Roman-Abramovich-write-debt-without-breaking-rules.html

They’re still under investigation by some agencies (including the PL?) I believe?

They also got warned by UEFA regarding over inflated sponsorship deals…

Man City have bought over £100m with Haaland and Philips, although, as you say, they’ve sold Sterling and Zinchenko too. we have spent our cash, but are still well within what we can and (are allowed to) spend, due to the relative thrift we’ve had in previous years. you’re right though, in that the top clubs spend what seems like a disproportionately excessive amount due purely to the huge sponsorship and commercial deals they have- far above the likes of us as it currently stands. Hopefully this will be rectified next year.

We’re still well within ffp limitations due to how Ashley ran the club. We just don’t seem to want to splash lots at the current time due to then not being able to spend lots again in the future under our current sponsorship income. Once sponsorship improves to match the top clubs, we’ll be able to have more leeway for transfers, but it seems we’ll have to wait until next year for that.

Man City for one- still under investigation for various things including false sponsorship payments

They had £1.5bn debt written off as part of the deal, so can now spend freely and get back into debt again…

They still need to reduce the wage bill?

???

@Milanistasays Berardi is shite which is why Milan haven’t bought him, despite crying out for a player in that position.

https://theathletic.com/3468740/2022/08/03/barcelona-money-finances-crisis/?source=user-shared-article good article about Barcelonas finances, desperation for loans, trying to bribe UEFA officials etc…

Augustinsson and Olsen also

If they sign Cucarella (50m) and De Jong (75m), it would take them to around £225m spent (Sterling 45m, Koul 34m, Chuk 20m + 2 others of ‘negligible value’ for the sake of it). They haven’t recouped any money in outgoings.

Or Lille as our feeder club

He’s played central midfield as well as centre back, but is primarily a DM- nothing like Maddison.

Onana is a defensive midfielder

Saw a tweet yesterday to say Ashworth was actually physically at Leicester. Think it was from one of the usual whoppers though.

They have several high earners. By losing him, they’ve saved around 3%, but obviously now need a replacement too. They still need to bring it down a lot further or else fall foul of the new FFP rules.

Because they also need to lower their wages which stand at 105% of income?

Yes, because they have to sell one of their best players and have also lost their goalkeeper.

But Leicester seemingly HAVE to sell, unlike Leeds and Everton.

The likes of Daka and Iheanacho have also seemingly regressed due their lack of playing time.

For their ability to play multiple positions, plus the relative lack of other options in those positions? We’ve plenty of attacking midfield players.

Or the managers of those other teams, as none are buying him. ? (For what it’s worth, I rate him highly, but can’t see him getting in those teams compared to ours).

Yeah…but he’d be on the bench for all those teams (West Ham excepted)… Southgate wouldn’t pick him as a starter if that’s the case.