Terraloon

There is another route although there are tax implications and that is a company can buy back shares . Profit based on time held will attract CGT but in theory can I believe only be done in one transaction if the company has surplus cash

Time will tell but from everything I read save the issue of soft loans (which ironically City weren’t against when the PL clubs made the decision to exempt these loans from PSR calculations ) the objections were about the process to determine FV . Shifting the burden of proof and the access to the databank were the key objections and not the principal of APT.

It appears that Chelseas support for City was a repeat of why they voted against the amended rules namely process as opposed to the application of an APT process. It would seem that alternatives to the amended rules had been submitted for discussion but weren’t ever voted on. Whilst as someone pointed out that in the PL rules there is a requirement to wait 21 days to vote on rules at a general meeting at 13.5 of the Pls A&M of association there is provision should 18 clubs (90% of those able to vote) agree the time requirements can be ignored

I posted elsewhere on the point of interest . The ruling doesn’t mean that interest will be charged at all what it does mean that in PSR calculations there will be notional adjustments in respect of an assumed sum. That said it was pointed out to me that it’s quite possible that say KSE at Arsenal do charge interest of say £15 million Pa KSE in turn as a consequence of ruling around sponsorship simply sponsor say the training ground or maybe become a global partner fir say £15 million Pa to in effect nullify any charge to interest

In most but not all instances where there are “ soft loans” the entity/ person that has lent the money has done so in the knowledge that they will never see the loan repaid nor are these loans secured against assets in effect shifting from a loan to creating more shares isn’t a major challenge I very much doubt that anything could or would be done to factor in notional interest retrospectively but even if they did most of the clubs like Everton, like Brighton and yes Arsenal would probably argue that the loan was either in full or part to fund areas that are PSR exempt such as infrastructures and even then if PSR charges were laid my guess is that there would almost certainly significant mitigation in any sanction Going forward however all that will happen is that these type of loans will almost certainly be converted to equity. Bear in mind that PSR rules were being amended to another form of control and whilst City are clearly trying to put the PL under even greater pressure they , City threw everything including the kitchen sink at this arbitration and yes they have won the argument around process the principle argument about the legality of measures applied to associated transactions they didn’t win and that is the main point here. City I genuinely believe had hoped for a far more definitive ruling and that isn’t the case. The likelihood of this impacting the 115 /130 allegations is close to zero s now focus will turn to the three sponsorship deals that are in limbo and in all probability will now have to be agreed as will some sort of compensation. As for clubs like yours like mine that supported City I would be surprised if the support was for every aspect more to do with what was in the clubs best interest and that could be around the data bank access or more likely the onus or burden of proof shifting back to the PL when it comes to assessing fair value. I would suspect that the PL are indeed in a stronger position in that the leaks some while ago was that City were going to win in some narrow areas so the tribunal ruling will shape changes

Gameweek 7 Palace v Liverpool. 2-1 Arenal v Southampton 3-0 Brentford v Wolves2-0 Leicester v Bournemouth 1-3 Man City v Fulham 2-0 West Ham v Ipswich 3-2 Everton v Newcastle 1-4 Villa v Man United 2-0 Chelsea v Forest 3-2 Brighton v Spurs 2-4

Newcastle v Man City 1-2 Arsenal v Leicester 3-1 Brentford v West Ham2-0 Chelsea v Brighton 2-1 Everton v Palace 1-2 Forest v Fulham 1-1 Wolves v Liverpool. 1-3 Ipswich v Villa 1-0 Man United v Spurs 2-0 Bournemouth v Southampton 3-0

Gameweek 5 West Ham v Chelsea 1-2 Villa v Wolves 3-1 Fulham v Newcastle1-1 Leicester v Everton2-1 Liverpool v Bournemouth 1-0 Southampton v Ipswich 1-1 Spurs v Brentford 2-0 Palace v Man United 2-1 Brighton v Forest 3-1 Man City v Arsenal 2-0 Chosen game

Chelsea self reported for what appeared to be incomplete information. That may indeed mean paying people off the books but it is nothing like Rangers issues nor is it clear cut what that meant or indeed just how far the PL have been able to establish matters without Input ( I would guess ) from the previous regime. Having been involved in many an investigation of football clubs I can assure you that most clubs push matters indeed the recent settlement between HMRC and NUFC suggests that all was far from clear cut in matters Newcastle.

Gameweek 4 Southampton v Man United. 1-3 Brighton v Ipswich 3-0 Palace v Leicester. 2-1 Fulham v West Ham 1-1 Liverpool v Forest 3-0 Man City v Brentford 2-0 Villa v Everton 1-0 Bournemouth v Chelsea 1-1 Spurs v Arsenal 2-1 Wolves v Newcastle 1-1. Chosen Game

To counter that I think you will find that Clearlake and Bohley still believe that they got CFC on the cheap and there is potential for significant growth. Neither can sell to anyone that wasn’t party to the original purchase. Bohley, Clearlake and the other two investors are all self made in effect they are very very successful businessmen like you I am just a observer we have absolutely no access to the business plan , the numbers or indeed documents and agreements made with the governing bodies at the point of sale. As you will have witnessed at Man Utd that historic football business models are significantly outdated and whilst I too scratch my head at times I am far from sure that the decisions being made are random , scatter gun or whatever you want to call them but what is clear is that journalists who have little knowledge of how big business works & clearly haven’t been included in the discussions are way out of their depth

Paper income I would imagine but I don’t know what profit was actually made for all we have been told what the sale proceeds were

As things stand save changes of note to the Articles of Association or the need for a special resolution ( which would require a 75% majority) Clearlake by virtue of their majority ownership basically can do what they want in terms of company decisions and in particular appointments at board level. It actually isn’t that unusual for very very successful and rich businessmen not to be able to work together come to that a significant number of basic business partnership end acrimoniously. Clearlake it seems are quite happy to buy the other shareholding’s so whilst I wouldn’t scream out nothing to see here it’s not a million miles away from Amanda S selling her last remaining shares in Newcastle indeed my guess would be at some point the majority owner in NUFC will be in a position, if not already, to take sole ownership

That’s incorrect. Chelsea Football Club PLC was a holding company in that group were several others , including a company called Hotels at Chelsea. In turn CFC PLC was a subsidiary company of Fordstam. That company had one shareholder namely RA. When the sale took place CFC PLC became Chelsea Holdings it was that company that was sold meaning its assets were sold to a newly formed company called BlueCo ( 60 ish % owned by Clearlake the remaining shares in the ownership of Bohley and his partners) . So whilst owned BlueCo owns 100% of Chelsea Holdings the hotels are now directly under the control of BlueCo as opposed to under their control via another company. That said things have moved on. BlueCo have just entered into a partnership with a major group called Ascott who it seems will now take over the management and running of the hotels . Ascott are now a global partner of CFC . I know little to nothing of Ascott but it appears they are a major player in Asia. The concept of Chelsea Village as a major tourist and entertainment hub under Ken Bates has all but been wound down . At some point if the stadium is rebuilt it will be a project undertaken by BlueCo they already are buying up properties are outside the confines of the ground

I think you will find that the PL clubs ( collectively) will have to pay for the costs. The PL is in effect a company and each of the clubs a shareholder. If say for instance the City case costs £20 million each club ( and I guess that would mean city as well ) would have to pay £1 million or shall I say the clubs will receive £1 million less from their central fund distribution

Apologies I misread the rule 3 year cycle refers to playing in national competitions

The three year cycle I believe can only be applied if clubs have qualified for a UEFa Licence ( participated ) in European competitions for three consecutive years. Also I am not sure that Clubs that use FRS accounting principles ( amortisation etc) can opt to use the method you describe

It’s moved on a bit in that BlueCo entered into an agreement with a company called Ascott who are now managing the hotels. Ascott and Chelsea are now in a strategic partnership whereby Ascott are now Chelsea’s “ Global Hotel Partners” I know little to nothing about Ascott but they seem to be marketing stays at the hotel linked to hospitality games , tours etc . There is a launch event in the next week or two and although the numbers haven’t been made public but at the moment we seem to be announcing a number of global partnerships generally the suggestion is they are worth around a million or two PA but the Ascott one seems to be worth a far bit more I had seen it suggested it was circa £7 -£10 million PA

It’s worth looking at the latest information is that we have 35 “ senior” professionals ironically that is said to be the same number as Newcastle https://www.transfermarkt.com/fc-chelsea/startseite/verein/631/saison_id/2024 https://www.transfermarkt.com/newcastle-united/startseite/verein/762/saison_id/2024 In our 35 we have 10 under the age of 21 . I don’t think you have half that number under 21s

He does. Toney is far more savvy, and would finish 75% of the guilt edged chances that Jackson misses.

Gameweek 3 Arsenal v Brighton 3-1 Brentford v Southampton 2-0 Everton v Bournemouth 1-1 Ipswich v Fulham 2-1 Leicester v Villa1-4 Forest v Wolves 2-0 Chosen Game West Ham v Man City 1-3 Chelsea v Palace 1-1 Newcastle v Spurs 1-2 Man United v Liverpool 2-1

They could of course loan the money, increase Equity even gift the money or the like from their own funds but that isn’t the problem the PSR/FFp submissions will look at the expenditure irrespective of how the money has been paid

I would be staggered if your officials don’t have a plan b , plan c maybe even a plan d if it had s been identified that you have a need for a CD. Place are monsters to deal with but what has complicated matters is they have just sold on one CD and really aren’t awash with options. They likewise will be testing the water with their options list.On top of that they have a wealthy shareholder desperately trying to sell their shareholding. Of course Palace will try and get as much as they can if the do indeed agree to sell the player the 20-25% profit they will have to play us isn’t an insignificant liability. If the transfer is going to happen it will take place in the next 3 days . Palace themselves need to sign replacements and ironically they delay to get a better price may work against them when not having time to negotiate as hard as they would want

I was referring to you r comment about players going out on loan . Than and the fact that a lot of clubs still have squads way too big and have a lot of business to do https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/startseite/wettbewerb/GB1

The rule change re loans in that numbers of non academy players is restricted and currently we are at either 3 or 4 of those have already been used. It’s something that will bite a significant number of clubs not just Chelsea It might be worth spending a minute or two looking at the size of other clubs squad . It might surprise you similarly look at how many players clubs have “ got off their wages “ since 1/7/24. Chillwell is slightly different in that he was given an extended contact of a year or two and to a degree so is Sterling because he was bought in as a marquee signing by the new owners albeit he has failed massively but the big wages paid to Lukaku and Kepa were bought in under RA and under his tenure were deemed not wanted the majority of players on that list of not wanted aren’t on the massive wages some are suggesting and there almost certainly will be takers for most of the others such as Broja, D Fofana, Chalobah, Anjorin etc.