Terraloon

As they say the devil is in the detail. Will the squad for instance be just the over 21s or will it include every professional no matter what their age? Or what about players on loan ?

Don’t bet on the £105 million still being the number in place for the last period . The reason I say this is at the moment every club has been measured against the same rules it’s abundantly clear that unless that £105 million is elevated the number of clubs that almost certainly will be charged, and yes Chelsea are in that group, will probably be in double figures

The accounting losses in 21/22 were £114.6 million and although we haven’t seen the 22/23 numbers we are told they are circa £90 million. So yep very much in the ball park you are suggesting but without a lot more knowledge we have absolutely no clue what the numbers for 23/24 are or indeed what sales have to take place before 30/6/24. I read a report on Monday from a journalist called Ben Johnson that we, Chelsea are well within the PSR up to 22/23. On the face of it hard to believe but possibly he is right add to it the fact that the heiracy at Chelsea have rubbished claims that sales have to take place then who knows? If you look at the 21/22 numbers there are factors that may have impacted . I am not saying they did but someone far more up of FFP than me has suggested that they will in full or in part be accepted as exceptional allowances 1) In the 21/22 loss was a sum of £94.67 million in respect of player impairment ( £76.7 million ) and (£17.9 million) in respect of a historical legal matter. Impairment features regularly but the £76.7 was the most ever claimed by a PL club and in all likelihood the bulk of that sum came about because of COVId and or the takeover. Similarly the on going legal matter if truly is historic it is likely to be claimed . 2) Healthy expenditure including youth and ladies football along with depreciation has been quantified by others as being around £40 million pa 3) The sanctions resulted in no sales for three months of any description such as tickets, merchandise, food etc and whilst unknown thought to be around £40 million. Also the suspension of sponsorship was thought to have cost £10 million. Will the PL Board already have agreed to make adjustments? The suggestion in the Everton written reasons were that they would accept claims if there were sums either income or expenditure that could have been directly attributed to the war in Ukraine 4) It is clear that part of the strategy was to shift out players who had / have large amortisation which will feature in the accounts but will be deducted from PSR /FFP purposes. Lukaku £20 million for instance of course it’s highly likely that his fee will have been impaired The PSR submissions would be really helpful and yes we can only guess for the majority of clubs but there are some like Ipswich that do publish a copy of their submissions

Indeed and from what I gather paying for them isn’t an issue it is getting the numbers to comply with a warped regulation

Won’t be in the courts it will be by the clubs themselves that changes come about

As to how a regulator will improve things is beyond me because you can be sure they will add more string controls into play. Yet so many think it’s a good KSE but then again so many wanted VAR

Chelsea supporter here again. Its worth noting that if a player is on loan with an obligation to buy then once those conditions are met for FFP purposes the deal is assumed to be permanent even if the deal has not been concluded. Neither club I would imagine would really want the deal to be concluded with a chunk of the 23/24 season remaining in effect a confirmed transfer on say 29/6/24 will make little difference to Newcastles charge to amortisation but will make a massive difference to Chelsea. The only rumours I ever heard that the conditions around performances weren’t that onerous but there were secondary ones around Newcastles final league position that could mean anything from a top 7 position to remaining in the PL. Lewis when with us was never close to the finished product he was always one with potential so I find it hard to believe anyone would be thinking he would be fully PL ready on day one . Do you know the sad part in all this all of us be we a Chelsea,Newcastle , Everton or whichever club we follow seem so concerned about the balance sheets it’s really sad

I will put out there from the off ( this being my first post ) that I am a Chelsea supporter. I won’t be talking at all about on pitch matters and any posts I make will be mainly around Finance/ FFP. It’s a debate and issue far wider than just one club. Its been said by my wife I have far too much time but being a pensioner and disabled I tend to read a lot and a lot of my reading over the last few years has been around around finances that’s sad because I love football and in the day I read about players the grounds and so on I really didn’t give a flying **** about a clubs owners their bank balance it was all about what happened on the pitch. Going back before the time when Adam was a lad most clubs spent far more than they earned. Owners or rich fans put vast sums into clubs cash flow. No one blinked and as you would expect trophies followed. Anyone remember the Moore’s families or maybe lower down the food chain the Cobbolds? at Ipswich .None of the clubs that benefited from that model were complaining or advocating regulation in that era We , Chelsea, came upon Abromavich and he took the model of benefactor/ investor to a new level. It would be churlish to argue that he didn’t change the landscape but the riches flowing into the PL clearly presented opportunity for profit something that as yet hasn’t happened but the influx of US owners and the UEFA changes to FFP and the proposed PSR version will in my view create a perfect storm where we will see vast sums flowing out of football into US speculators pockets. They aren’t in football for sports washing, the love of the club or football they are in it for profit and sadly their day is getting ever closer. Of course there should be some sort of regulation but that shouldn’t be around owners putting money if converted into equity in to a club it should be about debt. Its debt is the devil in football not input of money into football and after all we were told that FFp was necessary to stop another Portsmouth. It’s worth looking at clubs that owe their owners vast sums. If you remember we owed RA vast sums, well there was a complex set up whereby CFC Ltd was debt free there was significant debt owed to Abromavich by the holding company debt that had accumulated all the while within FFP relies. Madness but it was soft loans and didn’t attract interest something that with the increased cost of borrowing will hurt clubs that don’t have theses soft loans but debt based on commercial rates even if those interest charges aren’t paid in cash terms but just add to the debt mountain. Brighton is we are told a model of financial management yet they owe £300+ million to Tony Bloom. Arsenal we were told were a model of financial of how to manage money yet under the 100% ownership of Kronke they have gone from being cash rich to a situation where they have made losses 5 years on the bounce and have gone debt neutral to a place where they owe their owners hundreds of millions which aren’t soft loans they all come at a cost. Everton tried to join the group that aspired for UEFa football on a regular basis but their owner spent far too much without increasing revenue streams. They, Everton, tried some tweaks from USM but quite simply the owner albeit being very rich and an accountant hasn’t managed things well and yes Everton were charged with being £19.5 million over the upper £105 million limit but their losses over the 4 years ( 19/20+2021 averaged ) were well over double the allowable sum and despite getting a huge amount of allowances for COVID and indeed being given a significant dispensation when it came to sums that in accounting terms couldn’t be capitalised they were . allowed to reduce the gap and that was despite Everton telling the PL that they would be compliant. Everton going forward are trying to build a stadium but unless they clear the non stadium debt which seems to be ever increasing and is interest bearing they are going to be in the mire for a while. Everton turnover circa £180 million pa. One of their supporters is estimating that currently their total debt is attracting £3.6 million a month or £43 million pa. When it comes to Forest we will have to wait and see in terms of their PS excess we do know that Everton’s losses were more than £40 million in 22/23 so worse than 21/22 but they have already had 2 of the 3 years looked at so mitigating factors? There is absolutely no way that you as a club should be looking over your shoulder when it comes to sums that your owners could cover in a blink of an eye. Clubs and yes we were in that number who pulled up the drawbridge should be ashamed of themselves. The soon to be tweaks won’t change anything indeed many of the clubs that will be restricted to 90, 80 or 70% of income is squad costs ( wages+ amortisation + agent a fees ) are already way in excess of the upper number. Now to us , Chelsea. I have absolutely no idea how we haven’t been charged with FFP breaches. The PS submissions would tell the story but we never get to see them. I like many can read a set of accounts and based on them and what we know there almost certainly is one incoming. That said the new owners have already thrown a couple of” levers” such as huge player impairment which may or may not all be allowed as COVID expenses, the extended period of amortisation and when it comes to potential charges when it comes to the things the owners have self reported then maybe not a PSR charge but in all likelihood an FA charge which in itself could lead to a points deduction. The one thing I can’t get my head around is the fact that Bohley and his partners don’t have a clue when it comes to on field matters but they are all over regulation and perhaps they were naive when it came to such matters but without seeing the P&S submissions and indeed the agreements made with both the FA and the PL when the sale was forced perhaps they know something the wider football community don’t. It’s the only explanation I can come to as to why we haven’t already been charged with matters we self reported. Lastly city. Ok they have PSR charges included in the 115 but they aren’t around the extent of losses those charges are more to do with fair value and related parties. They have blocked the PL at every stage so if found guilty there will be little to no mitigation. The PL have an absolute mountain to climb when it comes to the charges around equity but based on what I have read the charges around third party payments to ex managers and indeed image rights and other payments to players I think that there is almost certainly a proven charge or ten in these areas.