Terraloon

That’s an extremely interesting question Chelsea FC Ltd was debt free the debt was actually a liability on the holding companies accounts. Fordstam A better question would be what’s happened to Fordstam and that I have absolutely no idea about. Accounts are overdue etc

He was apparently on around £15k a week at Barca his wage will be around 3-4 times that at Chelsea

The thrust of the SJHL case before CAT ( it’s important to note it wasn’t ever Newcastle Utd ) was to do with structure at Company level and particularly a clubs obligation to take matters of dispute to arbitration under football rules. CAT didn’t rule on the matter , they didn’t need to, the PL had always asked for a stay of CAT process their claim was that the outcome of the arbitration would render SJHL’s case in effect irrelevant. The difference between the City case here is that the club has gone to arbitration a significant part of their claims is that rules agreed by the majority could arguably be aimed at the minority, they called it “ Tyranny of the Majority “ I personally think this is an interesting comment and suggests that City acknowledge the ability of the “ competition “ to apply a process to its own rules as it were but City probably are going to argue that such rules aren’t fair because of its impact on them specifically SJHL argued that they weren’t subject to PL/ FA rules as they weren’t a club so in effect weren’t bound by such rules. City haven’t advanced that argument nor dare I say did CAT rule one way or another re SJHL claim. I have read the transcript and yes ¿through my Chelsea eyes which are broadly neutral I don’t think either side had compelling arguments re jurisdiction but what we do know that the PLs request to wait maybe wasn’t quite met but almost certainly the threat of SJHL led to a resolution of the case before it was put to arbitration In 2023 legislation was passed that in effect returned primacy of UK laws over EU laws one such are where there was a requirement for UK to factor in EU regulation was trade and so by default interpretation of Competition Law to be broadly in line and one such area where the ECJ has paid special attention to is sport where in effect it is suggested that it’s not just as straightforward as applying a generic approach. I personally think City will fail but these KCs are clever people and have the ability to shape their arguments so convincing that it’s obvious then the opposition KCs prove the polar opposite is the correct outcome

The point I am trying to make isn’t that they will ask for more money at NUFC is that being a free agent enables the to command a reasonable signing on fee if say they went to Ipswich. I very much doubt players going into their mid thirties will command an increased salary if they sign extension Of course the likes of Tripper signed extensions but in his case that was a two year deal do you think that he will be getting another 2 year deal ? As for having a replacement for Burn, for Tripper I don’t doubt that they are in place but you have to have in place back ups for those replacements and that’s where the cost arises The reason the current owners are looking to potentially selling Gallagher is obviously FFp driven he won’t sign a new deal if that situation remains then he won’t start the 24/25 season at Chelsea.

I think you have explained why it is worth noting At the end of next season they will obviously all be a year older so the likes of Trippier will be close to 35 how long would you suggest he should get in terms of contract length? Pretty sure he will be looking for more than just one year and being a free agent increase significantly what he could earn . Letting so many players get into the last year of their contracts creates issues . But to potentially loose a core of experience at season 24/25 means that they will have to be replaced that doesn’t come cheap and when you bear in mind that this group between them made over 200 PL appearances between them for you in 23/25 you can see just how important they are to you .In 23/24 you had the third oldest squad in the PL younger only than WHU & Fulham so I would imagine that EH would be looking to get the average age down and you don’t do that by giving players approaching mid thirties long deals.

From the 23/24 squad we have 3 players who have seven years left: Caicedo, Mudryk & Jackson and 1 with 8 years Fernandez. There are 9 with 6 years , 5 with 5 years, 7 with 4 years and 2 with 3 years left. its likely that circa £38 million will come off the sum being amortised in 24/25. Lukaku £20 million, Kepa £10 million and Zieych £8 million. If and a big if Olise and the £60 million fee is correct would add around £12 million. I know it’s not as simple at this but saving say £38 million and adding £12 million is beneficial to the tune of £26 million It isn’t ideal as you say the problem is that everyone leaving the ground ends up on Fulham Road. Blue Co who are the ultimate owners besides buying to hotels have also bought a site that is next to the ground ( cost £80 million ) previously belonging to a charity (Oswald Stoll) the residents who lived here are moving to a brand new development close by and where their homes will be modern as opposed to the current site which is in a sad state of repair What this will facilitate is access directly to the the tube station Fulham Broadway enabling those intending to use the tube estimated to be around 40% to walk directly to the tube without needing to walk along Fulham Road. Its not correct to say that if CFC move from Stamford Bridge, which is still a possibility, if the pitch owners don’t agree with the move then yes the name would have to change . As things stand there are. options1) To have a complete rebuild on the current site2) Recevlop on a stand by stand basis or 3) To move to a new site ( Earls Court keeps getting mentioned ) Back to players contracts . For me as big a problem comes when players are entering the last year of their deals. We have two Gallagher and Sarr. Sarr not so much but in the case of Gallagher letting players get into the last year of a deal creates huge issues. It’s worth noting that NUFC have 10 players (11 if you include Fraser) who were in your squad last season and are about to enter the last year of their deals that’s

You then would get into a debate about fair value ( it works both way) with the PL/ UEFA but , and now I am getting outside my knowledge, I would imagine that the Police could well get involved because that sounds akin to Fraudulent Accounting particularly as you are talking about the same individuals agreeing the transactions Also I would imagine that HMRC would be challenging the accounts which would come with a whole load of implications

Because HMRC wouldn’t just allow that involving the VO Agency to determine the commercial value of the properties particularly if the properties were disposed of for that much under their depreciated value

I would imagine that there would be some sort of notional or contra payment paid from the trading hotel income by way of rent or the like but sorry I have no info how the arrangement is contracted to work. If you look at most commercial entities the business itself doesn’t actually own the building it’s a landlord who doesn’t get the income of the business but a commercial rent.

I think that’s right but CFC sold the properties not the hotel business

That’s correct and as I say we have no idea what the situation is but the fact that someone is briefing the press re our 23/24 position is either bravado or based on agreed submissions

Won’t save anything in the 23/24 year as their contracts run to 30/6/24 and ironically they are paid for a period into 24/25

The PL haven’t confirmed that the deal has been signed off but there again such transactions have to be kept confidential so it’s unlikely that such information would be placed in the public domain. The transaction was included in the year22/23 which in effect ended 12 months ago . The PL will have know about this transaction way before 30/6/23 they, the PL , have only a short period to process maters such as this and that time has way passed . Can we assume anything from that?

As I said in my original post clever people employer very clever people to find work around. Is what we have done right? Depends what you define as right ? But the reality is that numerous trading entities don’t own they property from which they trade

Sad that I am I spent a couple of hours a week or so reading the UEFA regulations and the PLs alongside. The UEFA ones first have different strands such as squad costs, no outstanding payables debt and of course all that alongside allowable losses. You are 100% correct the UEFA punishments are far less draconian In terms of exceeding squad costs there is a table of monetary fines that basically withhold a % of the revenue earned from UEFA . The table does vary based on how many occasions a club exceeds and by what % but I would think that if you worked on say 15% -20% in year one that would be about right The squad wages are for 1) Every male player registered with the club 2) Head Coaches wages 3) Amortisation and Impairment for those players 4) Agents fees etc ( theses are included in the amortisation charge. You then add back the wages spent on academy players Many make the mistake of looking at accounts and just taking the wage numbers reflected in those accounts as being the number they will use. I have seen estimates of what % is probably accurate . It’s quite simply impossible without access to the internal numbers to know but it could be as high as 90% for some clubs ( Everton for instance have outsourced commercial and catering and WHU pay stadium costs including security are included in their rent of the London Stadium) I would imagine that some clubs may well be circa 70% or even lower for clubs that have massive numbers employed in commercial, admin etc. In terms of football revenue UEFAs regulation around “ profit “ from the disposal of tangible assets is not as clear cut as it could be and unless you replace assets such as training grounds and stadiums they aren’t allowed at all. Irrespective if say for instance the proceeds from the sell of those hotels are disallowed it’s highly likely that a sanction will follow by way of a sanctions agreement and yes that could be expulsion but more likely to be an additional monetary policy penalty and squad size restrictions. Those hotels were independently valued ( by two companies) and the proceeds didn’t exceed the depreciated value in the relevant accounts. Anyone that has visited Stamford Bridge will know that there is significant property owned by the club that I suspect will now be sold to Blue Co. From the block of flats which is worth tens of millions . I would add in those UEFA regulations there is significant concession when clubs have been through issues such as the knock on of things such as the sanction’s imposed on RA. In effect that could mean for the years 21/22 & 22/23 the numbers are excluded simply because the 3 year cycle would be a factor in the assessment. What all this has gone to prove is that PSR/ FFP or whatever system the football bodies want to put in place the loop holes as some refer them as being will always be exploited by the very clever people that this very rich people employ to crunch the numbers

The author or source of the information is Muguire ( Spelling) who has put himself up as an expert. Treat everything he says with a tin of salt . He can read a set of accounts that much is clear but his assumptions on a club to club basis are based on those but post say the 30/6/23 accounts he has no idea for instance what amortisation will look like at end of 31/6/24. He basis his estimates on the likes of transfer market who yes are probably in the ball park but still not accurate enough but even then the numbers shown in the accounts will be subject to adjustments. On top of all that discussions are ongoing all the time between clubs and the PL indeed the Everton IC gave an insight into such discussions and allowances are agreed which again don’t feature in accounts. Then you have allowable deductibles again assumptions but no more than that . How much has been claimed for academy , how much for woman’s football how much for allowable exceptional items etc.

The claim if I remember was that SJHL not being NUFC wasn’t bound by the arbitration process as SJHL simply put wasn’t “The Club” in effect that was the thrust of the referral. The CAT clearly didn’t rule on matters as it was felt that the separate process ( Arbitration under FA rule) would almost certainly resolve the matter before it and I guess it’s all irrelevant because you are where you are. The point you make about the referral to the HC the point of law being CAT jurisdiction is interesting and something I haven’t really considered but thinking about that I wonder if PL rules would take precedence but again that would I can see your thinking in that regard.

The PL version is based on clubs accounting period and to a degree UEFAs version looks at the same but in terms of squad costs and applicable income is indeed over the period 1/1-31/12

That process is dictated by FIFA

It was Villas proposal so pretty sure they voted for it. It depends if the clubs coming up had a vote or the clubs going down. I suspect it’s the former if that’s correct it’s likely to be Leicester .

I think that is in the main correct although the thrust of Cities arguments were that the arbitration panel who agreed with the PL that full disclosure should occur was that the PL panel weren’t competent due in the main to lack of impartiality

Newcastle Utd didn’t take the matter to CAT it was ST James Holdings Ltd. Subtle difference bearing in mind the ownership hierarchy but that was the QCs case and that argument was likely to succeed, as you say, but it was because Ashley hadn’t submitted information in accord it seems with PL regulations. SJHL case was that they weren’t duty bound to the football bodies (FA& PL) process of arbitration as dictated to by FIFA and in reality had the PL been of a mind they could in all likelihood have charged Ashley & NUFC

Not in PL arbitration there isn’t. There is what in effect is a contractural agreement between the league and all member clubs that save on a point of law where there is a route to the HC all clubs have agreed to abide by the decisions/ conclusions reached under the PL Rule Book and in particular section X which deals specifically with the arbitration procedure. The very last subsection excludes the route that you suggest is open to clubs.

City have already argued that in the HC and had their backsides well and truly kicked. I very much doubt that they will pursue past Arbitration Part of the contract if you like all clubs and the league have is that they will take such disputes to a PL Arbitration Panel.

Whilst I wouldn’t necessarily call them loop holes I don’t necessarily dis agree with the point you make. The fact is that most PL clubs are part of a group and opportunities existed for clubs to sell on assets in accord with accounting principles and indeed company law the fact is many have taken opportunities to do so but little or no fuss has been made. Remember for instance city selling image rights to an associate company ? The granting of contracts ( in excess of 5 years) was never a problem for UEFA when the Spanish big 3 ( Real, AM & Barca) routinely handed out deals over 5 years nor indeed was there an issue when lots of clubs in England likewise did the same. Were clubs exploiting a loophole or was it simply clubs wanting to protect their interests? It’s worth noting these extended contracts haven’t just been awarded for players that attracted big fees nor did the rule change mean that players like Caciedo or Palmer , signed after the rule change nor indeed there they restricted to just players that a fee was paid . Yes Chelsea’s new owners haven’t been backward in this but the main drivers in the rule change such as Arsenal could have followed the same route but as was their right choose not to but in their haste to get a rule change the impact will be far wider than just Chelsea’s PSR and FFP submissions. For instance should Newcastle want to extent say Isaks contract the residue sum to be amortised can’t be re calculated as has been the case for many a year nor , if I am reading it right will agents fees, additional signing on fees etc associated with a second or subsequent contract come into the equation.