Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability - New APT Rules Approved by Premier League

[Terraloon]

On 09/05/2024 at 15:42, Beth said:

I'd love to see what would happen if City got off lightly. Even if they were guilty of most of the charges imo they'd only get a points deduction, maybe 15-20 pts, enough to stop them winning the league but not enough to prevent them qualifying for the CL.

There is provision , before “ charges” are passed to an IC for the PL & an individual or club to agree to what in effect is a settlement that said I am far from sure that the league or come to that an IC are empowered to agree to one in the manner being floated at this stage.
 

The clear route in the PL rules is that the legue step aside once an IC has been set up and the case is decided on the  evidence independently of course the process will involve things like discovery.

 

Ironically and perhaps blind hope I actually wonder if we , Chelsea, are going to be dealt with by way of a settlement . It’s the only explanation I can think of as to why no charges have been passed to an IC. 
 

Back to City as I have said before I am far from convinced that the higher impact charges involving disguised equity will be proven, that is unless the PL have a smoking gun, but the charges around payments to ex managers and players alongside failing to co operate are far easier to prove.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 11 by Terraloon

[The Prophet]

 

[Guest]

Have to respect the bullshitness of it all 

[Wolfcastle]

Much better than the old fashioned way all this is mind.

 

[Guest]

Fine line between “smart” accounting and asset stripping that seems to have been crossed. Wild if allowed by the PL

 

 

 

Edited May 12 by Jack27

[gbandit]

If it were to be allowed then it’s the biggest fuck you imaginable to football and financial governance. If it is allowed then I’d be at the point of either “burn the whole thing to the ground” or “just do whatever the fuck we want as the game’s completely gone”

[midds]

At this point you can't fail to be impressed by how much they're taking the piss at this point. Like, they've assessed their own financial situation, looked at the horseshit rules that they're bound to follow and just thought 'fuck it, let's just sell parts of ourselves to ourselves' knowing the rules are so fucking stupid and backward that I'm actually impressed. They know fine well the PL won't hold them to account or want a legal challenge so they'll probably get away with it too. Fair play to them, it makes a mockery of the rules but it also shames the people who threw the rules together in the first place. The more ridiculous it looks the better

[NE27]

And in other news, nufc sell darsley park to sabic to 100 million....

 

 

 

Edited May 12 by NE27

[McDog]

9 minutes ago, NE27 said:

And in other news, nufc sell darsley park to sabic to 100 million....

 

 

 

 

 

In all seriousness I assume two can play that game, right?

[huss9]

fuck it lets do the same.

why dont we sell the training ground to the reubens?

[duo]

37 minutes ago, midds said:

At this point you can't fail to be impressed by how much they're taking the piss at this point. Like, they've assessed their own financial situation, looked at the horseshit rules that they're bound to follow and just thought 'fuck it, let's just sell parts of ourselves to ourselves' knowing the rules are so fucking stupid and backward that I'm actually impressed. They know fine well the PL won't hold them to account or want a legal challenge so they'll probably get away with it too. Fair play to them, it makes a mockery of the rules but it also shames the people who threw the rules together in the first place. The more ridiculous it looks the better

They're basically shittng on every other team in the league though....other than City of course. The game is just broken.

[madras]

1 hour ago, gbandit said:

If it were to be allowed then it’s the biggest fuck you imaginable to football and financial governance. If it is allowed then I’d be at the point of either “burn the whole thing to the ground” or “just do whatever the fuck we want as the game’s completely gone”

But after their sale to themselves of the Hotel you'd think there'd be a meeting and they'd stamp out that sort of thing.

 

If only the Premier league had a history for doing that sort of thing, you know, thinking something may become an issue and quickly having a meeting to pass rules to stop it.

[Mikky]

Effectively by doing all this Chelsea have cheated their way to Europe should they get there.

[JonBez comesock]

Could we buy beamish and sell it to PIF , pound by pound ?

[midds]

8 hours ago, duo said:

They're basically shittng on every other team in the league though....other than City of course. The game is just broken.

Very true. I look at it from the perspective that they've been allowed to get away with it because of the idiocy of the situation the PL has created. If they just allowed rich owners who 100% can afford to spend to do so then they wouldn't have to find ridiculous workarounds like this to comply. It's an absurd solution to an absurd problem. The more ridiculous it looks the better. The more people are outraged the better. The more scrutiny of the rules shit like this creates the better

[Pixelphish]

Nice of cfc to maintain their villain arc from the Roman era. Respect the hustle.

[Abacus]

It would be pretty farcical if this was allowed. Well done in that case for sustainability by encouraging clubs to sell their own assets (i.e. the ones they are actually permitted to spend money on like training facilities) to another group company to make a short term profit for playing staff. And what would be the fair market value of that specialist asset?

 

 

Edited May 13 by Abacus

[GeordieDazzler]

Everyone always going on about Cities charges but Chelsea’s always seemed much more serious but we never hear anything about them? 
 

City’s are they have financially doped revenue to raise their own limits where as Chelsea actually hid transactions so they wouldn’t show as breaching. 
 

City will probably be able to argue in circles about how FMV etc are defined whereas Chelsea seemingly don’t have a leg to stand on. 

[Fezzle]

Just now, GeordieDazzler said:

Everyone always going on about Cities charges but Chelsea’s always seemed much more serious but we never hear anything about them? 
 

City’s are they have financially doped revenue to raise their own limits where as Chelsea actually hid transactions so they wouldn’t show as breaching. 
 

City will probably be able to argue in circles about how FMV etc are defined whereas Chelsea seemingly don’t have a leg to stand on. 

City were paying staff off the books to hide them as well as inflating income werent they?

[Steve Charlton]

I think this Chelsea stuff is kind of bait for us or any other teams handcuffed financially and not in the Yank cartel to try something similar

 

Masters and his pals will have us demoted a division or two for doing it

 

 

Edited May 13 by Steve Charlton

[Paully]

Chelsea have repeatedly took the piss - joke!

[The Prophet]

I think of any of this was approved by the PL, there would be a significant kick back. They're on thin ice.

[Keegans Export]

The Fair Market Value thing I can understand with a hotel, obviously is an ongoing source of income etc. that has value as an asset to a person or company other than CFC. But the training ground? How is that worth £100m+ to anyone other than the football club itself?

[r0cafella]

It’s one of the many issues with FFP, these assets were accrued before FFP was a thing so they are basically zero cost. It’s like selling an academy player  

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

27 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

The Fair Market Value thing I can understand with a hotel, obviously is an ongoing source of income etc. that has value as an asset to a person or company other than CFC. But the training ground? How is that worth £100m+ to anyone other than the football club itself?

 

Is it the actual facilities, or the land they're situated on which gives them their £100M value?