Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Keegans Export]

4 minutes ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

 

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

Either way, how do you actually realise that value when there's a training ground on there? Either you own a training ground but don't own a football club to use it, or you own some land with a training ground already built on it. Surely the point of fair market value is that an individual, company or business not associated with CFC would also see the same value in the asset?

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

Just now, Keegans Export said:

Either way, how do you actually realise that value when there's a training ground on there? Either you own a training ground but don't own a football club to use it, or you own some land with a training ground already built on it. Surely the point of fair market value is that an individual, company or business not associated with CFC would also see the same value in the asset?

 

I'm not arguing with you that if the PL allow this to pass it makes an utter mockery of PSR. But there is also no arguing that a large quantity of land in London is worth mega bucks

[FLUMPO235]

3 minutes ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

 

I'm not arguing with you that if the PL allow this to pass it makes an utter mockery of PSR. But there is also no arguing that a large quantity of land in London is worth mega bucks

If you say that in cobham you will get a limp wrist  southern slap. Cobham is not London, it’s the heart of Surrey.

 

 

Edited May 13 by FLUMPO235

[Fezzle]

2 minutes ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

 

I'm not arguing with you that if the PL allow this to pass it makes an utter mockery of PSR. But there is also no arguing that a large quantity of land in London is worth mega bucks

Whats the going rate for rent payments on a £100m property in London? Surely that would need to be paid in this mockery

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

Just now, FLUMPO235 said:

If you say that in cobham you will get a limp worsted southern slap. Cobham is not London, it’s the heart of Surrey.

 

Ok a large quantity of land in the South East of England, within easy commuting distance of Landon is worth mega bucks. Happy Now? (Everything south of the Tyne is France to me tbh)

[simonsays]

2 minutes ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

 

Ok a large quantity of land in the South East of England, within easy commuting distance of Landon is worth mega bucks. Happy Now? (Everything south of the Tyne is France to me tbh)

It's only worth something if you can build on it now or in the future though. Interesting concept though.  Could we potentially build loads of club infrastructure which isn't included in FFP and then sell it to boost ouR FFP?

[Colos Short and Curlies]

2 minutes ago, simonsays said:

It's only worth something if you can build on it now or in the future though. Interesting concept though.  Could we potentially build loads of club infrastructure which isn't included in FFP and then sell it to boost ouR FFP?

 

The time it would take to do that would make it defunct - either FFP disappears or the rules change to prevent it.

 

If we had plans to move training ground and/or stadium we could see any land that we own around it to the owners (they are developers after all) and then rent the current facilities whilst the new one is being built, that should pass the requirements.

 

Shame we don't own the land under SJP, that would be worth a decent wedge, certainly when put next to our income requirements for the next couple of years

[morpeth mag]

12 hours ago, huss9 said:

fuck it lets do the same.

why dont we sell the training ground to the reubens?

And then bill them a management fee for looking after their investment 

[r0cafella]

Land value is much less in the north easy so it’s a much less potent trick. 

[FloydianMag]

14 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Land value is much less in the north easy so it’s a much less potent trick. 

Then we need some of that levelling up money from government that Brexit Jim is after!

[r0cafella]

6 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Then we need some of that levelling up money from government that Brexit Jim is after!

Absolutely we have a much better case than they do. But it seems we are going to go with a refurb which would be less appealing for any external investment 

[Vaj]

It is an absolute disgrace if this is allowed to happen from the Premier League and makes a complete mockery of the supposed rules.

 

Surely if the PL come to the correct conclusion that this is not allowable income for PSR calculations then Chelsea will be absolutely screwed, however I think we all know that a blind eye will be turned and the loophole will be closed so no pesky non big six team can benefit from it!

 

 

Edited May 13 by Vaj

[Matt1892]

I don’t think the hotel sale has been signed off by the league yet and even if they do, UEFA are unlikely to accept it so Chelsea could be banned from European competitions.

[Lenny]

If anyone's kind enough to summarise for someone that's largely stayed out of the loop on recent FFP related activity, how are we generally looking heading into the summer in terms of our spending capability?

[Terraloon]

It has always seem odd to me that when Bohley etc took over the club they never seemed concerned about  PSR or indeed FFP. 
 

None of us outside the loop will have a clue what the PLor indeed UEFA have rubber stamped in advance. That isn’t just  in relation to sums that could be added back as a consequence of the impact of RAs sanctions on the club but there was a hint in the 21/22 accounts when it came to sums impaired against players values was the most ever shown in a PL clubs accounts that the new owners are for want of a better phrase tidying up matters post RA and in all likelihood in accord with concessions already in place

 

David Ornstein is far closer to the heiracy at Chelsea than most journalists indeed he has been saying for a while that Chelsea actually don’t have to sell in 23/24 other than players already committed to leaving such as Hall but there will have to be sales in 24/25 

 

I have always questioned FFP and by default PSR and yes the transfer of assets by way of inter company transactions comply with FSR which is the bedrock of accounting but as we have seen the more the football authorities try to close loop holes the more the clever people seem to find work arounds

 

 

Edited May 13 by Terraloon

[Wolfcastle]

2 hours ago, r0cafella said:

Land value is much less in the north easy so it’s a much less potent trick. 

That's one of the things about ffp/psr that bothers me. If more emphasis is on match-day revenue and scams like this Chelsea one then clubs in the south are going to be at an advantaged even if support-wise they have smaller fanbases than Sunderland and Middlesbrough (thinking the Fulham's, Southampton's etc.). Let alone pan-European where PL tickets will be extortionate compared to other leagues.  I see zero fairness in that.

[madras]

1 hour ago, Terraloon said:

It has always seem odd to me that when Bohley etc took over the club they never seemed concerned about  PSR or indeed FFP. 
 

None of us outside the loop will have a clue what the PLor indeed UEFA have rubber stamped in advance. That isn’t just  in relation to sums that could be added back as a consequence of the impact of RAs sanctions on the club but there was a hint in the 21/22 accounts when it came to sums impaired against players values was the most ever shown in a PL clubs accounts that the new owners are for want of a better phrase tidying up matters post RA and in all likelihood in accord with concessions already in place

 

David Ornstein is far closer to the heiracy at Chelsea than most journalists indeed he has been saying for a while that Chelsea actually don’t have to sell in 23/24 other than players already committed to leaving such as Hall but there will have to be sales in 24/25 

 

I have always questioned FFP and by default PSR and yes the transfer of assets by way of inter company transactions comply with FSR which is the bedrock of accounting but as we have seen the more the football authorities try to close loop holes the more the clever people seem to find work arounds

 

 

 

But they dont seem as interested in closing some loopholes as others.

 

How long did it take, mid-season, to have a special meeting to ramp up FMV just after our takeover compared to Chelseas 8yr contract wheeze and this new one?

[Abacus]

What a mess. It seems that there was a general panic after Abramovic was sanctioned, and that by Chelsea self reporting alleged prior breaches (still not dealt with), that the PL were clearly asleep at the wheel then anyway.

 

FFP rightly allows you to spend what you like on training facilities etc for the development of the club and the sport in general.

 

But unless you value the training facilities as development land (the opposite of what FFP was supposed to achieve for the sport), it's hard to see what other independent value it has, or how this is a good look no matter how you try and slice it.

 

The hotel thing I could sort of understand, not that it's been approved so far anyway. But this would be nonsense.

 

Well done on showing how you can regulate yourself PL, even just to the point that clubs are trying this sort of thing. I wonder if they ever replied to the select committee asking for more details about what Masters was specifically whingeing about when he claimed with no examples that having one could wreck the sport. 

 

I'm ambivalent to the idea personally, but they aren't half making the case for it themselves.

[The Prophet]

 

[timeEd32]

This isn't how I want it to go, but it would be quite amusing if Chelsea finished 6th, we finished 7th, and then they got banned from Europe.

[Terraloon]

1 hour ago, madras said:

But they dont seem as interested in closing some loopholes as others.

 

How long did it take, mid-season, to have a special meeting to ramp up FMV just after our takeover compared to Chelseas 8yr contract wheeze and this new one?

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.

 

 

[54]

Quote

BBC Sport will continue to show free-to-air coverage of the FA Cup after securing a four-year deal starting from the 2025-26 season.

Under a new partnership with TNT Sports, BBC Sport will screen 14 games per season, including the final at Wembley.

Excellent news.

[The Prophet]

What a mess.

[Groundhog63]

2 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

What a mess.

Any decent players amongst those 😉

[r0cafella]

6 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

What a mess.

Time to start our own multi club models. Discounts to be had.