sushimonster85 Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 4 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: Chelsea haven’t breached the rules as yet though. Their problems are coming further down the line - shitloads on amortised contracts for players who aren’t worth close to what they paid for them. Their wriggle-room will end quickly; they also can’t be finishing mid table forever or else those lucrative commercials start to become less lucrative I'm pretty sure Chelsea are severely fucked from next season onwards if they don't get CL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordie Ahmed Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 5 minutes ago, sushimonster85 said: I'm pretty sure Chelsea are severely fucked from next season onwards if they don't get CL. They'll just sell Gallagher and maybe even end up selling Palmer to hang on for another season Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 (edited) To be fair City have been charged with over a hundred offences and will have one of the best legal teams on the globe fighting them every step of the way. Everton were charged with one and pretty much rolled over and had their belly tickled. The delay will be purely procedural. Edited January 14 by The Prophet Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hudson Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 6 minutes ago, sushimonster85 said: I'm pretty sure Chelsea are severely fucked from next season onwards if they don't get CL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 What unfair advantage have Everton received by breaching FFP ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikse Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 47 minutes ago, MrRaspberryJam said: https://x.com/David_Ornstein/status/1746626203203563686?t=ljZfkkwiCCJN359OlHG3iA&s=08 "Under the league’s PSR, clubs are allowed to lose a maximum of £105million ($134m) or £35m per season over a rolling three-year reporting cycle." I'm one who hasn't really studied the FFP rules that much. Does this mean that our £74m loss is nothing to worry about, since a new cycle will now begin and the calculation will start from scratch? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hudson Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 3 minutes ago, Erikse said: "Under the league’s PSR, clubs are allowed to lose a maximum of £105million ($134m) or £35m per season over a rolling three-year reporting cycle." I'm one who hasn't really studied the FFP rules that much. Does this mean that our £74m loss is nothing to worry about, since a new cycle will now begin and the calculation will start from scratch? Nope that lost is only over a 1 year period, it’s a 3 year rolling period. So it’s a bit like this is my understanding. 20-21-22 21-22-23 22-23-24 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 How come Man Utds leveraged debt is not included ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 17 minutes ago, Ben said: What unfair advantage have Everton received by breaching FFP ? They stayed up last season when others were relegated. That’s worth a few bob. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 12 minutes ago, Erikse said: "Under the league’s PSR, clubs are allowed to lose a maximum of £105million ($134m) or £35m per season over a rolling three-year reporting cycle." I'm one who hasn't really studied the FFP rules that much. Does this mean that our £74m loss is nothing to worry about, since a new cycle will now begin and the calculation will start from scratch? There isn’t a £74m loss in terms of FFP for last season. There will be tens of millions in acceptable FFP write-offs. The big issue is 21/22, which was a £70m FFP loss - that drops off the three year rolling cycle on 1st July. It is us spending big to fix Ashley’s mess which has caused the problem, and means that we’d be very close to the limit this season Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghandis Flip-Flop Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 2 minutes ago, Ben said: How come Man Utds leveraged debt is not included ? Because their turnover is enough to service that debt comfortably. It does seem to go against the publicly explained reasons for ffp though and also allowed Burnley to be bought with their own money before they were relegated too, if memory serves me right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokerprince2004 Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 19 minutes ago, Ben said: What unfair advantage have Everton received by breaching FFP ? Just stayed up by a couple of points in recent seasons. They have 3 clubs suing them because of it (Burnley, Leeds, Leicester) the whole thing is just a clusterfuck Out of curiosity does anyone know the 3rd club at risk tomorrow? They said 3 clubs likely to be punished but only Forest and Everton have been named? I know Wolves were close so perhaps them? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pubteam Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Hudson said: Nope that lost is only over a 1 year period, it’s a 3 year rolling period. So it’s a bit like this is my understanding. 20-21-22 21-22-23 22-23-24 £105 million over 3 years is a complete joke when you consider man city have wage bills alone of £423 million. How are you ever supposed to compete. Edited January 14 by pubteam Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hudson Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 Just now, pubteam said: £75 million over 3 years is a complete joke when you consider man city have wage bills alone of £423 million. How are you ever supposed to compete. Simply, your not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 7 minutes ago, Ben said: How come Man Utds leveraged debt is not included ? No club’s is. Leveraged buy-outs are the norm in the stock market and has been equally treated as the norm in football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikse Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 (edited) 6 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: There isn’t a £74m loss in terms of FFP for last season. There will be tens of millions in acceptable FFP write-offs. The big issue is 21/22, which was a £70m FFP loss - that drops off the three year rolling cycle on 1st July. It is us spending big to fix Ashley’s mess which has caused the problem, and means that we’d be very close to the limit this season Hmm. If it drops off at 1st of july, why does this potensially cause us to have to sell a valuable player in the summer? I get that in general selling gives you a lot of wiggle room sometimes, but from the news that dropped the other day it really seemed like that loss was going to hurt us in the windows this year (including the summer). Edited January 14 by Erikse Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufcnick Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 2 minutes ago, pubteam said: £75 million over 3 years is a complete joke when you consider man city have wage bills alone of £423 million. How are you ever supposed to compete. It’s £105m over 3 seasons, not £75m Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghandis Flip-Flop Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 (edited) 47 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: Chelsea haven’t breached the rules as yet though. Their problems are coming further down the line - shitloads on amortised contracts for players who aren’t worth close to what they paid for them. Their wriggle-room will end quickly; they also can’t be finishing mid table forever or else those lucrative commercials start to become less lucrative They’re being investigated for breaches during Abramovich's time found by Boehley's lot when going through the books. Given they’ve found wrongdoing themselves and have fessed up, surely they have to receive some sort of punishment? They might be pushing for leniency given change in ownership and honesty, but given the recent punish,ents doled out, they can’t get off Scot free. Surely they're screwed in general soon too, if they don’t get back into the CL soon too I’d imagine Edited January 14 by Ghandis Flip-Flop Sausage fingers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pubteam Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 1 minute ago, nufcnick said: It’s £105m over 3 seasons, not £75m I know I amended it, it's still a shit amount. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 1 minute ago, Erikse said: Hmm. If it drops off at 1st of july, why does this potensially cause us to have to sell a valuable player in the summer? I get that in general selling gives you a lot of wiggle room sometimes, but from the news that dropped the other day it really seemed like that loss was going to hurt us in the windows. It still has an impact, and we’ll likely be running a sizeable loss this year too, and next year’s income is unlikely to grow at all. I know everyone has been excited by the size of the growth so far, but the reality is that the growth was really down to how badly Ashley ran the club - that was easy. It isn’t easy to see how much more growth is achievable without success on the pitch. There will be room again in the summer to spend, but nothing like what you’d want to push on. Selling a player for big money would allow us to fill the squad with more quality. The other unsaid thing is that our current big names aren’t here to finish mid table. They’ll be off if a big offer comes their way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRC Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 1 minute ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said: They’re being investigated for breaches during Abramovich's time found by Boehley's lot when going through the books. Given they’ve found wrongdoing themselves and have fessed up, surely they have to receive some sort of punishment? They might be pushing for leniency given change in ownership and honesty, but given the recent punish,ents they’ve received they can’t get off Scot free. Surely they're screwed in general soon too, if they don’t get back into the CL soon too I’d imagine It doesn't help that teams in Saudi, arsenal and Newcastle spunk money on their rejects mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pubteam Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 It would surely do us a favour if city get a massive penalty, at that point they would have to challenge the whole financial fair play situation in court for being anti competitive, which it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghandis Flip-Flop Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 2 minutes ago, Erikse said: Hmm. If it drops off at 1st of july, why does this potensially cause us to have to sell a valuable player in the summer? I get that in general selling gives you a lot of wiggle room sometimes, but from the news that dropped the other day it really seemed like that loss was going to hurt us in the windows this year (including the summer). To allow us to spend £100M for FFP purposes, given a £60m+ profit on someone like Bruno could conceivably allow us to buy 6 players at £50M each amortised over 5 years, providing we keep growing our commercial income. It’s convoluted and I wish as a football fan I didn’t have to try and get my head around this bollocks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikse Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 (edited) 8 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: It still has an impact, and we’ll likely be running a sizeable loss this year too, and next year’s income is unlikely to grow at all. I know everyone has been excited by the size of the growth so far, but the reality is that the growth was really down to how badly Ashley ran the club - that was easy. It isn’t easy to see how much more growth is achievable without success on the pitch. There will be room again in the summer to spend, but nothing like what you’d want to push on. Selling a player for big money would allow us to fill the squad with more quality. The other unsaid thing is that our current big names aren’t here to finish mid table. They’ll be off if a big offer comes their way. I can see that, but the media was making it seem like we had to sell a key player BECAUSE of that £74m loss, and implying that this loss has a huge impact. Not sure if that loss in isolation would be the reason if it's nearly 3 years ago and will get dropped in july. Edited January 14 by Erikse Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 The last couple of seasons under Ashley may be pretty favourable due to COVID write-offs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now