huss9 Posted Monday at 20:55 Share Posted Monday at 20:55 so how did the sale of the chelsea womens team actully work? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Five o Posted Monday at 21:01 Share Posted Monday at 21:01 32 minutes ago, Terraloon said: The PL clubs had the opportunity to change the rules around sell of assets but they didn’t vote for a change. Not sure that cheated is the right word it’s more akin to manipulation of the crazy regulations We as yet haven’t seen the full breakdown but one thing for sure is that SLBN who is the supposed expert on club finance ( he really isn’t) has his tail between his legs because he simply isn’t close to being in the know and his projecting Chelsea making a £200 million loss are clearly way off it seems that if you ignore sums generated from inter company sale then the 23/24 numbers show circa a £70 million loss as opposed to a 22/23 loss of £180 million so clearly there are far more elements to factor in rather than just the headlines. For instance has amortisation alongside the wage bill reduced ? Sorry, but none of that makes any sense. I am not familiar with your game, are you defending Chelsea. I kind of respect them giving the middle finger to everyone, but it does not sit right with and highlight how fucked the rules are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hudson Posted Monday at 21:09 Share Posted Monday at 21:09 13 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said: https://www.teamwass.com/news/wasserman-acquires-international-football-management/ Wasn't sure where to put this, so this is where Charnley ended up. Lee Charnley said of the acquisition, “Over the past 20 years, the IFM team has built the number one football player agency in Switzerland. It’s a business founded on honesty, trust and respect Lee Charnley, Switzerland, Agents and Honesty should never be in the same sentence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted Monday at 21:41 Share Posted Monday at 21:41 1 hour ago, Terraloon said: The PL clubs had the opportunity to change the rules around sell of assets but they didn’t vote for a change. Not sure that cheated is the right word it’s more akin to manipulation of the crazy regulations We as yet haven’t seen the full breakdown but one thing for sure is that SLBN who is the supposed expert on club finance ( he really isn’t) has his tail between his legs because he simply isn’t close to being in the know and his projecting Chelsea making a £200 million loss are clearly way off it seems that if you ignore sums generated from inter company sale then the 23/24 numbers show circa a £70 million loss as opposed to a 22/23 loss of £180 million so clearly there are far more elements to factor in rather than just the headlines. For instance has amortisation alongside the wage bill reduced ? You don't think it is odd in the slightest that the cost of the women's team isn't counted for FFP, yet the inflated sale of the women's team is? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted Monday at 22:01 Share Posted Monday at 22:01 1 hour ago, Terraloon said: The PL clubs had the opportunity to change the rules around sell of assets but they didn’t vote for a change. Not sure that cheated is the right word it’s more akin to manipulation of the crazy regulations We as yet haven’t seen the full breakdown but one thing for sure is that SLBN who is the supposed expert on club finance ( he really isn’t) has his tail between his legs because he simply isn’t close to being in the know and his projecting Chelsea making a £200 million loss are clearly way off it seems that if you ignore sums generated from inter company sale then the 23/24 numbers show circa a £70 million loss as opposed to a 22/23 loss of £180 million so clearly there are far more elements to factor in rather than just the headlines. For instance has amortisation alongside the wage bill reduced ? It's more the issue of the PL not enforcing the rules in a fair and balanced way that's an issue. They are able to sell assets to other companies they own, fine, as you say, the rules allow that. But, the sale was clearly miles above fair market value, the rules if properly enforced can prevent that. The same goes for the management contract that allegedly lets them keep getting the profits from the hotel they sold. The PL seems to use the fair market value rules to restrict us, reducing the value of the Sela deal and possibly ASM's sale and who knows what else, yet just lets Chelsea get away with deals that patently aren't at fair market value. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted Monday at 22:15 Share Posted Monday at 22:15 (edited) 1 hour ago, huss9 said: so how did the sale of the chelsea womens team actully work? Think basically they just set up a new company and sold the women's team from the current company to it. TBH it's worse than any normal associated party transaction because the company is literally owned by the same people as Chelsea and has been created purely for the purposes of this accounting trick. Edited Monday at 22:23 by AyeDubbleYoo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingxlnc Posted Monday at 22:23 Share Posted Monday at 22:23 7 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said: Think basically they just set up a new company and sold the women's team from the current company to it. Beyond a joke if so Forget white privilege, this is blue privilege Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted Monday at 23:34 Share Posted Monday at 23:34 2 hours ago, huss9 said: so how did the sale of the chelsea womens team actully work? Todds left hand passing a wad of cash to Todds right hand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted yesterday at 06:59 Share Posted yesterday at 06:59 8 hours ago, Jackie Broon said: It's more the issue of the PL not enforcing the rules in a fair and balanced way that's an issue. They are able to sell assets to other companies they own, fine, as you say, the rules allow that. But, the sale was clearly miles above fair market value, the rules if properly enforced can prevent that. The same goes for the management contract that allegedly lets them keep getting the profits from the hotel they sold. The PL seems to use the fair market value rules to restrict us, reducing the value of the Sela deal and possibly ASM's sale and who knows what else, yet just lets Chelsea get away with deals that patently aren't at fair market value. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted yesterday at 07:03 Share Posted yesterday at 07:03 (edited) They voted against banning the transactions but there’s still the fair market value bollocks. Edited yesterday at 07:04 by AyeDubbleYoo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted yesterday at 07:22 Share Posted yesterday at 07:22 17 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said: They voted against banning the transactions but there’s still the fair market value bollocks. Given that this is a first for a PL club what would you measure FMV against? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted yesterday at 07:32 Share Posted yesterday at 07:32 25 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: I don't think that means such transactions are excluded from the fair market value rules. Any transaction with associated parties or over £1m has to be assessed for fair market value. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted yesterday at 07:40 Share Posted yesterday at 07:40 15 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: Given that this is a first for a PL club what would you measure FMV against? There is a plethora of evidence - clubs are bought and sold quite regularly. Likewise hotels etc. I have nothing to contribute other than that, but the data will be out there. Maybe they paid the going rate, maybe they didn't, but there will be plenty of examples to use to fix a rough estimate of FMV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted yesterday at 07:43 Share Posted yesterday at 07:43 16 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: Given that this is a first for a PL club what would you measure FMV against? Value of assets and multiples of profit or turnover like any other buisiness would be. In terms of assets the world record fee for a womens team player is 900k and I don't and 20x turnover is a crazy value. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boey_Jarton Posted yesterday at 07:49 Share Posted yesterday at 07:49 (edited) Demonstrating FMV for an asset like a women's football team, where the market is relatively small but growing rapidly, is very tricky. There is no right answer. It is also easily manipulated. Chelsea accountants can play around with the future growth assumption and terminal value and it will magnify the valuation significantly. PL have got themselves into this mess by turning football into a bookkeeping game. Bookkeeping involves judgement which can be manipulated. There will always be loopholes and as soon as one is closed another will open. Chelsea are just playing the game that the EPL created. Edited yesterday at 07:54 by Boey_Jarton Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted yesterday at 08:06 Share Posted yesterday at 08:06 44 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: Given that this is a first for a PL club what would you measure FMV against? I guess you try and assess the true value of the women’s team. 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