Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[r0cafella]

9 minutes ago, LFEE said:

It’s £300 per head  The ticket prices will only be £10-20?…

It's make believe but it's Chelsea and they always get away with it. 

[ToonAbroad]

Surely the £3m is the season total, not a single game?

[The College Dropout]

It's 10k average attendance per game - no?

 

19 games. 10k attendance per game. £15 a head - no?

[toon25]

So much here to unpick, but fuck me, they're the dodgiest fucking operation in world football. 

 

Chelsea have announced the biggest pre-tax loss ever recorded by a Premier League club.

Chelsea's pre-tax loss of £262.4m for the year ending June 30, 2025 surpasses the £197.5m posted by Manchester City for the 2010/11 season.

 

The west London club posted a profit of £128.4m in the previous year’s accounts, boosted by the sale of the women’s team to Blueco Midco – a subsidiary company – for almost £200m.

 

The club said the losses were attributable in part to increased operating costs in 2024-25 compared to the previous year.

Revenue was £490.9m, the club said, the second-highest on record for the Blues, and included some of the money earned from last summer’s triumphant Club World Cup run.

 

Chelsea were deemed compliant with the Premier League’s profitability and sustainability rules (PSR) for the three-year period ending 2024-25. The rules allow for maximum losses of £105m over three years, but some of the losses clubs post in their financial reports can be added back under PSR – spending on infrastructure, youth development and women’s football for instance.

 

Chelsea also announced on Wednesday that their women’s team (Chelsea Football Club Women Ltd) posted a loss of £17.1m, despite generating £21.3m in revenue.

[Nucasol]

17 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

It's 10k average attendance per game - no?

 

19 games. 10k attendance per game. £15 a head - no?

190k x £15 = £2.8m so broadly in line with what Bent Snakobs is claiming they made across the season. Struggling to see where they got another £18m of revenue. Surely prize money and tv rights aren’t that much?

[nufc123]

What a fucking shit show 

[The College Dropout]

5 minutes ago, Nucasol said:

190k x £15 = £2.8m so broadly in line with what Bent Snakobs is claiming they made across the season. Struggling to see where they got another £18m of revenue. Surely prize money and tv rights aren’t that much?

Probably more games too. 

 

Dunno don't care enough to look through the numbers. But would be semi interesting to see

[Turnbull2000]

Bad news for us. Means Chelsea can spend big this summer 

[Robster]

8 minutes ago, Turnbull2000 said:

Bad news for us. Means Chelsea can spend big this summer 

The more they spend, the more of a shit show they become. No stability or continuity there at all.

[Turnbull2000]

13 minutes ago, Robster said:

The more they spend, the more of a shit show they become. No stability or continuity there at all.

 

As if the PL are going punish them enough to put them in the shit  Like Man City, they're too a big a brand now.

[TRon]

24 minutes ago, Turnbull2000 said:

 

As if the PL are going punish them enough to put them in the shit  Like Man City, they're too a big a brand now.

 

 

This really is the bottom line at the end of the day. 

[Keegans Export]

This is about Villa but may be relevant to us regarding the assumed failing of UEFAs rules;

 

Quote

On the European one, Villa entered into a settlement agreement with UEFA last year, on the back of breaching FER in the three-year period ending June 2024. The agreement places limits on future losses and Villa’s ability to register players for UEFA competition.

 

The latter point meant any new players Villa brought into their “List A” squad for this season’s Europa League needed to represent cost savings compared with those they replaced. That restriction was a conditional one for next season; if Villa’s football earnings result was positive in 2024-25, it would be lifted. As we now know, they lost €82m for UEFA purposes, so it appears the “List A” restriction will continue into 2026-27.

What I think this means is that anyone currently on our UEFA list that we sell must be replaced by someone who costs less - presumably that's wages + amortisation. 

[mouldy_uk]

I didn’t realise Chelsea still had a women’s team, thought they’d sold them about ten times already 

[Turnbull2000]

So does that mean we can't strengthen our squad with better players if we qualify for Europe? 

 

 

Edited April 1 by Turnbull2000

[r0cafella]

It's absolutely fascinating how without warning or notice the narrative around the purpose of these rules has completely shifted. Since our takeover the rules being required to stop a Pompey or Leeds narrative has been totally thrown in the trash and a new narrative about fairness and competition has emerged (despite the files being highly unfair and restrictive of competition). 

[1881]

11 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

It's absolutely fascinating how without warning or notice the narrative around the purpose of these rules has completely shifted. Since our takeover the rules being required to stop a Pompey or Leeds narrative has been totally thrown in the trash and a new narrative about fairness and competition has emerged (despite the files being highly unfair and restrictive of competition). 

Fascinating and disgraceful. The media and sponsors  “own” football now so the clubs with the biggest worldwide fanbases must be supported and protected at all costs to make sure everyone on the gravy train can keep on board.

[TRon]

4 hours ago, r0cafella said:

It's absolutely fascinating how without warning or notice the narrative around the purpose of these rules has completely shifted. Since our takeover the rules being required to stop a Pompey or Leeds narrative has been totally thrown in the trash and a new narrative about fairness and competition has emerged (despite the files being highly unfair and restrictive of competition). 

 

 

These are the same clubs who have been trying for decades to break away and form their own super league so while it's fascinating, it's also entirely predictable. At least now the bullshit about protecting clubs from themselves isn't being peddled so shamelessly any more. 

[Wolfcastle]

On 02/04/2026 at 09:54, r0cafella said:

It's absolutely fascinating how without warning or notice the narrative around the purpose of these rules has completely shifted. Since our takeover the rules being required to stop a Pompey or Leeds narrative has been totally thrown in the trash and a new narrative about fairness and competition has emerged (despite the files being highly unfair and restrictive of competition). 

Yeah I've noticed even in debates the defenders of the rules (basically the cartel minus City and plus the cucks) have dropped all pretences and state its just about stopping certain clubs and ringfencing the elite du-jour

Like a lot of rules there's always a Trojan Horse to force it through what are effectively stitch ups. 'Won't someone please think of the children'

 

 

Edited April 10 by Wolfcastle

[TK-421]

I know this guy is a bit marmite for some on here, but he does a reasonable job of trying explain the new SC rules, and the differences to PSR, for those unsure.
 

What he doesn't mention is that this first full season fully under the new SC rules, there will be no levies imposed for overspending, so if your going to overspend, this is the summer/season to do it.

 

 

Edited April 10 by TK-421

[r0cafella]

4 hours ago, TK-421 said:

I know this guy is a bit marmite for some on here, but he does a reasonable job of trying explain the new SC rules, and the differences to PSR, for those unsure.
 

What he doesn't mention is that this first full season fully under the new SC rules, there will be no levies imposed for overspending, so if your going to overspend, this is the summer/season to do it.

 

 

 

Yes and no right and this is why the rules are drafted this way. Remember transfer fees are accounted for over the course of a player's contract so when you buy a player your suffering for the length of the contract not just one year. 

[toon25]

These wankers don't have a fucking clue.

 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13532811/behdad-eghbali-chelsea-co-owner-on-liam-rosenior-transfer-policy-and-enzo-maresca-departure-in-rare-interview

 

Losing money hand over fist and now seemingly going to spunk even more on 'oven ready' players. They're fucking rank, man

[r0cafella]

4 minutes ago, toon25 said:

These wankers don't have a fucking clue.

 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13532811/behdad-eghbali-chelsea-co-owner-on-liam-rosenior-transfer-policy-and-enzo-maresca-departure-in-rare-interview

 

Losing money hand over fist and now seemingly going to spunk even more on 'oven ready' players. They're fucking rank, man

Good luck with that, I'm pretty sure they are already right on the edge of SCR and they have some players with lots or amortization left (mudryk, Enzo )

[TRon]

37 minutes ago, toon25 said:

These wankers don't have a fucking clue.

 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13532811/behdad-eghbali-chelsea-co-owner-on-liam-rosenior-transfer-policy-and-enzo-maresca-departure-in-rare-interview

 

Losing money hand over fist and now seemingly going to spunk even more on 'oven ready' players. They're fucking rank, man

 

 

Ironically it was probably oven ready players that Maresca needed to take them to the next level. 

[r0cafella]

Uff 

 

That project needs significant capital appreciation if it is to be successful. Even just using the funds committed to the end of June 2025 across equity from the ownership and the £1.4billion debt, BlueCo would need to hit a valuation of £4.1bn just to break even.

A more realistic estimate would be higher still. That Ares PIK debt figure for 2033 is laden with assumptions but without any repayments made between now and then, alongside the £800million senior debt and the £2.9bn in equity committed so far, the assets accumulated by BlueCo would need to be worth £5.1bn for the group to make its money back. And that assumes the roughly £55m in annual interest (at current rates) on the senior debt is able to be paid out of operating cash flows each year from hereon, which appears unlikely at present

[r0cafella]

Remember when the client made kept repeating Chelsea were cutting the wage bill?

 

Quote

In turn, Chelsea’s wage bill is much higher than the wider narrative presents, and higher even than the accounts show. According to UEFA’s European Club Financial and Investment Landscape report, which incorporates that ‘reporting perimeter’, Chelsea’s wage bill last season was £374million — £15m higher than the accounts figure.

Chelsea’s wages to revenue was 76 per cent, comfortably the highest of the ‘Big Six’ and not far behind 2020-21, when Covid-19 shuttered stadia and hampered income. Only Liverpool (£428m) and Manchester City (£468m) spent more on wages last season.

That wage bill, combined with a transfer fee amortisation bill which exceeds £200million, means Chelsea’s costs are enormous. Operating expenses now top £150m even without those £50.2m legal and regulatory fees. Running costs are up across the board in football, but Chelsea’s are up 30 per cent in three seasons and, again, the true figure is higher in those UEFA reports.