9 hours ago, Andy2461 said:

Chelsea have been handed a 1 year transfer ban suspended for 2 years

Also a 10.75 million fine

And a academy 9 month transfer ban

And the ban and fine was probably worth it. We made 36 separate payments totalling £47.5m to 12 individuals or corporate entities so that we could get certain players. All the clubs do it - we just did it better - and in the end it was money well spent. The money was used to help us sign Eden Hazard (Lille), Ramires (Benfica), David Luiz (Benfica), Andre Schurrle (Bayer Leverkusen) and Nemanja Matic (Benfica).

The majority of our "misconduct" happened between 2013 and 2017. . . During that time Chelsea took two Premier League titles (2014-15, 2016-17), two FA Cups (2011-12, 2017-18), the EFL Cup (2014-15) and the Europa League (2018–19).

44 minutes ago, TheCeleryKing said:

And the ban and fine was probably worth it. We made 36 separate payments totalling £47.5m to 12 individuals or corporate entities so that we could get certain players. All the clubs do it - we just did it better - and in the end it was money well spent. The money was used to help us sign Eden Hazard (Lille), Ramires (Benfica), David Luiz (Benfica), Andre Schurrle (Bayer Leverkusen) and Nemanja Matic (Benfica).

The majority of our "misconduct" happened between 2013 and 2017. . . During that time Chelsea took two Premier League titles (2014-15, 2016-17), two FA Cups (2011-12, 2017-18), the EFL Cup (2014-15) and the Europa League (2018–19).

The charges were trumped-up nonsense. The so-called "off the book" payments were to family members or 'non-agent representatives' and even this investigation found that they did not impact PSR rules in the slightest. Clubs should have a moral obligation to ensure that family of young players are compensated fairly, as opposed to channeling everything through a leeching player agent.

At least we didn't induce said friends and family to commit fraud, like Barcelona in the Neymar transfer

Edited March 17Mar 17 by SydneyChelsea

1 hour ago, axman2526 said:

The only issue I have with this meme is that clowns can be funny

51 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

The only issue I have with this meme is that clowns can be funny

51 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

The only issue I have with this meme is that clowns can be funny

Fair.

We gotta get them out though, ASAP. Hopefully enough bad PR will get to their shareholders

44 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Fair.

We gotta get them out though, ASAP. Hopefully enough bad PR will get to their shareholders

I don't think PR is going to budge shareholders, tbh. Chelsea is only about 3% of Clearlake's total investment portfolio. They could dump their shares in the club overnight and it would be within yearly variance on their books. They could drive the paper valuation of the club to 1bn and they still wouldn't care because, like a luxury car or handbag, the prestige and association factors are more important to them overall. These private equity types are so fundamentally arrogant that they see "Eghbali Out" signs as evidence they are doing something right, because it is something different.

I think the smart play is to play the ownership off against each other. We know the relationship is tenuous at best and can be cracked from the statements issued in early 2024/25. Liverpool fans's advocacy turned Gillett and Hicks against each other, and the rest of the board, which paved the way for the board to sell cheaply to FSG. It's interesting that even though Boehly and the individuals hold 40% of the shareholding in BlueCo, they have equal voting rights with Clearlake when it comes to Chelsea. That means you'd only need one or the other to be tempted by selling, and ideally you've have a third party come in and offer both to buy up 70% of BlueCo.

If they can get someone like Finkelstein to crack and sell up, and be replaced with a different voice, it might be able to start a favourable domino effect.

Edited March 17Mar 17 by SydneyChelsea

21 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

I don't think PR is going to budge shareholders, tbh. Chelsea is only about 3% of Clearlake's total investment portfolio. They could dump their shares in the club overnight and it would be within yearly variance on their books. They could drive the paper valuation of the club to 1bn and they still wouldn't care because, like a luxury car or handbag, the prestige and association factors are more important to them overall. These private equity types are so fundamentally arrogant that they see "Eghbali Out" signs as evidence they are doing something right, because it is something different.

I think the smart play is to play the ownership off against each other. We know the relationship is tenuous at best and can be cracked from the statements issued in early 2024/25. Liverpool fans's advocacy turned Gillett and Hicks against each other, and the rest of the board, which paved the way for the board to sell cheaply to FSG. It's interesting that even though Boehly and the individuals hold 40% of the shareholding in BlueCo, they have equal voting rights with Clearlake when it comes to Chelsea. That means you'd only need one or the other to be tempted by selling, and ideally you've have a third party come in and offer both to buy up 70% of BlueCo.

If they can get someone like Finkelstein to crack and sell up, and be replaced with a different voice, it might be able to start a favourable domino effect.

Whatever works, need the fanbase on board though and not to be swayed by media stories or a few wins.

15 hours ago, Andy2461 said:

Chelsea have been handed a 1 year transfer ban suspended for 2 years

Also a 10.75 million fine

And a academy 9 month transfer ban

14 hours ago, Andy2461 said:

I means if we do something else wrong in next 2 years we automatically get a 1 year ban

Don't we also have 70+ charges hanging over our heads? If we are found guilty of any of them, won't that trigger the 1 year ban?

8 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

@dkw thinks that BlueCo and the American owners might push for La Liga style individualised broadcasting contracts where clubs negotiate directly with broadcasters rather than a league-wide deal. I tend to disagree given that American sports broadcasting deals are similarly testament to the collective bargaining approach, but my opinion also assumes that our owners are reasonable and logical people.

What is they say about assume, it makes an ass out of u and me 😅

3 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

I don't think PR is going to budge shareholders, tbh. Chelsea is only about 3% of Clearlake's total investment portfolio. They could dump their shares in the club overnight and it would be within yearly variance on their books. They could drive the paper valuation of the club to 1bn and they still wouldn't care because, like a luxury car or handbag, the prestige and association factors are more important to them overall. These private equity types are so fundamentally arrogant that they see "Eghbali Out" signs as evidence they are doing something right, because it is something different.

I think the smart play is to play the ownership off against each other. We know the relationship is tenuous at best and can be cracked from the statements issued in early 2024/25. Liverpool fans's advocacy turned Gillett and Hicks against each other, and the rest of the board, which paved the way for the board to sell cheaply to FSG. It's interesting that even though Boehly and the individuals hold 40% of the shareholding in BlueCo, they have equal voting rights with Clearlake when it comes to Chelsea. That means you'd only need one or the other to be tempted by selling, and ideally you've have a third party come in and offer both to buy up 70% of BlueCo.

If they can get someone like Finkelstein to crack and sell up, and be replaced with a different voice, it might be able to start a favourable domino effect.

Lord Finklestein isn’t an investor as such he is simply a director. He almost certainly is “ richer” than most on here his wealth and income isn’t close to being even of the magnitude required to even be included in any conversation re ownership .

Clearlake are highly unlikely to sell up the likelihood is that it will be Bohley group who sell.

Just on the PL settlement it’s worth reading the full text. What is clear is that the club was left massively exposed and clearly some individuals that were in the leadership group at the time had no option but to fall on their swords . I may be wrong but I wonder if part of the concessions that were made by the club included agreeing that all those that were in positions of authority had to leave.

We still have the FA charges to resolve. Hopefully this settlement will enable an early resolution to that process because it’s been a millstone around the club and from a snippet leaked by a FA Council member it is highly likely that the delay in releasing the City ruling is that the IC needed a steer in terms of precedent.

It’s worth bearing in mind that the PL agreed that there was significant mitigation in reality bought about by self disclosure and indeed the clubs actions in facilitating resolution. City certainly won’t be getting any discount if the IC rule against them. I would also add at this time the FA haven’t charged City I wonder if any charges will follow the PL outcome.

4 minutes ago, terraloon said:

I may be wrong but I wonder if part of the concessions that were made by the club included agreeing that all those that were in positions of authority had to leave.

I doubt thats allowed in UK employment law, the individuals would take us to the cleaners in the courts, unless they have broken the law themselves and left them open to dismissal.

2 hours ago, Scott Harris said:

Don't we also have 70+ charges hanging over our heads? If we are found guilty of any of them, won't that trigger the 1 year ban?

There are still the 74 charges that the FA are pursuing. There is significant crossover in the PL and FA investigations and hopefully double jeopardy rules will apply in some of the charges

The suggestion in the PL settlement is that we will receive significant sanctions from the FA I would imagine that means financial as opposed to points / active transfer bans if for no other reasons is that in these type of matters it is highly unlikely that either of the regulatory bodies would work without significant input from the other.

I would imagine , hope, that the FA commission were waiting for the resolution of the leagues investigation and settlement and I would expect the FA to publish their commissions findings in days as opposed to months.

9 minutes ago, dkw said:

I doubt thats allowed in UK employment law, the individuals would take us to the cleaners in the courts, unless they have broken the law themselves and left them open to dismissal.

Your comment is I guess on the basis that they were dismissed as opposed to leaving with their reputation intact and probably a few bob in the bank.

It really is worth reading the PLs/ Chelsea settlement agreement in full it’s quite revealing

2 hours ago, Scott Harris said:

Don't we also have 70+ charges hanging over our heads? If we are found guilty of any of them, won't that trigger the 1 year ban?

Those charges are for the same matters but fall under the FA's jurisdiction of player registration, and are only for alleged breaches of agent regulations. The PL investigate the 'competitive' breaches i.e undisclosed payments, PSR breaches, whether we gained a competitive advantage as a result etc.

Yesterdays news essentially opened a window into what Roman did for us to get a winning side. Made me miss him even more. We need to sing his name every home game.

1 hour ago, terraloon said:

Lord Finklestein isn’t an investor as such he is simply a director. He almost certainly is “ richer” than most on here his wealth and income isn’t close to being even of the magnitude required to even be included in any conversation re ownership .

Clearlake are highly unlikely to sell up the likelihood is that it will be Bohley group who sell.

Just on the PL settlement it’s worth reading the full text. What is clear is that the club was left massively exposed and clearly some individuals that were in the leadership group at the time had no option but to fall on their swords . I may be wrong but I wonder if part of the concessions that were made by the club included agreeing that all those that were in positions of authority had to leave.

We still have the FA charges to resolve. Hopefully this settlement will enable an early resolution to that process because it’s been a millstone around the club and from a snippet leaked by a FA Council member it is highly likely that the delay in releasing the City ruling is that the IC needed a steer in terms of precedent.

It’s worth bearing in mind that the PL agreed that there was significant mitigation in reality bought about by self disclosure and indeed the clubs actions in facilitating resolution. City certainly won’t be getting any discount if the IC rule against them. I would also add at this time the FA haven’t charged City I wonder if any charges will follow the PL outcome.

I what sense was the club left exposed?

1 hour ago, RMH said:

I what sense was the club left exposed?

They weren't, its been admitted that it would never have come to light if this ownership didn't self report. They just threw the previous ownership/club under the bus.

3 minutes ago, GarnachoCheese said:

They weren't, its been admitted that it would never have come to light if this ownership didn't self report. They just threw the previous ownership/club under the bus.

The paper trails had been exposed in the leaks of the Cypress Confidential files. The matters would have been investigated regardless.

46 minutes ago, GarnachoCheese said:

They weren't, its been admitted that it would never have come to light if this ownership didn't self report. They just threw the previous ownership/club under the bus.

46 minutes ago, GarnachoCheese said:

They weren't, its been admitted that it would never have come to light if this ownership didn't self report. They just threw the previous ownership/club under the bus.

37 minutes ago, dermott said:

The paper trails had been exposed in the leaks of the Cypress Confidential files. The matters would have been investigated regardless.

In one.

Had RA still been the owner there is absolutely no doubt that the sanction would have been far far worse.

I have included the sanctions agreement . It really is worth a read particularly 17b iv and v.

It may not seem it but the owners had absolutely no option but to self report far too many professional accredited individuals were involved in the due diligence knew the facts.

I know that few will give the owners any credit but they have to a large degree manipulated both the PL and UEFA into settlement agreements where sanctions in reality are meaningless ( can’t believe I am saying that about a £10m fine) wher had they not reported, not engaged etc sanctions would have been far more draconian.

Edited March 17Mar 17 by terraloon

58 minutes ago, GarnachoCheese said:

They weren't, its been admitted that it would never have come to light if this ownership didn't self report. They just threw the previous ownership/club under the bus.

Admitted by who ?

2 minutes ago, terraloon said:

Admitted by who ?

my source

1 hour ago, GarnachoCheese said:

my source

Tomato?

47 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Tomato?

Mornay in his case.

For all the praise we give Roman, he could have left us in a real bad state. We are very fortunate to have gotten away with a very lenient punishment. The question is, why did Roman and Co have to pay under the table for these players? It's not like we had no value at the time, we were still a very desirable club. I do think Roman could have done much better in the transfer market between 2010 up until 2016/17 period. We could have kept Ancelotti, signed the likes of Aguero, David Silva, etc, and we could have built a fantastic team to last us a good decade or more. Instead Man City were taken over and they snagged those two players despite us being interested in them at the time. Buying Torres was a bad decision from Roman.

3 hours ago, dermott said:

The paper trails had been exposed in the leaks of the Cypress Confidential files. The matters would have been investigated regardless.

Exactly. I think they made the right decision in this case. By being proactive they probably avoided worse punishment.