What happened to Allianz, was the board pissing in the wind?

Have Boehly done more than 3 things right since he bought us?

 

I can easily point out 10 things he did horribly

On 14/06/2023 at 23:47, Sconnie Blue said:

There lies the issue. No one knows anything. June 30th was also mentioned as a soft deadline, meaning these reporters don't necessarily know if it is the deadline as they are putting 2 and 2 together for FFP as that is the end of the fiscal season. 

When the club are pricing players 20m over their valuation with June 30th 15 days away, it gives me this impression that June 30th may not be the actual deadline. 

 

Both UEFA and EPL rules use annual accounts with reference to the financial year, which means that June 30 is a hard deadline. It is clearly stated in the handbooks. 

UEFA also require clubs to finalise all payments at June 30 (for transfers completed mid-season/early season-end) and September 30 (for transfers completed in the summer transfer window).

Any funds received or paid after June 30 count to next year's accounts. My guess is the club will want to finalise sales/outgoings as much as possible before June 30, and finalise purchases after 1 July. My other guess is that the club are going to try and argue for leniency due to exceptional circumstances following the sanctions and takeover, a plea that will rightly fall flat.

24 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Both UEFA and EPL rules use annual accounts with reference to the financial year, which means that June 30 is a hard deadline. It is clearly stated in the handbooks. 

UEFA also require clubs to finalise all payments at June 30 (for transfers completed mid-season/early season-end) and September 30 (for transfers completed in the summer transfer window).

Any funds received or paid after June 30 count to next year's accounts. My guess is the club will want to finalise sales/outgoings as much as possible before June 30, and finalise purchases after 1 July. My other guess is that the club are going to try and argue for leniency due to exceptional circumstances following the sanctions and takeover, a plea that will rightly fall flat.

Guess we will know for sure in a few weeks. I’m still skeptical on how real this FFP deadline is given the club’s stance in overvaluing the players without budging.  It's as much a game of poker with the other clubs interested in our players as it is a game of poker with the club. 

1 hour ago, Zeta said:

Cements our spot as a mid-table PL club, to have a betting sponsor on the shirt. 

Yep, no big club would ever resort to this.

 

22 minutes ago, Argo said:

Yep, no big club would ever resort to this.

 

Last time I check this club is located in Spain

1 minute ago, cfcforeverfan said:

Last time I check this club is located in Spain

It still f**ks this narrative building that only small clubs do it (not that I agree with this move).

2 minutes ago, Argo said:

It still f**ks this narrative building that only small clubs do it (not that I agree with this move).

Small club in England does it

36 minutes ago, cfcforeverfan said:

Small club in England does it

Out of nothing but morbid curiosity why is the exact same action a small club thing in one country but not another?

3 hours ago, Zeta said:

Cements our spot as a mid-table PL club, to have a betting sponsor on the shirt. 

Mid-table eh? Figured we woild be fighting the drop this year along with Luton and Spurs...

2 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Both UEFA and EPL rules use annual accounts with reference to the financial year, which means that June 30 is a hard deadline. It is clearly stated in the handbooks. 

UEFA also require clubs to finalise all payments at June 30 (for transfers completed mid-season/early season-end) and September 30 (for transfers completed in the summer transfer window).

Any funds received or paid after June 30 count to next year's accounts. My guess is the club will want to finalise sales/outgoings as much as possible before June 30, and finalise purchases after 1 July. My other guess is that the club are going to try and argue for leniency due to exceptional circumstances following the sanctions and takeover, a plea that will rightly fall flat.

Now I understand why we have so many teams lowballing us. 

1 hour ago, Bob stark said:

Now I understand why we have so many teams lowballing us. 

I believe the hope will be place on Havertz to Arsenal (32mill book value profit) kova to City (27mill book value profit) and Gallagher to a West Ham or someone like (33mill book value profit) to raise the 92mill we supposedly need.

I don't think United will be looking to do us any favours, Arsenal know Kai is in demand so do not have the same luxury imo. City won't give 2 sh*ts about us, and various sides want Conor and if we priced him at 33mill we would have deals on the table tomorrow imo.

3 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Guess we will know for sure in a few weeks. I’m still skeptical on how real this FFP deadline is given the club’s stance in overvaluing the players without budging.  It's as much a game of poker with the other clubs interested in our players as it is a game of poker with the club. 

I'm not confident we have anyone left with a working knowledge of FFP. Whoever provided legal counsel to the previous board is long gone, and Winstanley, Vivell and co would have had little to do with FFP in their previous roles.
 

On the other hand, it is possible that the club have also weighed the risks to determine that copping a sanction now is better than copping one later. The real pain in UEFA's FFP comes in the 2025-26 season, where club spending will be hard capped to 70% of total revenue. So, maybe we've decided to go for it now while spending is still soft capped, drum up commercial support and remain competitive when the hard caps come into play.

Alternatively Boehly could just arm up with lawyers and get ready to fight FFP in the court, PL already got hands full up against City's army of lawyers

6 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

I'm not confident we have anyone left with a working knowledge of FFP. Whoever provided legal counsel to the previous board is long gone, and Winstanley, Vivell and co would have had little to do with FFP in their previous roles.
 

On the other hand, it is possible that the club have also weighed the risks to determine that copping a sanction now is better than copping one later. The real pain in UEFA's FFP comes in the 2025-26 season, where club spending will be hard capped to 70% of total revenue. So, maybe we've decided to go for it now while spending is still soft capped, drum up commercial support and remain competitive when the hard caps come into play.

Well we do have to try. Uniteds and newcastles new owners makes things much more difficult.

Very anti-big gamble. Can the women get a different sponsor please?

6 hours ago, cfcforeverfan said:

Small club in England does it

Ha ha, utter sh*te from you as usual.

8 hours ago, Mod said:

What happened to Allianz, was the board pissing in the wind?

Offered £20 million a year. Half of what Marina negotiated 3 years ago.

That's what serious companies think we are worth these days so now they have to resort to the scummy ones. Unfortunately for them they exposed themselves as a bunch of money grabbing, massive hypocrites thats prepared to throw their "values" in the bin for 20 million.

From a lad on the board of the supporters trust.

 

Edited June 16, 20233 yr by OriginalS

7 hours ago, Argo said:

It still f**ks this narrative building that only small clubs do it (not that I agree with this move).

Conventional and regulated sports betting companies like Bwin may as well be used as a beacon of morality compared to Stake.com and others in the crypto gambling business.
Stake targets children in a scummy and predatory ways and then steal their money, just check it out.

2 hours ago, OriginalS said:

Offered £20 million a year. Half of what Marina negotiated 3 years ago.

That's what serious companies think we are worth these days so now they have to resort to the scummy ones. Unfortunately for them they exposed themselves as a bunch of money grabbing, massive hypocrites thats prepared to throw their "values" in the bin for 20 million.

From a lad on the board of the supporters trust.

 

I wish people would stop with the sports being a beacon of morality. They held a world cup in Qatar knowing human rights issues, people decided to go and watch the football. If people want to gamble, they are grown adults, they can do what they want. People know the consequences of their actions. Sports is all about money. I really don't care who the sponsor is if it's bringing good money in. Morality left sport a long time ago so it's about time people stopped their whining and accepted it. We also had an owner in Roman who likely did some very shady sh*t, fans who wanted Saudis to take over our club, but now there are people moaning about a betting company as a shirt sponsor. When will people give up the faux outrage? 

Edited June 16, 20233 yr by enigma

6 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

I'm not confident we have anyone left with a working knowledge of FFP. Whoever provided legal counsel to the previous board is long gone, and Winstanley, Vivell and co would have had little to do with FFP in their previous roles.
 

On the other hand, it is possible that the club have also weighed the risks to determine that copping a sanction now is better than copping one later. The real pain in UEFA's FFP comes in the 2025-26 season, where club spending will be hard capped to 70% of total revenue. So, maybe we've decided to go for it now while spending is still soft capped, drum up commercial support and remain competitive when the hard caps come into play.

I'd be extremely confident that the owners (financiers if they are anything at all) would know a massive amount about FFP and the law around it. They may have walked into some space cadet, first season traps in the transfer market and learning how agents take you for a ride, but I will bet they understand FFP.

3 minutes ago, enigma said:

I wish people would stop with the sports being a beacon of morality. They held a world cup in Qatar knowing human rights issues, people decided to go and watch the football. If people want to gamble, they are grown adults, they can do what they want. People know the consequences of their actions. Sports is all about money. I really don't care who the sponsor is if it's bringing good money in. Morality left sport a long time ago so it's about time people stopped their whining and accepted it. We also had an owner in Roman who likely did some very shady sh*t, fans who wanted Saudis to take over our club, but now there are people moaning about a betting company as a shirt sponsor. When will people give up the faux outrage? 

If they leaned into that then fair enough.

But then don't give us the whole spiel about wanting to be a club with clear values and stand up against the gambling industry and what not only to turn around and sign a deal with the worst of the worst in the industry half a year later.

Companies in this crypto gambling industry steal gullible childrens money btw, not just adults.

9 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

I'm not confident we have anyone left with a working knowledge of FFP. Whoever provided legal counsel to the previous board is long gone, and Winstanley, Vivell and co would have had little to do with FFP in their previous roles.
 

On the other hand, it is possible that the club have also weighed the risks to determine that copping a sanction now is better than copping one later. The real pain in UEFA's FFP comes in the 2025-26 season, where club spending will be hard capped to 70% of total revenue. So, maybe we've decided to go for it now while spending is still soft capped, drum up commercial support and remain competitive when the hard caps come into play.

Our club deliberately taking a sanction wouldn't surprise me at all.

Must be the only club of our stature (?) to put ourselves at the mercy of unknown sanctions because we can't be arsed to get our finances sorted out

6 hours ago, OriginalS said:

Conventional and regulated sports betting companies like Bwin may as well be used as a beacon of morality compared to Stake.com and others in the crypto gambling business.
Stake targets children in a scummy and predatory ways and then steal their money, just check it out.

Maybe, but personally i can't bring myself to moan to much about it from my IPhone after I've just polished off at steak.

I accepted there's no real morality on this planet years ago.

If Stake is our sponsor then that's just me not buying a Chelsea shirt for a while