On 09/10/2024 at 01:16, Simplymo said:

Lol, I dont do twitter mate. My most is Instagram and I was forced to by the Mrs. 😄 

From the beeb:

The letter, which was also sent to the league, and has been seen by the BBC, was sent by City’s general counsel Simon Cliff on Monday.

"The tribunal has declared the APT rules to be unlawful. MCFC's position is that this means that all of the APT rules are void," the letter states.

 

Watch how they go back to court for a ruling on a ruling. 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 

Until someone clarifies which is right, the media are too scared to report this way or that. Lol

 

On 09/10/2024 at 16:26, Simplymo said:

This, this, this, 100%.

Especially the point about watching games abroad and can't watch them at home.  I sometimes spend months bed bound or in hospital due to my back and legs (nerve dmg) and I have all the subscriptions for sky, amazon, tnt, etc and still can't watch all the games unless I stream them. It's my biggest ggggrrrrr about the PL. 🤬

And I can't stand their rubbish excuse for it. It's so fkn obvious it's about TV rights and money or they would have shown the women's football if worried ppl won't attend the men's games.

It's just a rubbish excuse by them for control or money. Give us money and we will give you a match. Gggrrrr, fkwits.

Yep, that's why I said "well played man city" lol. It wasn't the separate arguments but the final result that mattered. Ie...its void. Even the PL said they would rush the ammendments but nope, sry this is how we ended here in the first place, by rushing. So Stop, step back and let's do it properly is now man city's argument. No court will argue against that. Man city will also argue why should the clubs spend more money on fighting ammendments constantly. Putting more money in the PL pot instead of stopping and doing it properly.

The question is who's going to back down first...

Atm city have the PL by the balls imho, even if all the clubs push ammendments man city can take this to court again very easily as they have shown the current rules are unlawful because they were rushed in quickly to stop the deals going through and PL are just repeating the same mistake again.

Its a fkn sh*t show but imo one that's needed if the PL want to stretch its muscles. Like it has. It can't do that if it is corrupt or hasn't addressed the rules properly.

Like I said before, I would fkn love to be a fly on the wall of that meeting. I'd pay for it. Lol

After all that though, personally, I think a deal will be made at that meeting to minimise disruption as much as possible. 

 

 

In rgds to Chelsea, I'd hold up a bit longer on the front of shirt sponsor until after the meeting. Lol

 

On 09/10/2024 at 16:29, Simplymo said:

I doubt it, tbh.

They just need to void ATP to make most of the noise go away until they can ALL agree on the new ATP rules.

One thing the tribunal did agree on is that the ATP is necessary (obv. Not in its current format) which man city agrees on too.

The ball is the PL's court atm...they can double down and all goes to sh*t if man city don't back down. Or make a deal on time frame, improvements, etc...and confirm ATP is void atm.

 

On 10/10/2024 at 06:08, Simplymo said:

One question: do you agree the ATP is void/on hold/sabbatical/etc until the ammendments are done? 

I really do understand where you are coming from on everything else and I agree the judgement was very explicit on how many challenges were won and lost. I'm with you on that.

But the judgement was not explicit on whether those 2 failures voided all of ATP or not.

The above is exactly what the PL are pushing even using some of the same wording. But again note how vague it is, they do not mention or reinforce if the APT is active, hold or void or anything. All they they have said is they will add/ammend as soon as possible like you mention above. 

Honestly if I was the PL then I would want the teams to know nothing has changed apart from those 2 rulings and all is well with the rules. But they don't! It's vague for a reason...

 

Now, this is what mcfc are saying in reply.

1) there's no need for ALL the challenges to win/pass!

From mcfc legal counsel:

He added: "While it is true that MCFC did not succeed with every point that it ran in its legal challenge, the club did not need to prove that the APT rules are unlawful for lots of different reasons. It is enough that they are unlawful for one reason."He added: "On the contrary: the APT rules... have been found to be unlawful, as a matter of competition law and public law. This means that they are void and not capable of enforcement. This has very significant consequences for APTs that have been entered into to date and APTs that are currently being negotiated by clubs.

2) it isn't a MINOR change....not for MCFC anyway!

"Of even greater concern, however, is the PL's suggestion that new APT rules should be passed within the next 10 days."

The Premier League is seeking to amend its rules within the next fortnight so that they comply with competition law.

However Cliff warns that it is "remarkable that the Premier League is now seeking to involve the member clubs in a process to amend the APT rules at a time when it does not even know the status of those rules".

However, City's lawyers believe that it would be unfair to continue to subject previous sponsorship deals to APT rules that have now been found to be partly unlawful, while choosing not to subject previous shareholder loans to the same regulations. They may even seek an injunction to prevent the Premier League from trying to doing so.

 

So from the above. Even the PL, if pushed, will say the current ATP is void until those ammendments take place, which is something they do not want to say. They are leaving the first part out deliberately.

And from the above we can see that mcfc will fight if the PL rushes a new ATP or ammendments.

It isn't a minor thing in mcfc's view and they do have a leg to stand on to make it worse for the PL if they rush it and mcfc choose to chase it.

592. (i) & (ii) the word "ammendment" appears 3 times. It's not hard for mcfc legal team to prove that's because they rushed and are just doing the same thing again. That's a ruling they can win. The case law is right there and supercedes or comes before common and public law.

 

So...back to my original set of questions.

Will PL double down and call mcfc's move by pushing through ammendments?

Do mcfc have the balls to turn the PL on its head starting with stopping those ammendments from passing?

 

Personally, I think a deal will be made at that meeting. Unless PL ego gets in the way! We already know mcfc ain't scared of a fight!

"Is Manchester City’s rage against the machine more a posture than a plan? | Paul MacInnes"  https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/oct/09/manchester-city-rage-against-machine-premier-league?CMP=share_btn_url

 

Ref for points 1 & 2: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c33vj62p4gzo

 

 

*It actually affects us more than Man City, since they have an established shirt sponsor (Etihad) whereas we were looking to cut deals with smaller start-up companies like Infinite Athlete.

If its completely void, i say it affects no one tbh. I know, I know....see above. Lol

 

One thing we must agree on though...We'd love to be at that meeting right?

🤣

 

On 10/10/2024 at 07:05, Simplymo said:

Also this bit I forgot to highlight above and please excuse the above post, I missed a few quotation marks.

BBC:

"The Premier League is seeking to amend its rules within the next fortnight so that they comply with competition law."

So in other words the current rules do not comply with competition law (& public law). Note it doesn't highlight those 2 points but everything else is OK.

And come on bud, the fact the PL hasn't come out to even deny mcfc's letter or its wording should really point to that right now, in this moment, ATP is void.

 

On 10/10/2024 at 08:07, Simplymo said:

Tbh this is just the tip of the iceberg.

They are still at the phase of "is it" or "isn't it" while trying to quickly correct it.

The repercussions haven't even started yet for what isn't disputed by both parties, and that the tribunal has ruled upon, like compensation or damages or anything like that from 2021 onwards for any club involved.

An update, forgot to post it on Friday.

PL sent out a letter on Thursday. MCFC replied Friday. Did I mention how much I love this sh*t show...lol

So...

1) like I said above they are still waiting for the tribunal to clarify. 😄 

Cliff said City are "strongly in favour of robust, effective and lawful regulation", but because the two sides disagreed over whether the tribunal's ruling had rendered the current APT framework void, a further deliberation by the panel was "essential".

He added: "Common sense dictates that the Premier League should not rush into passing amendments - particularly ones which entail material legal risk - until [it] knows the outcome from the tribunal," also arguing "clubs will be voting blind".

 

2) The "New" proposed ammendments by the PL include one of the issues/points that was declared unlawful! 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

"Our strong desire is to avoid any future costly legal disputes on this issue and so it is critical that the Premier League gets it right this time round."

Cliff added the proposals "would introduce into the rules a retrospective exemption for shareholder loans", which he said is "one of the very things that was found to be illegal in the recent arbitration".

 

The PL can't be that stupid! right!?

Not only do they think mcfc is bluffing but giving them the ammo to have the new proposed ammendments thrown out in court again is not only doubling down on stupidity but its proper shooting yourself in the foot territory! Why include one of the points, in the new ammendments, that was declared unlawful and think mcfc wont actually act up on it! 🤪🤦‍♂️

 

Article about the letters below:

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c8rlm680j0mo

@Mod

I know this topic started in rgds to the owners and our front of shirt sponsor and that the outcome may still affect it but should this mcfc legal thingy be its own thread? I know theres a fk load of posts about it in this one, sry dude. Maybe I can help?

I have a couple of hours free later today. I can highlight all of them for you from everyone thats taken part as quotes and post them up in one or two posts (like i tried with most of mine above). Easier for you to identify and move them without having to actually read all the posts in this thread to find out which is about the "shirt sponsor and how the mcfc legal action affects it".

Sry again mate, but it wasn't only me this time...pick any of them to join me in the dog house, I don't mind. 🤣

7 hours ago, Simplymo said:

 

 

 

 

 

An update, forgot to post it on Friday.

PL sent out a letter on Thursday. MCFC replied Friday. Did I mention how much I love this sh*t show...lol

So...

1) like I said above they are still waiting for the tribunal to clarify. 😄 

Cliff said City are "strongly in favour of robust, effective and lawful regulation", but because the two sides disagreed over whether the tribunal's ruling had rendered the current APT framework void, a further deliberation by the panel was "essential".

He added: "Common sense dictates that the Premier League should not rush into passing amendments - particularly ones which entail material legal risk - until [it] knows the outcome from the tribunal," also arguing "clubs will be voting blind".

 

2) The "New" proposed ammendments by the PL include one of the issues/points that was declared unlawful! 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

"Our strong desire is to avoid any future costly legal disputes on this issue and so it is critical that the Premier League gets it right this time round."

Cliff added the proposals "would introduce into the rules a retrospective exemption for shareholder loans", which he said is "one of the very things that was found to be illegal in the recent arbitration".

 

The PL can't be that stupid! right!?

Not only do they think mcfc is bluffing but giving them the ammo to have the new proposed ammendments thrown out in court again is not only doubling down on stupidity but its proper shooting yourself in the foot territory! Why include one of the points, in the new ammendments, that was declared unlawful and think mcfc wont actually act up on it! 🤪🤦‍♂️

 

Article about the letters below:

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c8rlm680j0mo

Well I wonder which "Historic" club is pushing that...

23 minutes ago, dkw said:

Well I wonder which "Historic" club is pushing that...

Lost me bud, what's "history" got to do with the ruling? It's Sunday and I had a lie in, so brain hasn't kicked in yet. Lol

2 hours ago, Simplymo said:

Lost me bud, what's "history" got to do with the ruling? It's Sunday and I had a lie in, so brain hasn't kicked in yet. Lol

It's basically Utd, Liverpool and Arsenals little cartel that make demands constantly. This time it's blatantly Arsenal as they are going to be hammered by that rule 

5 hours ago, dkw said:

It's basically Utd, Liverpool and Arsenals little cartel that make demands constantly. This time it's blatantly Arsenal as they are going to be hammered by that rule 

Ah ok, lol

Good...don't care for any of them. 😆 

Man City's argument is that because one part of Rule is invalid, the whole set of Rules is invalid.

That is an insane, illogical and schoolyard-level argument. The kind of argument that would only even be considered in this sort of private arbitaration, it would be laughed out of a court.

It is the kind of process-focused legal bullsh*t that I see every working day where lawyers avoid dealing with issues of substance to hyper-fixate on minor issues in the hopes of getting some traction. 

That said, PSR is a waste of time. It doesn't even work - clubs are more profitable on average and there is more revenue due to transfer inflation, but there is no measurable impact on improving sustainability as is the stated goal of the Rules.

21 hours ago, Simplymo said:

@Mod

I know this topic started in rgds to the owners and our front of shirt sponsor and that the outcome may still affect it but should this mcfc legal thingy be its own thread? I know theres a fk load of posts about it in this one, sry dude. Maybe I can help?

Don't worry buddy, the topic surrounds the board too, so can still live within this thread! That said, I think there was a separate one for the City charges at one time!

58 minutes ago, Mod said:

Don't worry buddy, the topic surrounds the board too, so can still live within this thread! That said, I think there was a separate one for the City charges at one time!

I found one but it turned out to be the predictions thread. At this rate though it might have to be fished out via a search. 

I don't think they are anywhere near the end of the saga!

🤣

PL doubling down and "called" on mcfc..!

Now to see which way the vote goes and will MCFC stick to its word and go to court again, lol.

 

Villa is right though, 2 stubborn parties going at it like children and it's embarrassing for both (especially PL) but it soo fkn funny. 😆 

so... if PL win the vote and mcfc takes them to court again and PL lose court case because they rushed it and kept the unlawful bit in, then yeah, there will be no confidence in PL leadership. Its just stupid to risk it and think mcfc wont take them to court again like they said they would!

If the vote is No to the new ammendments then PL have to come up with another draft to vote on and ATP would still be void/on hold till then.*

 

I really want MCFC to take them to court again, tbh. This dick measuring contest needs more drama. Lol

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/nov/19/premier-league-to-proceed-with-vote-on-apt-rules-despite-aston-villa-calls-to-delay

 

 

 

*I like our shirts without a sponsor, looks cleaner. shame it will hit our income. Let's hope its all sorted by next season.

🤣 

Edited November 19, 20241 yr by Simplymo

I think this bit is key though on which way the vote will go...

 

The most significant change being proposed is making the rate of interest on shareholder loans subject to the fair market value (FMV) test. The rule amendment will not require fair market value interest charges to be backdated to the time the loan was first issued. However, it is understood the proposed amendment would mean an effective interest rate would be applied to any existing loan in future after a grace period – not just to new loans.

During the grace period, club owners and shareholders who have put in loans will have the option to convert them to equity, though doing so makes taking their money out less straightforward. Some amendments voted through in February are to be rolled back. One involves replacing “would” with “could” in the wording of what constitutes fair market value within the rules, which is anticipated will provide more wriggle room to clubs.

I don't know how many clubs have shareholder loans (I'm guessing most) and how the shareholders will feel about their money getting stuck and unable to liquidate. Or how much money the clubs actually have to pay in interest (there's a grace period for past loans but current ones still have to be paid not just future ones!). Those are big points to consider before voting yes to the ammendments.

I recall someone posting arsenal has over 400mil in shareholder loans?

Anybody know our numbers?

Edited November 19, 20241 yr by Simplymo

Different article:

 

Despite the wealth of their clubs, the Premier League’s own central funds are under pressure due to a huge rise in their legal fees caused by cost of the profitability and sustainability rules (PSR) and associated party transactions (APT) cases brought against Manchester City, Everton and Nottingham Forest.

The Premier League’s annual legal bill has grown almost tenfold to around £50m over the past two years. 

The Premier League’s own cohesion is also being severely tested before a club meeting on Friday to discuss potential changes to the competition’s APT regulations.

The Premier League want clubs to vote on proposed amendments to the rules, but City have demanded that the process is paused and have received support from Aston Villa, who want the vote to be called off.

The Premier League will only hold a ballot if they are confident of getting the two-thirds majority required for the new rules to be introduced.

 

3 hours ago, Simplymo said:

I think this bit is key though on which way the vote will go...

 

The most significant change being proposed is making the rate of interest on shareholder loans subject to the fair market value (FMV) test. The rule amendment will not require fair market value interest charges to be backdated to the time the loan was first issued. However, it is understood the proposed amendment would mean an effective interest rate would be applied to any existing loan in future after a grace period – not just to new loans.

During the grace period, club owners and shareholders who have put in loans will have the option to convert them to equity, though doing so makes taking their money out less straightforward. Some amendments voted through in February are to be rolled back. One involves replacing “would” with “could” in the wording of what constitutes fair market value within the rules, which is anticipated will provide more wriggle room to clubs.

I don't know how many clubs have shareholder loans (I'm guessing most) and how the shareholders will feel about their money getting stuck and unable to liquidate. Or how much money the clubs actually have to pay in interest (there's a grace period for past loans but current ones still have to be paid not just future ones!). Those are big points to consider before voting yes to the ammendments.

I recall someone posting arsenal has over 400mil in shareholder loans?

Anybody know our numbers?

The idea to exclude shareholder loans from the PSR assessment was an idea raised and endorsed by 19 EPL clubs, including Manchester City. 

The only two clubs these changes would not affect would be the two clubs owned by nation-states ie. Manchester City and Newcastle. City have reneged on their original endorsement because they are able to secure funding via state-sponsored organisations. They do not rely on cash injections or no-interest loans from the Sheikh himself, and want to be able to fund their club with corporate sponsorship deals as needed.

We are unaffected in the immediate short-term, as we likely still have a cash injection available from the takeover. However, once that is exhausted (and that will be soon), Clearlake would need to inject cash directly rather than fund the club through interest-free loans from Blueco. 

I still think MCFC's 'threats' of legal action are entirely bluster. While they achieved a favourable decision at arbitration, it should be understood that this decision was based on EU and CAS case law, which was acceptable by agreement between MCFC and the PL, and therefore not directly relevant to a UK court's decisions. A Court, considering a different and possibly broader set of issues (such as the broader public interest and the reputation of the competition), may not agree with the Tribunal's reasoning because it is evident that removing such a rule would distort competition in favour of Manchester City.

17 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

 

The idea to exclude shareholder loans from the PSR assessment was an idea raised and endorsed by 19 EPL clubs, including Manchester City. 

The only two clubs these changes would not affect would be the two clubs owned by nation-states ie. Manchester City and Newcastle. City have reneged on their original endorsement because they are able to secure funding via state-sponsored organisations. They do not rely on cash injections or no-interest loans from the Sheikh himself, and want to be able to fund their club with corporate sponsorship deals as needed.

We are unaffected in the immediate short-term, as we likely still have a cash injection available from the takeover. However, once that is exhausted (and that will be soon), Clearlake would need to inject cash directly rather than fund the club through interest-free loans from Blueco. 

I still think MCFC's 'threats' of legal action are entirely bluster. While they achieved a favourable decision at arbitration, it should be understood that this decision was based on EU and CAS case law, which was acceptable by agreement between MCFC and the PL, and therefore not directly relevant to a UK court's decisions. A Court, considering a different and possibly broader set of issues (such as the broader public interest and the reputation of the competition), may not agree with the Tribunal's reasoning because it is evident that removing such a rule would distort competition in favour of Manchester City.

Hi. Surely PSR excludes us from having a " cash injection" from the takeover ,?  Certainly there can't be any extra cash for transfers because doesn't that money have to come from our income only , and not from loans or from an injection of cash?

 

2 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

Hi. Surely PSR excludes us from having a " cash injection" from the takeover ,?  Certainly there can't be any extra cash for transfers because doesn't that money have to come from our income only , and not from loans or from an injection of cash?

 

Cash injections are already limited by the general PSR rules, which limit an ownership to contributing no more than £30m/season in cash to cover any shortfalls.

PSR doesn't apply to the estimated £1.5bn in cash we received as part of the takeover terms, because that relates to the sale of the club and isn't relevant income for PSR. Any sort of equity injection or transfer is excluded from PSR, so our spending is still limited within the PSR rules.v You might recall some of the other clubs (namely Arsenal) tried to claim it was unfair that we would have our debt wiped + £1.5bn to spend, but the PL ruled it could not be counted for PSR assessment. 

Shareholder loans are a bit different. Man City's argument, upheld by the Tribunal, is that an owner loaning their club £100m interest-free is unfair compared to other clubs who need to get their £100m loan from a bank at market interest (say 5%). The Tribunal upheld this when they learned that the clubs purposely voted for this exclusion, so in effect, the Tribunal interpreted this as a deliberate attempt to favour clubs who had access to shareholder loans vs those that needed to approach a bank.

Clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal, Nottingham Forest and Brighton all rely on interest-free loans from their ownership groups. These loans can be restructured into equity where the owner then increases their stake in the club, but that is a big problem for clubs owned by consortia (because the other shareholders may not consent to their stake being diluted).

42 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Cash injections are already limited by the general PSR rules, which limit an ownership to contributing no more than £30m/season in cash to cover any shortfalls.

PSR doesn't apply to the estimated £1.5bn in cash we received as part of the takeover terms, because that relates to the sale of the club and isn't relevant income for PSR. Any sort of equity injection or transfer is excluded from PSR, so our spending is still limited within the PSR rules.v You might recall some of the other clubs (namely Arsenal) tried to claim it was unfair that we would have our debt wiped + £1.5bn to spend, but the PL ruled it could not be counted for PSR assessment. 

Shareholder loans are a bit different. Man City's argument, upheld by the Tribunal, is that an owner loaning their club £100m interest-free is unfair compared to other clubs who need to get their £100m loan from a bank at market interest (say 5%). The Tribunal upheld this when they learned that the clubs purposely voted for this exclusion, so in effect, the Tribunal interpreted this as a deliberate attempt to favour clubs who had access to shareholder loans vs those that needed to approach a bank.

Clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal, Nottingham Forest and Brighton all rely on interest-free loans from their ownership groups. These loans can be restructured into equity where the owner then increases their stake in the club, but that is a big problem for clubs owned by consortia (because the other shareholders may not consent to their stake being diluted).

Hi Sydney, thanks for your usual informative reply , much appreciated.

Yep, villa looks like voting no.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c0792yex9j5o

 

*He looks fkn scary too. Lol

I don't expect any of the clubs to vote yes, since it was their almost unanimous idea to have the shareholder loan exclusion included in the original APT rules. It absolutely makes sense for them to wait until after the January transfer window, giving owners a chance to inject more loans before the inevitable changes are afoot.

Man City is trying to blackmail the clubs. They want the clubs to vote to scrap APT (because APT was found to be valid and legal) so that shareholder loans can be preserved as a source of income. Again, it's legal bluster and it would not be surprising if the clubs call City's bluff and vote to include shareholder loans as an APT.

Off topic as I don’t do fooball finance, but does anyone know where the £3,000,000,000 +- has gone?

1 hour ago, Kev56 said:

Off topic as I don’t do fooball finance, but does anyone know where the £3,000,000,000 +- has gone?

What £3,000,000,000 +? 

9 hours ago, Kev56 said:

Off topic as I don’t do fooball finance, but does anyone know where the £3,000,000,000 +- has gone?

Don't click this link if you have a heart condition 

https://www.espn.com.au/football/story/_/id/38304925/chelsea-spend-1-billion-euros-players-three-transfer-windows

Some interesting things coming out of the Diarra case, where CJEU has made rulings challenging FIFA's rules around player transfers. It is clear that FIFA will need to make significant changes to be compliant with EU law, or the EU will simply have different transfer regulations to the rest of the world. I don't think the top-flight transfer market will be majorly affected but for those of us who follow football in minor countries, we are waiting with bated breath as it may ruin the transfer economy and income sources our clubs rely on.

Of interest to Chelsea and its ownership:

• CJEU finds FIFA's objective of 'contractual stability' illegitimate, and that FIFA's dispute resolution procedures for transfers conflict with EU rights under employment and competition law. Essentially, FIFA procedures favour owning clubs, and disadvantage players and buying clubs.
  • The implication is that things will to change for greater freedom of movement. CJEU recognised the need for stability within a season, but did not recognise the right of clubs to retain players between seasons or on a long-term basis
  • It is likely that long contracts will be effectively rendered void or unenforceable
  • FIFA does not have legitimate authority to penalise players or clubs for alleged inducements ('tapping up etc') and this should be deal with by national law or the terms of individual contracts
     
• On the flip side, with FIFA's jurisdiction in question, it is possible that Chelsea and other clubs who have been transfer banned for breaching FIFA transfer rules might now be entitled to compensation from FIFA

 

Edited November 22, 20241 yr by SydneyChelsea

The latest email newsletter from the Chelsea Supporters Trust:

Welcome to the latest newsletter from the Chelsea Supporters Trust. When I wrote back in August the intro to the first newsletter of the season I did say a positive start to the season, with supporters seeing some signs of improvements and then a European Conference League Final in Wroclaw in May would help the ownership group with their goal to “earn the trust and confidence of supporters.  Well certainly you could say so far it’s definitely two out of three with our start to the season and many of our match performances to date. And with the Conference league performances (even with our so called B squad) providing lots of goals and attacking football, we really should tick off of my third hope by the end of the season.  On CST matters since the last newsletter we have held our AGM in September and I was delighted to be elected to the Board once more and appointed once more as Chairman for the year ahead. The following board members were elected to serve on the Chelsea Supporters Trust Board in 2024/25: Cliff Auger, Gillian Bromfield, David Chidgey, Debs Coady, Paul Hay, Dominic Rosso, Dan Silver and Ben Williams.  Also co-opted on to the CST Board for 24/25 are Jon Gordon, Tim Rolls, Phill Spector and Diane Akers.  Thanks to all CST members who came along to the AGM either in person or on line and who took the time to vote in our annual election and thanks for voting on all the proposed motions that can now be our mandate for the year ahead.  Since the last newsletter we have seen the departure of Chief Executive Chris Jurasek. The CST really tried to build a relationship with Chris Jurasek as it has done for every other preceding CEO but he showed little interest in doing so.  Having met new President and Chief Operating Officer Jason Gannon on a number of occasions already since Chris Jurasek departure it has been an encouraging start so far.  He is a much more visible senior executive willing to engage and have a dialogue with supporters and although there will be occasions where we will have a different point of view to the club, we have been impressed with his engagement with the CST Board so far including supporting the relaunch of the Chelsea Disabled Supporters Association and attending our Chelsea Heritage Partnership event before the Arsenal home game on Remembrance Sunday.   We welcome Jason Gannon’s arrival with this significant change of leadership at the helm. Visibility and leadership at any time is crucial and we believe at CST now is the right time for a more visible engagement with the wider supporter base from the leadership at Chelsea FC.  We continue to lobby the club about a proposal we made to them last April before the Manchester United home game in line with many of the recommendations from the Fan Led review of Football Governance.  We have said to the club that now is the right time for a much more public fan engagement strategy and greater sharing of the club’s strategic vision including their commercial ambitions with the wider supporter base.  We have said to Chelsea FC that an open public meeting with supporters would be a good place to start. Since the start of this season both Spurs and Brentford have held open meetings in front of ordinary supporters and not just representatives from supporters groups. Both meetings were also broadcast live to the wider Spurs and Brentford fanbases via various media channels. Brentford even used their meeting to tell supporters they would be freezing ticket prices next season! We will keep you informed on progress on our dialogue with the club on this already proven successful fan engagement concept.  More recently following our AGM meeting in September with ticketing issues high on our members agenda we have also written to the club and sent them a short non definitive list of key ticketing action points.  There are still many issues for CST Members and the wider Chelsea supporter base around the ticketing process. VWR, the loyalty points system, ticket exchange scheme, away tickets, poor communication on ticket availability, The following action points are not exhaustive and have been designed to drive dialogue with the club and we have requested a meeting with key stakeholders at the club to progress further.    1. Communication   2. Membership   3. Ticket Exchange   4. Loyalty Points   5. Away Tickets   6. Digital Tickets   7. Accessible Ticketing   We will also meet shortly with the club to have a further discussion about Westview.  Westview as a concept is still not working. We will continue to press the club on Westview ticketing policy. There continues to be unsold tickets in Westview and we have not had a full house of 40,022 at Stamford Bridge since Liverpool at the start of last season. An empty seat is nil revenue. If tickets are not selling then they are priced wrong.  In addition to the ticketing conversation, we will regularly lobby club to share with supporters their strategy for tackling ticket touting and what has been done to date about the infiltration of the ticket exchange by bots. Following our recent AGM a big thank you to the very helpful Chelsea supporter who provided details of the website that shows you how you can purchase a bot to hack the ticket exchange for the price of 1800 US Dollars. This has been shared with Chelsea FC to investigate further. I will expect a communication strategy by the club on what is doing to tackle the huge problem that currently is the secondary ticketing and tout market.  Finally, I am really pleased here at the Chelsea Supporters Trust, that the club and the Chelsea Foundation are working with us and one of our charity partners at Barons Court Project as part of the Wrap Up Warm initiative that was launched earlier in November.    Barons Court Project is the only day centre in Hammersmith and Fulham who support people on low incomes, homeless or vulnerable to mental health issues. They provide one to one support to homeless people and provide a place where people can have a hot meal, have a shower, do their laundry, charge their phone, and get replacement clothing.      As the evenings draw in and the temperature drops, it is vital that as Chelsea supporters we do our bit for the community and help those most in need this Winter. The number of people sleeping rough in London has recently risen to a new record high, with 4,780 rough sleepers seen on the city’s streets between July and September. This represents an increase of 18 per cent in 12 months.   We brought the Winter clothes donation idea to the Chelsea Foundation earlier this year, and we are really pleased that they have been so positive about making an impact.  We would like as many Chelsea supporters as possible to give their support to this campaign and help make a difference to the lives of people less fortunate than ourselves. As you will see from this newsletter on Sunday 1 December, ahead of Chelsea FC vs. Aston Villa, Chelsea supporters wishing to donate warm clothing to be distributed to those in need across our local community can do so by visiting one of the special matchday drop-off points or can make a donation to support the Wrap up Warm campaign below:  Fundraiser by CHELSEA FC FOUNDATION : Wrap Up Warm    We are really proud of the work that has gone on behind the scenes with Chelsea FC and the Chelsea Foundation to make this campaign a reality. It would be great to have your support   Come on you Blues…..    Yours faithfully, Mark Meehan - Chelsea Supporters’ Trust, Chairman

Wrap-up Warm - clothing drop off on Sunday We have partnered with the Chelsea FC Foundation to support those who are homeless this Winter. As part of this initiative we are collecting warm clothing to be distributed to those in need across our local community The CST will be running a drop-off point outside the Stoll gates on Sunday between 11:30-13:00. Further information can be found here.

Those Were the Days: Remembrance Day On Sunday 10 November, the Chelsea Heritage Partnership [part of the CST], in collaboration with Chelsea FC presented the latest Those were the Days heritage event. More information about the event is here.

Foodbank We will once again be collecting for the Hammersmith & Fulham Foodbank before Chelsea v Aston Villa on Sunday.   We are delighted to support our local community.   Our collection will take place outside the Stoll Gates from 11:30-13:00 on Sunday. More info.

Meet the CST: pop-in session Ahead of Chelsea v Aston Villa, the Chelsea Supporters’ Trust will be holding a Meet the CST pop-in session.   We will be based on Fulham Road next to the Stoll Gates from 11:30-13:00.   Members of the CST Board will be available to speak with supporters about matchday problems and wider issues experienced. We will use this as an information-gathering session. Relevant feedback will be reported directly to club officials.

5 hours ago, Boyne said:

7. Accessible Ticketing
 
We will also meet shortly with the club to have a further discussion about Westview.  Westview as a concept is still not working. We will continue to press the club on Westview ticketing policy. There continues to be unsold tickets in Westview and we have not had a full house of 40,022 at Stamford Bridge since Liverpool at the start of last season. An empty seat is nil revenue. If tickets are not selling then they are priced wrong. 

In addition to the ticketing conversation, we will regularly lobby club to share with supporters their strategy for tackling ticket touting and what has been done to date about the infiltration of the ticket exchange by bots. Following our recent AGM a big thank you to the very helpful Chelsea supporter who provided details of the website that shows you how you can purchase a bot to hack the ticket exchange for the price of 1800 US Dollars. This has been shared with Chelsea FC to investigate further. I will expect a communication strategy by the club on what is doing to tackle the huge problem that currently is the secondary ticketing and tout market. 

As always, thank you @Boyne for the update. Very interesting, and very hapeart warming the charity work done in this time of the year.

Regarding tickets, this past week I was trying to get a ticket in the ticket exchange and I was, literally, refreshing every1-2 minutes and every time I say a stand highlighting I’d go straight in to get the ticket, only to find that either there was no seat highlighted to pick or if there was a seat, whenever I clicked it and typeied to buy it, it was already not available. That happened during three days and I contacted the club, only to get a response that there were many supporters trying and the tickeTs were going quickly. Well, to me it smelled of bots, there’s no way they can be so quick all the time, and it happened to me about 20 times, until I gave up. Ticketing is a mess, try to get a ticket for a home or away game and they go very quick, but the speed at which the ticket exchange is raided, can only be down to bots. Lets hope that the club does something about it.

4 hours ago, RMH said:

As always, thank you @Boyne for the update. Very interesting, and very hapeart warming the charity work done in this time of the year.

Regarding tickets, this past week I was trying to get a ticket in the ticket exchange and I was, literally, refreshing every1-2 minutes and every time I say a stand highlighting I’d go straight in to get the ticket, only to find that either there was no seat highlighted to pick or if there was a seat, whenever I clicked it and typeied to buy it, it was already not available. That happened during three days and I contacted the club, only to get a response that there were many supporters trying and the tickeTs were going quickly. Well, to me it smelled of bots, there’s no way they can be so quick all the time, and it happened to me about 20 times, until I gave up. Ticketing is a mess, try to get a ticket for a home or away game and they go very quick, but the speed at which the ticket exchange is raided, can only be down to bots. Lets hope that the club does something about it.

@RMH Thank you.  The CST does some great charity work.

I guess with the bots a group of ticket touts won't have a problem with spending 1,800 US Dollars to hack the IT system and I assume they also have a number of memberships to buy tickets. Hopefully the club can resolve the issue and improve the security of the system. Maybe buyers answering a couple of questions when making a purchase. It would slow down purchases but if the system is more secure maybe worth waiting a bit longer. I think it would help if people were told where they were in the queue when purchasing. It would interesting to know how many tickets go to people who aren't ST holders or members. I think there is about 25,000 ST holders so if bout 3,500 set aside for away fans that leaves about 13,500 for members less those purchased by corporates. If the ground is ever developed hopefully more available for members.

As you say, ticketing is a bloody mess.