8 hours ago, Boyne said:

Cheers mate. Thank you.

Thanks for sharing Boyne.

I hope the CST, the CPO and every Chelsea supporters organization does not take the bait and be led to think this is ONLY a Todd Boehly issue. It is all of them. Clearlake, Wyss, Walter's, they are all in this neck deep. They, and other PL owners, most notably from the US, are looking to bleed the sport for every penny they can, and take our game away from us.

It affects all clubs, not just Chelsea.

 

Is not Victory if Todd leaves after this and the rest remain. They all need to go.

20 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

I hope the CST, the CPO and every Chelsea supporters organization does not take the bait and be led to think this is ONLY a Todd Boehly issue. It is all of them. Clearlake, Wyss, Walter's, they are all in this neck deep. They, and other PL owners, most notably from the US, are looking to bleed the sport for every penny they can, and take our game away from us.

Well, the Diarra case is likely to have made that much worse.

The transfer system is gone and transfer fees will no longer exist. The money we have spent on the likes of Fernandez and Mudryk will never, ever be able to be recovered. Depending on the Belgian courts, this may have been the last ever transfer window.

Commercial revenue will overtake transfer revenue, and that necessitates more sponsorship, more corporate branding and more decisions at the behest of the advertising and sponsorship dollar.

9 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Well, the Diarra case is likely to have made that much worse.

The transfer system is gone and transfer fees will no longer exist. The money we have spent on the likes of Fernandez and Mudryk will never, ever be able to be recovered. Depending on the Belgian courts, this may have been the last ever transfer window.

Commercial revenue will overtake transfer revenue, and that necessitates more sponsorship, more corporate branding and more decisions at the behest of the advertising and sponsorship dollar.

Will see what comes of that, maybe transfers are a thing of the past, maybe not.

What is not a maybe, imo, is that these owners are a cancer to our club, and we need them gone.

12 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Will see what comes of that, maybe transfers are a thing of the past, maybe not.

What is not a maybe, imo, is that these owners are a cancer to our club, and we need them gone.

It is not a maybe. Transfers will still happen, but there is now no reason for a club to pay a transfer fee as the FIFA rule requiring it is now void, Clubs can chose to reimburse a player buying out their contract, and the sum required for a player to buy-out their contract will now need to be drastically below the 'value' of a contract. Our 'Brighton' model has gone bust overnight, and FFP/PSR rules dictate that we'll need to find a commercial alternative.

The upside is we'll likely be rid of Dumb & Dumber, but in charge of our commercial operations is a mob who can't even organise a shirt sponsor in time...

Edited February 7, 20251 yr by SydneyChelsea

38 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

It is not a maybe. Transfers will still happen, but there is now no reason for a club to pay a transfer fee as the FIFA rule requiring it is now void, Clubs can chose to reimburse a player buying out their contract, and the sum required for a player to buy-out their contract will now need to be drastically below the 'value' of a contract. Our 'Brighton' model has gone bust overnight, and FFP/PSR rules dictate that we'll need to find a commercial alternative.

The upside is we'll likely be rid of Dumb & Dumber, but in charge of our commercial operations is a mob who can't even organise a shirt sponsor in time...

If that becomes the case then would be a battle of who pays the best then. Goes against a wage cap principal, though would be a relief for players on death row contracts who actually want to go win things, and are good enough to do so.

Not sure how FFP and PSR would be sustainable without transfer fees. Player rather than club decides he is leaving. Let's say Mudryk, as an example. You said drastically lower than the value of his contract, so maybe he can leave for 5mill, meaning, under the current system, his PSR hit comes in and is a lot more than 5mill.

Clubs will argue it was not them, bit the player, who made this happen so they should not suffer a PSR hit as they wanted the player to stay.

If it leads to this lot slinging their respective hooks sooner rather than later then I would be all for it.

3 hours ago, axman2526 said:

If that becomes the case then would be a battle of who pays the best then. Goes against a wage cap principal, though would be a relief for players on death row contracts who actually want to go win things, and are good enough to do so.

Not sure how FFP and PSR would be sustainable without transfer fees. Player rather than club decides he is leaving. Let's say Mudryk, as an example. You said drastically lower than the value of his contract, so maybe he can leave for 5mill, meaning, under the current system, his PSR hit comes in and is a lot more than 5mill.

Clubs will argue it was not them, bit the player, who made this happen so they should not suffer a PSR hit as they wanted the player to stay.

If it leads to this lot slinging their respective hooks sooner rather than later then I would be all for it.

PSR would need to be paused or implement a grace period, as no club will be able to immediately comply. However both UEFA and the PL are moving to a soft spending caps already with Squad Cost Ratio, meaning that clubs will only be able to spend a fixed proportion of their revenue.

Its also possible that we see an American-style transfer system, where clubs negotiate direct with players, in which case I would hope that our owners can  share their experience.

5 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Well, the Diarra case is likely to have made that much worse.

The transfer system is gone and transfer fees will no longer exist. The money we have spent on the likes of Fernandez and Mudryk will never, ever be able to be recovered. Depending on the Belgian courts, this may have been the last ever transfer window.

Commercial revenue will overtake transfer revenue, and that necessitates more sponsorship, more corporate branding and more decisions at the behest of the advertising and sponsorship dollar.

Sorry I think you are over dramatising this.

There is no denying that the ECJ has handed the matter back to the Belgium court and indeed they , the court, will now have to make a ruling but  two major points to consider 

1) That ruling is made by a court that has jurisdiction in the EU and not the vast majority of FIFA countries. Already we see rules that are EU specific in FIFA regulations. For instance academy players aged over 16 have freedom of movement whereas outside the EU it is 18

2) In the Diarra case the main issues were around the compensation payable and by whom when a contract was  ended without sporting just cause . To a degree that was inevitable following the Webster ruling and FIFAs reluctance/ avoidance to stipulate levels and the insistence that signing clubs and the players were jointly and severely liable in most instances 

3) The ruling has potentially opened the door for clubs to seek redress for breach of contract through national courts  as oppossed to FIFA /CAS which yes may see transfer fees and indeed potentially wages reduce but players like the Webster and indeed the Bosman rulings did  almost certainly will be granted greater freedom within FIFA rules but with that freedom it becomes more likely that they, the players will assume greater and almost certainly sole liability if a contract is ended without sporting just cause which ironically I simply can’t see why the ruling was that Diarras contract wasn’t broken by the Russian club

10 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

The Boehly ticket thing was on the TalkSport news tonight.

@The Rising Sun Thanks. Will try and listen to it. Now that TalkSport has mentioned it I wonder if the rest of the media will report about it.

6 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Thanks for sharing Boyne.

I hope the CST, the CPO and every Chelsea supporters organization does not take the bait and be led to think this is ONLY a Todd Boehly issue. It is all of them. Clearlake, Wyss, Walter's, they are all in this neck deep. They, and other PL owners, most notably from the US, are looking to bleed the sport for every penny they can, and take our game away from us.

It affects all clubs, not just Chelsea.

 

Is not Victory if Todd leaves after this and the rest remain. They all need to go.

@axman2526 Thanks. It will be interesting to see if, when and how Boehly and the club responds to the CST. The club can't hope that the issue will go away especially if the media runs with it. Bizarre that Boehly didn't appreciate that there would be a clash of interests. Very ignorant of him. I worked in a U.K. Government Department and there were things that I couldn't do in case there was a clash of interests.

I don't know if there are rules as to when tickets can be issued for games e.g. PL, EFL and Cup matches in this country. I've never noticed but then again I haven't looked. Even if there aren't rules, season ticket holders and members should still have priority when buying tickets. Goodness knows how many tickets get given to tourist agencies and corporates. As you say, Chelsea is not the only club which behaves like this. Sadly, a sign of the times.

1 hour ago, terraloon said:

Sorry I think you are over dramatising this.

There is no denying that the ECJ has handed the matter back to the Belgium court and indeed they , the court, will now have to make a ruling but  two major points to consider 

1) That ruling is made by a court that has jurisdiction in the EU and not the vast majority of FIFA countries. Already we see rules that are EU specific in FIFA regulations. For instance academy players aged over 16 have freedom of movement whereas outside the EU it is 18

2) In the Diarra case the main issues were around the compensation payable and by whom when a contract was  ended without sporting just cause . To a degree that was inevitable following the Webster ruling and FIFAs reluctance/ avoidance to stipulate levels and the insistence that signing clubs and the players were jointly and severely liable in most instances 

3) The ruling has potentially opened the door for clubs to seek redress for breach of contract through national courts  as oppossed to FIFA /CAS which yes may see transfer fees and indeed potentially wages reduce but players like the Webster and indeed the Bosman rulings did  almost certainly will be granted greater freedom within FIFA rules but with that freedom it becomes more likely that they, the players will assume greater and almost certainly sole liability if a contract is ended without sporting just cause which ironically I simply can’t see why the ruling was that Diarras contract wasn’t broken by the Russian club

The EU is the sport's traditional and cultural home, which is why FIFA will need to make major changes. Saudi will be a beneficiary as they will still be able to pay inducement fees for clubs and players to play there rather than in Europe. Article 17 of the RSTP can't apply in the EU any more, so FIFA will need to decide to reform or have a two-tiered system for the EU and everywhere else.

The ruling is that FIFA cannot impose financial or sporting sanctions on a player breaking contract. This means there is no longer a need for a club to waive its right to legal action, ie a transfer fee.

With your last point, the court was specifically scathing of FIFA, with a view that FIFA is not competent to hear industrial disputes and is doing so in contravention of EU law. It ruled that these should be a matter for national courts and not a FIFA tribunal, and crucially, that FIFA/CAS calculations of compensation payable by players is not consistent with national and EU courts, being far too biased towards clubs.

The overall effect is that transfer fees can't exist in Europe, at least in their current state and value.

Edited February 7, 20251 yr by SydneyChelsea

9 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

It is not a maybe. Transfers will still happen, but there is now no reason for a club to pay a transfer fee as the FIFA rule requiring it is now void, Clubs can chose to reimburse a player buying out their contract, and the sum required for a player to buy-out their contract will now need to be drastically below the 'value' of a contract. Our 'Brighton' model has gone bust overnight, and FFP/PSR rules dictate that we'll need to find a commercial alternative.

The upside is we'll likely be rid of Dumb & Dumber, but in charge of our commercial operations is a mob who can't even organise a shirt sponsor in time...

We've been spending millions on very young players to  develope them, increase their value, and then sell them on for profit .

Will all that be no longer possible ?

10 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Well, the Diarra case is likely to have made that much worse.

The transfer system is gone and transfer fees will no longer exist. The money we have spent on the likes of Fernandez and Mudryk will never, ever be able to be recovered. Depending on the Belgian courts, this may have been the last ever transfer window.

Commercial revenue will overtake transfer revenue, and that necessitates more sponsorship, more corporate branding and more decisions at the behest of the advertising and sponsorship dollar.

The PL receives nearly double the broadcasting income than the next  biggest (Germany ) European broadcast income . Surely it's about managing this massive financial advantage properly and not have nearly every club making losses despite all this wealth ?

4 hours ago, Boyne said:

@The Rising Sun Thanks. Will try and listen to it. Now that TalkSport has mentioned it I wonder if the rest of the media will report about it.

@axman2526 Thanks. It will be interesting to see if, when and how Boehly and the club responds to the CST. The club can't hope that the issue will go away especially if the media runs with it. Bizarre that Boehly didn't appreciate that there would be a clash of interests. Very ignorant of him. I worked in a U.K. Government Department and there were things that I couldn't do in case there was a clash of interests.

I don't know if there are rules as to when tickets can be issued for games e.g. PL, EFL and Cup matches in this country. I've never noticed but then again I haven't looked. Even if there aren't rules, season ticket holders and members should still have priority when buying tickets. Goodness knows how many tickets get given to tourist agencies and corporates. As you say, Chelsea is not the only club which behaves like this. Sadly, a sign of the times.

Thing is Todd was on the board of Vivid Seats BEFORE he and the rest bought Chelsea. So how did the PL "fit and proper" ownership test not flag this as an issue? Or did they, and then got paid off to keep quite?

3 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

The EU is the sport's traditional and cultural home, which is why FIFA will need to make major changes. Saudi will be a beneficiary as they will still be able to pay inducement fees for clubs and players to play there rather than in Europe. Article 17 of the RSTP can't apply in the EU any more, so FIFA will need to decide to reform or have a two-tiered system for the EU and everywhere else.

The ruling is that FIFA cannot impose financial or sporting sanctions on a player breaking contract. This means there is no longer a need for a club to waive its right to legal action, ie a transfer fee.

With your last point, the court was specifically scathing of FIFA, with a view that FIFA is not competent to hear industrial disputes and is doing so in contravention of EU law. It ruled that these should be a matter for national courts and not a FIFA tribunal, and crucially, that FIFA/CAS calculations of compensation payable by players is not consistent with national and EU courts, being far too biased towards clubs.

The overall effect is that transfer fees can't exist in Europe, at least in their current state and value.

There is absolutely no doubt that FIFAs regulations aren’t fully compatible with EU law particularly around freedom of movement but the crux here is it that FIFA really only put a band aid over its basic regulations following Bosman and Webster cases.

1 hour ago, axman2526 said:

Thing is Todd was on the board of Vivid Seats BEFORE he and the rest bought Chelsea. So how did the PL "fit and proper" ownership test not flag this as an issue? Or did they, and then got paid off to keep quite?

They didn’t flag it up as an issue because in legal terms it isn’t an issue.

Much has been said about the cost and of course the sums stated are said to be  eye watering that’s why I personally find it odd that anyone be they UK based or indeed based in N America doesn’t buy hospitality or indeed Westview tickets . For most game you can buy and get a far better package than just a seat in say the MH .

The real question here is more to do with how these ticketing sites manage to gain access to so many tickets not just at Chelsea but every PL club. 
 

 

 

The more I think about it and look at how they’re operating, the more convinced I am that they have zero interest in us being successful in any way shape or form on the pitch. And the current manager/coach is absolutely on board with their player farming profits and mid table performances. This is absolutely the worst period I’ve experienced since my first game in 1983. Never have I felt so little hope that things will get better. I absolutely could not care whether they keep or sack the coaches any more as it’ll just be to replace with another inexperienced yes man to coach a bunch of bang average injury prone teenagers.

And we’ll be stuck with them for ages like United are with the Glazers and the Radcliffe nut job.

4 hours ago, terraloon said:

The real question here is more to do with how these ticketing sites manage to gain access to so many tickets not just at Chelsea but every PL club. 

 

 

 

Probably the club's allow those tickets to go to some who will sell them to Vivid Seats so both get a cut.

10 minutes ago, Snedger said:

And we’ll be stuck with them for ages like United are with the Glazers and the Radcliffe nut job.

Aye we will, till we have a United fan base to work together as we did with the super league.

1 hour ago, axman2526 said:

Probably the club's allow those tickets to go to some who will sell them to Vivid Seats so both get a cut.

I might be wrong but I don’t think  it’s the clubs that actually sell the tickets to Vivid. I think Vivid is a platform that outlets/ individuals use to sell on their tickets. In effect it’s a bit like eBay . 
From reading Vivids statement they do indeed get commission if a ticket is sold via them but they don’t own the tickets. 

 

Edited February 7, 20251 yr by terraloon

As a follow up it seems I was right here’s how Vivid works

List Your Tickets for Free

Set your own price and quantity, and change them at any time. Whether you have extra tickets, can no longer attend the event, or want to sell your season tickets, we have you covered.

2

Get Notified

We'll send you an email to let you know when your tickets sell!

3

Upload or Ship

Once you sell your tickets, upload your PDF e-ticket or we will provide you with a prepaid UPS shipping label to ship tickets to our customer. No hassles.

P4

57 minutes ago, terraloon said:

As a follow up it seems I was right here’s how Vivid works

List Your Tickets for Free

Set your own price and quantity, and change them at any time. Whether you have extra tickets, can no longer attend the event, or want to sell your season tickets, we have you covered.

2

Get Notified

We'll send you an email to let you know when your tickets sell!

3

Upload or Ship

Once you sell your tickets, upload your PDF e-ticket or we will provide you with a prepaid UPS shipping label to ship tickets to our customer. No hassles.

P4

Yeah but come on, how are tickets available to buy for games when the club have not released the tickets for sale even on our official channels?

The club can sell to a third party, third party sells to Vivid, both the 3rd party and the club (I.e. owners) get a slice.

16 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Yeah but come on, how are tickets available to buy for games when the club have not released the tickets for sale even on our official channels?

The club can sell to a third party, third party sells to Vivid, both the 3rd party and the club (I.e. owners) get a slice.

Season tickets springs to mind , sponsors also will get tickets in advance but  Vivid don’t appear to have the tickets this is a platform.

I believe the Ascott partnership gains tickets but I very very much doubt that the club sell tickets to Vivid . It’s not just Chelsea tickets that appear on this site

 

Edited February 7, 20251 yr by terraloon

2 hours ago, terraloon said:

Season tickets springs to mind , sponsors also will get tickets in advance but  Vivid don’t appear to have the tickets this is a platform.

I believe the Ascott partnership gains tickets but I very very much doubt that the club sell tickets to Vivid . It’s not just Chelsea tickets that appear on this site

 

Indeed not, all PL clubs, plus several other events.

Likely make a killing off events like Wrestlemaina.

14 hours ago, terraloon said:

I might be wrong but I don’t think  it’s the clubs that actually sell the tickets to Vivid. I think Vivid is a platform that outlets/ individuals use to sell on their tickets. In effect it’s a bit like eBay . 
From reading Vivids statement they do indeed get commission if a ticket is sold via them but they don’t own the tickets. 

 

According to Kieran Maguire, a number of clubs are partnered with such sites.

1 hour ago, dermott said:

According to Kieran Maguire, a number of clubs are partnered with such sites.

They do sites such as ticketmaster, twickets, seatmaster. Theses are examples are three sites which I believe are authorised to re sale tickets  and are in effect partners with some clubs.

 

15 hours ago, terraloon said:

Season tickets springs to mind , sponsors also will get tickets in advance but  Vivid don’t appear to have the tickets this is a platform.

I believe the Ascott partnership gains tickets but I very very much doubt that the club sell tickets to Vivid . It’s not just Chelsea tickets that appear on this site

 

I'm a season ticket holder. I can list my ticket on the club's ticket exchange for resale to members ( or other ST holders I think).  BUT only for games coming up soon, and certainly not for games months away. I can forward tickets to ST and members that I have listed on my account. BUT I can only do that a day or two before the game. The only way tickets for games months away can be available on Vivid must be from the club somehow. .Or maybe the tickets for games months away that vivid list aren't really available to buy immediately? 

If the club is really involved, it makes a mockery of anti touting rules and is disregarding the money (and time)  that members spend trying to obtain tickets.