51 minutes ago, Remodez said:

Could this lead to a transfer ban? Please?

Don’t think so but IMO won’t be the worst thing. They just won’t stop buying players.

According to The Athletic; Without selling their assets to themselves — including two hotels in 2022-23 — Chelsea’s pre-tax loss over the last three years would have been £358.3m, more than three times the amount permitted by the Premier League.

That is just ridiculous!

A mediocre board builds an average team led by a mediocre coach. No surprise about today’s result at Brentford. The sooner they leave Chelsea, the better.

On 04/04/2025 at 19:25, evissy said:

Again you call one group of fans fans here I presume. Chelsea has lets say million fans worldwide. Match going, London based fans are in thousands and a small group of the ones that go every time home and away are less than that if I am not mistaken. So which fans are you referring to and are you saying those fans are more important than others?

I am sure many Strasbourg fans are delighted to see Andrey Santos and their quest to Champions league spots instead of the dire run they have been on most of the time on this second stint in Ligue 1.

It is really hard to determine what everyone there or here feels.

Yes the match going fans are without a doubt more important than the arm chair consumer.

25 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

Yes the match going fans are without a doubt more important than the arm chair consumer.

In many ways I agree. They are bringing the noise the constant presence, the atmosphere. In another way the 950000 others bring the means to the megaclub.

In smaller clubs the match going fans are the ones keeping the club financed naturally.

Edited April 7, 20251 yr by evissy

This is an interesting breakdown of financies of the so caller money league.

The Deloitte Football Money League profiles the highest revenue generating football clubs in world football. The 2023/24 season unlocked a new frontier, as Real Madrid became the first football club to record €1 billion in revenue. https://www.deloitte.com/uk/en/services/financial-advisory/analysis/deloitte-football-money-league.html

And to reiterate this is just the financial side of things.

23 minutes ago, evissy said:

This is an interesting breakdown of financies of the so caller money league.

The Deloitte Football Money League profiles the highest revenue generating football clubs in world football. The 2023/24 season unlocked a new frontier, as Real Madrid became the first football club to record €1 billion in revenue. https://www.deloitte.com/uk/en/services/financial-advisory/analysis/deloitte-football-money-league.html

And to reiterate this is just the financial side of things.

Really interesting. We’ve got some catching up to do, and probably a reflection on our lack of competitiveness. The gap to City is nearly €300M, or we generate roughly 2/3 what City do. Need champions league, a shirt sponsor, improved match day revenue just to start closing the gap. Long way to go.

I don't think that the revenue has much to do with sporting success from that Club analysis. The fact that Utd, Arsenal and Spurs have more revenue than us and have won f**k all of relevance in football in the last 20 years says it all. It is down to how good the board is. You have savvy owners, you get to the top of football by knowning how to spend and build a team; if you have mediocre and/or leech owners, then it doesn't matter how much the club makes in terms of revenue, the sporting side will still struggle to get to the top.

Top sides in the world like Real and Bayern have had all the corners covered in terms of a football club. I am sure our owners want just that. It is much better being branded alongside with them than with Tottenham for example.

On 06/04/2025 at 09:34, evissy said:

Maybe I wrote it in a wrong way. I meant there surely are a lot of Strasbourg fans who are enjoying all this new success and some of the best young talent out there. I totally understand how they would feel violated when rich American venture capitalists buy them just to serve the purpose of Chelsea FC. I totally get their protest. However this is where they are now and I am sure after a couple of seasons they are okay with it if they perform well and get to see amazing young talent there.

Looking at their history, as was written in that same article, you can see they weren't really flying although they made a great run after being bankrupted.

Also this new success they are on will attract new fans and probably many Chelsea fans are eyeing them as well with great interest. I understand this is not the world view of a fan like yourself but being a global megaclub like Chelsea is and with the ways of enjoying the games plus social media you will have accept everything that comes with it. And you naturally have the right to protest as well. Go for it. Hopefully it helps your aims.

Well, we see things differently Evissy, probably always will, but thanks for your reply.

On 06/04/2025 at 12:21, Scott Harris said:

Probably a fine this time, but next time it likely means a ban from European football for a year.

On 05/04/2025 at 18:25, Scott Harris said:

Chelsea facing Uefa fine and pot...

Chelsea facing Uefa fine and potential ban after overspen...

Governing body will not allow Chelsea to count income from £200million sale of women’s team and sale of hotels to sister companies, with club facing ban from Europe if they reoffend

Something that could have been avoided if it wasn't for the absurd spending on young players and getting a f**king shirt sponsor. Absolute clown owners.

Don’t get sucked into the clickbait that the press are desperate for fans to do.

The notation in the accounts acknowledges that discussions are on going but the thrust is stated to be around allowances due following the sanctions and forced sale in 2022.In other words how much income was lost and or what were the other impacts.

If you read the current UEFA regulations particularly around sum spent over the allowable squad ratio it’s almost certain that what is called Force Maijere will be applied.

In the UEFA rules it’s likely , but not guaranteed , that a fine will follow but it will be asst % of the price money due for this season. see image below.

There are additionally all sorts of exceptions and adjustments but the main problem for a club is PSR not FFP and yes the issues are still there but there are significant changes in the accounts which very few have talked about . From the reduction in amortisation to a significant .

Some headlines from CFC accounts ( not Blue Co)

Amortisation £189 million down from £202 million. Wage costs £296 million down from £373 million

Matchday income up £3 million, commercial £175 million near identical year on year but broadcasting down to £165 million from £225 million. Player sales up to £152 million from £62.7 million.

9 hours ago, terraloon said:

Don’t get sucked into the clickbait that the press are desperate for fans to do.

This is key. It's noise from an unreliable source (The Times) that speculates on what UEFA may or may not do.

UEFA has the same fair market value considerations as the Premier League, so while the club would need to apply for UEFA's assessment, it is not a foregone conclusion that the club will be penalised. It stands to reason that if the club passed the Premier League's independent FMV tests they could rely on that to satisfy UEFA, too.

The squad-cost ratio negotiations have been going for some time. I believe it's a big reason that the club (albeit wastefully) spent so much in the first three years and cut wages, because this was a ticking-time bomb identified even under Granovskaia - it is why the club stalled on contracts for Rudiger, Christensen et al.

Edited April 8, 20251 yr by SydneyChelsea

13 hours ago, terraloon said:

Don’t get sucked into the clickbait that the press are desperate for fans to do.

The notation in the accounts acknowledges that discussions are on going but the thrust is stated to be around allowances due following the sanctions and forced sale in 2022.In other words how much income was lost and or what were the other impacts.

If you read the current UEFA regulations particularly around sum spent over the allowable squad ratio it’s almost certain that what is called Force Maijere will be applied.

In the UEFA rules it’s likely , but not guaranteed , that a fine will follow but it will be asst % of the price money due for this season. see image below.

There are additionally all sorts of exceptions and adjustments but the main problem for a club is PSR not FFP and yes the issues are still there but there are significant changes in the accounts which very few have talked about . From the reduction in amortisation to a significant .

Some headlines from CFC accounts ( not Blue Co)

Amortisation £189 million down from £202 million. Wage costs £296 million down from £373 million

Matchday income up £3 million, commercial £175 million near identical year on year but broadcasting down to £165 million from £225 million. Player sales up to £152 million from £62.7 million.

Isn't force majeure related to contract law and unforeseeable mitigating circumstances preventing a contract from being fulfilled? What does it mean in relation to us overspending?

31 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

Isn't force majeure related to contract law and unforeseeable mitigating circumstances preventing a contract from being fulfilled? What does it mean in relation to us overspending?

https://documents.uefa.com/v/u/MFxeqLNKelkYyh5JSafuhg

page 101 e) and f) will explain how matters outside the club’s control can be factored in.

On the face of it there may be a case that both the sale of the hotels / and a % of the woman’s team could be allowed albeit not the total sale proceeds

The rule was introduced to in effect stop clubs selling their stadium/ training grounds but the hotels and the woman’s teams may not ( not guaranteed) be considered to be in effect crucial to the operation of the men’s team.

If the club are successful in arguing their case then the net profit could indeed be allowed.

If you have an hour or ten the UEFa regulations are worth a read and as will be concluded no doubt they are far from as draconian as some are suggesting particularly in CFCs situation and indeed recent history

Still unsure what this has to do with force majeure though, the sale of our own assets aren't exactly unforeseen circumstances.

Its been rumoured for years that the sale of our assets wouldn't help us when it comes to Uefa, which wasn't an issue when we were finishing 10th every year. Not sure why the powers that be thought they could do this now we're playing in Europe.

5 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

This is key. It's noise from an unreliable source (The Times) that speculates on what UEFA may or may not do.

UEFA has the same fair market value considerations as the Premier League, so while the club would need to apply for UEFA's assessment, it is not a foregone conclusion that the club will be penalised. It stands to reason that if the club passed the Premier League's independent FMV tests they could rely on that to satisfy UEFA, too.

The squad-cost ratio negotiations have been going for some time. I believe it's a big reason that the club (albeit wastefully) spent so much in the first three years and cut wages, because this was a ticking-time bomb identified even under Granovskaia - it is why the club stalled on contracts for Rudiger, Christensen et al.

Not to forget the sanctions in place banned any contract negotiations anyway.

Don't think the owners can rely on force majeur provisions when they were already invoked following the original sale, and we had a 1.5bn boon as a result. That is long gone and we're well into the normal operational revenue now and UEFA would rightly expect us to have to comply with the Squad Cost controls.

That said, UEFA historically are wet lettuce when it comes to penalties, especially for FFP. We'll get a guarantee and a fine at best.

3 minutes ago, dermott said:

Not to forget the sanctions in place banned any contract negotiations anyway.

True but I think in both instances contract talks broke down prior to January and they pretty much sealed their transfers away by the end of the winter window.

At the end of the day the club didn't want to be stuck with what they saw as an overvalued contract for two historically injury-prone players. Don't think that was a great decision in hindsight, but the club probably thought they could bring in Gvardiol and Kounde as replacements.

4 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Don't think the owners can rely on force majeur provisions when they were already invoked following the original sale, and we had a 1.5bn boon as a result. That is long gone and we're well into the normal operational revenue now and UEFA would rightly expect us to have to comply with the Squad Cost controls.

That said, UEFA historically are wet lettuce when it comes to penalties, especially for FFP. We'll get a guarantee and a fine at best.

The earliest of then3 years current being assessed is the 21/22 ( the other years being 22/23&23/24) here’s what the club said when it published the 21/22 accounts:

“The results for the year have been impacted by the sanctions placed on the Club’s previous owner on 10 March 2022. As a result of the sanctions, the Club was required to operate within the limitations of a special licence issued by the UK government. These restrictions were in place until the completion of the Club’s sale on 30 May 2022. During this period, the Club was restricted in a number of areas including, but not limited to, its ability to sell matchday and season tickets, sell merchandise, accept event bookings, as well as sign contracts with players and commercial sponsorship partners, which collectively resulted in extraordinary expenses and loss of revenue. Furthermore, some of these limitations are also expected to have an impact on the financials in the following years due to the long-term impact from restrictions on entering into new contractual arrangements.”

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the club as starting point will have quantified how much revenue was lost in the period 10/3/22-30/5 /22. Losses included will have been match day revenue which save ST holders Chelsea couldn’t sell tickets that may not have been in the £10s millions but will have been significant, you then have loss of sponsorship for those companies that suspended their deals again likely to be significant. Add to that things like the ban on merchandise , stadium tours, etc .

The £1.5 billion to a large degree is not relevant because it was a loan , an interest free one at that which I still haven’t seen how it has been written off but the losses that led to that loan had already been subjected to FFP calculations. I simply can’t see other from an amended creditor calculation that it will count toward income.

6 hours ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

Still unsure what this has to do with force majeure though, the sale of our own assets aren't exactly unforeseen circumstances.

Its been rumoured for years that the sale of our assets wouldn't help us when it comes to Uefa, which wasn't an issue when we were finishing 10th every year. Not sure why the powers that be thought they could do this now we're playing in Europe.

I copy below the relevant section.

This has nothing to do with the sell of assets it’s primarily to do with a) income that is defined as football revenue which the club lost due events that certainly were extraordinary ie The invasion of Ukraine and the sanctions placed on the owner (RA) .These events were certainly beyond the control of the club and b) the inability of the club post 22/3 to carry on negotiations with players .

Would Rüdiger and Christensen signed contracts if the club had been able to carry on negotiating? We have absolutely no idea but as this article suggests the club had indeed made another offer with Rudiger in March but couldn’t further negotiate once the sanctions came along

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/may/20/antonio-rudiger-blames-chelsea-exit-on-talks-going-quiet-in-autumn

e) Force majeure

As part of its considerations, the UEFA Club Financial Control Body may also

take into account extraordinary events or circumstances beyond the control of

the club which are considered as a case of force majeure.

f) Major and unforeseen changes in the economic environment

As part of its considerations, the UEFA Club Financial Control Body may also

take into account the quantifiable financial impact on the club of extraordinary

national economic events which are temporary and considered to be beyond

the general fluctuation of the economic environment. Such events are beyond

the control of the club and the club had no reasonable chance to mitigate the

significant negative financial impact

You are right that it has been said for a while that selling assets wouldn’t be allowable when it came to FFP but disposal of the hotels and at a stretch a% of the woman’s team quite possibly could be added . Or at least any established profit could be

Had we been talking about something that was fundamental to the running of the men’s team ( which after all is what we are talking about) then I would agree that the sums have to be excluded but again I copy below

h) Excess proceeds on disposal of tangible fixed assets

The profit on disposal of tangible fixed assets (including, but not limited to, a

club’s stadium and training facilities) in a reporting period must be excluded

from the break-even result with the following two exceptions:

i) If a tangible fixed asset other than a stadium or training facilities is not being

replaced, then the profit on disposal recognised in the income statement

can be taken into account as a relevant income up to:

 the difference between the proceeds on disposal and the historical cost

of the asset which was recognised as a tangible fixed asset in the

financial statements of the reporting entity;

2 hours ago, Caps_Lock_King said:

Not to play down our owners actions, but Stefan Borson is genuinely 0-3 in predicting us breaching FFP.

Plays down City’s charges yet cries wolf when ever Clearlake do anything.

15 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Not to play down our owners actions, but Stefan Borson is genuinely 0-3 in predicting us breaching FFP.

Plays down City’s charges yet cries wolf when ever Clearlake do anything.

Nothing makes me less likely to watch a video than seeing Stefan Borson and Simon Jordan are involved in it

47 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Not to play down our owners actions, but Stefan Borson is genuinely 0-3 in predicting us breaching FFP.

Plays down City’s charges yet cries wolf when ever Clearlake do anything.

I personally wonder if the claim that he is a financial expert should be referred to trading standards.

He people that run BlueCo are despite what some think, and he is one of them, extremely savvy.

Bronson claims to know things when he simply doesn’t. He uses source information from sites such as Transfermarket which base their information not from clubs records but press reports.

2 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

Nothing makes me less likely to watch a video than seeing Stefan Borson and Simon Jordan are involved in it

Agreed. Right up there with Rory Jennings and careFreeLewis. Utter plonkers

8 hours ago, terraloon said:

The earliest of then3 years current being assessed is the 21/22 ( the other years being 22/23&23/24) here’s what the club said when it published the 21/22 accounts:

“The results for the year have been impacted by the sanctions placed on the Club’s previous owner on 10 March 2022. As a result of the sanctions, the Club was required to operate within the limitations of a special licence issued by the UK government. These restrictions were in place until the completion of the Club’s sale on 30 May 2022. During this period, the Club was restricted in a number of areas including, but not limited to, its ability to sell matchday and season tickets, sell merchandise, accept event bookings, as well as sign contracts with players and commercial sponsorship partners, which collectively resulted in extraordinary expenses and loss of revenue. Furthermore, some of these limitations are also expected to have an impact on the financials in the following years due to the long-term impact from restrictions on entering into new contractual arrangements.”

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the club as starting point will have quantified how much revenue was lost in the period 10/3/22-30/5 /22. Losses included will have been match day revenue which save ST holders Chelsea couldn’t sell tickets that may not have been in the £10s millions but will have been significant, you then have loss of sponsorship for those companies that suspended their deals again likely to be significant. Add to that things like the ban on merchandise , stadium tours, etc .

The £1.5 billion to a large degree is not relevant because it was a loan , an interest free one at that which I still haven’t seen how it has been written off but the losses that led to that loan had already been subjected to FFP calculations. I simply can’t see other from an amended creditor calculation that it will count toward income.

Right, I completely miscalculated and forgot 21/22 was still to be accounted for. In that case, it would be inconsistent of UEFA to now demand unqualified compliance. In the original assessment UEFA acknowledged not just the loss of revenue (which essentially amounts to 0 for a full quarter), but the operational constraints that necessitated bulk spending once the club's sale was finalised so it is clear that force majeur has to be taken into account.

This would also have been applicable to Roman's £1.5bn debt forgiveness at the time of sale, since UEFA FFP (unlike the PL to date) assesses shareloader loans for fair market value.

As for Stefan Borson, the media also variously claim he is a lawyer as well. Charlatan is more likely.