11 hours ago, terraloon said:

Far from great but irrespective of the reasons does this mean that we can’t register players for Europe ?

Personally I think the wording is incredibly clumsy. I understand Zieglers comment but I don’t think it’s quite the restriction that he implies

Personally think the restriction kick in after each January transfer window.

In other words there is a requirement to submit your A list in time for the group stages . Come the transfer window in January we won’t be able to add extra players unless their costs are covered from players that get taken off the original A list.

If I Am right expect every space in the A list will be taken and little bonuses such as naming just two keepers on the A list with the 3rd and maybe even 4th appearing on the B list

Initially I wondered if the A list in question would be the 24/25 version but don’t think that can be the case because it talks about deadlines going forward as opposed to past

The BBC are stating we have to have a transfer positive starting in this window, otherwise any new players will not be able to be registered. If this is the case, this is an enormous clusterf**k by people at the club that seem to think we are above the rules that could lead to a fire sale at the end of the window. Really embarrassing for a club of our size and wealth.

2 minutes ago, charierre said:

The BBC are stating we have to have a transfer positive starting in this window, otherwise any new players will not be able to be registered. If this is the case, this is an enormous clusterf**k by people at the club that seem to think we are above the rules that could lead to a fire sale at the end of the window. Really embarrassing for a club of our size and wealth.

We became an embarrassment as soon as the f**king septics moved in.

As much as I love to rag on about the clusterf**k that is our squad building.

Sanchez/Jorgensen/Penders

James/Gusto/Acheampong/Cucurella

Colwill/Trev/Tosin/Badiashile/Sarr

Caicedo/Enzo/Lavia/Santos

Palmer/Neto/Noni/Estevao

Joao Pedro/Delap

This squad for now has fighters all around and wouldn't back down from a fight. They get into silly bookings though 😅😅 (curb that and we are good). Also fulfills 8HG quota.

If we can sell the players surplus to requirements and just need to get:

1 Backup LB or a challenger to Cucu

1 of the best GK in current football

1 complete CB with a commanding presence.

All that and we're possible title winners with the right coaching/tactics

16 hours ago, Deino said:

Too late to ban. They're already in the framework and preparation for next seasons' UCL

Part of the changes that UEFa have introduced is in year squad ratio costs . It wasn’t too late. To ban anyone for next season had that been the decision but as was stated on Talksport earlier UEFA rarely expel a club and when they do it’s more to do with matters of a non financial nature.

2 hours ago, charierre said:

The BBC are stating we have to have a transfer positive starting in this window, otherwise any new players will not be able to be registered. If this is the case, this is an enormous clusterf**k by people at the club that seem to think we are above the rules that could lead to a fire sale at the end of the window. Really embarrassing for a club of our size and wealth.

This is why I think the wording is incredibly clumsy.

Here’s what the BBC are saying

The two clubs could be prevented from registering new players for Uefa competitions for the forthcoming season unless they have a positive transfer balance by the end of the summer transfer window.

Here’s what UEFa actually say.

Squad ratio costs are based on 1) Players salary 2) Any sum due to be amortised/ impaired 3)

Agent fees.

So if we removed say Nunkuku ( and these numbers are estimated ) 1) wages £7 million 2) amortisation £9 million 3) £3 million agent fees. So his cost is £19 million

Then you can replace him with a new player with say Delap 1) wages £5 million 2) Amortisation £6 million agent fees £2 million . So £13 million.

It doesn’t say that you have to sell Nunkuku it talks about transferring one player from the A list and replacing them with a player who won’t increase the A list costs by more than you have saved.

We haven’t as yet had to provide an A list for the 25/26 UEFA season so my reading is that the base number has to be set once the 25/26 list is provided. In effect this windows transferred players can be included but going forward we can’t increase the cost of players .

Bronson interestingly make some interesting points

1) Both Forest and indeed Newcastle will now know what sanctions they will get 12 months on as their numbers , published, already mean they have breached

2) We have already admitted a second breach which is why our fine is bigger than others

3) Villa are committed to reducing their wage costs by 20% in 25/26

4) He ( and he is qualified lawyer) is suggesting that the wording of the squad cost is ambiguous for a couple of reasons much in line with my reading. His confusion around the word new is interesting but again he is far from sure which A list will be the starting point

Edited July 5, 20251 yr by terraloon

1 hour ago, terraloon said:

Part of the changes that UEFa have introduced is in year squad ratio costs . It wasn’t too late. To ban anyone for next season had that been the decision but as was stated on Talksport earlier UEFA rarely expel a club and when they do it’s more to do with matters of a non financial nature.

That's true. They value money too much to do stuff like banning. This only ever became an issue because smaller clubs couldn't do what we did without going bankrupt.

UEFA mention of excluding swap deals (as well as excluding revenue from selling assets to yourself) is interesting.

Looks like they are stamping down hard on all the nonsense we saw with the Maatsen/Kellyman and Gallagher/Felix transfers, plus the hotel and women's team sales.

So BlueCo not as clever as they thought then LOL

23 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

UEFA mention of excluding swap deals (as well as excluding revenue from selling assets to yourself) is interesting.

Looks like they are stamping down hard on all the nonsense we saw with the Maatsen/Kellyman and Gallagher/Felix transfers, plus the hotel and women's team sales.

So BlueCo not as clever as they thought then LOL

I don’t think they, UEFa, have excluded what they call swaps here’s what they say:

In assessing the clubs’ compliance with the football earnings rule, the CFCB placed

particular attention on transactions involving the sale of tangible or intangible assets, the

exchange of players (so called “swaps”) and the transfers of players between related parties

and required specific adjustments to the Club’s financial result.

The Mattesen/ Kellyman will almost certainly have potentially been adjusted downward for both, well certainly Kellyman. As for the Gallagher / Felix not sure that either players values were too far adrift.

As ever the devil is in the detail.

Who would have thought that buying 50 players and not being able to sell would get the club into trouble.

12 minutes ago, terraloon said:

I don’t think they, UEFa, have excluded what they call swaps here’s what they say:

In assessing the clubs’ compliance with the football earnings rule, the CFCB placed

particular attention on transactions involving the sale of tangible or intangible assets, the

exchange of players (so called “swaps”) and the transfers of players between related parties

and required specific adjustments to the Club’s financial result.

The Mattesen/ Kellyman will almost certainly have potentially been adjusted downward for both, well certainly Kellyman. As for the Gallagher / Felix not sure that either players values were too far adrift.

As ever the devil is in the detail.

Yes fair enough - excluded was the wrong word to use and me being a bit lazy, but overall sentiment still valid.

I've just read that in order to balance the books for EUFA , only transfers of players registered for the Conference League in the 2nd half of the season are counted. Eg ..Sterling Chilwell etc and others will not count when we sell them.

Does anyone know how far away in terms of money we are away from complying with EUFAs regulations ?

Further to this, the sanction stipulates Chelsea must balance the books in Europe and make sure to end the transfer window with a "positive balance" or be unable to register new players, including new signings like Liam Delap, Joao Pedro, Estevao Willian and Jamie Gittens.

Not only that, they must sell players that were previously on the A list in Uefa competition, in this case the Conference League squad from the second half of last season.

That means that balancing the £170m of purchases this summer needs to come from those registered from Europe's third tier, which Chelsea won, with only Marcus Bettinelli, sold for a nominal fee to Manchester City, thus far counting.

6 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Further to this, the sanction stipulates Chelsea must balance the books in Europe and make sure to end the transfer window with a "positive balance" or be unable to register new players, including new signings like Liam Delap, Joao Pedro, Estevao Willian and Jamie Gittens.

Not only that, they must sell players that were previously on the A list in Uefa competition, in this case the Conference League squad from the second half of last season.

That means that balancing the £170m of purchases this summer needs to come from those registered from Europe's third tier, which Chelsea won, with only Marcus Bettinelli, sold for a nominal fee to Manchester City, thus far counting.

So we can't even sell the deadwood? What a sh*tshow.

So the most realistic ones are Nkunku and Dewsbury-Hall. Madueke looks likely to leave, Jackson is a possibility too. Guiu is at risk too. Good luck convincing teams to buy them for big money.

What a mess though. We have to weaken our squad because our clowns in charge decided to go mental on the signings when everybody with a brain could see how mental it was. It's interesting that certain names on here have suddenly gone quiet after doing nothing but praise every move Clown Lake made.

Edited July 5, 20251 yr by Scott Harris

9 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

So we can't even sell the deadwood? What a sh*tshow.

So the most realistic ones are Nkunku and Dewsbury-Hall. Madueke looks likely to leave, Jackson is a possibility too. Guiu is at risk too. Good luck convince

What a mess though. We have to weaken our squad because our clowns in charge decided to go mental on the signings when everybody with a brain could see how mental it was. It's interesting that certain names on here have suddenly gone quiet after doing nothing but praise every move Clown Lake made.

True, even without this the constant churn of players every season is disruptive. . Not that BlueCo care about that, we're just a player trafficking organisation

PSG Red Card !

45 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

I've just read that in order to balance the books for EUFA , only transfers of players registered for the Conference League in the 2nd half of the season are counted. Eg ..Sterling Chilwell etc and others will not count when we sell them.

Does anyone know how far away in terms of money we are away from complying with EUFAs regulations ?

There are two elements to our settlement. Irrespective tof how the other impacts on the other in the FFP submissions all allowable income will be included. So is we sell Sterling, Chillwell etc any profit or come to that loss will be factored in

As I pointed out the wording around the ability to replace players from the A list within the sanctions agreement is extremely vague.

Initially my take was exactly as you have read but when you track clubs that have had the exact same stipulation in previous years then I simply don’t think that we are tied to the 2024/25 A list.

My reading now is that in September we will produce the 25/26 A list. The restrictions will apply to the January list where we and others won’t be able to put players on the list purchased in the winter window unless their costs as a match those taken off.

Bear in mind that PSG have been working under the same restrictions for a number of years now and last season there was as no way that the players they bought in were matched by players from the A list were matched by savings from players they lost from an A list of several years before

Edited July 5, 20251 yr by terraloon

56 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Further to this, the sanction stipulates Chelsea must balance the books in Europe and make sure to end the transfer window with a "positive balance" or be unable to register new players, including new signings like Liam Delap, Joao Pedro, Estevao Willian and Jamie Gittens.

Not only that, they must sell players that were previously on the A list in Uefa competition, in this case the Conference League squad from the second half of last season.

That means that balancing the £170m of purchases this summer needs to come from those registered from Europe's third tier, which Chelsea won, with only Marcus Bettinelli, sold for a nominal fee to Manchester City, thus far counting.

You know that’s complete drivel when you realise that Bettinelli wasn’t in the final A list registered with UEFA alongside that.

Nowhere in the settlement agreement does it say that we have to sell any players .

1 minute ago, terraloon said:

There are two elements to our settlement. Irrespective time of how the other impacts on either the FFP submissions all allowable income will be included. So is we sell Sterling, Chillwell etc any profit or come to that loss will be factored in

As I pointed out the wording around the ability to replace players from the A list within the sanctions agreement is extremely vague.

Initially my take was exactly as you have read but when you track clubs that have had the exact same stipulation in previous years then I simply don’t think that we are tied to the 2024/25 A list.

My reading now is that in September we will produce the 25/26 A list. The restrictions will apply to the January list where we and others won’t be able to put players on the list purchased in the winter window unless their costs as a match those taken off.

Thanks for info. I just copied and pasted that stuff from somewhere. It did say further into the article that it's complicated and in places very vague., just as you yourself have posted.

It's baffling to me that judgements can be made that are open to interpretation. Your reading of it would be a plus for the club wouldn't it ?

But the real question is how we got here. I had read somewhere at the time that although the PL had accepted the hotel sales , it wouldn't count as income for EUFA:s stricter regulations. .

4 minutes ago, terraloon said:

You know that’s complete drivel when you realise that Bettinelli wasn’t in the final A list registered with UEFA alongside that.

Nowhere in the settlement agreement does it say that we have to sell any players .

Thanks for clarification. I suppose the assumption is that we will have to balance the books by selling players ?

As I said , this isn't my take on it, it's copied from elsewhere. I can't believe the mainstream media have got it wrong !

13 minutes ago, terraloon said:

You know that’s complete drivel when you realise that Bettinelli wasn’t in the final A list registered with UEFA alongside that.

Nowhere in the settlement agreement does it say that we have to sell any players .

This seems to be the general conclusion by media. I suppose it's maybe their reading and conclusions of the punishment. ? Be good to get clarification. The Betinelli thing from the other article doesn't point to any proper understanding of the situation !

Thanks again 👍

"That means any spending on new players must be covered by income from the sales of outgoing players — it could mean that new signings cannot be added to those clubs’ A lists unless existing squad members are sold.’

Alas I haven’t been able to link the full terms of the settlement agreement so if you are interest follow the links in the club statement that will take you to the exact wording

I have said from the off it’s wording is clumsy and it is .

The agreement looks like this

6 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

This seems to be the general conclusion by media. I suppose it's maybe their reading and conclusions of the punishment. ? Be good to get clarification. The Betinelli thing from the other article doesn't point to any proper understanding of the situation !

Thanks again 👍

"That means any spending on new players must be covered by income from the sales of outgoing players — it could mean that new signings cannot be added to those clubs’ A lists unless existing squad members are sold.’

Edited July 5, 20251 yr by terraloon

34 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Thanks for info. I just copied and pasted that stuff from somewhere. It did say further into the article that it's complicated and in places very vague., just as you yourself have posted.

It's baffling to me that judgements can be made that are open to interpretation. Your reading of it would be a plus for the club wouldn't it ?

But the real question is how we got here. I had read somewhere at the time that although the PL had accepted the hotel sales , it wouldn't count as income for EUFA:s stricter regulations. .

The fact that clubs have in effect two completely different sets of financial rules be they financial or organisation wise to adhere to make it pretty obvious that there will be instances where something accepted under one jurisdiction wont satisfy the other.

Look no further than squad rules particularly around under 21 year olds. Bits are the same but there are major differences. For instance all under 21 year olds at the club can be put on the PL under 21 list .But for the UEFA version to qualify there are requirements around how long that under 21 year old has been registered at the club . If the registration time lines aren’t met then they can only play if the take one of the A squad slots.

In terms of the PLs PSR and UEFAs latest version of FFP they are polls apart.

As I posted earlier today, and it was something that was mentioned on Talksport earlier ,UEFA can but it’s very unlikely that they will ,ban a club of Chelsea’s stature from one of their tournaments. In effect we were only ever going to get a fine and maybe something around restrictions around squad costs. As we know that’s exactly what’s happened

In effect the owners gambled on that knowing the extent of the fine wouldn’t get close to exceeding the additional revenue that would follow a successful season.

The problem for them was failing PSR wouldn’t result in a fine it would result in a points deduction.

The PLs version was easily bypassed because of intergroup transactions. There was an opportunity and they took it.Some call it a loophole. For me it’s a major flaw in the rules and despite attempts by the PL to amend the rules the clubs don’t want to remove opportunities that they may need to take advantage of in later years.

I am reasonably relaxed about the hotel sales etc because the asset remains under the control of the ultimate owners . If they had sold to say a property development company I would be far more concerned.

One of BlueCos major submission to UEFa was that the RA sanctions had consequences in terms of restricting income and adding costs. We aren’t told how that went.We do know however that are submissions weren’t agreed and were adjusted accordingly. That’s something that happens regularly but I doubt anyone has as much stripped out as we probably have had. Well maybe Barca did

On the face of it we have been fined disproportionately. But the reality is that 1) we have already been punished for the 24/25 year because we told UEFA we would be in breach of that year prior to accounts being produced 2) we have bought ourselves a year in addition to the time that say Villa have to get the accounts balanced. On that point the additional fine mentioned won’t be all payable in 3 years if we fail there are 3 annual targets if those aren’t met a €20 million fine is levied that can be reduced if the target is missed by under €20 million .

I would much rather that we didn’t have to get involved in all these shenanigans but the fact is that’s today’s football. Just imagine the joy to be able to chant “ sack the board” not because of FFP but because of the score or style of play!

One last thing is that it’s believed that both Newcastle and Forest have already failed next year’s version and add to that Villa have to cut circa 20% of their player costs in 25/26 again as a background of them not having CL income. There’s is a far more challenging route than I believe ours will be

Edited July 5, 20251 yr by terraloon

UEFA making it up as they go along. The settlement agreement could be easily unpacked by a lawyer one week out of a good law school, let alone established corporate lawyers. Bizarre.

It’s also ridiculous there are various sets of financial rules. FIFA could step in here and standardize this a bit more, which would simplify and benefit all.

Not overly concerned by any of this. If the club worked on a settlement they know what needs to be done. Chelsea are certainly disrupters, and I don't see that changing.

Do the penalty payments could against you also!!! Probably knowing UEFA!

8 minutes ago, PhilH930 said:

UEFA making it up as they go along. The settlement agreement could be easily unpacked by a lawyer one week out of a good law school, let alone established corporate lawyers. Bizarre.

It’s also ridiculous there are various sets of financial rules. FIFA could step in here and standardize this a bit more, which would simplify and benefit all.

Not overly concerned by any of this. If the club worked on a settlement they know what needs to be done. Chelsea are certainly disrupters, and I don't see that changing.

Do the penalty payments could against you also!!! Probably knowing UEFA!

I am pretty sure that fines etc ( although we haven’t technically been fined) count as expenditure with add back

Someone will eventually turn all this back on UEFA. By my count, 21 clubs i violation, lining UEFAs pockets. UEFA CFCB Financial Sustainability 2024/25 Season

Football Earnings Rule - assessed for first time 2024/25 season, covered years 2023/24. Hajduk Split, Villa, Chelsea, Barcelona, Lyon and Porto all in violation. Historical violations will be problematic here.

Squad Cost Rule - 80% cap on squad cost. Chelsea, Villa, Besiktas, Panathinaikos all in violation.

Incomplete / Late Submission - FK Bodo Glimt and FK Sarajevo incomplete; Krakow late

Clubs Under Previous Settlement - previous settlements, AC Milan, Inter Milan, Monaco, Marseille, PSG, Besiktas, Tranzonspor, Royal Antwrep, Roma, Istanbul Basaksehir

Edited July 5, 20251 yr by PhilH930