Additional thought - they’ve got this figured out. Most documents state we reached agreement with UEFA June 24-26. Surely we would then go and splash £110M on Joao Pedro and Gittens, would we?!?!

How can you operate this football as a business if this is what always happens? And I feel they just make it as they go. I think you should get at least 5-10 years of head start on fines like we've got now.

At UEFA: Chelsea is breaking the rules clearly because everyone is livid in the media over their spending. Okay do we ban them from UEFA comps then? No, we can't. They are too interesting side to UCL or any other comp so maybe a fine..? What size? 10m? Naah. 20m sounds better. So we've agreed. Now make it look legit.

2 minutes ago, evissy said:

How can you operate this football as a business if this is what always happens? And I feel they just make it as they go. I think you should get at least 5-10 years of head start on fines like we've got now.

At UEFA: Chelsea is breaking the rules clearly because everyone is livid in the media over their spending. Okay do we ban them from UEFA comps then? No, we can't. They are too interesting side to UCL or any other comp so maybe a fine..? What size? 10m? Naah. 20m sounds better. So we've agreed. Now make it look legit.

You don't spend stupid money on players you either don't need or aren't good enough. Players like D.D Fofana, Washington, Felix, Kellyman, Disasi, Badiashile, Jorgensen, Slolina, Ugochukwu, Dewsbury-Hall. If we don't sign them, we don't get fined. Signing busts like Mudryk, Wesley Fofana, Sterling etc doesn't help either. Our owners did this, it's not UEFA's fault, it's our owners.

1 minute ago, Scott Harris said:

You don't spend stupid money on players you either don't need or aren't good enough. Players like D.D Fofana, Washington, Felix, Kellyman, Disasi, Badiashile, Jorgensen, Slolina, Ugochukwu, Dewsbury-Hall. If we don't sign them, we don't get fined. Signing busts like Mudryk, Wesley Fofana, Sterling etc doesn't help either. Our owners did this, it's not UEFA's fault, it's our owners.

So you feel UEFA is doing a good job with this mess?

Just now, evissy said:

So you feel UEFA is doing a good job with this mess?

I've never liked how UEFA do things, but those are the rules. We break them, we get a fine. Our owners knew this when they bought the club, fans said this exact thing would happen and now it's happening. We can't now bitch and moan at UEFA after the thing we knew would happen actually happens. If we want to change things, we don't just ignore the rules and do what we want.

Edited July 6, 20251 yr by Scott Harris

6 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

I've never liked how UEFA do things, but those are the rules. We break them, we get a fine. Our owners knew this when they bought the club, fans said this exact thing would happen and now it's happening. We can't now bitch and moan at UEFA after the thing we knew would happen actually happens. If we want to change things, we don't just ignore the rules and do what we want.

Okay so tell me. You know you can buy players for 100 because this is how much you make. Basic business logic.

I would suggest UEFA has shown ages before (10-15 years ago at least) numbers or metrics they use for clubs to meet these sustainability rules, no?

Why on earth would we go into that such as buying Kellyman for example if we know as clear as daylight we will get fined? Okay you and many others here would suggest our owners and directors are idiots but this is the area I think they would be okay with at least...

I just think it is such a jungle to keep up with UEFA and the communication between UEFA and the clubs is possibly poor they don't know what to do or which rules to follow.

Budgets are always suggestions on a yearly basis so maybe lack of CL with Pochettino was the problem on this case. They budgeted to go to UCL and the team failed and now we got a fine. A bit risky if so but they like incentive based operation as they do in America in general. Not sure.

34 minutes ago, evissy said:

How can you operate this football as a business if this is what always happens you you can’t have a 50 players’ team, most of which are average and you can’t shift? And I feel they just make it as they go. I think you should get at least 5-10 years of head start on fines like we've got now.

At UEFA: Chelsea is breaking the rules clearly because everyone is livid in the media over their spending. Okay do we ban them from UEFA comps then? No, we can't. They are too interesting side to UCL or any other comp so maybe a fine..? What size? 10m? Naah. 20m sounds better. So we've agreed. Now make it look legit.

That there, much better. How dare UEFA?

This owners are showing how sh*t they are, how much they know about European football, and how arrogant they are. They are as bad as Barcelona’s board, the difference being that Barcelona are a Club and ST holders can change the direction while we are an S. A. (Or whatever private sh*t it is) and we can’t get rid of the rot.

Are we without a shirt sponsor for this competition??

23 minutes ago, evissy said:

Okay so tell me. You know you can buy players for 100 because this is how much you make. Basic business logic.

I would suggest UEFA has shown ages before (10-15 years ago at least) numbers or metrics they use for clubs to meet these sustainability rules, no?

Why on earth would we go into that such as buying Kellyman for example if we know as clear as daylight we will get fined? Okay you and many others here would suggest our owners and directors are idiots but this is the area I think they would be okay with at least...

I just think it is such a jungle to keep up with UEFA and the communication between UEFA and the clubs is possibly poor they don't know what to do or which rules to follow.

Budgets are always suggestions on a yearly basis so maybe lack of CL with Pochettino was the problem on this case. They budgeted to go to UCL and the team failed and now we got a fine. A bit risky if so but they like incentive based operation as they do in America in general. Not sure.

There were reports ages ago that we might fall foul of EUFAs financial rules. It hasn't come out of the " come on you BLUES" has it ?

55 minutes ago, evissy said:

How can you operate this football as a business if this is what always happens? And I feel they just make it as they go. I think you should get at least 5-10 years of head start on fines like we've got now.

At UEFA: Chelsea is breaking the rules clearly because everyone is livid in the media over their spending. Okay do we ban them from UEFA comps then? No, we can't. They are too interesting side to UCL or any other comp so maybe a fine..? What size? 10m? Naah. 20m sounds better. So we've agreed. Now make it look legit.

The club cooperated with EUFA and accepted the punishment. I'm pretty sure if your suggestion that they punished us only because the media are livid ( they're not) about our spending , then we would have lawyers on the case.

Don't rely on AI to do the thinking part for you .

😂

44 minutes ago, evissy said:

Okay so tell me. You know you can buy players for 100 because this is how much you make. Basic business logic.

I would suggest UEFA has shown ages before (10-15 years ago at least) numbers or metrics they use for clubs to meet these sustainability rules, no?

Why on earth would we go into that such as buying Kellyman for example if we know as clear as daylight we will get fined? Okay you and many others here would suggest our owners and directors are idiots but this is the area I think they would be okay with at least...

I just think it is such a jungle to keep up with UEFA and the communication between UEFA and the clubs is possibly poor they don't know what to do or which rules to follow.

Budgets are always suggestions on a yearly basis so maybe lack of CL with Pochettino was the problem on this case. They budgeted to go to UCL and the team failed and now we got a fine. A bit risky if so but they like incentive based operation as they do in America in general. Not sure.

According to Maresca our aim wasn't even CL football at the end of this year, that aim was for next season. So how is it now Poch's fault for not making CL a year ago?

Do you honestly believe these things you type?

1 hour ago, evissy said:

Why on earth would we go into that such as buying Kellyman for example if we know as clear as daylight we will get fined?

Ah ... FINALLY we might have the "lightbulb" moment !

Question is ... now that the lights are on, is there anybody actually home ? 😀

2 hours ago, evissy said:

Okay so tell me. You know you can buy players for 100 because this is how much you make. Basic business logic.

I would suggest UEFA has shown ages before (10-15 years ago at least) numbers or metrics they use for clubs to meet these sustainability rules, no?

Why on earth would we go into that such as buying Kellyman for example if we know as clear as daylight we will get fined? Okay you and many others here would suggest our owners and directors are idiots but this is the area I think they would be okay with at least...

I just think it is such a jungle to keep up with UEFA and the communication between UEFA and the clubs is possibly poor they don't know what to do or which rules to follow.

Budgets are always suggestions on a yearly basis so maybe lack of CL with Pochettino was the problem on this case. They budgeted to go to UCL and the team failed and now we got a fine. A bit risky if so but they like incentive based operation as they do in America in general. Not sure.

Thing is, people the world over knew that UEFA is a bunch of crooks that do whatever they want regardless of what anyone say. Hencewhy, it was stupid for BlueCo to go plunging knee deep in player transfers that had no business going on when they don't strengthen the 25man squad needed.

American sports are pretty much tightly regulated so I can understand the rationale of being deers in headlights because it wasn't a niche of theirs but thinking the loopholes wouldn't be contested by UEFA is a mixture of hubris and naivety that BlueCo should take note of. It's stupid af to burn 80M++ on unneeded fines that could have easily been avoided

Edited July 6, 20251 yr by Deino

3 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

Ah ... FINALLY we might have the "lightbulb" moment !

Question is ... now that the lights are on, is there anybody actually home ? 😀

Funny.

2 hours ago, Deino said:

Thing is, people the world over knew that UEFA is a bunch of crooks that do whatever they want regardless of what anyone say. Hencewhy, it was stupid for BlueCo to go plunging knee deep in player transfers that had no business going on when they don't strengthen the 25man squad needed.

American sports are pretty much tightly regulated so I can understand the rationale of being deers in headlights because it wasn't a niche of theirs but thinking the loopholes wouldn't be contested by UEFA is a mixture of hubris and naivety that BlueCo should take note of. It's stupid af to burn 80M++ on unneeded fines that could have easily been avoided

Again I am sure they have a spreadsheet of spendings and incomings so they have clearly calculated elementary maths on what one buy means in the balance.

If they are unclear of what ramifications would come from UEFA or any other regulative organization they have surely factored that in. Either so they look at their hand or UEFA is not informing things clearly enough.

Finding a talented player is the hard part, financies are pretty simple mathematics at this scale.

Not to start another rant on American Sports vs European football but there (US) the rules and regulations are clear to everyone so everyone can just concentrate on the sports. Not sure why that isn't something we want here. They (here) make the rules as they go like some micromanaging weirdo despot that wants to control over everything.

We’ll do well to get market value on players we want to sell, clubs know we’re in need.

Now players we want to keep, will bring far more money.

This too shall pass. Will be fish and chip paper soon enough.

The very fact UEFA have varying penalties says it all to me. One set of rules to follow, and another set of rules for penalties, which once can only assume relates to degree of miss and club revenue.

The whole thing is so ironic to me. You miss a financial target, which we should be hitting, but you get fined for doing so, deepening the hole. Feels like when the government comes round to collect more taxes, and we all know how that ends when you eventually run out of other people’s money.

4 hours ago, evissy said:

Again I am sure they have a spreadsheet of spendings and incomings so they have clearly calculated elementary maths on what one buy means in the balance.

If they are unclear of what ramifications would come from UEFA or any other regulative organization they have surely factored that in. Either so they look at their hand or UEFA is not informing things clearly enough.

Finding a talented player is the hard part, financies are pretty simple mathematics at this scale.

Not to start another rant on American Sports vs European football but there (US) the rules and regulations are clear to everyone so everyone can just concentrate on the sports. Not sure why that isn't something we want here. They (here) make the rules as they go like some micromanaging weirdo despot that wants to control over everything.

Ofc they have but again like I said, UEFA doesn't work like a normal functioning sports body.

They are in fact micromanaging weirdos.

16 hours ago, evissy said:

Okay so tell me. You know you can buy players for 100 because this is how much you make. Basic business logic.

I would suggest UEFA has shown ages before (10-15 years ago at least) numbers or metrics they use for clubs to meet these sustainability rules, no?

Why on earth would we go into that such as buying Kellyman for example if we know as clear as daylight we will get fined? Okay you and many others here would suggest our owners and directors are idiots but this is the area I think they would be okay with at least...

I just think it is such a jungle to keep up with UEFA and the communication between UEFA and the clubs is possibly poor they don't know what to do or which rules to follow.

Budgets are always suggestions on a yearly basis so maybe lack of CL with Pochettino was the problem on this case. They budgeted to go to UCL and the team failed and now we got a fine. A bit risky if so but they like incentive based operation as they do in America in general. Not sure.

Buckle up for yet another long post from me. Sorry!

Here are the very detailed rule issued by UEFA re their version of FFP and included within is the details of how you calculate squad ratio costs

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

I don’t think the owners had any fear of the rules they are well versed in financial regulation in both the wider commercial/ business world and of course by virtue of sporting entity ownership in the US where it’s common place for sporting clubs to take a hit when they spent too much particularly around squad costs.

UEFA are of course aren’t immune to getting the arses kicked at CAS often they are told they have viewed their own rules incorrectly. Look no further that Man Cities case , a case where the disciplinary bodies at UEFA hadn’t just issued a ruling against City but dismissed Cities appeal. Yet at CAS it was clear that even something that should be super easy to work out ( time barred matter) CAS pointed out UEFA got it wrong.

Bear in mind we signed a settlement agreement. This matter wasn’t actually tested at a hearing. I have said it earlier I have no doubt the owners knew what would happen at UEFA although we simply don’t know what adjustments were made to the submissions and just as importantly how they would have stood up had the case gone all the way to CAS.

We know UEFa focused on things such as disposal of assets and “ swaps” On the swaps they , UEFA, no doubt have taken a view which the club are relaxed about similarly they have taken a view on the sale of the Woman’s team and of course the infamous hotels.

For what it’s worth the UEFA rules do allow sale of things like hotels etc but not things like stadiums and training grounds. As I say we know that certain numbers were adjusted but we can’t from the information put in the public domain truly know what the adjustment was.

It’s really worth reading the settlement agreement. Other than time lines 2,3,or 4 years all the clubs that have entered into these agreements are virtually duplicates.Ours was more costly because we wanted longer to sort the numbers out . It’s actually quite shrewd by BlueCo because by the end of the 4 year term a number of the players bought in early in BlueCos tenure will no longer have any costs to amortise to factor in similarly players like Caciedo who is on a long term contract had their period of amortisation restricted to 5 years in effect by or at the end of the agreement his significant amortisation cost will be no more . That’s assuming players are still around of course.

Someone on here the other day talked about even a junior advocate being able to drive a coach and horse through the details and yes I tend to agree with that.

I keep reading articles where a journalist talks about we need to raise say £60 million or the like from player sale’s. That simply isn’t close to the wording in the agreement .Paraphrasing what is said that if we want to put a “new” player on our A list we that new players costs have to balance or be lesser than the player replaced.

Player costs for UEFA squad ratio cost monitoring as detailed in the attachment to this post add three sums together , well potentially 4.

1) Wages 2) agent fees 3) sum amortised in year 4) any sum impaired

Now here’s the point it makes no mention of what A list. Some have taken that to be last seasons A list but that isn’t stated in the sanctions.

However even if we used the 24/25 list by replacing Nunkuku and Guiu with say Delap and Estiavo( spelling) the numbers would probably not be too different. The latter has to be included in the A list even though he is under 21 due to not being affiliated to a English FA

We can rant about UEFA and their rules as much as we like (and it is not a very clean organisation) but the truth is that not all Clubs get fined by them, and this lot have on their books 50 players, 50 players!!, only in the first team and have sold to themselves the women's team and hotels (how the f**k is that compliant with the PL rules??). They are a bunch of addicts to shopping young players with potential (potentially sh*t) and somehow we are looking at the finger rather than the moon? They are bloating the Club with surplus and spending on average sh*t like there's no tomorrow. We still have no revenue from shirt sponsorship or from players sales. But some still think that it is UEFA's fault.

YOU NEED TO WATCH THIS AND THEN TELL ME HE'S WRONG

What an abysmal prick he is.

I get that many here, including myself, dont particularly like Clearlake - but this latest media sh*tstorm is way out of proportion.

ok - so we may have to sell some players to register new ones for the UCL. We are going to do this anyway? How much do we need to sell? £60m? Well, It seems like Madueke, nkunku, Sterling, Felix are all for sale...those are likely to drum up more than £100m alone....without taking into account any other sales that will definitely come.

So in the grand scheme - this is very much irrelevent, and will not impact our operation in any meaningful way.

The fine is more of a problem - but the fact we have to sell to register is meaningless. We were already planning to sell.

36 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

I get that many here, including myself, dont particularly like Clearlake - but this latest media sh*tstorm is way out of proportion.

ok - so we may have to sell some players to register new ones for the UCL. We are going to do this anyway? How much do we need to sell? £60m? Well, It seems like Madueke, nkunku, Sterling, Felix are all for sale...those are likely to drum up more than £100m alone....without taking into account any other sales that will definitely come.

So in the grand scheme - this is very much irrelevent, and will not impact our operation in any meaningful way.

The fine is more of a problem - but the fact we have to sell to register is meaningless. We were already planning to sell.

Madueke - Marginal profit

Nkunku - Loss

Sterling - Probably have to pay him to leave

Felix - Heavy loss

Great business