22 hours ago, terraloon said:

The reporting to the authorities was just the start. They had no choice but examine just about every historical document, they had to present a case to all the authorities and ultimately negotiate settlements with three bodies and if you read the FAs case and the ICs viewpoint you will see it was no mean task to get away with the sanction we had handed down.

But as much as anything the challenge was to deal with those still on post that were culpable and likewise try and facilitate access to others that were outside the clubs jurisdiction.

The whole point about where we were was that it couldn’t remain. Two stalwarts walked away on free transfers.

No we aren’t at the same level but there is a certain naivety as to what they took over for instance as we learn from the FA written reasons the club was being investigated by HMRC and had RA still be in charge he along with others would likely be subject to a SFO investigation.

It’s abundantly clear that the auditors were fed incorrect accounting information and almost certainly had they not dealt with matters in the way they have we would have been looking at a points deduction along the lines of Luton.

As for being an elite club try separating the trophy cabinet from the organisational structure and even a cursory read of the latest outcome will tell you that the club was run nothing like a elite club

I don't know any football fan who would disregard the years of being an elite, trophy winning football club because behind the scenes some payments weren't declared, Yes, it couldn't carry on, but the ruin of our club was nothing to do with the previous owner or the investigation.

As for HMRC, they are investigating others ........This from 5th January 2026......

"HMRC is intensifying its crackdown on tax non-compliance across football.

Key Points

What is the issue?

HMRC has intensified investigations into football, challenging unpaid taxes, image-rights arrangements, agent-fee structures and historic avoidance schemes. Enforcement is now broader, tougher and aimed at long-standing industry practices.

What does it mean to me?

Anyone involved in football faces greater scrutiny, with routine arrangements now at real risk of reclassification and back-tax claims. Financial exposure, penalties and reputational damage are far more likely.

PSRwatch

PSRwatch - Premier League spending room and squad-cost risk

Plain-English Premier League spending room, transfer effects, UEFA rules and old PSR context for every club.

Scary looking at where we stand. Can we pause anymore incomings for now.

38 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

39 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

I don't know any football fan who would disregard the years of being an elite, trophy winning football club because behind the scenes some payments weren't declared, Yes, it couldn't carry on, but the ruin of our club was nothing to do with the previous owner or the investigation.

As for HMRC, they are investigating others ........This from 5th January 2026......

"HMRC is intensifying its crackdown on tax non-compliance across football.

Key Points

What is the issue?

HMRC has intensified investigations into football, challenging unpaid taxes, image-rights arrangements, agent-fee structures and historic avoidance schemes. Enforcement is now broader, tougher and aimed at long-standing industry practices.

What does it mean to me?

Anyone involved in football faces greater scrutiny, with routine arrangements now at real risk of reclassification and back-tax claims. Financial exposure, penalties and reputational damage are far more likely.

I don't know any football fan who would disregard the years of being an elite, trophy winning football club because behind the scenes some payments weren't declared, Yes, it couldn't carry on, but the ruin of our club was nothing to do with the previous owner or the investigation.

As for HMRC, they are investigating others ........This from 5th January 2026......

"HMRC is intensifying its crackdown on tax non-compliance across football.

Key Points

What is the issue?

HMRC has intensified investigations into football, challenging unpaid taxes, image-rights arrangements, agent-fee structures and historic avoidance schemes. Enforcement is now broader, tougher and aimed at long-standing industry practices.

What does it mean to me?

Anyone involved in football faces greater scrutiny, with routine arrangements now at real risk of reclassification and back-tax claims. Financial exposure, penalties and reputational damage are far more likely.

I don’t know if you have read the FA written reasons but it’s worth the time if you get a chance.

This wasn’t some payments as you refer to them this wasn’t a systematic off the book payments but not just that there were breaches of third party influence. It goes on we aren’t talking about a few £ we are talking about tens of millions.

You don’t need to tell me about HMRC compliance because that’s where I cut my teeth. Most of the transactions mentioned in the FA & PL written reasons weren’t made and some sort of attempt at tax avoidance ( which is what payment of Image Rights attempts to do ) what went on at our club was evasion the payments weren’t accounted for by the club they were made by third parties.

Had RA still owned the club and these matters had been disclosed my guess is he would probably have been the first action by the Football Regulator to force the sale of a club. If City get found guilty of the substantive charges I would imagine that a sign change of ownership at that club will follow.

I can only sense you haven’t grasped the reality that this was down to the previous owner nor the severity of the matter and had he or the previous board, certain academy staff etc still been in post then we would have had a massive points deduction likely the 15 that the FA were requesting.

It’s worth remembering that Rangers were effectively wound up because they engaged in an avoidance scheme

Edited Sunday at 13:553 days by terraloon

1 hour ago, terraloon said:

I don’t know if you have read the FA written reasons but it’s worth the time if you get a chance.

This wasn’t some payments as you refer to them this wasn’t a systematic off the book payments but not just that there were breaches of third party influence. It goes on we aren’t talking about a few £ we are talking about tens of millions.

You don’t need to tell me about HMRC compliance because that’s where I cut my teeth. Most of the transactions mentioned in the FA & PL written reasons weren’t made and some sort of attempt at tax avoidance ( which is what payment of Image Rights attempts to do ) what went on at our club was evasion the payments weren’t accounted for by the club they were made by third parties.

Had RA still owned the club and these matters had been disclosed my guess is he would probably have been the first action by the Football Regulator to force the sale of a club. If City get found guilty of the substantive charges I would imagine that a sign change of ownership at that club will follow.

I can only sense you haven’t grasped the reality that this was down to the previous owner nor the severity of the matter and had he or the previous board, certain academy staff etc still been in post then we would have had a massive points deduction likely the 15 that the FA were requesting.

It’s worth remembering that Rangers were effectively wound up because they engaged in an avoidance scheme

Thanks for your reply. I haven't read the full conclusions you are correct. . And I have to acknowledge that your understanding of the charges and severity etc is far better than mine.

That said, you cannot therefore link the destructive decisions of the new ownership to the undisclosed payments.of RA.

But thanks for an informative reply 👍

1 hour ago, markpitts said:

PSRwatch

PSRwatch - Premier League spending room and squad-cost risk

Plain-English Premier League spending room, transfer effects, UEFA rules and old PSR context for every club.

Scary looking at where we stand. Can we pause anymore incomings for now.

Numbers are massively overstated in terms of squad costs.

Look at some of the sums used for amortisation simply can’t be right nor can the wages as he is expecting circa £70m more for squad costs for 26/7 than we spent on wages for the players and all support and admin staff in 24/25 when we paid CL qualification bonuses and probably significant CWC bonuses.

Has made allowances for players signed / left but if using the 24/5 accounting numbers you have to adjust for players that left/ joined in 25/6.

Another flaw is that suggestion is that all fees are amortised over 5 years when some were signed prior to the rule changes.

I may have missed but selling a player or loaning out a player won’t adjust the accounting numbers but are adjusted for SCR purposes.

1 hour ago, markpitts said:

PSRwatch

PSRwatch - Premier League spending room and squad-cost risk

Plain-English Premier League spending room, transfer effects, UEFA rules and old PSR context for every club.

Scary looking at where we stand. Can we pause anymore incomings for now.

Very scary, yet we continue to pursue / be linked with many new/potentially incoming players.

Im not sure we have the ability to sell enough of the surplus players to get close to complying even before these relatively big money incoming players.

A fine and points deduction is surely looming. - which may open up the old wound listed only days ago. Houdini might struggle here.

1 hour ago, markpitts said:

PSRwatch

PSRwatch - Premier League spending room and squad-cost risk

Plain-English Premier League spending room, transfer effects, UEFA rules and old PSR context for every club.

Scary looking at where we stand. Can we pause anymore incomings for now.

Table toppers as usual ! When does the final PSR apply and on which a decision is made?

28 minutes ago, terraloon said:

Numbers are massively overstated in terms of squad costs.

Look at some of the sums used for amortisation simply can’t be right nor can the wages as he is expecting circa £70m more for squad costs for 26/7 than we spent on wages for the players and all support and admin staff in 24/25 when we paid CL qualification bonuses and probably significant CWC bonuses.

Has made allowances for players signed / left but if using the 24/5 accounting numbers you have to adjust for players that left/ joined in 25/6.

Another flaw is that suggestion is that all fees are amortised over 5 years when some were signed prior to the rule changes.

I may have missed but selling a player or loaning out a player won’t adjust the accounting numbers but are adjusted for SCR purposes.

It is based on some computer modelling thing I believe, it's all explained on their site.

38 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

It is based on some computer modelling thing I believe, it's all explained on their site.

Yea I read the background but it’s crap.

For instance they state that Chalobah ( HG with no fee ) has a significant amortisation charge and Josh again HG doesn’t get paid a £.

Thought this might add a little spice to the debate.

1 hour ago, terraloon said:

Thought this might add a little spice to the debate.

@All Barco no bite checks, double checks, and breathes a sigh of relief.

1 hour ago, terraloon said:

Yea I read the background but it’s crap.

For instance they state that Chalobah ( HG with no fee ) has a significant amortisation charge and Josh again HG doesn’t get paid a £.

No wonder Josh wants to leave and the club are desperate to get rid of Trev

10 hours ago, terraloon said:

Numbers are massively overstated in terms of squad costs.

Look at some of the sums used for amortisation simply can’t be right nor can the wages as he is expecting circa £70m more for squad costs for 26/7 than we spent on wages for the players and all support and admin staff in 24/25 when we paid CL qualification bonuses and probably significant CWC bonuses.

Has made allowances for players signed / left but if using the 24/5 accounting numbers you have to adjust for players that left/ joined in 25/6.

Another flaw is that suggestion is that all fees are amortised over 5 years when some were signed prior to the rule changes.

I may have missed but selling a player or loaning out a player won’t adjust the accounting numbers but are adjusted for SCR purposes.

Correct, this website is just another boring use of AI. First and foremost there are no "public wage sources", which means squad costs are impossibly inaccurate. Secondly, the audited Companies House accounts have some permitted discrepancies from the submitted PL accounts, so it's possible for a club to "fail" SCR according to this website even though the PL assesses no breach.

All fun and games until some club's defamation lawyers come calling.

12 hours ago, terraloon said:

I don’t know if you have read the FA written reasons but it’s worth the time if you get a chance.

This wasn’t some payments as you refer to them this wasn’t a systematic off the book payments but not just that there were breaches of third party influence. It goes on we aren’t talking about a few £ we are talking about tens of millions.

You don’t need to tell me about HMRC compliance because that’s where I cut my teeth. Most of the transactions mentioned in the FA & PL written reasons weren’t made and some sort of attempt at tax avoidance ( which is what payment of Image Rights attempts to do ) what went on at our club was evasion the payments weren’t accounted for by the club they were made by third parties.

Had RA still owned the club and these matters had been disclosed my guess is he would probably have been the first action by the Football Regulator to force the sale of a club. If City get found guilty of the substantive charges I would imagine that a sign change of ownership at that club will follow.

I can only sense you haven’t grasped the reality that this was down to the previous owner nor the severity of the matter and had he or the previous board, certain academy staff etc still been in post then we would have had a massive points deduction likely the 15 that the FA were requesting.

It’s worth remembering that Rangers were effectively wound up because they engaged in an avoidance scheme

I'm really keen to see where this HMRC stuff goes, especially as it appears to be nearly a decade behind other countries like Spain in taking action. The image-rights thing is fascinating as here in Australia many public figures create a company that holds their image-rights, rather than treating it as personal income, both for tax and legal purposes.

The footballing breach is clear, in so far as the FA does not permit anyone else to receive payment with respect to a transfer except for the selling club, the player, the association or league, and a single registered agent (and their legal advisor). Any payment made to anyone else is a breach of anti-third-party 'ownership' regulations introduced in 2009.

But, suspending my normal political views for a moment, I don't think the uncovered payments would amount to tax avoidance. Take the Hazard transfer, for example. Abramovich/Chelsea is said to have made payments akin to a "finders' fee" for two individuals (who are not Hazard's registered agents) and a supplementary payment to Hazard's agent, John Bico.

I presume HMRC is seeking a cut of all three payments however:

• A 'finders fee' is against football rules, but it is fairly standard practice in corporate recruiting. It would also be paid in the jurisdiction where the 'finding' happened, not necessarily in the place of prospective employement - eg if a UK employer used a US firm to headhunt an employee from America, it's perfectly reasonable for it to pay and be taxed in the US, right?
  

• The same principle applies to any payment made by the club to Bico. Yes, it might contravene football rules, but Abramovich and Bico are free to transact in any jurisdiction they please - so what would HMRC be involved in?

Edited Monday at 02:152 days by SydneyChelsea

On 01/08/2026 at 00:53, AJMurphy said:

I think Brighton did something similar and revieved a similar punishment

Our very own Paul Winstanley, in fact!

Fun fact- Winstanley's defence to the charges was effectively "I was inexperienced and had no idea what I was doing".

Chelsea hired him a year later 😂

6 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

I'm really keen to see where this HMRC stuff goes, especially as it appears to be nearly a decade behind other countries like Spain in taking action. The image-rights thing is fascinating as here in Australia many public figures create a company that holds their image-rights, rather than treating it as personal income, both for tax and legal purposes.

The footballing breach is clear, in so far as the FA does not permit anyone else to receive payment with respect to a transfer except for the selling club, the player, the association or league, and a single registered agent (and their legal advisor). Any payment made to anyone else is a breach of anti-third-party 'ownership' regulations introduced in 2009.

But, suspending my normal political views for a moment, I don't think the uncovered payments would amount to tax avoidance. Take the Hazard transfer, for example. Abramovich/Chelsea is said to have made payments akin to a "finders' fee" for two individuals (who are not Hazard's registered agents) and a supplementary payment to Hazard's agent, John Bico.

I presume HMRC is seeking a cut of all three payments however:

• A 'finders fee' is against football rules, but it is fairly standard practice in corporate recruiting. It would also be paid in the jurisdiction where the 'finding' happened, not necessarily in the place of prospective employement - eg if a UK employer used a US firm to headhunt an employee from America, it's perfectly reasonable for it to pay and be taxed in the US, right?
  

• The same principle applies to any payment made by the club to Bico. Yes, it might contravene football rules, but Abramovich and Bico are free to transact in any jurisdiction they please - so what would HMRC be involved in?

Image rights have been a bone of contention for quite a while in the UK. Payment into players companies have been common place with their being corporation tax the main source of government taxation . Some individuals have never taken dividends but even when they have Class 1 Nic is not payable. The way in which image rights have to be treated for taxation purpose changes next year .

When it comes to payments to third parties the simple fact that it wasn’t Chelsea that paid the amounts being detailed it was companies owned by RA which as we know, may not agree with, but know they shouldn’t be made so as consequence the club have to accept that under HMRC the responsibility for ensuring the payment didn’t have with it a tax liability and that’s why their is a settlement.

As an aside I don’t know if you have commented on the FIFa changes re the requirement to sell release clauses in contracts from 1/1/27 but pretty much in line as we were thinking

8 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Our very own Paul Winstanley, in fact!

Fun fact- Winstanley's defence to the charges was effectively "I was inexperienced and had no idea what I was doing".

Chelsea hired him a year later 😂

Yikes!

Seems the best place to post this. The Chelsea Supporters Trust (CST) AGM will be held at 12 noon (U.K. time) on Saturday, 29 August. In the past the CST AGM has been held in a room in Stamford Bridge and people can attend in person or join online. This year the AGM will be held online. In the past the CST has been able to use a room free of charge. This year the club wishes to charge a substantial figure - I don't know the amount - for using the room. The CST Board has taken the decision and I agree with them that as the Trust is member funded the meeting will be held online.

I think that the club is being greedy in wanting to charge the CST for using a room. No surprise there. Neither the men's nor women's teams are playing at home on the 29th and the club probably doesn't want to pay staff to come in an open up the room and set it up for a meeting. Another example of sticking up two fingers to the fans.

I hope to attend the AGM and will report back on what was discussed. As an aside annual membership of the CST is £5. I don't know how people are members of the CST

Edited Monday at 10:372 days by Boyne

8 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Correct, this website is just another boring use of AI. First and foremost there are no "public wage sources", which means squad costs are impossibly inaccurate. Secondly, the audited Companies House accounts have some permitted discrepancies from the submitted PL accounts, so it's possible for a club to "fail" SCR according to this website even though the PL assesses no breach.

All fun and games until some club's defamation lawyers come calling.

Hi Syd. I vaguely recall that the PL were going to run a "shadow" player squad ratio system alongside FFP to show how clubs would have fared last season, but I can't find anything on the PL site about it. Do you know if they actually carried out that exercise??

Also PSR additionally looks at things like financial liquidity etc , which doesn't seem to get much publicity.

3 hours ago, Boyne said:

Seems the best place to post this. The Chelsea Supporters Trust (CST) AGM will be held at 12 noon (U.K. time) on Saturday, 29 August. In the past the CST AGM has been held in a room in Stamford Bridge and people can attend in person or join online. This year the AGM will be held online. In the past the CST has been able to use a room free of charge. This year the club wishes to charge a substantial figure - I don't know the amount - for using the room. The CST Board has taken the decision and I agree with them that as the Trust is member funded the meeting will be held online.

I think that the club is being greedy in wanting to charge the CST for using a room. No surprise there. Neither the men's nor women's teams are playing at home on the 29th and the club probably doesn't want to pay staff to come in an open up the room and set it up for a meeting. Another example of sticking up two fingers to the fans.

I hope to attend the AGM and will report back on what was discussed. As an aside annual membership of the CST is £5. I don't know how people are members of the CST

The Club are always banging on about fostering good relations between themselves and various fan groups. . And then they do this?

1 hour ago, The Rising Sun said:

The Club are always banging on about fostering good relations between themselves and various fan groups. . And then they do this?

Exactly. Renting out a room for free for a couple of hours won't harm the club. Charging for the use only alienates fans even more. As mentioned before I believe that the club doesn't want season-ticket holders and long-standing fans. If I get the opportunity I'll ask during the meeting if the CST Board can approach the club and ask for the latter's view on the future of season-tickets. No doubt the club would respond along the lines of 'that's not being considered.' That is management speak for yes it is. I'm a cynical old bastard.

28 minutes ago, Boyne said:

Exactly. Renting out a room for free for a couple of hours won't harm the club. Charging for the use only alienates fans even more. As mentioned before I believe that the club doesn't want season-ticket holders and long-standing fans. If I get the opportunity I'll ask during the meeting if the CST Board can approach the club and ask for the latter's view on the future of season-tickets. No doubt the club would respond along the lines of 'that's not being considered.' That is management speak for yes it is. I'm a cynical old bastard

I know Tottenham and West Ham wanted to move senior season ticket holders into another part of the stadium, away from friends and families. I believe it was halted after fan demonstrations , West Ham fans did a great job with their " Stop exploiting Loyalty" campaign

39 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

I know Tottenham and West Ham wanted to move senior season ticket holders into another part of the stadium, away from friends and families. I believe it was halted after fan demonstrations , West Ham fans did a great job with their " Stop exploiting Loyalty" campaign

I read a while back that a senior West Ham was asked to move and that would have meant that he wouldn't have been able to sit with his grandson. He complained. You're right, the West Ham fans did a great job.

It's all a bloody mess.

1 hour ago, Boyne said:

I read a while back that a senior West Ham was asked to move and that would have meant that he wouldn't have been able to sit with his grandson. He complained. You're right, the West Ham fans did a great job.

It's all a bloody mess.

Dan Levy wanted to cease all new senior concession season tickets. And to increase existing concession prices until they were full price. I seem to remember that we announced that concessions would remain, but that they were "under review" before the start of maybe last season.

Levy's justification was that it was financially unviable to have concessions!!

From club statement 23/24

"ensure supporters’ voices are heard as we look to the future. This will include looking at the number of different price points across the stadium to ensure all our seats reflect their value and demand, alongside a review of the current approach to concessions."