The_Steve Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 Struggling to beat Forest isn't a sign of anything. Without Europe they are going to struggle to keep their billion-pound squad happy. Palmer isn't going to get 9 penalties next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 (edited) 26 minutes ago, The_Steve said: Struggling to beat Forest isn't a sign of anything. Without Europe they are going to struggle to keep their billion-pound squad happy. Palmer isn't going to get 9 penalties next season. Sorry but I think that's wishful thinking, Chelsea and utd aren't going to drop off, they'll both be back, their revenue is too much not to, they'll sort themselves out As much as I don't actually rate poch I still hope they sack him and have a bit of a wobble They'll need someone to replace Silva, not sell Gallagher and then buy a top striker rather than Jackson and they'll be challenging for top 4 again Edit - should add on the revenue and ffp stuff, it's a bit like the super league, the problem with these clubs isn't that they need more revenue, or that they will miss the revenue of the CL, the problem is they need to control their spending, they already have insane amounts of revenue, near double villas, the difference between us and them isn't the revenue of the CL it's that we don't buy bums for £85m Edited May 12 by villa4europe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 1 minute ago, villa4europe said: Sorry but I think that's wishful thinking, Chelsea and utd aren't going to drop off, they'll both be back, their revenue is too much not to, they'll sort themselves out As much as I don't actually rate poch I still hope they sack him and have a bit of a wobble They'll need someone to replace Silva, not sell Gallagher and then buy a top striker rather than Jackson and they'll be challenging for top 4 again They have big financial issues. They won’t be spending big. They really can’t afford to with FFP compliance. All they can do is trade what they what have. Second biggest wages in the league and no Europe again puts them in a difficult position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 1 hour ago, The_Steve said: They have big financial issues. They won’t be spending big. They really can’t afford to with FFP compliance. All they can do is trade what they what have. Second biggest wages in the league and no Europe again puts them in a difficult position. They are currently 7th, and likely to finish 7th. Isn't that Europe? Conference to be precise. They will trade, they have lots of assets to sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 I think the thing is the players they want to lose are the ones on big contracts, and there won't be many wanting them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viivvaa66 Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 7 hours ago, Czarnikjak said: They are currently 7th, and likely to finish 7th. Isn't that Europe? Conference to be precise. They will trade, they have lots of assets to sell. How many hotels do they have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 Talking about selling assets, per Companies House, they're selling Cobham to themselves: If they're allowed to get away with this by the PL then really what is the point of any financial restrictions at all. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 19 hours ago, Czarnikjak said: They are currently 7th, and likely to finish 7th. Isn't that Europe? Conference to be precise. They will trade, they have lots of assets to sell. I think its not guaranteed until City beat United in FA Cup final 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 9 hours ago, HanoiVillan said: Talking about selling assets, per Companies House, they're selling Cobham to themselves: If they're allowed to get away with this by the PL then really what is the point of any financial restrictions at all. There is no rule in Premier League handbook that stops you from doing it, as long as the value of the transaction is fair market value. Tbh, we can't really complain about it, we sold our stadium to ourselves to comply with FFP. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 1 minute ago, Czarnikjak said: There is no rule in Premier League handbook that stops you from doing it, as long as the value of the transaction is fair market value. Tbh, we can't really complain about it, we sold our stadium to ourselves to comply with FFP. Would the new PSR rules stop this if anyone tried this next season? What about the UEFA rules assuming Chelsea are in Europe next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 2 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said: There is no rule in Premier League handbook that stops you from doing it, as long as the value of the transaction is fair market value. Tbh, we can't really complain about it, we sold our stadium to ourselves to comply with FFP. Yes, and frankly we shouldn't have been able to do it either. There is a rule as I understand it that you need to get permission from the league to count related-party transactions towards PSR calculations, and seemingly they still do not actually have that permission for selling those hotels to themselves last season; presumably they don't have it for this transaction either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 Just now, HanoiVillan said: Yes, and frankly we shouldn't have been able to do it either. There is a rule as I understand it that you need to get permission from the league to count related-party transactions towards PSR calculations, and seemingly they still do not actually have that permission for selling those hotels to themselves last season; presumably they don't have it for this transaction either. Yep, although that rule you talking about only deals with the value of the transaction. Ie it can adjust its value for PSR purposes to be in line with fair market value. So as long as Chelsea valued the transactions fairly I don't think they have anything to worry about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 Just now, Czarnikjak said: Yep, although that rule you talking about only deals with the value of the transaction. Ie it can adjust its value for PSR purposes to be in line with fair market value. So as long as Chelsea valued the transactions fairly I don't think they have anything to worry about. The point that Borson has made about this, again as I understand it, is if they are likely to be perceived as having sold these properties at fair market value then why haven't they been given the permission yet. It's not like it should be incredibly hard to work out what a fair value of two hotels is, it's not like that's some esoteric accounting that requires a phd to resolve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 9 hours ago, HanoiVillan said: Talking about selling assets, per Companies House, they're selling Cobham to themselves: If they're allowed to get away with this by the PL then really what is the point of any financial restrictions at all. Haven’t we done the same. Sold Villa Park back to ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 8 minutes ago, meregreen said: Haven’t we done the same. Sold Villa Park back to ourselves. 16 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Yes, and frankly we shouldn't have been able to do it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: The point that Borson has made about this, again as I understand it, is if they are likely to be perceived as having sold these properties at fair market value then why haven't they been given the permission yet. It's not like it should be incredibly hard to work out what a fair value of two hotels is, it's not like that's some esoteric accounting that requires a phd to resolve. I think you are referring to his appearance on Talksport,I listened to it as well. He said it's not been approved as of November, right? When the accounts were audited.It might have been approved since then, you would imagine it was, otherwise Premier League would charge Chelsea for breaking psr alongside Forest. Regardless, I don't think Premier League have a strong case here if it came to legal dispute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 4 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said: I think you are referring to his appearance on Talksport,I listened to it as well. He said it's not been approved as of November, right? When the accounts were audited.It might have been approved since then, you would imagine it was, otherwise Premier League would charge Chelsea for breaking psr alongside Forest. Regardless, I don't think Premier League have a strong case here if it came to legal dispute. He did say it on TalkSport, but just looked at his Twitter feed and this was posted one minute ago, so he's definitely still saying it: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: He did say it on TalkSport, but just looked at his Twitter feed and this was posted one minute ago, so he's definitely still saying it: Interesting, thanks for that. Assuming his info is correct this is indeed weird. But Chelsea must still feel very confident about the case, hence they went ahead with another transaction even though the previous one was still not approved. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 13 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said: Interesting, thanks for that. Assuming his info is correct this is indeed weird. But Chelsea must still feel very confident about the case, hence they went ahead with another transaction even though the previous one was still not approved. They're either very confident, have a flagrant disregard for any potential negative outcome, or both. My money would be on both. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted May 13 Moderator Share Posted May 13 What are the values on these two deals, the hotel and the training ground? How much have Chelsea artificially boosted their income by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts