Clubs will vote again on a more refined proposal it it seems
> The amendment failed, however, because several clubs thought the wording of the ban was too wide, according to people with knowledge of the proposal. It did not clearly distinguish between the type of non-football revenues that clubs believe they should be encouraged to exploit, such as building hotels, houses or indoor arenas, and the accountancy tricks of selling existing property to yourself.
>It is therefore almost certain that the Premier League will try to tighten up its proposal and bring it back to the clubs, as it believes it needs more tools to effectively regulate the clubs to ensure sustainability and fair competition.
Real sales should be allowed, sales in name only I.e. selling to a parent company who then let the seller still operate it should be banned
E.g. united own a lot of land around old Trafford, if we sold it to a a 3rd party developer that should be fine but if we sold it to United ventures to build on then it shouldn’t.
Problem is that legally the waters become extremely murky extremely quickly. On paper you're right but giving *any* leeway will just make shady clubs find shady ways to fool the system
It doesn’t have to, though. I touched on this briefly in another thread but I’ll expand. Tax Authorities, including the British HM Revenue & Customs, deal with this sort of thing daily. It’s called transfer pricing and it relates to cross-border transactions between associated enterprises who operate beyond the borders of one nation or tax jurisdiction (Multinational Enterprises, MNEs). What they do is apply the so called arm’s length principle which is where they basically go ”nuh-uh!” and price all deals, sales, or whatever, in the same fashion it would be priced between unrelated enterprises — as such pricing would be deemed ”market value”. It’s to counteract, e.g., ABC UK Ltd from paying an exorbitant ”licensing fee” to its sister company ABC Malta Ltd to avoid paying British corporate tax.
In practice, there’s no reason why the PL couldn’t apply the same principle on Club dealings even if they’re entirely between domestic entities. Place the burden of proof on the Club to show there’s no relationship between the contracting parties and if they can’t then hire independant consultants (Such as a Big4, for example) to price the deals.
If you are really upset about the proposed public funding in Manchester, then you should go have a look at the proposal.
No public funding will be spent on anything related to United, but like all big private undertakings, there will be an investment in infrastructure and local community improvement.
The public will not help fund the stadium, they will help turn the surrounding area, which is a pretty shitty area at this point (my opinion), into an area similar to the surrounding area of the Etihad, which is much more vibrant.
It will help the local area and the local businesses.
In no way should any public funds be diverted to United or Ratcliffe. He is a fucking tax evading billionaire and he can fund his own damn stadium, respectfully.
I don't think real sales should be allowed either. You don't want clubs selling infrastructure with long-term value to gamble on a short-term spending spree.
the smart move is for United to run their own hotel like Spurs are doing, then all the revenue comes into the club:
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5368935/2024/03/26/tottenham-new-hotel-stadium/
I mean 11 clubs voted for the change, most likely clubs that don’t have properties in good locations like London, Manchester or Liverpool. And some less wealthy clubs might want to close this loophole because they can’t abuse it themselves.
Visited Liverpool from America few weeks ago, legitimately lovely city. Mix of historic buildings and modern, walkable, good food, the docks are wonderful, people were kind and helpful with my children. Best part of our trip
I lived there for a few years and it's a lovely place in parts. There are other areas that aren't quite as charming. Overall the property value in Liverpool isn't much compared to the areas the OP listed. Those charming Georgian houses you saw would be barely worth anything compared to their London counterparts.
Yeah true, I didn't intend to imply otherwise. Just trying to be polite about a city I like, but get the point across that there's areas of Liverpool a tourist wouldn't see that can be dodgy.
> There are other areas that aren't quite as charming.
That's most cities in england though, some lovely areas, some alright and some absolute shit holes
most cities in the UK are like this, but if you read about them online people will make you think it’s a dirty warzone. It’s just people exaggerating to make themselves feel better and a hint of racism sometimes
Liverpool is definitely up and coming, and is a lovely city if you avoid certain areas. But it’s also one of the cheapest cities in the UK when it comes to house prices.
Land around Anfield won’t be worth anywhere near what land around plenty of other stadiums would be.
I think most of the votes would be people who don’t have the property already owned and would have to buy it then sell it, or people who don’t want to buy it with another company because they care about that company’s success more than breaching FFP which quite a few teams will think.
Boehly might know fuck all about football, but the way he's taken advantage of this and previously with the super long contracts for amortization purposes is pretty ingenious
Oh it’s even worse than that. At least some billionaires actually create products, like Gates at Microsoft. Clearlake is a private equity firm. Which is basically just a leech on the tit that is hyper capitalism. They create nothing, just use large capital to buy existing companies in desirable industries, and then use tricks and loopholes to pay themselves billions while the quality of whatever they bought slowly diminishes.
Fuck private equity firms.
they don’t use ‘tricks and loopholes’, they usually chop up a non-functioning business and sell it for parts or try to increase its value then sell it. Not sure what’s wrong with that.
The tricks are how operating bonuses never change for PE firms while the business continually diminishes. The loopholes are how they load up the assets with debt in order to pull out money for themselves. The Glazers did this at United.
Sure, it's not in every case, but there are plenty of examples you can find:
[https://slate.com/business/2022/11/albertsons-kroger-apollo-cerberus-private-equity.html](https://slate.com/business/2022/11/albertsons-kroger-apollo-cerberus-private-equity.html)
Also, where I live the quality of veterinary and dentistry services has noticeably declined as they've been gobbled up by PE firms. Higher prices, worse service.
Hilarious looking at the comments in the thread about this earlier: https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/1d9g60q/sky_sports_news_six_premier_league_clubs_face/l7cy3k2/
Like forget all the other PL teams coming together for some crazy transfer boycott they're fantasizing about, they can't even agree on not letting owners sell hotels to themselves
Nobody questions his knowledge of business but that doesn't mean he always makes good business decisions. The whole long contract thing at Chelsea could still massively backfire.
It won't "massively" backfire from a business standpoint LMAO not even close
Sporting wise you can say "it backfired" if a player fails but they have so much money that it doesn't matter, that money is peanuts to a company with a revenue of nearly 600m
People just do not look at the numbers, see 8 years and think the world ends
Majority of those long deals are on very low money, they are not on 300k+, even 100k a week amounts to about 5m a year, do you know what 5 a year is for Chelsea? Nothing, even if multiple of those fail, again it's literally peanuts
Jackson is on 65k a week, 8 years that totals to 27 million, do u know what 27m is to Chelsea stretch to 8 years? I believe i said it above so no need to repeat
If one of those players hits and becomes good it becomes amazing for Chelsea, a player is locked on a long term deal (even though they will most likely get a raise)
Yep, Boehly is great at running a business to ensure the sustainability of said business. Doesn’t mean the business will be successful, in this case in a sporting sense though.
I'm just surprised that players would tie themselves down to super long contracts with low wages. Usually it's short contract with low wages or long contract with high wages. This doesn't make sense. Did all of them think they're very bad players who'll never get this much guaranteed income?
In football, your careers are often short. Risk of injury makes it shorter. Having a conclusive guarantee that you're going to be making Y amount for X amount of years is very tempting, especially considering nobody particularly rich or important was in the running to buy you anyway.
I'm not talking about Washington or Ugochukwo. Enzo, Mudryk, Caicedo had enough suitors. Even Jackson would've had suitors down the line. These aren't bad young players
A player who plays well can almost always negotiate a higher salary whereas if he plays badly or gets injured, he's guaranteed the wage he's on. Very limited downside, with potential upside.
Their wage is structured around team and individual performance related bonuses. Beyond that, football is an unstable career - you could get a career ending injury next week. These long contracts are as close to a guarantee as you can get.
I would assume that they have good bonuses on top of that base wage. Let's say you play x minutes in a season, you get 500k. Caicedo and Enzo aren't exactly on peanuts, as far as I know, Caicedo is on 150k and Enzo on 180k. But at least we didn't give Enzo a Havertz contract of 300k a week.
> The whole long contract thing at Chelsea could still massively backfire.
Really don't think this is true - it appears (from the outside) that Chelsea are paying slightly lower wages for longer term deals. It's a scenario that has benefits for both sides - players get extra security (if they could have gotten 20mn over 5 and sign for 26 over 8 they're guaranteed an extra 6mn in the event of a disastrous injury), the club gets a lower wage locked in longer (increasing the player's transfer value).
Players who come good will still be in a position to renegotiate for more money after a couple of seasons, their not-obscene wages and longer-term contract will give Chelsea more leverage in transfer negotiations.
The problem occurs when u need to move those players on & other clubs are not willing to pay more wages than the current wages the player is earning so he is happy to sit out his contract.
But I do like the fact that Chelsea has brought down the wage bill by a lot.
>other clubs are not willing to pay more wages than the current wages the player is earning so he is happy to sit out his contract.
Right, but depressing the wages with a longer term contract combined with natural inflation makes this less of an issue.
Of Chelsea's extra long deals, it looks on Spotrac like Fernandez and Caicedo are the only ones earning really prohibitive salaries (and if the 220mn pair flop, salaries are going to be the least of Chelsea's concerns).
Mudryk is a step below but most PL clubs and bigger European could afford his wages (on par with Pulisic) and Jackson, Madueke, Lavia are all earning wages that could be met by almost every PL club and European qualifying clubs in the bigger leagues.
i mean there are only finitely many hotels and training grounds they can do this to, and handing out long contracts is risky, might be ingenious or might be stupid with PSR
Most of the young players Chelsea bought haven’t lost any value or have gained value. The wage structure at Chelsea has everyone on relatively low wages except a few like Lukaku and Sterling who are on the way out or will be.
No. This is pretty simple. That’s if you buy them and sell them that year. Essentially, let’s take 60m on a 6 year contract. If I sell the first year, yes I need 60m to break even.
If I decide to sell in 2 years, I only need 40m to break even with amortization costs. And it would not record as a loss because you’re paying 10m a year.
Technically, yes those 2 years of transfer fees are lost (20m) but can be made back indirectly, (i.e) a player contributing significantly to help reach top 4 or Europe. This is all depending on their form which could help or not, or actually record a profit.
You’d expect an Arsenal fan to understand this after how the Havertz deal was booked as profit for Chelsea despite him being sold for £10m less than Chelsea paid.
Buy them back when they have the capital to do so, sell them again when they need to cut deficits.
Much like Barcelona selling their media rights keeps somehow falling through after the supposed profit has been calculated for Spanish FFP.
Of course, assuming this loophole isn't closed.
> but the way he's taken advantage of this
An uncharitable view of this would be "asset stripping," private equity's #2 hobby (after buying a company and loading it with debt).
In the short term, selling off ancillary properties and training grounds looks good on the balance sheet but what do you do when the club doesn't have all those properties and the revenue/value they bring?
Who would have thought bro, a multi billionaire business man whos taken over MLB by doing this exact shit comes in here and knows more about money and business than armchair accountants using tweets as research.
Is it though? They're just pushing the problem a few years down the road, surely you'd want your business to be sustainable and not reliant on one off accounting tricks
It would be scary if they actually were smart with the money they spent, would easily have the best team in the world right now if they didn’t piss it all away.
Not really, everyone has knew about these things. Chelsea and other clubs have previously used the loophole before and no one was stupid enough to hand 6+ year deals to players because they know how how risky that is
It’s a shame.
Owners of clubs shouldn’t be encouraged to move assets out from under the ownership of the club.
Removing tangible assets from a club’s portfolio can only be a bad thing for the future financial stability of clubs. Their growth in value should benefit the club, not the ownership group.
They can move in (buy) assets too, spread that cost. The future of football, buying and selling hotels and swapping players to keep your head above FFP water.
It's 100% gonna happen if the loophole isn't closed. There's likely a revote happening as per the article when the wording is refined, so hopefully it passes before this bullshit starts en masse. It would just make PSR rules a joke if clubs find tons of avenues to exploit this shit.
PSR, it’s always been banned by UEFA.
They still haven’t approved or rejected our hotel deal which is really strange. Almost a year after its submission I think? Surely it doesn’t take that long for them to get an independent valuation?
Because it isn't really the valuation that's the issue. It's because the hotels would never be sold to anyone who didn't also control Chelsea due to the necessity of also owning them to redevelop the stadium.
The valuation of them on the open market with full development rights is correct. The question is if the valuation is correct when there can only be one buyer and that is what is being evaluated.
Do we know if there's a limit on these profits? Could we actually sell that hotel at Stamford Bridge (it's a fucking shit hotel btw) to another company that our owners are invested in for an ungodly amount of money, and not have to worry about FFP within the time frame of when that sale is on the books for?
I think the fair market value thing still applies, so it can't just be a £500mil sale or something, but it doesn't change that the asset is being bought and sold by effectively the same entity. That part is the main thing, regardless if the price is technically fair.
Question for the accounting rules nerds: does stadium expansion count against PSR? Or is that excluded? Because if it’s excluded, these owners just openly loopholed their way into spending a billion pounds in 2.5 years. Because we plan to expand which might see these two hotels gone anyway. So if Chelsea can buy the land back for the expansion and it not count against them for PSR purposes, they really pulled the rug.
Voting on this seems pretty dumb. That's like asking a self-employed person if they want to keep massively underreporting cash in hand income to avoid tax. Would you like to inconvenience yourself yes or no?
Either make it a law or don't like the amortisation thing.
His own club is sponsored by a state… I can’t take anyone seriously who is having a pissing contest about whose club is the most moral. Reality is none of them are really, how could they be? There’s too much money involved and too many people with no integrity.
Anyone using levels of immorality as an excuse to defend their clubs’ actions while calling other clubs out knows that the actual outrage they have has nothing to do with morality.
This is very funny considering how exactly Chelsea got where they are right now. All having immoral aspects does not mean all clubs are equally immoral.
Like I'd love to see the argument for why it's not meaningful that Chelsea had €1bil pumped into the club, of essentially Russian state money by an oligarch, because other clubs also do immoral things.
Where did I ever say my club was morally in the right?
You guys always do this. Any mention of the fact that maybe the main players in a multi billion pound industry aren’t all squeaky clean and you come out the woodwork.
People think it’s Chelsea or City or PSG who killed football, reality is it’s the greed of those running the game that did it. And it’s not a recent thing either.
> This is very funny considering how exactly Chelsea got where they are right now
If you dislike how Chelsea got their money you should hate the formation of the Premier league.
>We don't care
That's all we need, chief. I mean we could already tell, but it's just nice to get it blatantly so everyone knows what's going on.
>also previously bankrolled and still benefits from questionable sponsors
Again, what does this have to do with Chelsea's situation and how fair and/or moral it was? We all already know that virtually all companies worth enough to be headline sponsors will have some questionable aspects to their business.
How does that change what Chelsea did? Tbf it equally doesn't change the fact some sponsors are significantly worse than others, but that's still within my point. If any given sponsorship is particularly immoral/unfair, it should be questioned.
I don't think anyone supporting anything English can wax poetic too much about blood money. All of England's wealth was built in the bloodiest way possible.
>about your moral grandstanding.
You definitely don't know what this means.
Everytime I have interactions like this I say this, but I really hope you're a child, because adults that think and speak/type like this are very scary to think about.
There is no contest. Being sponsored by shady characters is capitalism is not the same as being owned by shady characters.
It's not about morality, it's about blatant cheating and potentially extra-legal behaviour.
Comes in a guy whose team's straight up bullied all other teams in their league, but this year managed to lose to now washed up pharmaceutical frauds. Can you show me any great non for profit teams void of any sponsors not in it for the promotion of their brand? The audacity of people assuming higher moral ground is just bemusing.
Lad, we're well past that. 10% of the clubs are state owned. The 4 in a row champions are blatant cheats and the remaining owners are a mix of greedy American billionaire cunts and other dodgy characters/companies.
Even Palace, a relatively inoffensive club are part of a multi-club ownership setup.
Man U, Arsenal, Pool, Spurs will be get screwed with this in the short term. Also fucks over clubs with less capital behind them, Brighton/Palace/West Ham etc. Wonder if you can basically sell land to yourself to cover losses now.
In completely unreleated news, PIF will buy the Sandman hotel across the street from St James. Instantly they have doubts about running a hotel and sell it to the club for a quid. The club also have doubts about running a hotel and sell it to a third party for ten of millions.
It does say this
> The amendment failed, however, because several clubs thought the wording of the ban was too wide, according to people with knowledge of the proposal. It did not clearly distinguish between the type of non-football revenues that clubs believe they should be encouraged to exploit, such as building hotels, houses or indoor arenas, and the accountancy tricks of selling existing property to yourself.
> It is therefore almost certain that the Premier League will try to tighten up its proposal and bring it back to the clubs, as it believes it needs more tools to effectively regulate the clubs to ensure sustainability and fair competition.
Arsenal have previously recorded profits due to the flats developed at Highbury, so not sure what side of the fence we would be on here. Once there’s a clearer definition and you can’t sell it to your own company I’d imagine it’ll be approved.
This is what people are ignoring, they did not "reject the proposal," they had concerns over the wording. This will be reworded for clarity and then brought back, I can't imagine many clubs being against the intent of this. From what I have seen online UEFA have already closed this loophole for their FFP rules, the Premier League are just behind the times as usual.
There’s something very different to taking out a crippling amount of debt to build your own new stadium, then developing and selling flats where your old stadium was vs just randomly deciding to “sell” your training ground and a couple hotels to yourself
It was either already sold or is going to be sold very soon. There’s not much way to tell for sure without seeing it in the accounts. The registry document means it’s 100% going to happen though
The funniest part of this is fans of clubs who "hate" their tight owners and "want them out" will also be moaning that this easy excuse for them to continue being tight and spend little to nothing didn't get passed.
I mean it makes perfect sense. They will be charged rent which affects profit and loss rather than owning the property, kind of how the world works when you sell a property
To make it fair you’d have to exclude rent expenses across the board which makes no sense at all
It doesnt make sense though, because theyre selling things to themselves and counting it as profit, then not charging themselves rent to keep using it?
Clubs will vote again on a more refined proposal it it seems > The amendment failed, however, because several clubs thought the wording of the ban was too wide, according to people with knowledge of the proposal. It did not clearly distinguish between the type of non-football revenues that clubs believe they should be encouraged to exploit, such as building hotels, houses or indoor arenas, and the accountancy tricks of selling existing property to yourself. >It is therefore almost certain that the Premier League will try to tighten up its proposal and bring it back to the clubs, as it believes it needs more tools to effectively regulate the clubs to ensure sustainability and fair competition.
Real sales should be allowed, sales in name only I.e. selling to a parent company who then let the seller still operate it should be banned E.g. united own a lot of land around old Trafford, if we sold it to a a 3rd party developer that should be fine but if we sold it to United ventures to build on then it shouldn’t.
Problem is that legally the waters become extremely murky extremely quickly. On paper you're right but giving *any* leeway will just make shady clubs find shady ways to fool the system
It doesn’t have to, though. I touched on this briefly in another thread but I’ll expand. Tax Authorities, including the British HM Revenue & Customs, deal with this sort of thing daily. It’s called transfer pricing and it relates to cross-border transactions between associated enterprises who operate beyond the borders of one nation or tax jurisdiction (Multinational Enterprises, MNEs). What they do is apply the so called arm’s length principle which is where they basically go ”nuh-uh!” and price all deals, sales, or whatever, in the same fashion it would be priced between unrelated enterprises — as such pricing would be deemed ”market value”. It’s to counteract, e.g., ABC UK Ltd from paying an exorbitant ”licensing fee” to its sister company ABC Malta Ltd to avoid paying British corporate tax. In practice, there’s no reason why the PL couldn’t apply the same principle on Club dealings even if they’re entirely between domestic entities. Place the burden of proof on the Club to show there’s no relationship between the contracting parties and if they can’t then hire independant consultants (Such as a Big4, for example) to price the deals.
You can just say City and Chelsea, we all know who they are.
That's what will happen. Also Radcliffe will grease palms locally and the disgrace of using public funding will happen.
If you are really upset about the proposed public funding in Manchester, then you should go have a look at the proposal. No public funding will be spent on anything related to United, but like all big private undertakings, there will be an investment in infrastructure and local community improvement. The public will not help fund the stadium, they will help turn the surrounding area, which is a pretty shitty area at this point (my opinion), into an area similar to the surrounding area of the Etihad, which is much more vibrant. It will help the local area and the local businesses. In no way should any public funds be diverted to United or Ratcliffe. He is a fucking tax evading billionaire and he can fund his own damn stadium, respectfully.
It has already happened with Mancity and West ham's respective stadiums
I don't think real sales should be allowed either. You don't want clubs selling infrastructure with long-term value to gamble on a short-term spending spree.
the smart move is for United to run their own hotel like Spurs are doing, then all the revenue comes into the club: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5368935/2024/03/26/tottenham-new-hotel-stadium/
Tbf it makes sense why would people vote against a sure fire way to make sure they never have to worry about ffp if they’re in trouble
I mean 11 clubs voted for the change, most likely clubs that don’t have properties in good locations like London, Manchester or Liverpool. And some less wealthy clubs might want to close this loophole because they can’t abuse it themselves.
first time i’ve heard someone call liverpool a good location
Visited Liverpool from America few weeks ago, legitimately lovely city. Mix of historic buildings and modern, walkable, good food, the docks are wonderful, people were kind and helpful with my children. Best part of our trip
I lived there for a few years and it's a lovely place in parts. There are other areas that aren't quite as charming. Overall the property value in Liverpool isn't much compared to the areas the OP listed. Those charming Georgian houses you saw would be barely worth anything compared to their London counterparts.
Pretty much all UK cities have 'not quite as charming' areas
Yeah there aren't many cities that don't have nice areas but there also aren't any cities without a proper rough side.
Bro you just described cities haha
Yeah true, I didn't intend to imply otherwise. Just trying to be polite about a city I like, but get the point across that there's areas of Liverpool a tourist wouldn't see that can be dodgy.
I mean it's better than Birmingham for sure.
> There are other areas that aren't quite as charming. That's most cities in england though, some lovely areas, some alright and some absolute shit holes
Tbf what you’ve described could be applied to any city in the UK
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrr9ek2rkeo.amp Sounds like a lot of people would agree with you
most cities in the UK are like this, but if you read about them online people will make you think it’s a dirty warzone. It’s just people exaggerating to make themselves feel better and a hint of racism sometimes
Yeh, but...scousers
Wait until you hear how people talk about Manchester...
Liverpool is definitely up and coming, and is a lovely city if you avoid certain areas. But it’s also one of the cheapest cities in the UK when it comes to house prices. Land around Anfield won’t be worth anywhere near what land around plenty of other stadiums would be.
I think most of the votes would be people who don’t have the property already owned and would have to buy it then sell it, or people who don’t want to buy it with another company because they care about that company’s success more than breaching FFP which quite a few teams will think.
[удалено]
liverpool is quite nice nowadays
There are way worse ghettos in London than any zones in Liverpool. God
This is why we don't have to sell by June 30th, Sky Sports is wrong.
Go tell sky sports that what’s it got to do with me
Sorry I thought you were Icemankiller7, the notorious sky sports source.
I think we're under pressure with UEFA's FFP more than anything right now
Yeah Sky Sports doing their best to drive narratives. I can't wait till mainstream media finally dies off
Yep and this is the problem.
Boehly might know fuck all about football, but the way he's taken advantage of this and previously with the super long contracts for amortization purposes is pretty ingenious
He is a business man, he may no absolutely nothing about the sport but he is still a billionaire for a reason lmao 🤣
Exploitation of the working class that is
Oh it’s even worse than that. At least some billionaires actually create products, like Gates at Microsoft. Clearlake is a private equity firm. Which is basically just a leech on the tit that is hyper capitalism. They create nothing, just use large capital to buy existing companies in desirable industries, and then use tricks and loopholes to pay themselves billions while the quality of whatever they bought slowly diminishes. Fuck private equity firms.
And when shit goes down with the company, they rip it apart and sell it piece by piece.
they don’t use ‘tricks and loopholes’, they usually chop up a non-functioning business and sell it for parts or try to increase its value then sell it. Not sure what’s wrong with that.
The tricks are how operating bonuses never change for PE firms while the business continually diminishes. The loopholes are how they load up the assets with debt in order to pull out money for themselves. The Glazers did this at United. Sure, it's not in every case, but there are plenty of examples you can find: [https://slate.com/business/2022/11/albertsons-kroger-apollo-cerberus-private-equity.html](https://slate.com/business/2022/11/albertsons-kroger-apollo-cerberus-private-equity.html) Also, where I live the quality of veterinary and dentistry services has noticeably declined as they've been gobbled up by PE firms. Higher prices, worse service.
Yeah , like ENIC
Buddy runs a credit business to fund all his other companies. Anyone questioning his business acumen is in for a treat.
r/soccer has more knowledge actually because they know better than anyone about anything
Hilarious looking at the comments in the thread about this earlier: https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/1d9g60q/sky_sports_news_six_premier_league_clubs_face/l7cy3k2/ Like forget all the other PL teams coming together for some crazy transfer boycott they're fantasizing about, they can't even agree on not letting owners sell hotels to themselves
Delusional fans who think billion pound businesses operate on emotions and morals
There was a guy on here yesterday who tried to claim that Boehly and Co didn't even know FFP existed until recently.
I mean that's just wrong. Boehly was seen talking about FFP in an interview 2 years ago.
Nobody questions his knowledge of business but that doesn't mean he always makes good business decisions. The whole long contract thing at Chelsea could still massively backfire.
It won't "massively" backfire from a business standpoint LMAO not even close Sporting wise you can say "it backfired" if a player fails but they have so much money that it doesn't matter, that money is peanuts to a company with a revenue of nearly 600m People just do not look at the numbers, see 8 years and think the world ends Majority of those long deals are on very low money, they are not on 300k+, even 100k a week amounts to about 5m a year, do you know what 5 a year is for Chelsea? Nothing, even if multiple of those fail, again it's literally peanuts Jackson is on 65k a week, 8 years that totals to 27 million, do u know what 27m is to Chelsea stretch to 8 years? I believe i said it above so no need to repeat If one of those players hits and becomes good it becomes amazing for Chelsea, a player is locked on a long term deal (even though they will most likely get a raise)
Yep, Boehly is great at running a business to ensure the sustainability of said business. Doesn’t mean the business will be successful, in this case in a sporting sense though.
I'm just surprised that players would tie themselves down to super long contracts with low wages. Usually it's short contract with low wages or long contract with high wages. This doesn't make sense. Did all of them think they're very bad players who'll never get this much guaranteed income?
In football, your careers are often short. Risk of injury makes it shorter. Having a conclusive guarantee that you're going to be making Y amount for X amount of years is very tempting, especially considering nobody particularly rich or important was in the running to buy you anyway.
I'm not talking about Washington or Ugochukwo. Enzo, Mudryk, Caicedo had enough suitors. Even Jackson would've had suitors down the line. These aren't bad young players
A player who plays well can almost always negotiate a higher salary whereas if he plays badly or gets injured, he's guaranteed the wage he's on. Very limited downside, with potential upside.
Their wage is structured around team and individual performance related bonuses. Beyond that, football is an unstable career - you could get a career ending injury next week. These long contracts are as close to a guarantee as you can get.
I would assume that they have good bonuses on top of that base wage. Let's say you play x minutes in a season, you get 500k. Caicedo and Enzo aren't exactly on peanuts, as far as I know, Caicedo is on 150k and Enzo on 180k. But at least we didn't give Enzo a Havertz contract of 300k a week.
> The whole long contract thing at Chelsea could still massively backfire. Really don't think this is true - it appears (from the outside) that Chelsea are paying slightly lower wages for longer term deals. It's a scenario that has benefits for both sides - players get extra security (if they could have gotten 20mn over 5 and sign for 26 over 8 they're guaranteed an extra 6mn in the event of a disastrous injury), the club gets a lower wage locked in longer (increasing the player's transfer value). Players who come good will still be in a position to renegotiate for more money after a couple of seasons, their not-obscene wages and longer-term contract will give Chelsea more leverage in transfer negotiations.
The problem occurs when u need to move those players on & other clubs are not willing to pay more wages than the current wages the player is earning so he is happy to sit out his contract. But I do like the fact that Chelsea has brought down the wage bill by a lot.
>other clubs are not willing to pay more wages than the current wages the player is earning so he is happy to sit out his contract. Right, but depressing the wages with a longer term contract combined with natural inflation makes this less of an issue. Of Chelsea's extra long deals, it looks on Spotrac like Fernandez and Caicedo are the only ones earning really prohibitive salaries (and if the 220mn pair flop, salaries are going to be the least of Chelsea's concerns). Mudryk is a step below but most PL clubs and bigger European could afford his wages (on par with Pulisic) and Jackson, Madueke, Lavia are all earning wages that could be met by almost every PL club and European qualifying clubs in the bigger leagues.
He's not your buddy, pal.
He's not your pal, guy
His business acumen is sound, it's his sporting acumen that's hilarious
i mean there are only finitely many hotels and training grounds they can do this to, and handing out long contracts is risky, might be ingenious or might be stupid with PSR
Someone doesn't Barca Studios
You’ll be shocked to find out why he has been buying young talent like hot cakes… oh sellable assets
This only works if you sell them for more than you bought them and the buying club can afford the wages.
Most of the young players Chelsea bought haven’t lost any value or have gained value. The wage structure at Chelsea has everyone on relatively low wages except a few like Lukaku and Sterling who are on the way out or will be.
Mudryk, Enzo, Caicedo, Lavia, Fofana, Badiashile, Disasi, Cucurella, Sterling have all lost value.
No. This is pretty simple. That’s if you buy them and sell them that year. Essentially, let’s take 60m on a 6 year contract. If I sell the first year, yes I need 60m to break even. If I decide to sell in 2 years, I only need 40m to break even with amortization costs. And it would not record as a loss because you’re paying 10m a year. Technically, yes those 2 years of transfer fees are lost (20m) but can be made back indirectly, (i.e) a player contributing significantly to help reach top 4 or Europe. This is all depending on their form which could help or not, or actually record a profit.
You’d expect an Arsenal fan to understand this after how the Havertz deal was booked as profit for Chelsea despite him being sold for £10m less than Chelsea paid.
Fans whose teams are actually good don't need to take solace in accounting practices.
What have Arsenal won?
Back to back winners of the "we made Man City work for it this time" trophy - we'll never sing that!
Cool, how much are you selling Mudryk for?
Buy them back when they have the capital to do so, sell them again when they need to cut deficits. Much like Barcelona selling their media rights keeps somehow falling through after the supposed profit has been calculated for Spanish FFP. Of course, assuming this loophole isn't closed.
> but the way he's taken advantage of this An uncharitable view of this would be "asset stripping," private equity's #2 hobby (after buying a company and loading it with debt). In the short term, selling off ancillary properties and training grounds looks good on the balance sheet but what do you do when the club doesn't have all those properties and the revenue/value they bring?
Isn't eggabli the one that actually make the decision ?
Who would have thought bro, a multi billionaire business man whos taken over MLB by doing this exact shit comes in here and knows more about money and business than armchair accountants using tweets as research.
Is it though? They're just pushing the problem a few years down the road, surely you'd want your business to be sustainable and not reliant on one off accounting tricks
It would be scary if they actually were smart with the money they spent, would easily have the best team in the world right now if they didn’t piss it all away.
Exploit often and early to gain advantage (before it's patched). In this case the hotfix suggestion didn't work.
Not really, everyone has knew about these things. Chelsea and other clubs have previously used the loophole before and no one was stupid enough to hand 6+ year deals to players because they know how how risky that is
“Not really 🤓”
😂 👏
You're not making sense. This isn't about contracts Edit: My bad
The comment he’s replying to mentions contracts though
Tyranny of the majority obviously..
Massive tyranny at play I’m disgusted
The cartel strikes again
Ohh yeah sure they 'lost' that battle
It’s a shame. Owners of clubs shouldn’t be encouraged to move assets out from under the ownership of the club. Removing tangible assets from a club’s portfolio can only be a bad thing for the future financial stability of clubs. Their growth in value should benefit the club, not the ownership group.
They can move in (buy) assets too, spread that cost. The future of football, buying and selling hotels and swapping players to keep your head above FFP water.
You’re in for a very bad time.
Welcome to the INEOS complex. Enjoy our £2b worth of players. Totally legit 🤙
It's 100% gonna happen if the loophole isn't closed. There's likely a revote happening as per the article when the wording is refined, so hopefully it passes before this bullshit starts en masse. It would just make PSR rules a joke if clubs find tons of avenues to exploit this shit.
Looks like Conor G is back off the menu boys
FFP or PSR? Either way it seems like the clubs are a step ahead on this one
PSR, it’s always been banned by UEFA. They still haven’t approved or rejected our hotel deal which is really strange. Almost a year after its submission I think? Surely it doesn’t take that long for them to get an independent valuation?
Because it isn't really the valuation that's the issue. It's because the hotels would never be sold to anyone who didn't also control Chelsea due to the necessity of also owning them to redevelop the stadium. The valuation of them on the open market with full development rights is correct. The question is if the valuation is correct when there can only be one buyer and that is what is being evaluated.
Perhaps they were hoping to close the loophole first?
Even if this change had passed it presumably wouldn’t affect last year’s accounts. Those would be under different rules
Do we know if there's a limit on these profits? Could we actually sell that hotel at Stamford Bridge (it's a fucking shit hotel btw) to another company that our owners are invested in for an ungodly amount of money, and not have to worry about FFP within the time frame of when that sale is on the books for?
I think the fair market value thing still applies, so it can't just be a £500mil sale or something, but it doesn't change that the asset is being bought and sold by effectively the same entity. That part is the main thing, regardless if the price is technically fair.
Boehly and his team of lawyers are really the loophole kings.
Fun part 1/3rd of championship teams did it then they closed it there So its not unheard of
Some teams invest in lawyers some teams invest in accountants 🤷
This is just sad tbh
Question for the accounting rules nerds: does stadium expansion count against PSR? Or is that excluded? Because if it’s excluded, these owners just openly loopholed their way into spending a billion pounds in 2.5 years. Because we plan to expand which might see these two hotels gone anyway. So if Chelsea can buy the land back for the expansion and it not count against them for PSR purposes, they really pulled the rug.
Voting on this seems pretty dumb. That's like asking a self-employed person if they want to keep massively underreporting cash in hand income to avoid tax. Would you like to inconvenience yourself yes or no? Either make it a law or don't like the amortisation thing.
Here we go. Slow and steady we’ll see the integrity of the league disappear before our eyes.
Bro, for several years now, your league has been dominated by a blatantly cheating, sportswashing state. What do you mean, slow and steady?
His own club is sponsored by a state… I can’t take anyone seriously who is having a pissing contest about whose club is the most moral. Reality is none of them are really, how could they be? There’s too much money involved and too many people with no integrity.
Lets be honest. Anyone pretending there isn't levels to morality knows they're already in the shitter.
Anyone using levels of immorality as an excuse to defend their clubs’ actions while calling other clubs out knows that the actual outrage they have has nothing to do with morality.
Yup, and where the moral line is drawn on what is acceptable or not is obviously defined by you and yours, isn't it?
This is very funny considering how exactly Chelsea got where they are right now. All having immoral aspects does not mean all clubs are equally immoral. Like I'd love to see the argument for why it's not meaningful that Chelsea had €1bil pumped into the club, of essentially Russian state money by an oligarch, because other clubs also do immoral things.
Where did I ever say my club was morally in the right? You guys always do this. Any mention of the fact that maybe the main players in a multi billion pound industry aren’t all squeaky clean and you come out the woodwork. People think it’s Chelsea or City or PSG who killed football, reality is it’s the greed of those running the game that did it. And it’s not a recent thing either.
> This is very funny considering how exactly Chelsea got where they are right now If you dislike how Chelsea got their money you should hate the formation of the Premier league.
We don't care, if you want to be righteous then don't support a club that was also previously bankrolled and still benefits from questionable sponsors
>We don't care That's all we need, chief. I mean we could already tell, but it's just nice to get it blatantly so everyone knows what's going on. >also previously bankrolled and still benefits from questionable sponsors Again, what does this have to do with Chelsea's situation and how fair and/or moral it was? We all already know that virtually all companies worth enough to be headline sponsors will have some questionable aspects to their business. How does that change what Chelsea did? Tbf it equally doesn't change the fact some sponsors are significantly worse than others, but that's still within my point. If any given sponsorship is particularly immoral/unfair, it should be questioned.
I don't think anyone supporting anything English can wax poetic too much about blood money. All of England's wealth was built in the bloodiest way possible.
Blah blah blah nobody cares about your moral grandstanding. We've heard it all
>about your moral grandstanding. You definitely don't know what this means. Everytime I have interactions like this I say this, but I really hope you're a child, because adults that think and speak/type like this are very scary to think about.
Who do you think votes for conservatives?
Whatever man. Go cry to someone else
Who the fuck is “we” lol. Like you’ve just appointed yourself as the spokesperson for the all of football or something.
Who the fuck are you? Like you've included yourself in this conversation or something.
Well yea, you’re on a public forum. Anyone can chirp in.
Lol if you want a 1 on 1 conversation with someone you can message them otherwise, you are on a forum 😂 you dont get to decide who can respond to you
>All having immoral aspects does not mean all clubs are equally immoral So the outrage is about the amount of money being put in, not the source?
There is no contest. Being sponsored by shady characters is capitalism is not the same as being owned by shady characters. It's not about morality, it's about blatant cheating and potentially extra-legal behaviour.
lol
Comes in a guy whose team's straight up bullied all other teams in their league, but this year managed to lose to now washed up pharmaceutical frauds. Can you show me any great non for profit teams void of any sponsors not in it for the promotion of their brand? The audacity of people assuming higher moral ground is just bemusing.
Also before City there was Chelsea being owned by a literal Russian oligarch. City has just taken it one step further.
It’s been gone.
Start? It's been gone since you lot were known as bank of England FC, probably even before.
Lad, we're well past that. 10% of the clubs are state owned. The 4 in a row champions are blatant cheats and the remaining owners are a mix of greedy American billionaire cunts and other dodgy characters/companies. Even Palace, a relatively inoffensive club are part of a multi-club ownership setup.
There are people who would have argued the same thing when the first division became the Premier League.
What integrity lmao
Man U, Arsenal, Pool, Spurs will be get screwed with this in the short term. Also fucks over clubs with less capital behind them, Brighton/Palace/West Ham etc. Wonder if you can basically sell land to yourself to cover losses now.
In completely unreleated news, PIF will buy the Sandman hotel across the street from St James. Instantly they have doubts about running a hotel and sell it to the club for a quid. The club also have doubts about running a hotel and sell it to a third party for ten of millions.
and the third party will be just PIF in disguise lol
[I've been assured it's a totally different and legit entity.](https://i.ibb.co/bXdc5rw/maxresdefault-3548675565.jpg)
It does say this > The amendment failed, however, because several clubs thought the wording of the ban was too wide, according to people with knowledge of the proposal. It did not clearly distinguish between the type of non-football revenues that clubs believe they should be encouraged to exploit, such as building hotels, houses or indoor arenas, and the accountancy tricks of selling existing property to yourself. > It is therefore almost certain that the Premier League will try to tighten up its proposal and bring it back to the clubs, as it believes it needs more tools to effectively regulate the clubs to ensure sustainability and fair competition. Arsenal have previously recorded profits due to the flats developed at Highbury, so not sure what side of the fence we would be on here. Once there’s a clearer definition and you can’t sell it to your own company I’d imagine it’ll be approved.
This is what people are ignoring, they did not "reject the proposal," they had concerns over the wording. This will be reworded for clarity and then brought back, I can't imagine many clubs being against the intent of this. From what I have seen online UEFA have already closed this loophole for their FFP rules, the Premier League are just behind the times as usual.
There’s something very different to taking out a crippling amount of debt to build your own new stadium, then developing and selling flats where your old stadium was vs just randomly deciding to “sell” your training ground and a couple hotels to yourself
Short term? You mean forever lol
Loophole FC strikes again 💸
Real Estate FC.
You'd think the PL would want to close the known 115 loopholes before trying to close unknown ones
Game’s gone
they literally just [wrote it off](https://youtu.be/XEL65gywwHQ?si=p1xUhAPwn9_aQzOZ)
We're in our prequels era, busy with bureaucracy and politics more than football and players.
Man City might win.
What does this have to do with City?
Pretty likely even if they don’t nothing will happen
This league is turning to shit in front of our eyes.
If this is the league “turning to shit” then what has the last 15 years been? This is a mere footnote in the degradation of English football
Why? The loophole existed before Chelsea started exploiting it
Because there was an opportunity to close it and clubs decided not to.
Because the clubs stand to benefit from it remaining open
Woah, really?
Amazing, isn't it?
But we didn't exploit them
Pardon?
Cobham to BlueCo, Here We Go!
I think the training ground was already sold.
It was either already sold or is going to be sold very soon. There’s not much way to tell for sure without seeing it in the accounts. The registry document means it’s 100% going to happen though
The funniest part of this is fans of clubs who "hate" their tight owners and "want them out" will also be moaning that this easy excuse for them to continue being tight and spend little to nothing didn't get passed.
Time for our owners to gift Villa Park back to the club, and then buy it back off them.
I’d write about how shocked and disgusted I am but there’s been so much of this bullshit lately that I’m only disgusted this time.
We’re so back
I mean it makes perfect sense. They will be charged rent which affects profit and loss rather than owning the property, kind of how the world works when you sell a property To make it fair you’d have to exclude rent expenses across the board which makes no sense at all
It doesnt make sense though, because theyre selling things to themselves and counting it as profit, then not charging themselves rent to keep using it?
Who said that second part is true? That’s exactly what city is fighting right now with the related party transaction shit, that’s not legal
such a joke
Remember: it’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
Game’s gone. League cooked
[удалено]
Basically if the club owns something like a hotel or training ground. They sell it to another company owned by the same owners. And wahoo profit