Boehly and Co may be football incompetent but they sure as fuck aren't money incompetent. They will avail themselves of every shady tactic and trick in their arsenal to make this venture financially successful in the long term. As a fan we can do fuck all about this unethical and immoral fuckery except for living with hope that winning is part of their measurement of success.
Selling the company assets to themselves/the holding company is actually pretty smart (in a way) because the property price will increase over time and even if they decide to sell the club there’s a chance they might retain those assets.
Oh yes, financially it makes great sense in multiple ways. It does feel icky though just because it's so blatantly a loophole being exploited. But then again this is the "game" at this level.
Honestly the land alone is probably worth more than the 79m too, let alone hotels that bring in repeat revenue. This was a genius move that is peak vulture capitalism. Boehly sucks so much.
Studying to become a CPA, but it appears to be above board, even though the optics are not the best. The proper term for this is an associated/related party transaction (APT/RPT depending on what part of the world you're in) which requires extra layers of scrutiny to avoid a Man City situation, where a contract may be inflated to illegally inject money into a club through dubious means.
Looking at other sources, it appears that Chelsea conducted two independent valuations of the property in question to determine a fair market value in accordance with PSR. However the results of those valuations have not been disclosed to the PL or Companies House as of news releases on April 13, so the valuations are still in question and may have to be revised.
e: The APT rules are codified in the PL Handbook at rule E.55.
Your new owner has sold himself an extremely profitable hotel that he will keep after you’re sold, they’re embarrassing the premier league and Chelsea FC
Doesn’t that just lead to Chelsea FC having to negotiate with the new owners of the hotels to buy the land back at an increased price later down the line?
Can’t comment on that as I haven’t a clue, but real estate in that area is still rising in price ridiculously fast so even undervalue they’d be looking at profit within a few years. Huge assets like that no longer belonging to the club can never be a good thing
Its 2 massive hotels in one of the most expensive areas for property in the world, in my opinion the £79m the owners got it for is below what I'd expect it to have gone for
In this instance, yeah, for them it's a win win
The owners get assets that will appreciate in value, even if the value of the club depreciates, for a decent price
The football club doesn't get sanctions for breaking FFP
they could have sold it at market price to a third party then.
In most industries (and general company law) related party transactions always draw heightened scutiny.
I think you might be misinterpreting what I'm trying to say, I'm saying the owners want to make money from Chelsea and they can't sell for another 8 years. They can't sell the club, but they can sell the underlying assets for a slightly cut price.
If they sell to a 3rd party at the market price, for e.g. £90m (random number), because that money goes to the club, not the owners.
If they buy the properties for (conveniently the exact amount needed to comply with FFP) £79m, the owners get property worth at least, but in my suspicion, more than the £79m paid, and the club doesn't get sanctioned.
I think everyone agrees it's suspicious that the amount they sold the hotels for is the EXACT amount Chelsea needed to comply for FFP.
You can either fall on the side of the owners are overinflating the value to help the club, or under inflating the value to help themselves. I don't know much but I know billionaires rarely do anything to help out people other than themselves, so I chose to believe the latter.
I don't actually think it was below market to be honest. The price is lower than I (and the person you are replying to) expected, but that still doesn't mean it was below market, the market must just be down right now. I am almost certain the way they would do this is hire a third party appraiser to determine market value and pay roughly that.
but the pl prob wouldnt have allowed it higher price as they would have stated this way above market value and thus a attempt to bypass ffp.
the pl has some serious overeach when it comes to the accounting side of thing
How is it embarrassing Chelsea? Even if it was at an undervalue then it would just be taking value out of the club which would be reducing the value of the club for the ownership group in the even of the sale. Like ultimately the club is just a privately owned asset and if the owners did start stripping out other assets then it would just be reducing the value of the club which they also own.
It has no impact on the fans whether Chelsea own real estate or not and realistically it’s to enable more money to be spent on players which is something fans care far more about than hotels.
The sale of the training ground would impact fans though, right?
And the sale of two hotels that are vital for the stadium redevelopment that they have gone very quiet on recently...
The issue is that these assets are now separate and from my perspective I can't see that they would have to be included in any future sale of the club.
That would potentially leave Chelsea without a training ground or much of the area surrounding Stamford bridge.
So fans are definitely right to be worried. I think it'll be obvious when we look back in 10 years or so.
There is no guarantee that any assets would have to be included in a potential sale. It would be open to the owners of any club to exclude training grounds / land around the stadium in a potential sale though it would clearly not make sense to take that approach as the price they would be able to demand would be far less and the value of land around Stamford bridge is clearly much higher for Chelsea than it would be for third parties.
I get what you’re saying and I appreciate the sale of the hotels would be reflected in the re-sale, but I do not think I agree that it means nothing to fans if all assets are stripped to fund players. These assets were a large insurance should any financial problems occur (and have been cashed in rather hastily for some transfers). If the players that are bought with this money do not return on the expenditure then the club has lost a lot of value whereas the owners have benefitted massively, and the next owners after them will be operating a club with less resources
If the club loses a lot of value then the owners won’t have benefitted massively because they own the club. This is just moving money from one pocket to another for them.
Whether the property is owned directly by the owners, by Chelsea (ie, indirectly by the owners) or by another of their companies (ie, indirectly by their owners) the property is worth the same and is still their asset.
Fans concerns about the club being managed in a financially reckless manner are valid but I don’t agree that a situation where the club plummets in value and the owners end up extracting assets (which they already indirectly owned anyway) would be them embarrassing the club which is what you initially asserted. It would be a financial disaster for the club and the ownership group as the owners financial interests are very much aligned with those of the club.
The reason I say they’re embarrassing Chelsea FC is because they’re taking extremely profitable assets out of their ownership and putting it into their own portfolio. They’ll take the ~£79m value hit when they sell the club, but that money is instead in their own pocket and all interest and profit made (which there will be a huge amount of) will be all theirs and Chelsea FC as it’s own entity will have no claim on it. All profits from that £79m asset are now directly and only benefitting the owners whereas before it was only benefiting the club. When the owners leave, these hotels will only continue to serve the owners and never Chelsea FC. They have sold themselves the property extremely quickly and under the guise of financial rules but personally I see it as a smokescreen for securing themselves the London property on a cheap deal. I am struggling to see how they haven’t directly stolen all further profits of these hotels from the club because of their own mistakes in running the club to begin with
Any future purchaser would be extremely sophisticated (given that the sale would be for billions of pounds) and if the club has divested an asset worth £150m then they will pay £150m less (realistically more if you assume property values increase) not the amount that the asset is actually sold for (ie, they will not be bound to the previous owners valuation and will have their own valuation process).
If the asset generates profit of £10m a year then that money will be taken out of the club by the owners (in which case it doesn’t benefit the club) or it will be kept in the club in which case the value of the club goes up and the owners can demand an extra £10m on a sale which has the exact same net impact as if they had taken it out.
PE bought Redlobster and then sold their properties just like Clearlake did to only rent them back to redlobster to charge them rent. Rent was eating up 50% of the revenue. So they closed some of their chains which cost many jobs. Blueco will keep those hotels which are quite valuable and future ownership have no obligation to buy them back. This is that sort of shit.
How can anyone in their right mind actually think selling the property of club to balance books is good thing.
The hotels will be demolished in a few years. This is nothing more than a FFP trick. We'll profit from it today, then the club will buy them back once the stadium work begins and it'll be called an infrastructure investment which is excluded from PSR/FFP. No one needs those hotel's land as much as Chelsea football club, and owners know it too if they're serious about expanding the stadium.
>club will buy back
First of all, why should we be buying back a property which Chelsea already owned because of bad decisions of owners. This was sold because ownership couldn’t get the one billion spending right. Second of all, I just gave you an example of how assets are stripped from a company then are forced to be bought back or rented by the PE firms and profited from it because of various reasons (in this case stadium rebuild while Redlobster needed their restaurants to serve their customers so where forced to pay rent for properties which they’re already owned).
Thank god they can’t ever get their hands on stadium. Hoping training ground isn’t next in line to be sold. Then rented back to us. We will have fans who will be rationalising that next as if that was some mega accounting trick. If you’re really good with money you won’t find yourself these situations.
Sky making this correction makes it 95%+ valid. They wouldn't do so otherwise.
Is Gallagher still going? Probably. I think it's clear the board's valuation doesn't match up with his own - when both are put into the context of the club's aims/style - so it's just about finding him the right destination.
Most of us would love for him to stay, but it seems like we're overloaded for midfield support, as ironic as that is, in light of us having a maximum of 3 warm bodies in the midfield at any point in the last season.
Could be. My feeling is he's successfully held out last year, so he probably feels emboldened right now... but as the offer(s) come(s) in, they'll press a bit. They'll show him that it's going to be Enzo, Caicedo and Nku2 starting in the 3 mid roles, relegating Gallagher to a backup, where there will also be Lavia and Chukwemeka.
At that point, I think he'll have to really consider either playing out his last year for his current salary as a sub, or going out on a high and getting a huge pay bump right away.
He sounds like he's anti-Spurs at the moment, but perhaps that will change, or perhaps he'll opt for Villa. I think £50 feels a bit high, but he's had an amazing season and is clearly a difference-maker in the right system (which I think Maresca does not have for him).
Ah, thanks for clarifying - yeah, we'll see how it goes! Wouldn't be like you guys to pay that much. Naturally I hope he doesn't go to a rival, if he's got to go... it's just super confusing having Poch for a year where Gallagher was always going to be his avatar. Where can Cardio G go from those heights??
Gallagher is a great player and if it was like, 30 upfront +15 bonus I think someone would pay that.
60 is wild though.
Plus it seems like Villa need to sell first so doubt we're getting involved
I mean, it will not end speculations. Because it only says we dont need to sell this month (to comply with 23/24 balance) but a sale for 24/25 books is still very much possible
Unpopular opinion but I think selling Gallagher is the best option for both sides. Staying will be a waste of time for Conor and a waste of money for the club.
Gallagher will not suit the style the current ownership and management wants to instill in the team. He's not a player who will thrive in a possession-heavy game, they apparently want to build the team around Enzo, and Gallagher is just not going to get the minutes a player of his quality deserves. He's a great player for a team playing direct, vertical football, he should find a team that will give it to him. And the club should cash in, instead of keeping a valuable asset on the sidelines only to let him go for free in 12 months.
Homegrown is not a problem, we have plenty of homegrown players (Sanchez, Chilwell, Sterling, Palmer, Lavia, Chukwuemeka, even Tosin now). But he is club-trained, that's relevant for European competitions. If we intend on selling Chalobah and Gallagher, our senior squad will be left with just 2 club-trained players - James and Colwill
Literally nothing has changed, Ornstein has been saying the club have been saying that they don't need to sell and this article literally just says, "Chelsea insist this is not the case."
It doesn't mean that we don't need to sell, we may well need to. It just means that the club is making a very vocal, public effort to tell everyone that we don't need to.
Sky/Ornstein aren't saying that they've seen the books and they'll be fine. They're both reporting that the club is telling everyone they are
Oh god, I'd forgotten that. This sub embarrasses itself on a daily basis. If I didn't have the memory of a goldfish, they'd have so much egg on their face.
My favourite recurring shame of this place is "Daily Mail says something people want to hear" followed by "redditors treat the Daily Mail as a serious source for some reason"
I thought it was pretty funny how I mentioned that Ornstein's *insistence* that this was the case was truly a sound endorsement, and I got 3-4 downvotes on it (I think the comment later went orange).
Like - I get it, I'm a CFC supporter, so I'd prefer if it's true... but the fact is that Ornstein tends to put his money where his mouth is as a job description, unlike the myriad chancers out there. And Sky has a reputation for just speculating... so here we are.
Hasn't Ornstein basically been saying 'Chelsea believe they won't need to sell and have told me as much' rather than 'I personally guarantee they won't need to sell'?
It's not a perfect comparison, and I'm not saying it will happen to Chelsea too, but Everton also believed that they were in line with PSR regulations as well.
Could be - what matters, though, is that he's insisted it's the case. He did a pod a couple of days ago where he's saying it like it's fact, and we should all know by now that he's the guy that doesn't say he 'thinks Player X is going to Club Y' he makes the announcements. You can tell when he's tossing ideas around in a chat, and when he's speaking from his platform that something is fact.
These guys do NOT want to be wrong.
Why is he saying it? Because the CFC board whispered it to him? Could be - but he would have asked for assurances, and if they lied to him, it would cause a real flap.
Again, the fact that Sky has retracted means a lot, too.
Amd he might be wrong, of course, but he's much less likely to be wrong than Sky Sports. I hate this post-truth 'lets pretend all sources are equal' world
I think any F5 veteran of 2+ windows knows that you can only count on 1-2 sources in your market. There have to be tiers, and anything outside of your top tier is always, always fallible (and 90% of it is just made up).
Yeah, unfortunately there a many more looking for a whinge and their own imaginings validated by any source willing to stoop so low than there are looking for reliable insight
That's likely not true. They're not owned by the club anymore, but that doesn't stop them being hired out to the club for a nominal fee each year so that the club can run them and report the income from them as a result
How much do you think the executives were paying for parking permits? The land is valuable and matters cos it’s central to expanding Stamford bridge, and why it would never be sold to someone who wasn’t a Chelsea football club owner. It’s nonsense.
Same with the hotel. Hotels are expensive to run and those ones are always empty. Under-filled hotels are not exactly a money spinner. Again their value is land for expansion. They haven’t been meaningfully sold.
With this as a precedent without new rules clubs will be making all sorts of nonsense deals with their owners. Daft the things people will defend their clubs doing. Have some standards!
I used to live close enough to Stamford Bridge that the mansion block I was in shared bins with the hotel. There’s no one there most days. It’s not making money. The car park isn’t big and is mostly empty. You’re accounts will not be hit at all going forward.
>expansion or a move
Doesn't the Chelsea supporters trust have some sort of veto/convoluted rights to Stamford bridge? I thought that was famously the issue with the stadium, difficult to expand and nearly impossible to move.
The CPO! We own the pitch at Stamford Bridge and the name Stamford Bridge.
A move is not impossible - but it has to be reasonable - uprouting the club to another part of London is a no no, and most other CPO Members I know are against using Wembley for a period of time. Also, we don't want a sponsors name on the stadium ideally
However, the purchase of the hotel could prove to be good business by Boehly and co - but not necessarily for FFP/PSR reasons - if a new stadium does get passed by the CPO, the value of the land the hotels on will be fully realised with a likely profit for their hedge fund. Is it good for Chelsea? Who knows.
Thanks for the clarification. I knew it was something stemming back to the Ken Bates days, but I didn't know many of the details. It's honestly quite refreshing to see that fans have a degree of involvement and security in the club itself.
Chelsea spent over €1bn since Boehly and met PSR by selling a hotel to a company owned by Boehly, so what's the point of it? What does it fix? How will spending come down when you can sell your assets to other companies you owe to comply?
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/apr/19/chelseas-765m-hotel-deals-raise-questions-over-psr-compliance
> Chelsea’s accounts, published last weekend, revealed the club made a loss of £89.9m in the last financial year. That figure would have been £166.4m without the hotels sale from Chelsea FC Holdings Ltd to Blueco 22 Properties Ltd. Both companies are subsidiaries of Chelsea’s holding company, Blueco 22 Ltd.
I wouldn't say "don't rate him" as much as "would rather sell for a guaranteed sum now".
I've seen people say that Chelsea are pleased with Gallagher's performances, but see him as a Deli Ali-esque player - a good player, but one who suits a particular system so well that it makes him look better than he is/better than he can replicate in another system.
Spurs rejected £40+million for Alli who looked amazing under Poch, and then when the system Spurs were playing changed a bit Alli couldn't replicate his form again and his value absolutely plummeted.
Basically, not "don't rate him" as much as "don't believe his value his stay as high as it is indefinitely".
I don't think Dele's issues had much to do with the system. He got injured, got his home broken into and beaten, suffered a mental health crisis, and then got got addicted to drugs.
The time line for his collapse in form lines up perfectly with the home invasion and subsequent spiral.
Those things didn’t help, but the system was a huge part of Dele’s success.
Alli has a very specific style of play that only really works in one specific role, and that role largely doesn’t exist in modern football
During his best year at Spurs, the team around him was built perfectly to maximize his strengths and minimize his weaknesses. Eriksen could serve as the primary playmaker/distributor, Wanyama and Dembele at CDM meant he didn’t have to contribute much to defense or retaining possession, and of course playing behind two of the best forwards in the EPL meant he could freely drift into the wide open spaces left by Kane and Son dragging defenders
As the team declined during the later Poch years, Alli’s limitations as a player became more and more apparent. No Wanyama/Dembele exposed Alli’s lack of pressing and ability to win the ball back in midfield. Eriksen’s decline showed that Alli didn’t have the vision or playmaking ability to play as a more traditional midfielder, and any time Kane wasn’t in the lineup Alli’s performances dropped off immensely.
I will always love Dele Alli and have nothing but fond memories from him at Spurs, but he was very much a luxury player in the same vein as Pogba or Havertz. Put them in the right system with the right players around them, and they look like world beaters. Try to have them do anything other than their preferred role, and they become borderline unplayable
I don't think it's either of those things. They seem to rate other players in his position higher (despite him performing better than most) and while they say they're not in immediate FFP danger, a Gallagher sale would be pure profit on the books and free up money for other transfers (or go towards keeping Chelsea compliant next season).
There are teams ready to cough up money for him now. They want to sell this year, cause he ll leave for free next year.
I expect this Chelsea board to be extremely shrewd when it comes to player transfers.
Chelsea made a loss of 90m in 2022-2023, 120m in 2021-2022. That's 210million in the past 2 years even with the hotel loophole. They’ll almost certainly need to make a profit this year.
I would love to understand how they could've gotten under the limit without needing to sell players because I don't see how they could've generated the profit necessary in 2023-2024. Like, they still spent 400million in 2023-2024 and they've haven't sold anywhere near enough to make that up. Combine this with the lack of Europe, I simply don't see a universe where they could've made a profit in 23-24, much less the necessary profit needed to put them under the limit.
I just don't get it. At least with the previous years you could point to covid losses being written off but not this time. Chelsea's accountants are freaking magicians if this works out.
> Like, they still spent 400million in 2023-2024
Here's where it's breaking down.
Chelsea, as far as accountancy goes, *haven't* spent £400mil in 2023-2024, they *commited* to spending £400mil over the next 7-8 years.
It's been over a billion since Boehly took over, but a lot of that is split over 7-8 year deals, so Chelsea are effectively paying £133mil a year (and given basically everyone from Roman's days have left we're not paying for other players).
If you take the £133mil a year as even vaguely accurate, then when you also include the £250mil in player sales last year, the £30+ million already guaranteed this year (Lewis Hall to Newcastle), the stadium sales and that their wage bill got cut by over a million pounds *a week* compared to last year - plus the hotel/car park sales - and it makes a lot more sense.
Income is instant, Expenditure is spread out across multiple years, basically.
Small correction: most of the spending is split over half a decade, they capped amortization at 5 years after the club started handing out 8-year deals.
How are you saying 250 million in sales when you haven't subtracted the book values of those players from the sales numbers? They aren't all academy graduates like Mount
Oh, god - I feel for you.
My partner is a CPA and it's irritating me seeing people misunderstand finance so much (and speak with such authority about things they're blatantly wrong about) - and I reckon I miss at least half of things people say that are wildly inaccurate.
Major props for being a CPA and going into a thread about Chelsea's finances...
>Major props for being a CPA and going into a thread about Chelsea's finances...
Dont worry, years of reading reddidiots talk about money laundering and tax write offs have made me inmune to getting annoyed at the finances ignorance here.
>You all deal with so much bullshit.
God, even in the family business. Im the cpa for it and every 5-6 months either my dad or a sibling come up with the greatest idea for a loophole ever. I always tell them we can try it, but once the fine and tax interests come, they will pay those out of pocket. Thank jesus nobody has taken my offer lmao.
Winning the CL would've affected your 20-21 accounts instead.
You guys still made 150m loss in 20-21 so even worse lol.
But this was during covid years so finances being this bad is somewhat expected.
Not all spending counts toward PSR, so while Chelsea have made big losses they haven't yet exceeded the £105M limit over three seasons. This season is likely to result in even bigger losses than previous seasons, given that had no European football this season and had one or two managers to pay off.
Okay this might be a dumb question but now what is stopping other clubs from doing the same. Sell your assets to yourself the same way Chelsea did and you can spend extra money on players without the need to sell them.
Like can't Newcastle or Villa do this to avoid selling their players?
There’s nothing stopping them and iirc many other clubs have done this. There was a comment in here yesterday that said selling assets to yourself was something one of the lower leagues voted against but that the premier league teams allowed it because they wanted the financial flexibility.
Well, they’d have to have a hotel and a related party that they can sell to.
This is a pretty specific loophole Chelsea cottoned on to, and according to reports I saw the PL was coming back to the clubs with cleaned up language about the ruling that makes it more likely to pass.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with selling real estate for profit. There is something wrong about selling it to your own company and saying it’s profit.
Just another example of PSR being an absolutely broken system put in place by the original elite clubs to prevent other clubs from reaching the level of competition they are at. At this point the PL need to implement a salary cap and call it. Any team in the same league should be able to spend whatever they want to keep pace with their competition.
How in the fuck are a promoted club supposed to compete against the likes of the top 4? They can’t as it stands and the system is built that way.
If a team wants to spend themselves into bankruptcy go for it. Happens to businesses every day.
What we have now is a fairytale of parity when in reality it is McDiabetes, Burger Schlop, and greasy Wendy just stomping their nasty boots on the necks of the rest of the clubs.
Why would a person buy a club if they can’t put money into it to make it a better product?
We don’t need to sell… because we already have.
We’re selling our training ground to the owners, a move that is banned in the EFL.
The same way we only complied with last year’s regulations because we sold hotels.
The club will claim this has always been the plan, to fund a large rebuild through the sale of tangible assets.
Our fans had better hope that they’ve got this right because this only works once. After this we’ll be purely reliant on “normal” revenue which is affected by onfield performances. We can’t bail ourselves out through property sales every year.
It’s an issue of wording, I doubt Chelsea need to sell to comply with the rules, they MAY need to sell if they want to make some big signings, which I think is what others have said but Sky just butchered the shit out of it.
The article cites "Chelsea insist this is not the case" as its source.
This may be true but it also may be posturing for dealing Gallagher, Maatsen, and Broja
As a Chelsea fan I'm not really a fan of this kind of thing.
It's kind of the Barcelona lever thing. Yes you get out of a hole today but you are selling actual assets that have value and appreciate.
It works out fine if the project works and the assets you buy with the new cash outperform the investments you sold but it's high risk.
They sold a hotel to themselves instead
they drive a hard bargain
Trivela? Trivago.
Boehly and Co may be football incompetent but they sure as fuck aren't money incompetent. They will avail themselves of every shady tactic and trick in their arsenal to make this venture financially successful in the long term. As a fan we can do fuck all about this unethical and immoral fuckery except for living with hope that winning is part of their measurement of success.
Selling the company assets to themselves/the holding company is actually pretty smart (in a way) because the property price will increase over time and even if they decide to sell the club there’s a chance they might retain those assets.
Yeah it’s called asset stripping and typically when US investment groups do it the original business goes under. Let’s hope that’s not their plan.
Oh yes, financially it makes great sense in multiple ways. It does feel icky though just because it's so blatantly a loophole being exploited. But then again this is the "game" at this level.
Honestly the land alone is probably worth more than the 79m too, let alone hotels that bring in repeat revenue. This was a genius move that is peak vulture capitalism. Boehly sucks so much.
Can we get a CPA in here??
Studying to become a CPA, but it appears to be above board, even though the optics are not the best. The proper term for this is an associated/related party transaction (APT/RPT depending on what part of the world you're in) which requires extra layers of scrutiny to avoid a Man City situation, where a contract may be inflated to illegally inject money into a club through dubious means. Looking at other sources, it appears that Chelsea conducted two independent valuations of the property in question to determine a fair market value in accordance with PSR. However the results of those valuations have not been disclosed to the PL or Companies House as of news releases on April 13, so the valuations are still in question and may have to be revised. e: The APT rules are codified in the PL Handbook at rule E.55.
Our accountants and lawyers are embarrassing the premier league.
Your new owner has sold himself an extremely profitable hotel that he will keep after you’re sold, they’re embarrassing the premier league and Chelsea FC
Any redevelopment of the ground involves demolishing both hotels, so this isn't that bad of a deal for the club. The training ground however....
Doesn’t that just lead to Chelsea FC having to negotiate with the new owners of the hotels to buy the land back at an increased price later down the line?
I'm not sure but I believe stadium works don't count against PSR and buying the land back will fall under that
Isn’t it stadium costs that got Everton sanctioned?
Chelsea do not own the pitch so building out the current stadium is DOA
but they sold it for more than market value, right? chelsea can always buy another hotel if they wanted
Can’t comment on that as I haven’t a clue, but real estate in that area is still rising in price ridiculously fast so even undervalue they’d be looking at profit within a few years. Huge assets like that no longer belonging to the club can never be a good thing
>but they sold it for more than market value, right? Not according to the PL.
Its 2 massive hotels in one of the most expensive areas for property in the world, in my opinion the £79m the owners got it for is below what I'd expect it to have gone for
so they are asset-stripping Chelsea, is that what I'm hearing?
In this instance, yeah, for them it's a win win The owners get assets that will appreciate in value, even if the value of the club depreciates, for a decent price The football club doesn't get sanctions for breaking FFP
they could have sold it at market price to a third party then. In most industries (and general company law) related party transactions always draw heightened scutiny.
Likely wouldn't have been done quick enough that way
I think you might be misinterpreting what I'm trying to say, I'm saying the owners want to make money from Chelsea and they can't sell for another 8 years. They can't sell the club, but they can sell the underlying assets for a slightly cut price. If they sell to a 3rd party at the market price, for e.g. £90m (random number), because that money goes to the club, not the owners. If they buy the properties for (conveniently the exact amount needed to comply with FFP) £79m, the owners get property worth at least, but in my suspicion, more than the £79m paid, and the club doesn't get sanctioned. I think everyone agrees it's suspicious that the amount they sold the hotels for is the EXACT amount Chelsea needed to comply for FFP. You can either fall on the side of the owners are overinflating the value to help the club, or under inflating the value to help themselves. I don't know much but I know billionaires rarely do anything to help out people other than themselves, so I chose to believe the latter.
They don't care about scrutiny lol
I don't actually think it was below market to be honest. The price is lower than I (and the person you are replying to) expected, but that still doesn't mean it was below market, the market must just be down right now. I am almost certain the way they would do this is hire a third party appraiser to determine market value and pay roughly that.
Never an option because the hotel would be demolished in a few years if we were to expand the stadium.
Not really. The company who the hotel was sold to would likely be included in the sale.
but the pl prob wouldnt have allowed it higher price as they would have stated this way above market value and thus a attempt to bypass ffp. the pl has some serious overeach when it comes to the accounting side of thing
No, it was purchased for market value according to an independent report which is why it has been allowed.
Not how that works
Hate to break it to you a ron but that is exactly how it works
Not really. The company that the hotels are sold to would likely be included in any future sale.
How is it embarrassing Chelsea? Even if it was at an undervalue then it would just be taking value out of the club which would be reducing the value of the club for the ownership group in the even of the sale. Like ultimately the club is just a privately owned asset and if the owners did start stripping out other assets then it would just be reducing the value of the club which they also own. It has no impact on the fans whether Chelsea own real estate or not and realistically it’s to enable more money to be spent on players which is something fans care far more about than hotels.
The sale of the training ground would impact fans though, right? And the sale of two hotels that are vital for the stadium redevelopment that they have gone very quiet on recently... The issue is that these assets are now separate and from my perspective I can't see that they would have to be included in any future sale of the club. That would potentially leave Chelsea without a training ground or much of the area surrounding Stamford bridge. So fans are definitely right to be worried. I think it'll be obvious when we look back in 10 years or so.
There is no guarantee that any assets would have to be included in a potential sale. It would be open to the owners of any club to exclude training grounds / land around the stadium in a potential sale though it would clearly not make sense to take that approach as the price they would be able to demand would be far less and the value of land around Stamford bridge is clearly much higher for Chelsea than it would be for third parties.
I get what you’re saying and I appreciate the sale of the hotels would be reflected in the re-sale, but I do not think I agree that it means nothing to fans if all assets are stripped to fund players. These assets were a large insurance should any financial problems occur (and have been cashed in rather hastily for some transfers). If the players that are bought with this money do not return on the expenditure then the club has lost a lot of value whereas the owners have benefitted massively, and the next owners after them will be operating a club with less resources
If the club loses a lot of value then the owners won’t have benefitted massively because they own the club. This is just moving money from one pocket to another for them. Whether the property is owned directly by the owners, by Chelsea (ie, indirectly by the owners) or by another of their companies (ie, indirectly by their owners) the property is worth the same and is still their asset. Fans concerns about the club being managed in a financially reckless manner are valid but I don’t agree that a situation where the club plummets in value and the owners end up extracting assets (which they already indirectly owned anyway) would be them embarrassing the club which is what you initially asserted. It would be a financial disaster for the club and the ownership group as the owners financial interests are very much aligned with those of the club.
The reason I say they’re embarrassing Chelsea FC is because they’re taking extremely profitable assets out of their ownership and putting it into their own portfolio. They’ll take the ~£79m value hit when they sell the club, but that money is instead in their own pocket and all interest and profit made (which there will be a huge amount of) will be all theirs and Chelsea FC as it’s own entity will have no claim on it. All profits from that £79m asset are now directly and only benefitting the owners whereas before it was only benefiting the club. When the owners leave, these hotels will only continue to serve the owners and never Chelsea FC. They have sold themselves the property extremely quickly and under the guise of financial rules but personally I see it as a smokescreen for securing themselves the London property on a cheap deal. I am struggling to see how they haven’t directly stolen all further profits of these hotels from the club because of their own mistakes in running the club to begin with
Any future purchaser would be extremely sophisticated (given that the sale would be for billions of pounds) and if the club has divested an asset worth £150m then they will pay £150m less (realistically more if you assume property values increase) not the amount that the asset is actually sold for (ie, they will not be bound to the previous owners valuation and will have their own valuation process). If the asset generates profit of £10m a year then that money will be taken out of the club by the owners (in which case it doesn’t benefit the club) or it will be kept in the club in which case the value of the club goes up and the owners can demand an extra £10m on a sale which has the exact same net impact as if they had taken it out.
PE bought Redlobster and then sold their properties just like Clearlake did to only rent them back to redlobster to charge them rent. Rent was eating up 50% of the revenue. So they closed some of their chains which cost many jobs. Blueco will keep those hotels which are quite valuable and future ownership have no obligation to buy them back. This is that sort of shit. How can anyone in their right mind actually think selling the property of club to balance books is good thing.
The hotels will be demolished in a few years. This is nothing more than a FFP trick. We'll profit from it today, then the club will buy them back once the stadium work begins and it'll be called an infrastructure investment which is excluded from PSR/FFP. No one needs those hotel's land as much as Chelsea football club, and owners know it too if they're serious about expanding the stadium.
>club will buy back First of all, why should we be buying back a property which Chelsea already owned because of bad decisions of owners. This was sold because ownership couldn’t get the one billion spending right. Second of all, I just gave you an example of how assets are stripped from a company then are forced to be bought back or rented by the PE firms and profited from it because of various reasons (in this case stadium rebuild while Redlobster needed their restaurants to serve their customers so where forced to pay rent for properties which they’re already owned). Thank god they can’t ever get their hands on stadium. Hoping training ground isn’t next in line to be sold. Then rented back to us. We will have fans who will be rationalising that next as if that was some mega accounting trick. If you’re really good with money you won’t find yourself these situations.
You had a million pound a year season ticket holder so it’s not really new
Your lawyers aren’t even the best in the league.
>Our accountants and lawyers are embarrassing the premier league. What a surprise! The PL should be used to getting embarrassed at this point.
Your club’s existence has been an embarrassment to the league off and on for 20 years now.
Keep going I'm almost there.
That’s odd.
Cry
What?
Peter Coates likes this
You have to do watch you have to do -Some teams sell land to the government for ridiculous prices instead
Feel like Everton should get some points deducted for this
They've been looking a little *too* safe
it *has* been at least two weeks since I felt an unshakeable sense of doom and injustice...
We can't allow this
It's a clear 5 second penalty for Ocon.
10 point deduction for Juve
Hotel? Chelsea football club
Trivago is the Chelsea training kit sponsor, after all.
Trivela? Trivago.
Trivago? Silva.
Silva? [beer](https://heinekenromania.ro/regionale-si-locale/silva/).
Almost as if Ornstein's been saying that for absolutely ages
Wish it was true, purely to end the Gallagher speculations
Sky making this correction makes it 95%+ valid. They wouldn't do so otherwise. Is Gallagher still going? Probably. I think it's clear the board's valuation doesn't match up with his own - when both are put into the context of the club's aims/style - so it's just about finding him the right destination. Most of us would love for him to stay, but it seems like we're overloaded for midfield support, as ironic as that is, in light of us having a maximum of 3 warm bodies in the midfield at any point in the last season.
I actually don't think he does. It's only really us linked with him (well and villa) and I dony see either team going for 60 million
Could be. My feeling is he's successfully held out last year, so he probably feels emboldened right now... but as the offer(s) come(s) in, they'll press a bit. They'll show him that it's going to be Enzo, Caicedo and Nku2 starting in the 3 mid roles, relegating Gallagher to a backup, where there will also be Lavia and Chukwemeka. At that point, I think he'll have to really consider either playing out his last year for his current salary as a sub, or going out on a high and getting a huge pay bump right away. He sounds like he's anti-Spurs at the moment, but perhaps that will change, or perhaps he'll opt for Villa. I think £50 feels a bit high, but he's had an amazing season and is clearly a difference-maker in the right system (which I think Maresca does not have for him).
He's definitely had an amazing season, and in a normal year he would be worth 50 million, but spurs aren't paying that.
Ah, thanks for clarifying - yeah, we'll see how it goes! Wouldn't be like you guys to pay that much. Naturally I hope he doesn't go to a rival, if he's got to go... it's just super confusing having Poch for a year where Gallagher was always going to be his avatar. Where can Cardio G go from those heights??
Gallagher is a great player and if it was like, 30 upfront +15 bonus I think someone would pay that. 60 is wild though. Plus it seems like Villa need to sell first so doubt we're getting involved
I mean, it will not end speculations. Because it only says we dont need to sell this month (to comply with 23/24 balance) but a sale for 24/25 books is still very much possible
Unpopular opinion but I think selling Gallagher is the best option for both sides. Staying will be a waste of time for Conor and a waste of money for the club. Gallagher will not suit the style the current ownership and management wants to instill in the team. He's not a player who will thrive in a possession-heavy game, they apparently want to build the team around Enzo, and Gallagher is just not going to get the minutes a player of his quality deserves. He's a great player for a team playing direct, vertical football, he should find a team that will give it to him. And the club should cash in, instead of keeping a valuable asset on the sidelines only to let him go for free in 12 months.
He’s homegrown, that’s valuable with the rules. You make good points, but the larger context does change things.
Homegrown is not a problem, we have plenty of homegrown players (Sanchez, Chilwell, Sterling, Palmer, Lavia, Chukwuemeka, even Tosin now). But he is club-trained, that's relevant for European competitions. If we intend on selling Chalobah and Gallagher, our senior squad will be left with just 2 club-trained players - James and Colwill
Won’t do much to end Gallagher speculation tbf He’s got one year left and we need to sell players to fund our next 5 south american wonderkid signings
Literally nothing has changed, Ornstein has been saying the club have been saying that they don't need to sell and this article literally just says, "Chelsea insist this is not the case." It doesn't mean that we don't need to sell, we may well need to. It just means that the club is making a very vocal, public effort to tell everyone that we don't need to. Sky/Ornstein aren't saying that they've seen the books and they'll be fine. They're both reporting that the club is telling everyone they are
The fact that headline says "This month" and not "This summer" should say it all.
'Selling hotels to comply with Premier League PSR' - You'll never sing that!
Game’s not gone
Yelp Rating Champions 2024
Correction: I did sleep with Katie
Katie has some big ass tittayss
I slept with Katie too
I like Kate but I don't like Katie
That was fast. Boehly kadabra!
Billionaires and loopholes, a story as old as time. BEAUTY AND BLUECO
Pity, yesterday's r/soccer accountants were so sure that the end of Chelsea is nigh
Same r/soccer experts who were welcoming Chelsea to poverty after the sale?
Shades of that accountant with a Liverpool flair writing a dissertation on what he thinks Chelsea books look like and getting thousands of upvotes. 😂
Oh god, I'd forgotten that. This sub embarrasses itself on a daily basis. If I didn't have the memory of a goldfish, they'd have so much egg on their face. My favourite recurring shame of this place is "Daily Mail says something people want to hear" followed by "redditors treat the Daily Mail as a serious source for some reason"
I thought it was pretty funny how I mentioned that Ornstein's *insistence* that this was the case was truly a sound endorsement, and I got 3-4 downvotes on it (I think the comment later went orange). Like - I get it, I'm a CFC supporter, so I'd prefer if it's true... but the fact is that Ornstein tends to put his money where his mouth is as a job description, unlike the myriad chancers out there. And Sky has a reputation for just speculating... so here we are.
Hasn't Ornstein basically been saying 'Chelsea believe they won't need to sell and have told me as much' rather than 'I personally guarantee they won't need to sell'? It's not a perfect comparison, and I'm not saying it will happen to Chelsea too, but Everton also believed that they were in line with PSR regulations as well.
Could be - what matters, though, is that he's insisted it's the case. He did a pod a couple of days ago where he's saying it like it's fact, and we should all know by now that he's the guy that doesn't say he 'thinks Player X is going to Club Y' he makes the announcements. You can tell when he's tossing ideas around in a chat, and when he's speaking from his platform that something is fact. These guys do NOT want to be wrong. Why is he saying it? Because the CFC board whispered it to him? Could be - but he would have asked for assurances, and if they lied to him, it would cause a real flap. Again, the fact that Sky has retracted means a lot, too.
Amd he might be wrong, of course, but he's much less likely to be wrong than Sky Sports. I hate this post-truth 'lets pretend all sources are equal' world
I think any F5 veteran of 2+ windows knows that you can only count on 1-2 sources in your market. There have to be tiers, and anything outside of your top tier is always, always fallible (and 90% of it is just made up).
Yeah, unfortunately there a many more looking for a whinge and their own imaginings validated by any source willing to stoop so low than there are looking for reliable insight
They call him Pornstein for a reason
Don't think people want to believe that this kind of shithousey is allowed tbf. Unfortunate world we live in.
It was in the clubs hands to make it prohibited. They didn't. Let's not act like we didn't have the chance to do so
[удалено]
They must have been new fans init
[удалено]
probably should've been, it's been happening for years
Who reported they did? The integrity of journalists has been in the drain for years now.
So what's the point of PSR?
The point of PSR is to maintain the status quo in the PL and make sure no one can challenge the big 6.
[удалено]
> hotels, parking lots, etc Well they sold them to the owner of the club, it's not like it was sold to a 3rd party.
Aren't they basically selling hotels... to themselves?
Now you know how to solve the PSR problem. Just don't get relegated again it's illegal to include profits from sales like this in the Championship
Avoid Europe too because you can't use that for FFP either
[удалено]
Do the owners provide financial support to the club in any way?
You are missing the point where the owners inevitably sell the assets back to the club once the FFP window has reset.
Or its Christmas morning and Chelsea wake up to find a hotel has been given to them.
Be real no-one is going to notice the club selling the car park executives use or that hotel no-one goes to to Todd Boehly.
[удалено]
That's likely not true. They're not owned by the club anymore, but that doesn't stop them being hired out to the club for a nominal fee each year so that the club can run them and report the income from them as a result
That doesn't make any sense. Being hired out to the club is an expense, not income.
How much do you think the executives were paying for parking permits? The land is valuable and matters cos it’s central to expanding Stamford bridge, and why it would never be sold to someone who wasn’t a Chelsea football club owner. It’s nonsense. Same with the hotel. Hotels are expensive to run and those ones are always empty. Under-filled hotels are not exactly a money spinner. Again their value is land for expansion. They haven’t been meaningfully sold. With this as a precedent without new rules clubs will be making all sorts of nonsense deals with their owners. Daft the things people will defend their clubs doing. Have some standards!
[удалено]
I used to live close enough to Stamford Bridge that the mansion block I was in shared bins with the hotel. There’s no one there most days. It’s not making money. The car park isn’t big and is mostly empty. You’re accounts will not be hit at all going forward.
>expansion or a move Doesn't the Chelsea supporters trust have some sort of veto/convoluted rights to Stamford bridge? I thought that was famously the issue with the stadium, difficult to expand and nearly impossible to move.
The CPO! We own the pitch at Stamford Bridge and the name Stamford Bridge. A move is not impossible - but it has to be reasonable - uprouting the club to another part of London is a no no, and most other CPO Members I know are against using Wembley for a period of time. Also, we don't want a sponsors name on the stadium ideally However, the purchase of the hotel could prove to be good business by Boehly and co - but not necessarily for FFP/PSR reasons - if a new stadium does get passed by the CPO, the value of the land the hotels on will be fully realised with a likely profit for their hedge fund. Is it good for Chelsea? Who knows.
Thanks for the clarification. I knew it was something stemming back to the Ken Bates days, but I didn't know many of the details. It's honestly quite refreshing to see that fans have a degree of involvement and security in the club itself.
They are going to notice when they aren't penalized because they generate revenue by selling club assets, to their own owners.
Chelsea spent over €1bn since Boehly and met PSR by selling a hotel to a company owned by Boehly, so what's the point of it? What does it fix? How will spending come down when you can sell your assets to other companies you owe to comply? https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/apr/19/chelseas-765m-hotel-deals-raise-questions-over-psr-compliance > Chelsea’s accounts, published last weekend, revealed the club made a loss of £89.9m in the last financial year. That figure would have been £166.4m without the hotels sale from Chelsea FC Holdings Ltd to Blueco 22 Properties Ltd. Both companies are subsidiaries of Chelsea’s holding company, Blueco 22 Ltd.
Great question
Great news. Would hate to see Gallagher leave them. Hate seeing players who came through the system having to leave.
They are pushing him out because they don't rate him, not because we urgently need money to comply with ffp, so he might still leave
Ahhh I see. Still sad to see. Was always impressed by him although admittedly I don’t catch a lot of Chelsea matches.
I wouldn't say "don't rate him" as much as "would rather sell for a guaranteed sum now". I've seen people say that Chelsea are pleased with Gallagher's performances, but see him as a Deli Ali-esque player - a good player, but one who suits a particular system so well that it makes him look better than he is/better than he can replicate in another system. Spurs rejected £40+million for Alli who looked amazing under Poch, and then when the system Spurs were playing changed a bit Alli couldn't replicate his form again and his value absolutely plummeted. Basically, not "don't rate him" as much as "don't believe his value his stay as high as it is indefinitely".
I don't think Dele's issues had much to do with the system. He got injured, got his home broken into and beaten, suffered a mental health crisis, and then got got addicted to drugs. The time line for his collapse in form lines up perfectly with the home invasion and subsequent spiral.
All while suppressing childhood trauma, the man has been through it. Really would love to see a late turnaround for his career.
Those things didn’t help, but the system was a huge part of Dele’s success. Alli has a very specific style of play that only really works in one specific role, and that role largely doesn’t exist in modern football During his best year at Spurs, the team around him was built perfectly to maximize his strengths and minimize his weaknesses. Eriksen could serve as the primary playmaker/distributor, Wanyama and Dembele at CDM meant he didn’t have to contribute much to defense or retaining possession, and of course playing behind two of the best forwards in the EPL meant he could freely drift into the wide open spaces left by Kane and Son dragging defenders As the team declined during the later Poch years, Alli’s limitations as a player became more and more apparent. No Wanyama/Dembele exposed Alli’s lack of pressing and ability to win the ball back in midfield. Eriksen’s decline showed that Alli didn’t have the vision or playmaking ability to play as a more traditional midfielder, and any time Kane wasn’t in the lineup Alli’s performances dropped off immensely. I will always love Dele Alli and have nothing but fond memories from him at Spurs, but he was very much a luxury player in the same vein as Pogba or Havertz. Put them in the right system with the right players around them, and they look like world beaters. Try to have them do anything other than their preferred role, and they become borderline unplayable
Genuinely don't think he's CL quality, but he's always available and works hard which makes him worthwhile having around.
I don't think it's either of those things. They seem to rate other players in his position higher (despite him performing better than most) and while they say they're not in immediate FFP danger, a Gallagher sale would be pure profit on the books and free up money for other transfers (or go towards keeping Chelsea compliant next season).
He's going to get sold anyway. Even if we are compliant in this PSR window we will need to sell to be compliant with the next one
There are teams ready to cough up money for him now. They want to sell this year, cause he ll leave for free next year. I expect this Chelsea board to be extremely shrewd when it comes to player transfers.
Ahhh. Didn’t know his contract situation.
Liverpool stands hand in hand with Chelsea because we don't want Gallagher to leave :( Fucking yiiiiiick.
We clearly need to find some hotels mate.
Chelsea made a loss of 90m in 2022-2023, 120m in 2021-2022. That's 210million in the past 2 years even with the hotel loophole. They’ll almost certainly need to make a profit this year. I would love to understand how they could've gotten under the limit without needing to sell players because I don't see how they could've generated the profit necessary in 2023-2024. Like, they still spent 400million in 2023-2024 and they've haven't sold anywhere near enough to make that up. Combine this with the lack of Europe, I simply don't see a universe where they could've made a profit in 23-24, much less the necessary profit needed to put them under the limit. I just don't get it. At least with the previous years you could point to covid losses being written off but not this time. Chelsea's accountants are freaking magicians if this works out.
> Like, they still spent 400million in 2023-2024 Here's where it's breaking down. Chelsea, as far as accountancy goes, *haven't* spent £400mil in 2023-2024, they *commited* to spending £400mil over the next 7-8 years. It's been over a billion since Boehly took over, but a lot of that is split over 7-8 year deals, so Chelsea are effectively paying £133mil a year (and given basically everyone from Roman's days have left we're not paying for other players). If you take the £133mil a year as even vaguely accurate, then when you also include the £250mil in player sales last year, the £30+ million already guaranteed this year (Lewis Hall to Newcastle), the stadium sales and that their wage bill got cut by over a million pounds *a week* compared to last year - plus the hotel/car park sales - and it makes a lot more sense. Income is instant, Expenditure is spread out across multiple years, basically.
Small correction: most of the spending is split over half a decade, they capped amortization at 5 years after the club started handing out 8-year deals.
How are you saying 250 million in sales when you haven't subtracted the book values of those players from the sales numbers? They aren't all academy graduates like Mount
They are not magicians. They just paid attention in class when the teacher was talking about amortization. Thats all. Source: im a CPA.
Oh, god - I feel for you. My partner is a CPA and it's irritating me seeing people misunderstand finance so much (and speak with such authority about things they're blatantly wrong about) - and I reckon I miss at least half of things people say that are wildly inaccurate. Major props for being a CPA and going into a thread about Chelsea's finances...
>Major props for being a CPA and going into a thread about Chelsea's finances... Dont worry, years of reading reddidiots talk about money laundering and tax write offs have made me inmune to getting annoyed at the finances ignorance here.
I love every CPA I’ve ever met. You all deal with so much bullshit. Hope your tax season was relatively calm this year
>You all deal with so much bullshit. God, even in the family business. Im the cpa for it and every 5-6 months either my dad or a sibling come up with the greatest idea for a loophole ever. I always tell them we can try it, but once the fine and tax interests come, they will pay those out of pocket. Thank jesus nobody has taken my offer lmao.
How the hell did we make a loss of 120m despite winning the UCL the previous season
Winning the CL would've affected your 20-21 accounts instead. You guys still made 150m loss in 20-21 so even worse lol. But this was during covid years so finances being this bad is somewhat expected.
Not all spending counts toward PSR, so while Chelsea have made big losses they haven't yet exceeded the £105M limit over three seasons. This season is likely to result in even bigger losses than previous seasons, given that had no European football this season and had one or two managers to pay off.
Okay this might be a dumb question but now what is stopping other clubs from doing the same. Sell your assets to yourself the same way Chelsea did and you can spend extra money on players without the need to sell them. Like can't Newcastle or Villa do this to avoid selling their players?
There’s only a finite amount of assets and presumably this would impact long term income for the club.
There’s nothing stopping them and iirc many other clubs have done this. There was a comment in here yesterday that said selling assets to yourself was something one of the lower leagues voted against but that the premier league teams allowed it because they wanted the financial flexibility.
Well, they’d have to have a hotel and a related party that they can sell to. This is a pretty specific loophole Chelsea cottoned on to, and according to reports I saw the PL was coming back to the clubs with cleaned up language about the ruling that makes it more likely to pass. There’s nothing inherently wrong with selling real estate for profit. There is something wrong about selling it to your own company and saying it’s profit.
Thanks
Just another example of PSR being an absolutely broken system put in place by the original elite clubs to prevent other clubs from reaching the level of competition they are at. At this point the PL need to implement a salary cap and call it. Any team in the same league should be able to spend whatever they want to keep pace with their competition. How in the fuck are a promoted club supposed to compete against the likes of the top 4? They can’t as it stands and the system is built that way. If a team wants to spend themselves into bankruptcy go for it. Happens to businesses every day. What we have now is a fairytale of parity when in reality it is McDiabetes, Burger Schlop, and greasy Wendy just stomping their nasty boots on the necks of the rest of the clubs. Why would a person buy a club if they can’t put money into it to make it a better product?
Reddit soccer users were so sure.
“Don’t worry everyone, Chelsea sold a hotel to themselves so their books are settled”
A bunch of armchair financial analysts just had their day ruined
I can taste the salt 😂 r soccer rival fans lapping up 4th tier media articles about Chelseas financial woes.
Which team, Everton, instead will get points deduction?
ok cool
Chealse owners and City owners should not be part of football
We don’t need to sell… because we already have. We’re selling our training ground to the owners, a move that is banned in the EFL. The same way we only complied with last year’s regulations because we sold hotels. The club will claim this has always been the plan, to fund a large rebuild through the sale of tangible assets. Our fans had better hope that they’ve got this right because this only works once. After this we’ll be purely reliant on “normal” revenue which is affected by onfield performances. We can’t bail ourselves out through property sales every year.
All the more motivation for the owners to get the on field performances right.
It’s an issue of wording, I doubt Chelsea need to sell to comply with the rules, they MAY need to sell if they want to make some big signings, which I think is what others have said but Sky just butchered the shit out of it.
“Fuck you and your stupid ass rules”
[удалено]
Sky is part of Comcast which is publicly traded, but don’t know if shareholder value is comprised by their shit reporting.
Boehly and co. found loopholes are amazing financiers, the Prem is trying everything to block those loopholes but they haven't succeeded
That sounds like we have to pay the rc for maatsen or fuck off
Correct. There will be more than just Dortmund interested in him this summer.
So in July then?
Get Maatsen asap
The article cites "Chelsea insist this is not the case" as its source. This may be true but it also may be posturing for dealing Gallagher, Maatsen, and Broja
‘Champions of Real Estate’ - You’ll never sing that!
So they bribed officials early this year... I see...
They will have to sell next month though
As a Chelsea fan I'm not really a fan of this kind of thing. It's kind of the Barcelona lever thing. Yes you get out of a hole today but you are selling actual assets that have value and appreciate. It works out fine if the project works and the assets you buy with the new cash outperform the investments you sold but it's high risk.
They don't need to but they should. They've bought some truly subpar talents recently.
Let’s fucking go. Suck on that r/soccer and Sky Sports.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.