6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Wat Tyler]

Must be nice to “negotiate” your own punishment.

 

[Tipp blue]

Must be nice to “negotiate” your own punishment.

Weren't we told that because we had a wealthy owner a financial punishment was not appropriate.. if Chelsea manage this, then we need to stop being Mr nice guy and take the PL to the cleaners..

 

[maccavennie]

Absolute piss take.

 

[EFC_FRANCIS]

Aren't like 90% of City's charges regarding secret payments, they've got off with it. What a farce, a complete stitch up to avoid regulators

 

[ToffeeTim]

Must be nice to “negotiate” your own punishment.

Ridiculous

But equally not surprising

 

[Iana]

So Chelsea will be allowed to settle illegal money payments with a large money payment because they have a lot of money.

I am sure that all makes perfect sense to Richard Masters.

 

[Goat]

So Chelsea will be allowed to settle illegal money payments with a large money payment because they have a lot of money.

I am sure that all makes perfect sense to Richard Masters.

Well, now we have a lot of money, so we can play the same game.

 

[KaiserEFC]

It’s ok I’m sure Chelsea’s fine will go straight into grassroots football. What a move by the FA

 

[NathDogg]

Hope TFG get a grip of this and kick premier league HQs doors off.

We should absolutely be suing for loss of prize money and revenue from the deductions, the corruption is so blatant.

 

[kenada_blue]

Looks like City have gotten off with it too

 

[Tony’s Carp]

Looks like City have gotten off with it too

They certainly appear very confident with the business they’re doing, but that may be the intent I suppose.

 

[Timbucktoo]

I see that on Sky they say City have Haaland signed on a 9 1/2 year contract. Was there not a rule brought in to stop contracts being so long when Chelsea were throwing around 8 year deals? Just asking as City have a record of sticking two fingers up at the rules.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

I see that on Sky they say City have Haaland signed on a 9 1/2 year contract. Was there not a rule brought in to stop contracts being so long when Chelsea were throwing around 8 year deals? Just asking as City have a record of sticking two fingers up at the rules.

Can make the contract as long as you like. There’s a five year limit on amortisation though to stop Chelsea playing the game they were playing.

 

[Clarky cat]

Everton have made a profit in the transfer market over the last five years​

It has just come to light, that Everton are the only club in the Premier League to have made a profit in the transfer market over the last five years.
Here is the table in full.

Team	Net spend
Arsenal	£-469m
Aston Villa	£-216m
Bournemouth	£-127m
Brentford	£-95m
Brighton	£-49m
Chelsea	£-772m
Crystal Palace	£-145m
Everton	£27m (profit)
Fulham	£-123m
Ipswich Town	£-111m
Leicester City	£-17m
Liverpool	£-252m
Manchester City	£-142m
Manchester United	£-548m
Newcastle United	£-366m
Nottingham Forest	£-221m
Southampton	£-64m
Tottenham Hotspur	£-473m
West Ham United	£-276m
Wolves	£-31m

Whilst that’s evidently not a bad thing for the club on a financial basis, it does show the lack of investment in the squad.
So it’s hardly surprising Everton have been on a steep decline ever since Carlo Ancelotti’s departure in 2021.

Hoppy and paste…

 

[kenada_blue]

I see that on Sky they say City have Haaland signed on a 9 1/2 year contract. Was there not a rule brought in to stop contracts being so long when Chelsea were throwing around 8 year deals? Just asking as City have a record of sticking two fingers up at the rules.

That's for transfer fees when buying a player. The fee can only be spread over a max of 5 years.

Haaland just extended a contract.