6 + 2 Point Deductions

[jazzy]

My cousin is a QC and a massive blue, let's hope they let him preside

Could be a slight conflict of interest there matey.

 

[Bez2k2k]

I'm not going to be going into that level of detail. I don't share their view, but people who work in law feel we will get our points back. The clubs defence at the last one was shambolic.

What people? Can you post their views thanks.

 

[Mikey_Fitzgerald]

My cousin is a QC and a massive blue, let's hope they let him preside

Yeah, well my uncle is a judge, and my dad works at Nintendo!

 

[Tipp blue]

Your rules would be great mate. I get it. But, all that would happen if there are no rules is that every super rich owner would just go and buy every amazing player. I think the 105m is low, mad to say, but I don’t think you should just be allowed to spend what you want. Nobody would ever want to go and play for a team which doesn’t have a luxury feel about it, such as a Burnley. I never want to see a club go bust such as Bury as ultimately the cliche is correct. It’s the fans that suffer.

The simplest way around this would be the NBA method.. you can spend over the limit but the owner is "Taxed".. for example.. and for easy math the spending limit is 10 million you are more than welcome to spend over that, the excess can't be lumped onto the club as debt and the owner is taxed at 50% of the overspend, so if you spend 50 million that's 40 million over, which the owner has to pay while also having to pay 50% or 20 million tax which will then go to grassroots..
This way an extreamly wealthy owner can spend whatever they want the club isn't saddled with debt, armature clubs are getting much needed income, while other owners can plod away without spending over the limit.
Even the wealthiest owners would soon slow the spending down and a new owner might overspend for a couple of years but wouldn't keep it up.. you could also make it more progressive by increasing the tax year on year if you keep overspending.

 

[jazzy]

Does anyone know what Chelsea’s rolling losses will be with two successive years outside the Champions League and £800m outgoings on transfer fees alone in that time? They could be in trouble.

Ok I said could.

Are all their outgoing transfer fees capitalized on the accounts of the year that they signed players or spread out over the term of the players contract? Genuinely no idea.

 

[Micky_T]

I don't understand why an appeal and be sorted out in a few days. All the evidence has been presented at the original hearing. We just need someone to read the edited highlights and decide if they agree with the 10 points or not.

Are they just waiting until we fight our way clear of a relegation fight before giving us a few points back?

 

[jazzy]

Regarding the interest in accounts. Isn't it really up to the inland revenue to decide what is and isnt allowed? I'm think our bean counters got the interest ok'd but the IC see it differently

PL and HMRC rules on deductibles are different I think

 

[Magus]

Both those mitigating factors are known risks. The loss of sponsorship due to war/sanctions is an unusual reason but a sponsorship deal going down the pan due to outside influences is not a completely alien concept. Same with a player losing market value and availability for whatever reason - it's a known risk when you place huge financial outlays on something as unstable as a human being.

The scale may be modest but the thinking may well be that the rules already allow for huge financial losses and already generously account for infrastructure development, academies, women's teams, Covid etc. Going right up to the limit and then beyond is frankly ridiculous hence the punishment. There's really no such thing as a modest breach when there is already a huge amount of scope and leniency offered beforehand.

I guess we'll only see how harsh or lenient it truly is when other clubs have been through the same process.

You make some very fair points, but known risks are surely weighted in any risk analysis, and it seems nobody thought Putin would actually invade Ukraine and instantly lead to sanctions on Russian investment with such a direct impact on the club.

The timing of the war, Covid and the Player X issue all coming in such a short space of time seem to have constituted a perfect storm in terms of the club's financial planning, and all the while incurring massive up front costs on the stadium project.

I personally don't think the spending limits are huge in the context of the vast amount of spending in the PL and the era of £100m plus players for the top clubs, which ultimately raises prices across the spectrum to the point where very average players can command fees of £30m, as we know to our cost.

 

[MikeH72]

Are all their outgoing transfer fees capitalized on the accounts of the year that they signed players or spread out over the term of the players contract? Genuinely no idea.

I dunno but surely if it’s the latter then surely it’ll lead to them not being able to sign anyone for about 5 years.

 

[JLW]

Maybe am being a little bit thick here but Chelsea have spent almost a billion pound in the last 12 months or so, so what is their turnover over this period?

 

[Lapeno77]

They've spread their costs over the course of long contracts, in some cases 7 or 8 years long.
Great for the accounts today but if they don't work out, you are stuck with them on the books

 

[hallamblue]

Yeah, well my uncle is a judge, and my dad works at Nintendo!

Funnily enough my uncle used to be a high court judge!

 

[the golden visionary]

The simplest way around this would be the NBA method.. you can spend over the limit but the owner is "Taxed".. for example.. and for easy math the spending limit is 10 million you are more than welcome to spend over that, the excess can't be lumped onto the club as debt and the owner is taxed at 50% of the overspend, so if you spend 50 million that's 40 million over, which the owner has to pay while also having to pay 50% or 20 million tax which will then go to grassroots..
This way an extreamly wealthy owner can spend whatever they want the club isn't saddled with debt, armature clubs are getting much needed income, while other owners can plod away without spending over the limit.
Even the wealthiest owners would soon slow the spending down and a new owner might overspend for a couple of years but wouldn't keep it up.. you could also make it more progressive by increasing the tax year on year if you keep overspending.

Dont you be coming round ere with your common sense approach

 

[the golden visionary]

Funnily enough my uncle used to be a high court judge!

Is that you purple aki?

 

[efcfanwirral]

I don't understand why an appeal and be sorted out in a few days. All the evidence has been presented at the original hearing. We just need someone to read the edited highlights and decide if they agree with the 10 points or not.

Are they just waiting until we fight our way clear of a relegation fight before giving us a few points back?

I get what you mean but I think we'll want to have this new panel make their own decisions based on our (hopefully) better defence. The longer it takes the more likely we'll get a positive outcome I think.

Obviously it needs to be sorted soon ish, especially with the talk of new charges for whoever's new accounts break the rules. This will be the precedent