Initial 10, then reduced to 6 + 2 Point Deductions

[carolinablue232]

What even is the plan at Chelsea?

Stockpile players, underachieve and rack up 9-figure losses season after season?

What am I missing?

I don’t think their plan is about winning anymore. Looks like they want to buy young stars, stay within touching distance of the top to remain attractive enough, and then sell their young players at a higher value while investing again in younger and cheaper ones. Rinse and repeat. Problem is they’re overpaying for players like Gittens and Garnacho who they won’t be able to turn for profit because they’re just not very good.

 

[allen]

I don’t think their plan is about winning anymore. Looks like they want to buy young stars, stay within touching distance of the top to remain attractive enough, and then sell their young players at a higher value while investing again in younger and cheaper ones. Rinse and repeat. Problem is they’re overpaying for players like Gittens and Garnacho who they won’t be able to turn for profit because they’re just not very good.

But my point is that the endgame, the reason for doing any of that, is not at all clear.

It’s not about winning trophies, it can’t be about making money given the eye-watering losses… it’s not even a sovereign wealth fund sports washing their global image.

It just makes no sense as an investment as far as I can see.

 

[Jebus_lives]

I don’t think their plan is about winning anymore. Looks like they want to buy young stars, stay within touching distance of the top to remain attractive enough, and then sell their young players at a higher value while investing again in younger and cheaper ones. Rinse and repeat. Problem is they’re overpaying for players like Gittens and Garnacho who they won’t be able to turn for profit because they’re just not very good.

My understanding is that the way they run their contracts allows the bigger spending as the cost is split across multiple years but player sales can go straight into profit. So that gives a good accounting position.

Likewise, the asset sales have given a big boost to their finances to put them in profit.

Hence the lack of breach under the Pl rules.

The big worry would be what happens without CL football for the 25-26-27 cycle because that loss is huge.

 

[Tipp blue]

Chelsea’s losses:
2021: -156
2022: -119
2023: - 155
2025: -264
Some please tell me in plain English why they don’t get a deduction when they had higher losses than us? And not the ‘oh it’s because the league is corrupt’ (which I know they are). I want the actual explanation given for this.

It's not possible, 538M losses in the last 3 years 105M losses allowed that gives 433M I doubt anywhere near that is mitigation such as infrastructure women's team and academy, there's no possible way they are compliant, we should be demanding answers over this, what a joke.

 

[PITA]

BTW, Kwasi Kwarteng has just said on TV that the war in Ukraine was 'foreseen or foreseeable'. Maybe he should have a chat with Pricky Masters and his 'independent' panel.

 

[Iana]

It's not possible, 538M losses in the last 3 years 105M losses allowed that gives 433M I doubt anywhere near that is mitigation such as infrastructure women's team and academy, there's no possible way they are compliant, we should be demanding answers over this, what a joke.

The 2024 figure is missing in that list which was a £200m+ profit.

Their losses are staggering but the last 3 years includes a year which is close to mitigating the 24/25 loss. Their cumulative losses over last 3 years is circa £220m.

 

[DOMNOLAN]

It's not possible, 538M losses in the last 3 years 105M losses allowed that gives 433M I doubt anywhere near that is mitigation such as infrastructure women's team and academy, there's no possible way they are compliant, we should be demanding answers over this, what a joke.

Ah, so it would supposedly be that some of those losses don’t count, okay.

 

[Bedfordblue]

I don’t think their plan is about winning anymore. Looks like they want to buy young stars, stay within touching distance of the top to remain attractive enough, and then sell their young players at a higher value while investing again in younger and cheaper ones. Rinse and repeat. Problem is they’re overpaying for players like Gittens and Garnacho who they won’t be able to turn for profit because they’re just not very good.

Plus its unsustainable imo, there will always be certain players who will value contracts over playing and enjoying their profession, but I dont think there’s enough to have 3 in every position, so players with anything about them simply won’t go there knowing they will rarely play.
They’ll be left with a group of mercenaries and will find it difficult to maintain top 6 (see Tottenham)
Same applies to their academy too, most parents will get fed up of their kids being treated as a profit conveyer belt and take them elsewhere.

 

[Harryflashman]

The 2024 figure is missing in that list which was a £200m+ profit.

Their losses are staggering but the last 3 years includes a year which is close to mitigating the 24/25 loss. Their cumulative losses over last 3 years is circa £220m.

So over the 3 years isn’t that twice allowable loses ?

 

[Moomin]

So over the 3 years isn’t that twice allowable loses ?

Depends what the losses was on, certain parameters for them to be not allocated.

 

[Iana]

So over the 3 years isn’t that twice allowable loses ?

These are the numbers from the accounts not the PSR numbers.

There are a number of add backs that need to be taken into consideration before arriving at the PSR losses.

For example, academy and youth development costs are excluded as losses and a host of other things to get to the final PSR number.

 

[Iana]

These are the numbers from the accounts not the PSR numbers.

There are a number of add backs that need to be taken into consideration before arriving at the PSR losses.

For example, academy and youth development costs are excluded as losses and a host of other things to get to the final PSR number.

interestingly, Women’s team development is also “added back” but Chelsea have now sold it so not sure how that works.

Infrastructure costs, Community initiatives and depreciation of fixed assets are also allowed but Chelsea can’t have much in those 3 areas.

 

[Neiler]

But my point is that the endgame, the reason for doing any of that, is not at all clear.

It’s not about winning trophies, it can’t be about making money given the eye-watering losses… it’s not even a sovereign wealth fund sports washing their global image.

It just makes no sense as an investment as far as I can see.

Football isn't about winning trophies anymore for owners, that's a dream the marketing people sell the fans, the real goal is getting into as many money making competitions as you can to increase the value of your investment and to wield influence as clubs get ever more powerful.

 

[Moomin]

It's not possible, 538M losses in the last 3 years 105M losses allowed that gives 433M I doubt anywhere near that is mitigation such as infrastructure women's team and academy, there's no possible way they are compliant, we should be demanding answers over this, what a joke.

They made a massive profit in 2024.

 

[Harryflashman]

These are the numbers from the accounts not the PSR numbers.

There are a number of add backs that need to be taken into consideration before arriving at the PSR losses.

For example, academy and youth development costs are excluded as losses and a host of other things to get to the final PSR number.

Yeah noted , I feels like it Takes some work to make up those loses mind