What's new

Let's All Laugh At... Let's all laugh at Chelsea thread

vegassd

vegassd

The ghost of Johnny Cash
Aug 5, 2006
3,360
3,340
It makes you wonder if they will go down the Barca route of selling off future this/that/the other in order to avoid getting hit with a penalty that would relegate them. They will surely be waiting for the Everton/Forrest judgements and then come up with something that keeps them in the league.

A very interesting point from Trix, that many clubs will also be looking to defer purchases until after 30th June to satisfy their own spending habits. Chelsea are going to be selling to a limited crowd.
 
N

newbie

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2004
6,083
6,390
ernie78 said:
I really want to believe they are fucked but the way the slimed out of the Abramovich/Russia issues and fell on their feet means I’ll be holding off on buying the party hats yet.

But when it does happen - !!!!!!
Couldn’t happen to a more fitting team
Click to expand...

surly they have to be docked points for cheating ffp under Roman, didn’t Chelsea’s new owners find evidence and submit it?

all the dodgy people I’ve ever met in buisness always get away with it so let’s not hold our breath
 
razor1981

razor1981

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2012
1,269
8,984
vegassd said:
It makes you wonder if they will go down the Barca route of selling off future this/that/the other in order to avoid getting hit with a penalty that would relegate them. They will surely be waiting for the Everton/Forrest judgements and then come up with something that keeps them in the league.

A very interesting point from Trix, that many clubs will also be looking to defer purchases until after 30th June to satisfy their own spending habits. Chelsea are going to be selling to a limited crowd.
Click to expand...
I don't think that the owners jeopardising the club's future profitability and sustainability in that way, to artificially meet the 'profit & sustainability' rules would go down very well with the PL.
 
BehindEnemyLines

BehindEnemyLines

Twisting a Melon with the Rev. Black Grape
Apr 13, 2006
4,639
13,399
Would it be hilarious if Levy was stringing them along with Gallagher?

Levy: Of course we'll pay ~£70m for him, but you'll need to wait until the last day of the window.....oh.....actually....no!
 
robotsonic

robotsonic

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2013
2,389
11,247
I keep coming back to it, but I just never understood in the moment how it was portrayed as some galaxy brain idea that nobody had ever thought of to sign players on these ridiculous lengths of deals to spread the cost out via amortisation.

It's like...this was always available to any club, but nobody was fucking stupid enough to do it. And now we're seeing exactly why. It might make sense to do once for a special player that you know is the one (we would have given Kane a deal until he was 45 I bet), but if you do it 10 times, on bought in players, then it's just fucking you with £100m/year that you need to have made somewhere before you even think about adding to the pile.

And you can only sell a player once. If Saudi bail them out for a wedge with Lukaku this year, bully for them. But next year there is no Lukaku to sell. Once they're gone, they're gone. And once you're not in the CL for a while...mid-table academy talents aren't worth £20m to anyone anymore.

Suddenly you can't sign academy talent anymore because they've all gone to Tottenham. The pipeline is dry, what's in there is worth fuck all, it's 2027 and Wesley Fofana is calling you from the treatment table asking where his wages are. Do you pick up, Todd? Do you pick it up?!
 
Col_M

Col_M

Pointing out the Obvious
Feb 28, 2012
22,786
45,888
newbie said:
surly they have to be docked points for cheating ffp under Roman, didn’t Chelsea’s new owners find evidence and submit it?

all the dodgy people I’ve ever met in buisness always get away with it so let’s not hold our breath
Click to expand...
I still believe they have some written assurances from the PL at the time of the buy out. Otherwise why would they buy them with the huge risk of docked points.
 
Marty

Marty

Audere est farce
Mar 10, 2005
40,185
63,941
Col_M said:
I still believe they have some written assurances from the PL at the time of the buy out. Otherwise why would they buy them with the huge risk of docked points.
Click to expand...
Yeah and add to that the fact that they gave up this evidence voluntarily suggests to me that they know they won't be punished for the previous owner's transgressions. Why else would they do it?

Now if their own transgressions are enough to land them in hot water then I'll take enough joy just from that.
 
Indacupfortottenham

Indacupfortottenham

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
1,110
1,956
Who would you take from that Chelsea squad,? Palmer stands out, probably their best and most valuable player.
I would pass on Gallagher personally but if Ange wants him fair enough for a realistic fee (40 tops imo) , Sterling is decent but getting on a bit now, Reece James is made of glass, then there’s their centre mids that are also decent but cost them crazy money,
 
Goldman

Goldman

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2004
7,097
2,150
Indacupfortottenham said:
Who would you take from that Chelsea squad,? Palmer stands out, probably their best and most valuable player.
I would pass on Gallagher personally but if Ange wants him fair enough for a realistic fee (40 tops imo) , Sterling is decent but getting on a bit now, Reece James is made of glass, then there’s their centre mids that are also decent but cost them crazy money,
Click to expand...
No-one. Fuck them. Let FFP tear them a new arsehole.
 
RJR1949

RJR1949

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2013
933
5,279
RELISYS said:
There is another way of getting out of it, through secured funding, such as a share issue.
Click to expand...
Not so I’m afraid. The Premier League rules say the maximum loss is £15m over a rolling 3 year period but this maximum can be raised to £105m if the club’s owners put in new share capital up to a maximum of £90m. Chelsea are on track to lose way more than £105m.
 
R

RELISYS

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2011
92
344
RJR1949 said:
Not so I’m afraid. The Premier League rules say the maximum loss is £15m over a rolling 3 year period but this maximum can be raised to £105m if the club’s owners put in new share capital up to a maximum of £90m. Chelsea are on track to lose way more than £105m.
Click to expand...
It's still a large chunk of change, but there is a slight twist. A large chunk of Chelsea losses seem to be infrastructure related.

As you said owners can inject 90M of capital through a share issues, but this is only limited for non infrastructure related losses. For infrastructure related losses, I don't believe there is a limit so they can inject more capital through a share issue to cover this.

If I have read their accounts right, Chelsea are currently amortising their fixed assets at around £50 Million each season, then revaluing in the next accountancy year and funnily enough they are worth close to the same amount the following year.

These types of losses on infrastructure don't count towards FFP, but can still be used to inject capital with a share issue. So if these losses are not genuine and just clever accountancy there could be a big swing in Chelsea favour.

This is all from my basic understand of these things and a bit of digging, so I am no expert.
 
RJR1949

RJR1949

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2013
933
5,279
RELISYS said:
It's still a large chunk of change, but there is a slight twist. A large chunk of Chelsea losses seem to be infrastructure related.

As you said owners can inject 90M of capital through a share issues, but this is only limited for non infrastructure related losses. For infrastructure related losses, I don't believe there is a limit so they can inject more capital through a share issue to cover this.

If I have read their accounts right, Chelsea are currently amortising their fixed assets at around £50 Million each season, then revaluing in the next accountancy year and funnily enough they are worth close to the same amount the following year.

These types of losses on infrastructure don't count towards FFP, but can still be used to inject capital with a share issue. So if these losses are not genuine and just clever accountancy there could be a big swing in Chelsea favour.

This is all from my basic understand of these things and a bit of digging, so I am no expert.
Click to expand...
The last set of accounts showed tangible fixed assets (land, buildings and equipment) of £175m depreciated at a rate of £12m a year. The rest of the amortisation is of players’contracts which definitely does count in FFP calculations.
 
R

RELISYS

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2011
92
344
RJR1949 said:
The last set of accounts showed tangible fixed assets (land, buildings and equipment) of £175m depreciated at a rate of £12m a year. The rest of the amortisation is of players’contracts which definitely does count in FFP calculations.
Click to expand...
If that's right, I have no idea at what I am looking at then and it's a good job I am not an accountant :)

Loading…

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

Page 30

Edit
I was looking at accumulated depreciation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Archibald&Crooks
  • Locked
  • Sticky
The Daily ITK Discussion Thread 26th June
6 7 8
Replies
154
Views
77K
Parkie
Parkie
Dharmabum
Why did the swastika fly at White Hart Lane?
Replies
0
Views
2K
Dharmabum
Dharmabum
OmarsComing
Let's all laugh at Tottenham Hotspur thread
14 15 16
Replies
313
Views
42K
taidgh
taidgh
Top