Football Finance
- Thread starter King Binny
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
thanks for the serious reply. be interesting if chelsea are cleared and flogging things internally with a patsy investor becomes a ‘thing’. honestly i think newcastle would love one big hit at building a side without psr constraints.
I think there needs to be a rain check on PSR. It wasn't created to entrench the advantage of the existing big teams, but that has been its effect.
At the same time, it hasn't stopped the likes of Everton and Villa almost going to the wall because its bite wasn't hard enough, but also there are too many schmucks lining up for a piece of the action - no-one should have. touched Everton with a barge pole, but they are still here, not because PSR protected them, but because Friedkin bailed them out and Moshiri accepted he needed to take a big hit on his investment.
There needs to be some sort of relaxation to allow the likes of Newcastle the chance to have a go at breaking into the top tier of clubs, but it still needs to protect the likes of Everton and Villa from inflicting potentially massive harm on themselves (and more importantly, on their fan base).
And obviously it needs to give good, hard fuckings to the likes of City, PSG and Chelsea, who are all taking the piss.
At the same time, it hasn't stopped the likes of Everton and Villa almost going to the wall because its bite wasn't hard enough, but also there are too many schmucks lining up for a piece of the action - no-one should have. touched Everton with a barge pole, but they are still here, not because PSR protected them, but because Friedkin bailed them out and Moshiri accepted he needed to take a big hit on his investment.
There needs to be some sort of relaxation to allow the likes of Newcastle the chance to have a go at breaking into the top tier of clubs, but it still needs to protect the likes of Everton and Villa from inflicting potentially massive harm on themselves (and more importantly, on their fan base).
And obviously it needs to give good, hard fuckings to the likes of City, PSG and Chelsea, who are all taking the piss.
Do you use language like that in audit reports? 
Don't you dare call me an auditor!!!!!Do you use language like that in audit reports?
We've all got every faith in them getting that very delicate balance exactly right!
The audit-aciteh of JJ.
Do you have any insight into why Newcastle is not egregiously breaking the rules and is being somewhat cautious with its spending? I assume they have the largest wallets in all of football. They just wrote a billion-dollar check for CWC. Maybe they are focused too much on the Saudi league and the world cup?
I have to admit I'm pleasantly surprised to see how they've conducted themselves. However, it's worth bearing in mind that the bulk of City's abuse of the rules has revolved around the value of their sponsorships (and I expect that will be a major focus of the PSR decision if we ever get to see it). They initially claimed there was no connection and later that it was all priced above board. Neither of these things are true, but that value is essentially locked in unless the PL wins the 115/130 case. When the Newcastle takeover was already underway (if you remember, it was delayed for ages by the fit and proper persons test), the PL introduced the APT rules which specifically targeted them and prevented them from gaming the system the way City did (because it introduced a cap on the value of their potential commercial deals with connected parties which would have been lower than what City got away with, and also meant they couldn't take the piss by having PIF clubs bid astronomical sums for their players - Saint-Maximin was the major sale to Saudi, and went for what looked a fair price).
It's worth remembering, if you look at City's declared figures, they comply with PSR (they've only been done for breaching UEFA rules). If you look at Chelsea's figures and allow their intra-group sales, they comply with PSR (but I think they'll fail UEFA rules for last year and the coming season). The only teams ever found to have breached PSR were Everton and Forest (and you could probably add Leicester had they not got away with it on technical grounds). No-one has had the brass neck to really go for it without covering their tracks and making it look like they didn't cheat (which in City's case, I believe, means cooking their books). United managed to do a deal with the PL to get away with some of their losses due to an extended impact of covid (which was bullshit) and some clubs, including Villa and Newcastle, traded their way out of trouble by selling players to each other at inflated values and / or doing legit deals for players they'd have rather kept.
So Newcastle would have been really out on a limb if they'd gone for it. There is also the European dimension for them - as they have been in and out of Europe, they're also trying to navigate the much stricter UEFA rules as well (which Everton and Forest weren't too concerned about historically). This probably means they'll try to do things organically for a bit.
But if City don't get done on 115/130, then I expect them to throw the cash around however they like, especially if they are not going to be in Europe (or if they believe they can game the system with artificially inflated commercial deals a la City and PSG). But unless or until that happens, I expect they'll play nice. Hopefully that means selling Isak to us to give themselves some scope to spend this summer.
This is going to be worth the effort, trust me. It's delicious.
Just a little analysis on Chelsea and UEFA's FFP rules. This doesn't seem to have had a lot of exposure in mainstream sources but I thought it would be worth discussing.
Firstly, this is all public information.
A summary of UEFA's punishments can be found here:
Chelsea's settlement agreement can be found here:
Digging into the detail of Chelsea's agreement:
1. They have been fined a total of €80 million, of which €20 million is payable immediately. Some media outlets have been reporting €31 million of fines, as the lead press release refers to a squad cost rule fine of €11 million. It isn't clear that's in addition to the €20 million, but I think it might be, and I'm guessing those papers would have had €31 million confirmed by Chelsea.
2. They will be fined (up to) a further €20 million in each of the next three seasons if they fail to meet targets.
3. These targets are expressed in terms of "football earnings deficit". This is old-style FFP. Broadly, losses of no more than €5m over three years, but you can get away with losses of up to €60m if the owners put equity in.
4. Ha! I hear you say, Chelsea sold their car parks, hotels and women's teams so they have massive profits and will be fine. Well, here's the interesting part. Because UEFA's letter says that Chelsea have to "...provide financial information based on an appropriate reporting perimeter, in accordance with the CLFS" (CLFS is basically the FFP rules - it stands for "Club Licensing and Financial Sustainability" Regulations).
5. So what is an "appropriate reporting perimeter"? Well, firstly, a reporting perimeter basically means "which companies' results do you report". The rule is quite lengthy, but what it basically says is you report on the football club, plus any other entities carrying out significant football activities, generating revenues and bearing costs. I'm struggling to see how their holding company would fall into this definition. Want to guess which company made those big profits on selling stuff to other Chelsea companies? Yep, the holding company. Now bear in mind that UEFA also ticked off City for their intra-group transfers 10+ years ago. Fair play, they're being consistent. So my read is they need to get to break-even football earnings without counting all those dodgy sales about which the Premier League shat the bed.
And just a bit of further historical context here. When their current owners fessed up about the historic failures to disclose, their settlement agreement found that the club had given "incomplete" information on their reporting perimeter in 2018 and 2019, so they have form on this.
Beyond the financial sanctions, there are also prohibitions on registering new players for UEFA competitions unless their "Transfer Balance" is positive. That is defined as cost savings from sales, less extra costs from purchases. Which basically means, as I see it, they're going to have to make a profit on sales v additions (transfer fees in, less transfer fees out, less any difference in wages), otherwise Joao Pedro isn't playing in the Champions League next season.
Beyond that, if they breach the terms of UEFA's settlement agreement (and if feels like they're going to have to make serious sales to avoid that) then they'll be excluded from the following year's UEFA competition, if they qualify for one.
Chelsea are under monitoring for 4 seasons. Villa for 3. The only other team on 4 years was Lyon, just to put into context which particular naughty step they're on (the top one).
TLDR - they're properly screwed.
Just a little analysis on Chelsea and UEFA's FFP rules. This doesn't seem to have had a lot of exposure in mainstream sources but I thought it would be worth discussing.
Firstly, this is all public information.
A summary of UEFA's punishments can be found here:
CFCB First Chamber finalises the assessment of the financial sustainability requirements in the 2024/25 season
The CFCB First Chamber imposed disciplinary measures against 12 clubs in breach of the financial sustainability requirements.
www.uefa.com
Digging into the detail of Chelsea's agreement:
1. They have been fined a total of €80 million, of which €20 million is payable immediately. Some media outlets have been reporting €31 million of fines, as the lead press release refers to a squad cost rule fine of €11 million. It isn't clear that's in addition to the €20 million, but I think it might be, and I'm guessing those papers would have had €31 million confirmed by Chelsea.
2. They will be fined (up to) a further €20 million in each of the next three seasons if they fail to meet targets.
3. These targets are expressed in terms of "football earnings deficit". This is old-style FFP. Broadly, losses of no more than €5m over three years, but you can get away with losses of up to €60m if the owners put equity in.
4. Ha! I hear you say, Chelsea sold their car parks, hotels and women's teams so they have massive profits and will be fine. Well, here's the interesting part. Because UEFA's letter says that Chelsea have to "...provide financial information based on an appropriate reporting perimeter, in accordance with the CLFS" (CLFS is basically the FFP rules - it stands for "Club Licensing and Financial Sustainability" Regulations).
5. So what is an "appropriate reporting perimeter"? Well, firstly, a reporting perimeter basically means "which companies' results do you report". The rule is quite lengthy, but what it basically says is you report on the football club, plus any other entities carrying out significant football activities, generating revenues and bearing costs. I'm struggling to see how their holding company would fall into this definition. Want to guess which company made those big profits on selling stuff to other Chelsea companies? Yep, the holding company. Now bear in mind that UEFA also ticked off City for their intra-group transfers 10+ years ago. Fair play, they're being consistent. So my read is they need to get to break-even football earnings without counting all those dodgy sales about which the Premier League shat the bed.
And just a bit of further historical context here. When their current owners fessed up about the historic failures to disclose, their settlement agreement found that the club had given "incomplete" information on their reporting perimeter in 2018 and 2019, so they have form on this.
Beyond the financial sanctions, there are also prohibitions on registering new players for UEFA competitions unless their "Transfer Balance" is positive. That is defined as cost savings from sales, less extra costs from purchases. Which basically means, as I see it, they're going to have to make a profit on sales v additions (transfer fees in, less transfer fees out, less any difference in wages), otherwise Joao Pedro isn't playing in the Champions League next season.
Beyond that, if they breach the terms of UEFA's settlement agreement (and if feels like they're going to have to make serious sales to avoid that) then they'll be excluded from the following year's UEFA competition, if they qualify for one.
Chelsea are under monitoring for 4 seasons. Villa for 3. The only other team on 4 years was Lyon, just to put into context which particular naughty step they're on (the top one).
TLDR - they're properly screwed.
Just wanted to follow up on my post above about Chelsea. Specifically on their squad restrictions.
So, in a bit more detail, their settlement agreement with UEFA states that:
The Club agrees to be subject to a sporting restriction and, as a consequence, may not register any new player on its List A to UEFA club competitions unless the List A Transfer Balance is positive.
The List A Transfer Balance is defined as the difference between the cost savings from outgoing players (“Cost savings”) and the new costs from incoming players (“New costs”) at any applicable deadline for the Club’s submission of its List A.
For context, list A is the main squad list registered with UEFA for European Competition.
The expression "Cost savings" is not defined. The closest I can find to a UEFA definition is in their squad cost ratio, where the costs in question are wages, amortisation, agent fees etc in relation to players. That's how I think it will need to be defined.
It's also not clear whether the "transfer balance" refers only to players on list A. This is important because if it does only apply to list A players, then getting rid of their fringe players / guys who were on loan last year, wouldn't qualify towards offsetting costs for new players coming in. However, since it doesn't say it's specifically cost savings on list A players, my take is it should be looked at squad-wide (although that doesn't help them with Estevao who they've paid for but isn't joining them just yet).
Anyway, looking at the position as it stands, this summer, Chelsea have bought the following players (estimated fees include my best guess on agent's fees and levies too):
Joao Pedro £60m
Jamie Gittens £54m
Liam Delap £35m
Estevao £34m
Dário Essugo £21m
Mamadou Sarr £18m
Kendry Paez £10m
Total of £232m
Let's guess at an average wage cost of £4m (probably conservative).
So this adds £232m / 5 years = £46.4m/year in amortisation plus £28m in wages = £74.4m of new "costs". We can ignore their actual contract lengths, they're all under new rules and subject to a maximum write-off period of 5 years.
Sales:
Using the definition of "costs saved", I think we need to ignore profits on sale and focus on how much they save in amortisation and wages (which means we need to look at purchase costs paid when they bought the players, not sales price received when they sell).
Noni Madueke (original cost of £32.5m, saves £6.5m p/a) (NB: profit on sale c £30m)
Bashir Humphreys = negligible cost savings
Kepa Arrizabalaga (negligible amortisation savings as he's been there forever so he's largely written down)
Marcus Bettinelli (c. £30k amortisation saving - best guess)
Lucas Bergstrom (negligible amortisation savings)
So sales save amortisation of £6.53m, plus (say) £6m wages for Kepa and £5m for Noni, others not significant = £17.53m.
Which means they need to save a further £56.87m in wages and amortisation if they are to register any new players on list A (potentially reduced by £11m if we ignore Estevao).
So if you assumed an annual wage for an out-going player of £5m, if they sold 5 players they would need to have a combined historic cost of at least£209m (EDIT £159m). And they would need to have to shift all those players without paying them any wage subsidy.
So they've still got a hell of a lot of work to do if Joao Pedro's going to play in Europe next season. And, hilariously, they could end up making a load of sales, including the likes of Jackson, and still not get to a negative balance. They could then end up having no strikers to play in Europe as they've sold the old ones but still can't register the new ones. This could be fascinating...
So, in a bit more detail, their settlement agreement with UEFA states that:
The Club agrees to be subject to a sporting restriction and, as a consequence, may not register any new player on its List A to UEFA club competitions unless the List A Transfer Balance is positive.
The List A Transfer Balance is defined as the difference between the cost savings from outgoing players (“Cost savings”) and the new costs from incoming players (“New costs”) at any applicable deadline for the Club’s submission of its List A.
For context, list A is the main squad list registered with UEFA for European Competition.
The expression "Cost savings" is not defined. The closest I can find to a UEFA definition is in their squad cost ratio, where the costs in question are wages, amortisation, agent fees etc in relation to players. That's how I think it will need to be defined.
It's also not clear whether the "transfer balance" refers only to players on list A. This is important because if it does only apply to list A players, then getting rid of their fringe players / guys who were on loan last year, wouldn't qualify towards offsetting costs for new players coming in. However, since it doesn't say it's specifically cost savings on list A players, my take is it should be looked at squad-wide (although that doesn't help them with Estevao who they've paid for but isn't joining them just yet).
Anyway, looking at the position as it stands, this summer, Chelsea have bought the following players (estimated fees include my best guess on agent's fees and levies too):
Joao Pedro £60m
Jamie Gittens £54m
Liam Delap £35m
Estevao £34m
Dário Essugo £21m
Mamadou Sarr £18m
Kendry Paez £10m
Total of £232m
Let's guess at an average wage cost of £4m (probably conservative).
So this adds £232m / 5 years = £46.4m/year in amortisation plus £28m in wages = £74.4m of new "costs". We can ignore their actual contract lengths, they're all under new rules and subject to a maximum write-off period of 5 years.
Sales:
Using the definition of "costs saved", I think we need to ignore profits on sale and focus on how much they save in amortisation and wages (which means we need to look at purchase costs paid when they bought the players, not sales price received when they sell).
Noni Madueke (original cost of £32.5m, saves £6.5m p/a) (NB: profit on sale c £30m)
Bashir Humphreys = negligible cost savings
Kepa Arrizabalaga (negligible amortisation savings as he's been there forever so he's largely written down)
Marcus Bettinelli (c. £30k amortisation saving - best guess)
Lucas Bergstrom (negligible amortisation savings)
So sales save amortisation of £6.53m, plus (say) £6m wages for Kepa and £5m for Noni, others not significant = £17.53m.
Which means they need to save a further £56.87m in wages and amortisation if they are to register any new players on list A (potentially reduced by £11m if we ignore Estevao).
So if you assumed an annual wage for an out-going player of £5m, if they sold 5 players they would need to have a combined historic cost of at least
So they've still got a hell of a lot of work to do if Joao Pedro's going to play in Europe next season. And, hilariously, they could end up making a load of sales, including the likes of Jackson, and still not get to a negative balance. They could then end up having no strikers to play in Europe as they've sold the old ones but still can't register the new ones. This could be fascinating...
They still have to pay Sterling for another 2 seasons and he can barely walk. He would be a real concern if I were involved with Chelsea. His loan move to Arsenal only highlighted that he's no longer cut out for football at this level.
They may be able to shift Nkunku, but he's meant to be on 200k a week and nobody is matching that without Chelsea offsetting it.
United might move for Jackson, which sounds like their best opportunity to recoup some dough. They probably have a million kids they can sell as well. Chelsea always seem to find a way.
They may be able to shift Nkunku, but he's meant to be on 200k a week and nobody is matching that without Chelsea offsetting it.
United might move for Jackson, which sounds like their best opportunity to recoup some dough. They probably have a million kids they can sell as well. Chelsea always seem to find a way.
Yeah I'd pay big money to see him trying to speak French.
Tbf he'd love it. He could go to Disney all the time
Unless those million kids cost them a fortune in the first place and / or are on huge wages it isn't going to help the transfer balance. They need to get costs out of their profit and loss account, not make profits on sales.
Example: kid on £10k per week, cost nothing, sold for £50m. But they only save costs of £500k, even though they make a profit of £50m.
Older player on £100k per week, cost them £50m four years ago, sold for £10m. No profit on sale but they save £15m towards this target (£5m wages and £10m amortisation).
Obviously those are the two ends of the scale, but the kind of sales they need to make here are NOT the ones that would traditionally help with PSR.
But they need to improve on profits as well (UEFA profits, which will exclude bullshit sales to themselves), not Premier League rules where you can do whatever you want.
Cole Palmer, for example. is one who would work on both levels. Would save money on wages / amortisation but would also help with profits.
Most of the other guys they would look to sell to hugely reduce amortisation / wages (e.g. Enzo, Caiceido) aren't going to help profit-wise as they paid above market for them and even after a couple of years' amortisation they'd still struggle to turn a profit.
Quick tour through their squad and the impact of potential sales (big names only, none of the recent signings as they won't be sold):
Sanchez - +ve for transfer balance, probably not much profit impact.
Other keepers would have little impact either way.
James - +ve for transfer balance (high wages), +ve for profits
Cucurella - as above, but lower profit on sale
Colwill - as above
Gusto - meh
Chilwell - +ve for transfer balance re wages only
Fofana - +ve for transfer balance re wages and amortisation, but unsellable due to injuries, likely loss on sale
Other defenders - little impact either way, possible wage savings
Palmer - positives all round
Enzo / Caiceido - saves wages and amortisation, but little profit potential
Mudryk - they're taking a big hit here whatever happens
Noni - positive for transfer balance + profits
Neto - positive for transfer balance, minimal profit
Lavia - would be tricky to offload given injuries
Others - meh
Joao Felix - LOL
Jackson - positive on all counts but not as valuable as they think
Nkunku - positive for transfer balance, neutral for profits
Sterling - see Felix, Joao
Guiu - positive for profits, meh for transfer balance
Broja - see Felix, Joao
David Fofana - positive for profits, meh for transfer balance
For each season in the period will do me fine. Give us that 13/14 title then start the process for the rest of the years.
I saw it on youtube, the 3 point penalty and fine is for failing to show evidence in a timely manner. They appaz said they would only accept the fine and penalty if the FA didn't block their attempts to sue publications that accused them of cheating. All second hand unverified statement.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the case.
I’m not sure how the PL can prove the funding of 3rd party deals.
There are some things in the CAS judgement that point to how this is likely going to end up :
- Proving money was paid to the 3rd party by City’s owners would likely require a criminal conspiracy to defraud involving City, the 3rd party and their accountants - the likelihood of this was talked about at CAS.
- At CAS City pulled evidence out of their arse at the appeal that effectively influenced their appeal being up held - CAS even commented that had City made that evidence available earlier, the original judgement would have likely been different.
- City have a habit and track record of not sharing info until they absolutely have to - which is why the likes of the PL needs to go to such lengths, ie charging them, to get it.
- CAS made it very clear that failure to provide info, etc, which was and is likely the only charges that will stick, is very much a lesser offence and as such attracted a lesser punishment of a fine only.
I don’t see how the charges relating to UEFA are things that the PL can get anywhere with.
The charges and indeed evidence relating to Mancini looked a little “stickier” - but I’m sure they have a way of getting round it - this is probably the one area City have a problem with and could lead to the points deduction.
It’s the sort of result that allows both sides to claim a win.
I’m not sure how the PL can prove the funding of 3rd party deals.
There are some things in the CAS judgement that point to how this is likely going to end up :
- Proving money was paid to the 3rd party by City’s owners would likely require a criminal conspiracy to defraud involving City, the 3rd party and their accountants - the likelihood of this was talked about at CAS.
- At CAS City pulled evidence out of their arse at the appeal that effectively influenced their appeal being up held - CAS even commented that had City made that evidence available earlier, the original judgement would have likely been different.
- City have a habit and track record of not sharing info until they absolutely have to - which is why the likes of the PL needs to go to such lengths, ie charging them, to get it.
- CAS made it very clear that failure to provide info, etc, which was and is likely the only charges that will stick, is very much a lesser offence and as such attracted a lesser punishment of a fine only.
I don’t see how the charges relating to UEFA are things that the PL can get anywhere with.
The charges and indeed evidence relating to Mancini looked a little “stickier” - but I’m sure they have a way of getting round it - this is probably the one area City have a problem with and could lead to the points deduction.
It’s the sort of result that allows both sides to claim a win.
Chelsea look like they'll bank an extra £140m this year
View: https://x.com/SwissRamble/status/1944652777176674803
theprideoflondon.com
View: https://x.com/SwissRamble/status/1944652777176674803
Chelsea set for £100m boost from new sponsorship deal
Chelsea are set to finalise a mega shirt sponsorship deal helped by their recent success at the Club World Cup.
The gulf between PL and the rest widens. I think the total spend is bigger than all the other leagues combined. I can't remember a season when 5 of the big six have spent over £200m plus each
www.bbc.co.uk
Premier League summer transfer spending heading for record £2.5bn
With two weeks of the summer transfer window remaining, Premier League clubs are on course to spend a record amount on players.
www.bbc.co.uk
I didn’t realise how close Villa’s owner was to the UAE and how close he was to City’s owner.
They’re basically starting to look like City without creative accountants, secret secondary contracts and control of national assets to create fake sponsorship deals.
They’re basically starting to look like City without creative accountants, secret secondary contracts and control of national assets to create fake sponsorship deals.
The Villa owner has BILLIONS tied up in business with the City owners. No wonder they are 115’s little lap dogs when it comes to voting.
Yeah - there’s some interesting articles from Nick Harris from Sporting Intelligence on Substack - I’m not paying the subscription to read all of the article, but there’s some interesting stuff in there.
Similar threads
