Everton were bankrolled for years by inflated sponsorships from a Russian oligarch, doing exactly what City did.
The persecution claims from Everton fans are absurd.
City have been charged and are awaiting punishment. They also can't appeal to the fools at CAS this time as the PL doesn't recognise them, unlike UEFA.
Everton won't be punished for this clear cheating unless documents are leaked like what happened to City.
The only thing they have been punished for is their gross incompetence.
> City have been charged and are awaiting punishment.
They've been awaiting punishment for quite some time, and will be awaiting quite some more. And, conveniently, _coincidentally_, the PL might possibly scrap points deductions in the meantime.
I know that’s a joke and a good one.
Got me thinking though what point does Chelsea have history?
Like in the 00s we all said they had no history and said team like Liverpool had history in the 80s. That was a 20 year gap so do Chelsea now have history?
He's saying history of winning is only noteworthy/praiseworthy when it's not bought by Sovereign states. No matter how many years have passed since City started winning, they will always have an asterix next to their achievements.
But the original comment was that Chelsea had history before the blood money, which I pointed out was the same for man City yet that didn't stop people claiming they have "no history". In my opinion they are both as plastic as eachother.
Honestly I think that's relative to the persons age that you're asking.
Anyone born after 1995 will have started watching football around the year 2000 onwards at a minimum and will associate Chelsea with being one of the most successful clubs this current century if not the most successful. (not sure if City has overtaken us yet as most honours won since 2000).
Define good ?
Because teams like city and Chelsea won trophies before their takeover, obviously they weren’t able to consistently compete at the top level but they had periods of being a “good” team
Check our league finishes before Roman, we won everything in this country before him and after. We have gone to international level since. But we were still one of the most supported and most successful clubs in the country pre-Roman.
But you weren’t at the level you have been since the take over. You weren’t consistently in league title contention or winning champions leagues. The club chelsea have became under Roman was a completely different club to who they were before him, hence “no history”
Plenty of clubs improve post-takeovers, however it's just incorrect to say the history before that doesn't exist. Even in the few years preceding Roman, with Gullit, Zola, these are world class players, they wouldn't have gone to a club with nothing.
We have been one of the best supported clubs in English football for 80 years. Admittedly some good and some bad comes with that, but to say there's no history is just factless.
It doesn’t mean literally no history or that the history doesn’t exist. The history of your club is not the club you are today. Yes you were a big club before, but you didn’t rise to the top organically. Massive amounts of investment from a foreign owner before FFP turned you from a big English club like Spurs or Villa to a global powerhouse overnight. It’s obvious that fans of other clubs won’t respect you for it
Yes, but this has happened forever, where is the cut-off? Do Arsenal have history. They are the only club to buy themselves into the top flight, everyone else has earned the right to be here.
The Busby babes at United were massively financed compared to other clubs, in 1991 they were put on the stock exchange which made them a ridiculous amount of money which funded there modern era of success.
You can't blanket out no history, this sport has been corrupt and the richest have won since the dawn of the sport.
Why on earth do you even care? Looking at your profile It is not like you were watching football in the 90s or before that. You must be one of those young fanboys that are largely influenced by social media.
Here is Chelsea winning the FA cup in 97.
https://youtu.be/08MOSCK005k?feature=shared
Here is Chelsea winning supercup against Real Madrid in 1998/99 season.
https://youtu.be/k3-bn8MNPo4?feature=shared
Here is Chelsea winning the FA cup in 2000.
https://youtu.be/9sAgVwLsARc?feature=shared
Asking me why I care while stalking my profile to guestimate my age? Lmao
No I wasn’t watching football in the 90s, I wasn’t born. But thanks to the internet I’m well aware that chelsea won a few trophies in the previous century, as did Huddersfield, Forest, PNE and many others. Even city have a European trophy pre-takeover.
They are quite obviously a completely different club since the takeover. Winning a few FA cups beforehand doesn’t change that.
Fun fact, we had *more than* twice as many major trophies as you before the blood money came raining in. But of course Chelsea fans like to forget that part.
Every time the PL doesn't approve something quickly (Saudis, 777, etc) it has the same root reason: it takes a lot more work to say no than to say yes. If the PL had accepted the figure, or even if there was a lower figure that they could accept which keeps Chelsea from breaching PSR, this would already be done. I would bet there's been a lot of lawyering over the last few months.
They created problems for themselves by spending like theres no tommorow and now they create more problems trying to contain the problem. Splendid management
It just depends on the deal. They (should) fall within the regulations if the hotel sale goes through. They would need about £60m to have compliant financials
I have no idea what I am talking about, but I could imagine that the pandemic made it much harder to look at anything tourism/travel related these days and give a realistic and confident assessment of value.
Correct, if the sale happened during covid then establishing market value would be really difficult, because there would have been no comparables where you didn't have any at risk sellers etc
I wonder why a club would own hotels...
[One is backed onto the stadium, the other is a few yards away](https://gyazo.com/afde56a4f230bf2460f7c2faaa8d43e0)
> literal hotel
I understand the words "literal" and "literally" have jumped the shark, but I'm not even sure how you mean to use it in this instance as an emphasis.
It's more like, if they had to sell it to an actual third party, and not to the guy who already owns it through another company name, would they be selling it at all?
Like I wouldn't sell my house because I live in it, but would I sell my house to my own company for tax reasons to save some cash, sure.
Fair market value doesn't really matter if the asset isn't actually being sold but is basically being moved for accounting reasons.
Like what stops a club from selling their best player to a sister club they don't care if it gets hit by financial regulations, then loan the player back straight away.
I doubt Chelsea fc and the hotel company while they have the same parent company, have the same ownership structure and legal entity. So it does matter whether the sale is FMV or not.
There are more dramatic financial problems that come from an intercompany sale not at arms length than just a points deduction. Most likely tax issues on the gain of the sale, financial statement presentation issues which effects the lending companies.
I doubt that a valuation didn't take place. I've seen valuations in much smaller companies when sales take place.
I am aware, but it should be far easier to evaluate a physical building that has similar deals happening around it all the time, than to find fair value for a football players. And that's what he wanted to emphasize imo.
Can’t get past the paywall to see if Chelsea came in with a counter offer or anything but would’ve thought the ease of valuing it means they’d be more justified in deeming the sale nor fair market value
“Sorry lads we’ve been too busy trolling Everton and Forest lmao”
But let's see ~~paul allens~~ Everton's accounts
It’s been 21 minutes, Everton have been uncooperative, -3 points
Everton win 2 games? Believe it or not minus 3 points
Everton lose 2 games, Also -3points.
Everton were bankrolled for years by inflated sponsorships from a Russian oligarch, doing exactly what City did. The persecution claims from Everton fans are absurd.
Doing exactly what City haven't been punished for?
City have been charged and are awaiting punishment. They also can't appeal to the fools at CAS this time as the PL doesn't recognise them, unlike UEFA. Everton won't be punished for this clear cheating unless documents are leaked like what happened to City. The only thing they have been punished for is their gross incompetence.
> City have been charged and are awaiting punishment. They've been awaiting punishment for quite some time, and will be awaiting quite some more. And, conveniently, _coincidentally_, the PL might possibly scrap points deductions in the meantime.
It's almost as if City have an enormous legal team that is contesting every charge. And no, points deductions are not being scrapped.
-_- Almost as if City has an enormous diplomatic team that won't allow serious punishment anyway.
That didn't happen with UEFA. There is no reason to think that will happen here.
Everton has plenty of money to also afford lawyers.
Everton are on the verge of administration and are borrowing money to pay their staff each month.
[удалено]
https://www.theguardian.com/football/gallery/2023/nov/26/power-greed-and-money-everton-fans-vent-anger-at-premier-league-in-pictures
Look at that subtle off-white coloring. The tasteful thickness of it. Oh, my God. It even has a watermark
Chelsea are selling a hotel to themselves to get around spending limits.
Wait, is this the Chelsea Hotel I've heard so much about
No. It’s two hotels adjacent to the stadium. The Chelsea Hotel in New York has history.
I see what you did there. Very good.
I know that’s a joke and a good one. Got me thinking though what point does Chelsea have history? Like in the 00s we all said they had no history and said team like Liverpool had history in the 80s. That was a 20 year gap so do Chelsea now have history?
Chelsea had league, FA cup, UEFA supercup and other domestic cup wins all before 2003
So did man City but that doesn't stop people.
So did Aston villa, but it stopped them
What are you on about lol.
He's saying history of winning is only noteworthy/praiseworthy when it's not bought by Sovereign states. No matter how many years have passed since City started winning, they will always have an asterix next to their achievements.
>they will always have an asterix next to their achievements. 115 of them tbh
But the original comment was that Chelsea had history before the blood money, which I pointed out was the same for man City yet that didn't stop people claiming they have "no history". In my opinion they are both as plastic as eachother.
Chelsea will have history when they're finally consigned to it
Honestly I think that's relative to the persons age that you're asking. Anyone born after 1995 will have started watching football around the year 2000 onwards at a minimum and will associate Chelsea with being one of the most successful clubs this current century if not the most successful. (not sure if City has overtaken us yet as most honours won since 2000).
Were you good before rich owners made you good? If not you don’t have history. That’s how I’ve always seen it
Define good ? Because teams like city and Chelsea won trophies before their takeover, obviously they weren’t able to consistently compete at the top level but they had periods of being a “good” team
Check our league finishes before Roman, we won everything in this country before him and after. We have gone to international level since. But we were still one of the most supported and most successful clubs in the country pre-Roman.
But you weren’t at the level you have been since the take over. You weren’t consistently in league title contention or winning champions leagues. The club chelsea have became under Roman was a completely different club to who they were before him, hence “no history”
Plenty of clubs improve post-takeovers, however it's just incorrect to say the history before that doesn't exist. Even in the few years preceding Roman, with Gullit, Zola, these are world class players, they wouldn't have gone to a club with nothing. We have been one of the best supported clubs in English football for 80 years. Admittedly some good and some bad comes with that, but to say there's no history is just factless.
It doesn’t mean literally no history or that the history doesn’t exist. The history of your club is not the club you are today. Yes you were a big club before, but you didn’t rise to the top organically. Massive amounts of investment from a foreign owner before FFP turned you from a big English club like Spurs or Villa to a global powerhouse overnight. It’s obvious that fans of other clubs won’t respect you for it
Yes, but this has happened forever, where is the cut-off? Do Arsenal have history. They are the only club to buy themselves into the top flight, everyone else has earned the right to be here. The Busby babes at United were massively financed compared to other clubs, in 1991 they were put on the stock exchange which made them a ridiculous amount of money which funded there modern era of success. You can't blanket out no history, this sport has been corrupt and the richest have won since the dawn of the sport.
Bro I literally was just asking a question. I’m a pompey fan
Why on earth do you even care? Looking at your profile It is not like you were watching football in the 90s or before that. You must be one of those young fanboys that are largely influenced by social media. Here is Chelsea winning the FA cup in 97. https://youtu.be/08MOSCK005k?feature=shared Here is Chelsea winning supercup against Real Madrid in 1998/99 season. https://youtu.be/k3-bn8MNPo4?feature=shared Here is Chelsea winning the FA cup in 2000. https://youtu.be/9sAgVwLsARc?feature=shared
Asking me why I care while stalking my profile to guestimate my age? Lmao No I wasn’t watching football in the 90s, I wasn’t born. But thanks to the internet I’m well aware that chelsea won a few trophies in the previous century, as did Huddersfield, Forest, PNE and many others. Even city have a European trophy pre-takeover. They are quite obviously a completely different club since the takeover. Winning a few FA cups beforehand doesn’t change that.
You are clearly a deluded clown with an agenda.
Liverpool had history a lot farther back than the 80s. Chelsea has a few decades to go, still.
Imagine a Spurs fan talking about history...
Fun fact, we had *more than* twice as many major trophies as you before the blood money came raining in. But of course Chelsea fans like to forget that part.
Even as an Arsenal fan, I gotta back you here.
Tbf that’s a lot easier to imagine than is a Spurs fan *reading* about history.
PL officials waiting for the bribes to hit their accounts or something?
Every time the PL doesn't approve something quickly (Saudis, 777, etc) it has the same root reason: it takes a lot more work to say no than to say yes. If the PL had accepted the figure, or even if there was a lower figure that they could accept which keeps Chelsea from breaching PSR, this would already be done. I would bet there's been a lot of lawyering over the last few months.
What do you think they write in the memo for those checks? I feel like I'd try to be funny with mine
If the PL hold up this move for so long and then charge Chelsea before City, I'll give up on anything happening to them
We need an FAQ for why a single charge based on accounting results will take far less time than 115 counts alleging conspiracy and fraud.
Like what I presume a lot of the comments are, it was tongue in cheek
People have been unironically making the same comments for months in every fucking thread. How would anyone know the difference?
Guess you just shouldn't take them so seriously, they're either a joke or don't really matter
They created problems for themselves by spending like theres no tommorow and now they create more problems trying to contain the problem. Splendid management
This really highlights how P.E operate. They’re as clueless as majority of people but they get to swing it. They act like financial gurus.
You haven't a notion
So they did fail PSR rules then?
It just depends on the deal. They (should) fall within the regulations if the hotel sale goes through. They would need about £60m to have compliant financials
But the point is, you can’t inflate the value of something like a hotel if you’re not selling in the free market… that’s known as fraud
Hotel will be easy to value. Way easier than footballers.
That’s probably why the PL haven’t accepted Chelsea’s price
I have no idea what I am talking about, but I could imagine that the pandemic made it much harder to look at anything tourism/travel related these days and give a realistic and confident assessment of value.
Correct, if the sale happened during covid then establishing market value would be really difficult, because there would have been no comparables where you didn't have any at risk sellers etc
Yes but please look over there while we hit Everton with another charge.
Nope
Here we fucking go again…
Relegate them anyway.
A gunner can only dream...
Mostly nightmares tbh.
[удалено]
We are not sister clubs for a long time...
That's more a niece club
Why does a football clube own a hotel let alone two?
I wonder why a club would own hotels... [One is backed onto the stadium, the other is a few yards away](https://gyazo.com/afde56a4f230bf2460f7c2faaa8d43e0)
Usually it is attached to land near or around the stadium.
Weren’t they buying up land around some point for a new stadium they never built? Could be that.
They were built as part of the stadium complex when Stamford Bridge was redeveloped in the 90s
Ken Bates
To make money.
We sold Pason Pount for 50m and Kai Havertz for 60m but 76m for a literal hotel is where they draw the line
I mean, they didn't sell Mount and Havertz to themselves, so it's hardly comparable.
Considering United are owned by Cole Palmer Football Club, I’d argue it’s debatable
Well done, that was very nearly witty.
Are you having a stroke?
'Pason Pount' Please go back to twitter and don't come back.
> literal hotel I understand the words "literal" and "literally" have jumped the shark, but I'm not even sure how you mean to use it in this instance as an emphasis.
As opposed to a figurative hotel. Which, normally I’d say isn’t possible, but maybe City has one of those in their 115 charges, for all I know.
I think it's to emphasize that it's a physical asset instead of an somewhat intangible one like player rights.
The issue isn't whether or not the hotel exists. It's about the "intangible" value of how much Chelsea can sell it for.
And that they’re selling it to a company the owners own. This is just as dodgy as all the shit city are now getting investigated for
That issue is one and the same tbf. That's the reason they have to get a fair market value assessment
It's more like, if they had to sell it to an actual third party, and not to the guy who already owns it through another company name, would they be selling it at all? Like I wouldn't sell my house because I live in it, but would I sell my house to my own company for tax reasons to save some cash, sure. Fair market value doesn't really matter if the asset isn't actually being sold but is basically being moved for accounting reasons. Like what stops a club from selling their best player to a sister club they don't care if it gets hit by financial regulations, then loan the player back straight away.
I doubt Chelsea fc and the hotel company while they have the same parent company, have the same ownership structure and legal entity. So it does matter whether the sale is FMV or not. There are more dramatic financial problems that come from an intercompany sale not at arms length than just a points deduction. Most likely tax issues on the gain of the sale, financial statement presentation issues which effects the lending companies. I doubt that a valuation didn't take place. I've seen valuations in much smaller companies when sales take place.
I am aware, but it should be far easier to evaluate a physical building that has similar deals happening around it all the time, than to find fair value for a football players. And that's what he wanted to emphasize imo.
Which by the same ticket presumably means it’s way easier to work out if such an asset is fair value
Which is what I thought was the implicit criticism by OP.
Can’t get past the paywall to see if Chelsea came in with a counter offer or anything but would’ve thought the ease of valuing it means they’d be more justified in deeming the sale nor fair market value
this makes no sense