[Football] Chelsea avoid failing FFP via loop hole

[trueblue]

I heard Chelsea were planning on flipping their hotel complex back to the club for a cheap fee (allegedly), so they can sell it again when the shit hits the fan in the next couple of years. It stinks but is quite clever if they're allowed to keep selling assets to and from different parts of the 'business' to get around FFP.

Asked El Presidente about this previously on here. He said this is a one time deal that can't be repeated.

 

[Wardy's twin]

It wil be interesting to know Barber’s thoughts on this. Anyone dare to ask him and summarize on here?

As a club with a smallish match day income I would have thought that we would be in favour of the rules to allow us to compete better.

 

[Triggaaar]

If it’s not in the rules is it cheating? If Bloom found a loophole somewhere most on here would be calling him a genius.

We accept that there is a loophole that Chelsea used. What we want is for the loophole to be closed to stop other teams, including us, from using it. Eg, Tony could sell our women's team, but Chelsea can't as they already have.

 

[TomandJerry]

Instead of going round loop holes in the current legislation, why don't the clubs vote out PSR completely?

Seeing as there was little appetite to close them

 

[Milano]

Instead of going round loop holes in the current legislation, why don't the clubs vote out PSR completely?

Seeing as there was little appetite to close them

Because if PSR were to go then the old established 'top' clubs cartel could be properly broken up. City and Newcastle could buy 10 x £100m players in one window. Or so could Forest, or even Leeds. The established 'top' EPL clubs definitely don't want that, especially the ones with US owners.

 

[TomandJerry]

Because if PSR were to go then the old established 'top' clubs cartel could be properly broken up. City and Newcastle could buy 10 x £100m players in one window. Or so could Forest, or even Leeds. The established 'top' EPL clubs definitely don't want that, especially the ones with US owners.

But there seems to be loop holes clubs can jump through to get round PSR, so what's the point in keeping it?

It's like using swiss cheese to stop water flowing

 

[rippleman]

I agree with the sentiment but for ‘the league’ just read ‘the clubs’. That’s all the league is. The clubs make the rules. Seems that’s where the problem is with this as Chelsea will have ‘got away with it’ and enjoyed a massive advantage if others can’t exploit the same ridiculous loophole. Maybe they could have proposed a relaxation of PSR for all clubs of the same amount Chelsea have wangled AND banned future deals of that type?

But what is the point of making rules that there is no intention to ever enforce? Chelsea can only be getting away with this because the other members of the EPL club have done it / are doing it / think they might like to do it in the future. If that were not the case, the other 18 EPL clubs would be all over heavy punishment for the serial cheats Chelsea & Man City shirley?

 

[rippleman]

I heard Chelsea were planning on flipping their hotel complex back to the club for a cheap fee (allegedly), so they can sell it again when the shit hits the fan in the next couple of years. It stinks but is quite clever if they're allowed to keep selling assets to and from different parts of the 'business' to get around FFP.

Not sure this would work from a tax standpoint.

If you dispose of an asset to a "connected party" for less than its "open market value" (OMV), for Capital Gains Tax purposes, HMRC would substitute the OMV for the sale price. Therefore, the seller would be paying CGT on money they won't actually ever receive. Which is nice.

 

[Wardy's twin]

Instead of going round loop holes in the current legislation, why don't the clubs vote out PSR completely?

Seeing as there was little appetite to close them

it's not just a PL thing is it?

 

[SAC]

I'd be surprised if we didn't vote to close the loophole

Firstly, why would you be surprised? If (as others have already pointed out) TB has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of Chelsea's overspending.
Secondly, apparently there was so little interest it didn't go to a vote.