All Activity

The new Rolex Perpetual 1908 https://www.rolex.com/watches/1908/m52506-0002

still unbeaten this (below) is likely their hardest game left (the 2nd hardest will probably be Roma away in the EL semis, and 3rd would be Atalanta in the EL final, they play all meh (other than Dortmund and their 4th hardest game, home to Stuttgart) teams the rest of the Bundesliga season and then 1. FCK in the Pokal final, who they should crush): I can see Dortmund (with that psycho 82,000 strong Yellow Wall crowd powering them), upsetting them but I would say Leverkusen are marginal favourites there I am deffo watching that game I would love to see Dortmund win the CL I just wish they would ditch those HORRID cup kits and wear their regular ones bleeeeeeeeeeech, they remind me of those shit Arse bruised banana monstrosities (the originals were worse than the redo's) these from a couple years ago were so much better

monster data dump! Chelsea Finances 2022/23 We Live So Fast https://swissramble.substack.com/p/Chelsea-finances-202223 Chelsea’s 2022/23 accounts covered a disappointing season, as they slipped from third place to 12th in the Premier League, thus failing to qualify for Europe for the first time since 2015/16. The Blues also crashed out of both the FA Cup and EFL Cup in the third round, though they did reach the Champions League quarter-finals before being eliminated by Real Madrid. The poor results on the pitch led to the dismissal of head coach Thomas Tuchel in September 2022, when he was replaced by Graham Potter. However, the Englishman was shown the door after only seven months, succeeded by his former assistant Bruno Saltor for one game, before the caretaker made way for the return of the prodigal son in the shape of Frank Lampard. Ownership In May 2022 a consortium led by American businessman Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital acquired Chelsea for £2.5 bln (plus £1.75 bln infrastructure commitment), following Roman Abramovich’s decision to sell the club as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Accordingly, 2022/23 was the first full season completed under the new ownership. Profit/(Loss) 2022/23 Chelsea’s pre-tax loss reduced from £121m to £90m, mainly thanks to £107m once-off accounting entries, including the sale of hotel buildings to another group company for £77m and £31m other operating income. Revenue rose by £31m (6%) from £481m to a club record £512m, breaking through the half billion pound barrier for the first time, though this was wiped out by a £37m (5%) increase in operating expenses to £761m. The loss would have been even higher without the benefit of £63m profit from player sales, though this was only around half of the previous season’s £123m. However, net interest payable was up from £2m to £12m. The higher revenue was largely driven by commercial increasing £33m (19%) from £177m to £210m, while match day was also up £7m (11%) from £69m to £76m. Both of these established new club records. This was partly due to Chelsea being able to operate without the government restrictions placed on the club in the prior year. However, broadcasting fell £9m (4%) from £235m to £226m, mainly because of the worse performance in the Premier League. Investment in the squad led to significant increases in both wages, up £64m (19%) from £340m to £404m, and player amortisation, up £43m (27%) from £160m to £203m. In addition, other expenses increased £25m (22%) to £139m. However, there was no repeat of a couple of substantial once-off costs in the previous season: £77m player impairment and £18m legal fees. In other words, the underlying year-on-year increase was even higher than reported at £132m (21%). Chelsea’s £90m pre-tax loss is not great, but two clubs in the Premier League did even worse last season, namely Aston Villa £120m and Tottenham £95m. Many other clubs also posted large losses, including Leicester City £90m, Everton £89m and Southampton £87m. On the other hand, a few clubs did manage to generate a profit, most notably Brighton £133m and Manchester City £80m. Bournemouth also reported a £44m profit, though this would have been a £27m loss without the benefit of a £71m owner loan write-off. Player Sales 2022/23 Chelsea made £63m profit from player sales, which by most standards is pretty good, but is only around half of the previous season’s £123m. In the summer of 2022 they sold Timo Werner to RB Leipzig, Emerson to West Ham and Billy Gilmour to Brighton, followed by Jorginho to Arsenal in the January transfer window. A number of big deals were also agreed just before the end of June 2023, namely Kai Havertz to Arsenal, Mateo Kovacic to Manchester City, Kalidou Koulibaly to Al-Hilal and Ruben Loftus-Cheek to Milan. Given that all of these sales were included in the 2022/23 accounts, the £63m profit is perhaps lower than might have been anticipated by some. Nevertheless, this was still one of the largest gains in the Premier League last season, though only around half of Manchester City £122m and Brighton £121m. Profit/(Loss) Trend Chelsea have now lost money in four of the last five years, adding up to a hefty £434m, including three losses over £100m in this period. The good news is that losses have reduced two years in a row, albeit from a chunky £156m in 2020/21. In fairness, like all clubs Chelsea were adversely impacted by COVID. I estimate their revenue loss as £128m, split between £32m in 2019/20 and £96m in 2020/21. Most of this was match day £76m plus £36m commercial and £16m broadcasting. In addition, Chelsea’s results were impacted by the sanctions placed on Abramovich from 10th March to 30th May 2022 (when the club’s sale was completed). During this period, the club was restricted in “its ability to sell match day and season tickets, sell merchandise, accept event bookings, as well as sign contracts with players and commercial sponsorship partners.” That said, Chelsea are no strangers to posting large losses, being responsible for two of the four highest losses ever reported in the Premier League (and five of the top 20). Last season’s £90m deficit just sneaks into this list. In fact, over the last five years, Chelsea’s £434m loss is the second worst in the top flight, only “beaten” by Everton’s £506m in this period. To be fair, only four clubs managed to make money, namely Brentford, Brighton, Manchester City and Wolves, but Chelsea’s loss was much higher than every other club – with the unfortunate exception of Everton. Exceptional Items In recent years Chelsea have often been adversely impacted by exceptional charges, including management changes, legal matters and early termination of the shirt sponsorship. However, it was very different this year, as the bottom line benefited from £107m of exceptional credits, especially a £77m gain from selling hotels on the Stamford Bridge site to another group company, Blueco 22 Properties Ltd. In addition, other operating income included £31m, made up of £17m litigation costs recharged to the parent company, £12.5m for an unexplained “settlement fee” and £1m research and development credit. Interestingly, the club opted not to classify an estimated £46m for last season’s management changes as exceptional items, but instead include these in wages. These covered: Tuchel pay-off £10m Compensation paid to Brighton for Potter and his support team £23m Potter pay-off £13m The only other Premier League club that reported anything like Chelsea’s £77m exceptional items last season was Bournemouth, who booked a £71m credit for the write-off of a loan from a former owner. Chelsea’s £31m was also the highest other operating income in the top flight with the only other club in double digits being Brighton with £25m. That was also very largely driven by Chelsea, as it was almost entirely made up of the compensation for poaching Potter. Player Sales Trend Chelsea’s business model has been far more reliant on player sales than any other major English club, so they generated more than half a billion pounds in the last six years, including good money from Academy graduates, who represent pure profit in the books. This included no fewer than three years when they generated more than £100m. To place this into perspective, Chelsea’s £530m profit from player sales in this period was around £150m more than the next highest club in the Premier League, namely Manchester City £376m. However, the accounts state that Chelsea have only made £48m to date this season from the disposal of the registrations of 10 players. This has presumably come from Mason Mount to Manchester United, Christian Pulisic to Milan, Edouard Mendy to Al-Hilal, Ethan Ampadu to Leeds United and Callum Hudson-Odoi to Nottingham Forest. The figure probably excludes Lewis Hall’s loan to Newcastle United with an option to buy. This is again probably less profit than fans might expect, once again highlighting that transfer fees in the media should be treated with a degree of caution. A few players left on free transfers, such as Aubameyang, Kanté, Azpilicueta and Bakayako, thus producing no profit from the sales, but helping to reduce the wage bill. Of course, there is still time for Chelsea to boost their player sales, but these would have to be registered by 30th June for them to be included in the 2023/24 accounts. Whether the Blues can realise decent fees is debatable, as other clubs will be well aware of the club’s PSR issues, so will use this to their advantage and look to pick up players for low fees. It might also be difficult to match the wages paid by a leading club, so players might be unwilling to leave. Operating Profit/(Loss) If we exclude the significant exceptional items, player sales and interest payable, Chelsea’s operating loss further widened from £224m to £249m, which means that this has worsened three years in succession. The club’s business model has essentially been to offset large operating losses with profits from player sales, so this is not overly surprising, but there’s not much good to say about an operating loss of a quarter of a billion pounds. This means that they have lost nearly £900m from day-to-day business in the last five years, which takes some doing. In fairness, very few clubs make an operating profit, but Chelsea’s £249m loss was comfortably the worst in the Premier League last season, nearly £100m more than the next highest, Leicester City £151m. In fact, Chelsea’s £249m operating loss last season is the highest ever recorded in England’s top flight, though they have actually produced three of the top four. The only club close to this level of performance has been Manchester City. Revenue Chelsea’s £512m revenue is the club’s highest ever, £66m (15%) more than the £447m pre-pandemic peak in 2019. The growth since then has been led by commercial £30m and broadcasting £26m, though match day is also up £10m. Both commercial and match day set new club records last season, but broadcasting remains Chelsea’s most important revenue stream, accounting for 44% of total revenue. Commercial is just behind with 41%, while match day is only 15%. Chelsea’s £66m revenue growth in the past four years compares favourably with most of the Big Six, only significantly outpaced by Manchester City’s £178m. One point worth noting is the difference in fortunes between Chelsea and Tottenham in the course of the last decade: the Blues were £139m ahead of their North London rivals in 2014, but were £37m behind last season, i.e. a massive swing of £176m. As a result, Chelsea’s £512m revenue is now the fifth highest in the Premier League, having been overtaken by Spurs. Furthermore there is a sizeable gap to the top three clubs: Manchester City lead the way with £713m, followed by Manchester United £648m and Liverpool £594m. Chelsea dropped one place to 9th place in the Deloitte Money League, which ranks clubs globally by revenue. That’s not too shabby, though they were as high as 5th in 2011/12. Broadcasting Revenue Chelsea’s broadcasting revenue fell £9m (4%) from £235m to £226m, mainly because of the worse performance in the Premier League, though the previous season also benefited from winning both the UEFA Super Cup and the FIFA Club World Cup. Despite the reduction, Chelsea’s £226m broadcasting income remained the third highest in England, only behind treble winners Manchester City £299m and Liverpool £242m. The impact of European qualification is evident. Chelsea received £138m from Premier League central TV distribution, which was £8m lower than prior year, as they finished nine places lower (12th vs. 3rd), which meant a reduced merit payment. The decrease was partially offset by the favourable impact of the new 3-year cycle. Europe TV Chelsea earned €96m for reaching the Champions League quarter-finals, which was €4m higher than the €92m they received the previous season for getting to the same stage. Success on the pitch is most visible financially with TV money, so Manchester City earned €135m for winning the Champions League, i.e. €39m more than Chelsea. The difference in earnings between Europe’s leading tournament and the other competitions is stark. As an example, England’s Champions League representatives averaged €95m, which was over three times as much as €29m in the Europa League, and four times the €22m in the Europa Conference. Chelsea’s record in Europe was very impressive in the Abramovich era, as they won both the Champions League and Europa League twice. Their victory against Manchester City in the 2020/21 Champions League final was worth €120m on its own. In fact, Chelsea have earned half a billion Euros from Europe in the last six years, though this was still a fair way behind Manchester City €615m and Liverpool €564m. On the other hand, this was a lot higher than Manchester United €355m, Tottenham €322m and especially Arsenal €150m. Chelsea’s failure to qualify for Europe this season will obviously hurt them, leading to an immediate decrease of €96m TV money plus lower gate receipts and contractual reductions in sponsorships. Commercial Revenue Chelsea’s commercial revenue rose £33m (19%) from £177m to £210m, which was a new high for the club, driven by strong sales of non-match day activities including stadium tours, as governments restrictions were lifted, plus a net increase in sponsorships. It’s possible that this category also includes player loans income, e.g. Lukaku to Inter, Batshuayi to Fenerbahce and Sarr to Monaco. However, Chelsea’s £31m commercial revenue growth in the last four years is one of the smallest in the Big Six, only (slightly) ahead of Manchester United. Others had much higher increases, e.g. Manchester City £114m, Tottenham £93m, Liverpool £84m and Arsenal £58m. As a result, Chelsea’s £210m commercial revenue has been overtaken by Tottenham £228m, while they are miles behind the top three clubs: Manchester City £341m, Manchester United £303m and Liverpool £273m. This will surely be an area of focus for Chelsea’s new owners, who will hope to bring US expertise to the commercial operations. Chelsea have a long-term kit deal with Nike £60m (£900m over 15 years), but the Three UK £40m shirt sponsorship expired in June 2023, belatedly replaced by Infinite Athlete. In addition, Whale Fin did not renew their £20m sleeve sponsorship at the end of last season, succeeded by BingX, but only from January 2024. Chelsea will be seeking more lucrative deals, e.g. there was talk of a £60m shirt sponsorship with Riyadh Air, but that might prove difficult without more success on the pitch. Match Day Revenue Chelsea’s match day income rose £7m (11%) from £69m to a club record £76m, just above the previous £74m peak in 2017/18. This was helped by the removal of government restrictions and an increase in attendances. In 2020/21 all games were played behind closed doors (except three with severely restricted capacity). Chelsea’s match day income has only increased by £6m over the last decade, while other clubs have invested in stadium development, leading to significant growth, especially Tottenham (up £77m), Liverpool (up £35m) and Manchester City (up £32m). This is Chelsea’s Achilles heel in terms of revenue, as their £76m is far below some of their rivals, especially Manchester United, Tottenham and Arsenal, who all generate well over £100m. However, the club does benefit from steep London prices, as their cheapest season tickets are the third highest in the Premier League, only less than Arsenal and Tottenham. Chelsea’s average attendance increased from 37,698 to 40,002, but this was only the ninth highest in England (and fourth best in London). Seven clubs regularly attract crowds above 50,000, while Manchester United’s 73,671 is over 30,000 more than the Blues. Chelsea have frozen ticket prices since 2011/12 – with the exception of the more exclusive areas of the upgraded West Stand. The club said that this meant that prices had fallen in real terms by around a third. However, there has been talk of a price increase for 2024/25, which the Supporters Trust said “could lead to irreversible toxicity”. Stadium The relatively low match day income helps explain why the club is considering a new stadium. Plans had been well advanced under Abramovich before the development was put on hold after his political difficulties started. There is no doubt that stadium development at Stamford Bridge is extremely challenging, because of its location, close to a railway line, the Tube, a cemetery and an underground river. The cost has been estimated as between £1.5 bln and £2 bln, though this should be covered by the infrastructure expenditure that the new owners committed when they acquired the club. Chelsea fans should probably not hold their breath, however, as the club is unlikely to “break ground” in any development for a while. Wages Chelsea’s wage bill shot up £64m (19%) from £340m to £404m, easily a new high for the club, after the net increase arising from the numerous player purchases and sales (plus contract extensions). That said, it was inflated by the inclusion of last season’s management changes, which the club has previously classified as exceptional items. I estimate this cost them £46m, covering pay-offs to Tuchel and Potter plus compensation paid to Brighton for Potter and his support team. If this were excluded, wages would still have increased year-on-year by £18m (5%) from £340m to £358m. Based on the reported figure, Chelsea’s wages have increased by £118m (41%) in the last four years, which is the highest growth of the Big Six, even more than Manchester City’s £108m. Last season Chelsea’s £404m wage bill was only below Manchester City’s £423m, but their rivals’ figure included hefty bonuses for winning the treble. This was higher than Liverpool £373m, Manchester United £331m and especially Tottenham £251m and Arsenal £235m. In fact, Chelsea’s £404m wages are the second highest ever in the Premier League, while they have had three of the top ten – all with wage bills in the last three seasons. They are only the second English club to break through the £400m barrier. Chelsea’s wages to turnover ratio increased from 71% to 79%, the club’s highest since 2010. However, if the once-off management changes are excluded, this would fall to 70%, which is more in line with the usual level. Either way, this is by far the worst of the Big Six, with Liverpool being the next highest at 63%. Others have much better ratios, such as Arsenal 51%, Manchester United 51% and especially Tottenham 46%. Clearlake’s co-founder José Feliciano told a private equity conference last year that the club needed to cut costs, “I think what we are trying to do is reduce the salary and the operational expenses of the business by over $100m per year.” Clearly, that has yet to come to pass, though wages should have come down this season, as there would have been lower bonus payments due to no European football, while a few expensive players have been offloaded. Directors’ Remuneration Chelsea’s highest paid director only received £286k, which was one of the lowest in the Premier League, miles below the likes of Daniel Levy at Tottenham £6.6m, Denise Barrett-Baxendale at Everton £3.3m, Paul Barber at Brighton £2.9m and Richard Arnold £2.6m at Manchester United. However, it’s possible that payments were made by other group companies, as was the case the previous season when Blueco 22 Limited paid £50m to former directors for services relating to the sale of the club (£35m to Marina Granovskaia, who acted as Abramovich’s lieutenant for many years, and £15m to others, including former chairman Bruce Buck). Player Amortisation Following the significant investment in the squad, Chelsea’s player amortisation, the annual charge to expense transfer fees over the length of a player’s contract, inevitably shot up £43m (27%) from £160m to £203m, which easily broke the previous club record of £168m four years ago. As a result, Chelsea’s £203m player amortisation is by far the highest in the Premier League, a long way above Manchester United £170m and Manchester City £145m, reflecting the club’s enormous transfer expenditure. In fact, Chelsea’s £203m player amortisation last season is the highest ever reported in the Premier League. They actually have four of the five highest, which is pretty clear evidence of their spendthrift transfer policy. Of course, player amortisation will further increase in 2023/24, following another huge outlay this season, exacerbated by the full year impact of purchases in the January 2023 transfer window. Incredibly, Chelsea’s player amortisation would have been even higher if they had not signed many players on incredibly long contracts. For example, Mykhailo Mudryk is on an 8½-year deal, while central defenders Benoit Badiashile and Wesley Fofana signed for 7½ years and 7 years respectively. This has the benefit of spreading the cost of the transfer over more years, thereby reducing the annual expense booked to the profit and loss account and considered for the PSR calculation. If the player works out, then this will prove to be an astute piece of business. However, it also carries significant risk, as Chelsea could be saddled with an under-performing player on high wages, who might prove difficult to move on. Since then, the Premier League has agreed a new rule to limit the amortisation period to five years for the purpose of the PSR calculation, in line with UEFA. However, this change was not backdated to include transfers that had already been signed, so Chelsea will still benefit from their fancy financial footwork. Player Impairment In addition, Chelsea booked £77m player impairment in the prior year, which had the benefit of reducing amortisation going forward (as well as being a pretty good indicator of poor recruitment). To highlight just how large this charge really was, it is by far the highest player impairment ever booked in England, way ahead of Stoke City’s £43m in 2019/20. Wages & Player Amortisation Many clubs look at wages and player amortisation combined to give the annual cost of squad investment. Indeed, this is likely to be the basis of the Premier League’s new squad cost control ratio. Per this metric, Chelsea’s annual squad cost increased by over £100m (21%) last season from £501m to £607m. This is the highest in the Premier League, even ahead of Manchester City’s £568m, but without anything like the same level of success. Other Expenses Chelsea’s other expenses rose £24m (22%) from £115m to £139m, yet another club high for a cost category, though still a fair bit lower than the two Manchester clubs and Tottenham. Transfers Chelsea splashed out an incredible £745m on player purchases in 2022/23, which was the highest by some distance in the Premier League, more than the next three clubs combined (Arsenal £251m, Manchester United £247m and Manchester City £221m). In the summer of 2022, they brought in Wesley Fofana from Leicester City, Marc Cucurella from Brighton, Raheem Sterling from Manchester City, Kalidou Koulibaly from Napoli, Carney Chukwuemeka from Aston Villa and Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang from Barcelona. The spending did not stop there with more arrivals in the January 2023 window, including Enzo Fernandez from Benfica, Mykhaylo Mudryk from Shakhtar Donetsk, Benoit Badiashile from Monaco, Noni Madueke from PSV Eindhoven, Malo Gusto from Lyon, Andrey Santos from Vasco da Gama, Cesare Casadei from Inter and David Fofana from Molde. Chelsea’s £745m gross spend last season is easily an all-time high for the Premier League, over twice as much as Manchester City’s £328m in 2017/18. Of course, the Blues are no strangers to splashing the cash, being responsible for three of the top four annual transfer outlays. To a certain extent, it could be argued that Chelsea were playing catch-up, as their expenditure in the transfer market was “relatively” restrained in the three preceding seasons, averaging £144m, only around half the £285m in the previous 2-year period. That said, their £1.2 bln outlay over the last four years has easily outpaced their domestic rivals, being at least £400m higher with Manchester City spending £744m, Arsenal £736m and Manchester United £698m. For more context, it was more than three times as much as Liverpool’s £368m. Of course, Chelsea have continued to invest in their squad this season with the accounts stating that they have spent another £454m, bringing the total outlay since Boehly’s consortium arrived to a staggering £1.2 bln in less than two seasons. The new signings include (deep breath) Moisés Caicedo and Robert Sanchez from Brighton, Roméo Lavia from Southampton, Christopher Nkunku from RB Leipzig, Cole Palmer from Manchester City, Axel Disasi from Monaco, Nicolas Jackson from Villarreal, Lesley Ugochukwo from Rennes, Deivid Washington and Angelo from Santos and Djordje Petrovic from New England Revolution. That’s a full football team on its own, but most supporters would agree that only Palmer has been an unqualified success to date. Agent Fees Chelsea also sit at the top of the table in terms of agent fees, spending £75m in the 12 months between 1st February 2023 and 1st February 2024, ahead of Manchester City £61m and Manchester United £34m. In fact, this was a new record for the Premier League. Squad Cost Chelsea’s squad cost, based on amounts paid per the club’s balance sheet (as opposed to market value), increased from £918m to £1.1 bln. They are the second English club to break through the billion pound barrier, though they were still slightly below Manchester City. That is likely to change this season after the £454m player purchases. Debt Chelsea’s gross financial debt increased from zero to £146m, all owed to the parent undertaking. This is slightly strange, as the cash flow statement references £428.5m proceeds from borrowings, while nothing is mentioned in the Related Parties note. There were many media reports last September about Chelsea reaching an agreement with US investment firm Ares Management for a similar amount to the figure in the cash flow statement, so that seems to make sense. Some described this as similar to the infamous Payment In Kind (PIK) loan notes used by the Glazers when they acquired Manchester United. These are high interest, but payments are usually deferred until the loan matures. Abramovich had regularly provided cash injections to Chelsea during his tenure, putting in over £1.5 bln, resulting in the highest debt in the Premier League. However, this was written-off as part of the club sale. Based on the £146m in the balance sheet, Chelsea’s debt is far below the likes of Tottenham £851m (to fund their new stadium), Everton £792m (stadium and transfer spend) and Manchester United £636m (the lingering impact of the Glazers’ leveraged buy-out). As a result, Chelsea did not pay any interest last season, but received £0.6m interest. This as in contrast to some other clubs that had to make substantial annual payments, e.g. Manchester United £31m, Tottenham £25m and Everton £23m. Transfer Debt Chelsea don’t separately report transfer debt, but assuming that this represents 90% of Trade Creditors, it massively increased from £137m to £479m. This is obviously a modeled number, but the club did attribute the significant increase in creditors to “the amounts owed in relation to player trading”. On this basis, Chelsea’s transfer debt is the highest the Premier League, though many clubs have significantly increased purchases on credit in the past few years. so huge amounts were also owed by Tottenham £307m, Manchester United £277m, Arsenal £240m and Manchester City £204m. Cash Flow Chelsea’s £218m operating loss (including exceptional items) swung to £173m positive operating cash flow, after adding back £218m non-cash items (player amortisation and depreciation) plus £174m working capital movements. This was boosted by £203m from player sales before spending a huge £748m on player purchases and investing £21m in infrastructure. The resulting cash outflow was £392m, which was fully funded by net £426m from loans, though the source was not specified. As a result, Chelsea’s cash balance rose £34m from £54m to £88m, one of the highest in the top flight, though still a fair way below Tottenham’s £198m. Profitability and Sustainability Regulations (PSR) Chelsea stated that the club has complied with Premier League and UEFA financial regulations “since their inception in 2012 and expects to do so for the foreseeable future.” They added, “The football club continues to balance success on the field together with the financial imperatives of complying with UEFA and Premier League regulations.” My model suggests that they were well over the maximum £105m loss for the 3-year monitoring period up to 2022/23, even after considering allowable deductions for “healthy” expenditure, such as infrastructure, academy, community and women’s football, plus losses caused by COVID. However, they were saved by the sale of the hotels on the Stamford Bridge site to another group company for a £76.5m profit, leading to them (just) complying with PSR. Such property sales have been used in the past by a number of Championship clubs to help meet PSR targets, including Derby County, Sheffield Wednesday and Aston Villa. The EFL subsequently closed this loophole, but this is apparently not the case in the Premier League. Indeed, Chelsea have claimed that their approach was discussed in advance with the PL. The big question now is whether Chelsea will comply with PSR this season. Based on my estimate for Chelsea’s cumulative PSR loss for the two years up to 2022/23 of £141m (even after the hotel sale), they would have to somehow generate a PSR profit of £36m this season to meet the target. Assuming that allowable deductions remain at £35m, this means that they would basically have to break-even in the accounts. That seems a tall order, given that revenue will be much lower due to not playing in Europe, while profit from player sales is currently also less than 2022/23 The wage bill should fall, but player amortisation (and possibly impairment) will increase. The expectation is that Chelsea will address this with player sales before the end of June, especially Academy products such as Conor Gallagher, Reece James, Armando Broja, Ian Maatsen and Trevor Chalobah. There are two other possibilities: Chelsea pull another rabbit out of the hat with more property sales, though a stadium disposal might be prevented by the Chelsea Pitch Owners, as they own the Stamford bridge freehold. The club might argue that further adjustments to the PSR calculation should be made to take into consideration: Revenue lost when sanctions were applied by the government Exceptional player impairment (as claimed by Everton) Lost player sales, due to the transfer market being deflated by COVID and the economic sanctions preventing deals being made. UEFA Financial Sustainability Rules If Chelsea do manage to qualify for Europe, they would also have to comply with UEFA’s regulations, but the good news is that these are less strict than the former regime, as the maximum allowable loss has doubled from €30m to €60m (potentially as much as €90m if a club is deemed to be in good financial health). UEFA have also introduced squad cost control via a new ratio of player wages, transfers and agent fees that will be limited to 70% of revenue & profit on player sales, though there is a gradual implementation over 3 seasons (90% in 2023, 80% in 2024 and 70% from 2025), giving clubs time to get their house in order. Based on my calculations, Chelsea’s ratio was 86% in 2022/23, which suggests that this will also be something of a challenge. This will also be the basis of the Premier League’s new PSR, so will have to be an area of focus for the club’s owners, especially as property sales are excluded from this calculation. Legal Matters Chelsea self-reported some issues related to historical transfer payments that they discovered during the takeover. The resultant Premier League investigation could lead to “future liabilities that cannot be quantified”. Conclusion Not only did Chelsea report another significant loss of £90m, but it would have been even worse without around £100m of once-off adjustments, including £77m from the hotel sale. It’s one thing applying a series of accounting “tricks” to satisfy Profitability and Sustainability Regulations, but the reality is that this is a pretty awful set of financial results, notwithstanding the record revenue. Chelsea fans will probably not care too much about the balance sheet, so long as the owners continue to provide financial support, but they will be concerned that the massive investment in new players has so far produced little success on the pitch.

Agree on balance. It's hard for us to find it. When we are good defensively we are bad in offense. And opposite...

Indeed, but it's all about the balance. Defense is not the defense line alone. If Mudryk does not jump for the ball on the edge of box and we end up conceding, it counts against D. If Caidedo passes the ball straight to the opposition, it counts against D as well. That's why while I'm never opposed to upgrading on the manager, that alone will only buy us so much.

That's unrealistic because of Dortmund but what about Italy? They secured 5 spots tonight. And Roma and Atalanta still in EL semis. 5th and 6th on table in Seria A so one of them can finish 6th and win EL.

Man City given hands-off warning. Bayern Munich determined to keep Jamal Musiala amid rumours of huge summer move Jamal Musiala is reportedly not for sale this summer and Bayern Munich 'won't consider any offers' for the youngster amid Manchester City links. https://www.goal.com/en/lists/man-city-warning-bayern-munich-keep-jamal-musiala-rumours-huge-summer-move/blt8681d71720a5188a

Yup we need another Ballack or Terry and quickly. To be fair to Connor, thought he did OK and had a good game. What he lacks in top quality skill, he makes up for (IMHO) with sheer grit, determination and leaves nothing on the pitch. He could step up, if the manager backed him to be like Terry or Ballack. He has the mentality, just needs the confidence.

I was gonna say, "Surely there aren't separate rules for PK's." You learn something new every day. I wonder if they tally up, so he could be close to a tournament suspension.

New defence along with a new coach for sure

Would be so incredible if we could get him home but we all know Boehly and the owners prefer some random young player over a top class talent.

Tbh we scored most goals since 16/17 season. Already 23 more than last season with 7 games to play. Fixing defense must be priority.

Apparently they do. The yellow does not carry over to the shoot out

Our fans with X platform should spam Boehly about Musiala. It worked with Enzo and he likes to make our fans happy 😊

It's crazy how about every manager is created mythical status just because of longevity in some club. Almost 9 years there one CL and one PL. We won the same in this period. Tuchel won CL in like 18 months here. Conte PL in first season after we finished 10th. Question is how much would they won if they stayed here for that long like Klopp? So why is there narrative like Klopp is some sort of God? Pathetic stuff if you ask me... Same argument can be used for Pep vs Mancini or Pellegrini. They had like 2 or 3 attempts in CL? Pep had 7.

Leverkusen does it again. We are always bringing joy to Liverpool. Talking about the quad should have resulted in nothing. Villa are the only English team remaining in Europe. It is unfortunate that the rest of the league decided to underperform this year out of any. He is a real wind up. No idea how he remained on the pitch, as he was clearly given a second yellow. I don't believe the rules change during a shootout...

Atalanta are class , they were never gonna choke to Flopp

Surprised at that results considering. Oh well....less of a farewell tour atm..

As predicted villa the only English team left and 5cl spots gone for PL

Loserpool and Jurgen flopp thought the treble was back on after they got an early pen hahahahaha 😂

If Leverkusen were to lose 1-0 on the night , would their unbeaten season be over?

Zappacosta emulating Palmer there, running the dippers ragged

Bowen is totally off it. 2 clear chances fluffed

The ref is giving wham a hard time. Couple of clear fouls not given while Zouma gets told off for every shove