• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Cheatski are still scum

The people who are entrusted with the management and integrity of the game are not fit for purpose.
Football is our national game but they have allowed overseas investors and managers to run OUR clubs. That's a xenophobic view I admit but I feel clubs have lost that link they had with their fans.
I don't have the love of the game I had, in fact I dislike many of the people involved in it as most appear to have lost sense of fair play and natural justice.
I understand the world has changed from my youth and people want to be associated with winners rather than their local teams, the saturation of the sport in all forms of media as bred a different type of follower and not for the better.
 
Both them and City should have their records expunged

(and Pompey and probably Leicester - any financial shenanigans that a club benefitted through overspending or by paying out brown paper envelopes should be taken).
 
Chelsea's record of financial cheating is far worse but don't forget Scholar was guilty of illegal payments. Sugar got the points deduction and FA cup ban overturned as he succesfully argued it happened under the previous owner , so whose titles and cup wins do we expunge from the records.

PS The article is not stricty accurate , both Everton & Forest knowingly broke the rules , may have been by a small amount but both owners of those clubs knew they were in the wrong, you can read all the findings of the judicial panel and the reasoning behind those points deductions. Also seems to be no mention of UEFA in the article, these illegal payments by Abramovith have been dealt with by UEFA ages ago with a 10 million Euro fine and the reason PL and UEFA issued fines is that this was all agreed between UK governement , the PL and UEFA when the new owners took over.

"while smaller clubs like Nottingham Forest and Everton get whacked with a points deduction for inadvertently breaching spending limits by a few quid."


PSS
You only need to go back and look at the Chelsea takeover to know it was only ever going to be fines.

www.football.london

New Chelsea owner Todd Boehly held back £100m from total purchase price

Chelsea news: The takeover saga spanning three months ended with Todd Boehly’s completed purchase of Chelsea
www.football.london www.football.london
 
Last edited:
They are never going to impose serious sporting sanctions on clubs they know can afford to fight them all the way in the courts and potentially show them up as just a paper tiger. They'll only ever go after the low-hanging fruit. The ones for whom the cost of losing a legal battle would be deemed too big a risk.
 
So the money that was supposed to go to war victims is paying the fine. Didn't think I could hate them anymore guess I was wrong bunch of clams

The £10.75m fine for secret payments during Roman Abramovich's ownership is being paid via a £150m fund reserved during the club's 2022 sale, reported the Observer. This arrangement means the cost effectively comes from proceeds originally destined for Ukrainian war victims, as the money is deducted from funds meant to be distributed by a charity, rather than being paid out of the new owners' pockets,
Key details:
  • The Fine: Chelsea FC was fined £10.75m by the Premier League for breaking financial rules between 2011 and 2018, as reported by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
  • Source of Funds: The money comes from a $150m fund set aside by BlueCo (the new owners) during the sale to cover potential liabilities from the previous regime.
  • Impact on Charity: The funds for these penalties are deducted from the money that was intended to go to Ukraine war victims, effectively reducing the final donation amount from the sale
 
mudshark said:
They are never going to impose serious sporting sanctions on clubs they know can afford to fight them all the way in the courts and potentially show them up as just a paper tiger. They'll only ever go after the low-hanging fruit. The ones for whom the cost of losing a legal battle would be deemed too big a risk.
Click to expand...
No need to go to court, the precedent has been set in 1994 by Tottenham Hotspur FC and Alan Sugar.
 
Lilbaz said:
Seeing as there were no psr rules then and pl rules in general have changed a lot in that time. I'm not sure it is a precedent.
Click to expand...
The Spurs case was illegal payments made by Scholar and Sugar argued that as it happened under a previous ownership there should be no sporting sanction only a fine and he won his case.
The Chelsea case is not about PSR it is illegal payments made under Abramovitch, as the current ownership at Chelsea were not responsible it has also been decided that Chelsea should pay a fine and not get a points deduction.
Even though under different rules, in 1994 it was the FA and now it is PL rules the basis is the same the club under the current ownership has not suffered a sporting sanction due to the illegal activities of a previous owner, both cases are very similar.
 
SirPercyHotspur said:
The Spurs case was illegal payments made by Scholar and Sugar argued that as it happened under a previous ownership there should be no sporting sanction only a fine and he won his case.
The Chelsea case is not about PSR it is illegal payments made under Abramovitch, as the current ownership at Chelsea were not responsible it has also been decided that Chelsea should pay a fine and not get a points deduction.
Even though under different rules, in 1994 it was the FA and now it is PL rules the basis is the same the club under the current ownership has not suffered a sporting sanction due to the illegal activities of a previous owner, both cases are very similar.
Click to expand...
Do you mean 'illegal' as against the law or as in against the rules. Our payments back in 94 were declared to, and cleared by HMRC.

Is any of Chelsea's wrongdoing 'illegal' in a English law sense?
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
Do you mean 'illegal' as against the law or as in against the rules. Our payments back in 94 were declared to, and cleared by HMRC.

Is any of Chelsea's wrongdoing 'illegal' in a English law sense?
Click to expand...
Wrong choice of word , the Spurs payments were against FA rules , one article described them as irregular , the Chelsea payments are described by the PL as breaches of PL financial reporting rules so again wrong word choice.

The Football Association's punishment for Spurs' financial irregularities included the deduction of 12 points from next season's Premiership campaign, suspension from the 1994-95 FA Cup
 
Last edited:
SirPercyHotspur said:
Wrong choice of word , the Spurs payments were against FA rules , one article described them as irregular , the Chelsea payments are described by the PL as breaches of PL financial reporting rules so again wrong word choice.

The Football Association's punishment for Spurs' financial irregularities included the deduction of 12 points from next season's Premiership campaign, suspension from the 1994-95 FA Cup
Click to expand...
How much was the fine in the end in 94 ...compared to club annual turnover? I know they tried to bump it up to £1.5m after the first appeal
 
SirPercyHotspur said:
Wrong choice of word , the Spurs payments were against FA rules , one article described them as irregular , the Chelsea payments are described by the PL as breaches of PL financial reporting rules so again wrong word choice.

The Football Association's punishment for Spurs' financial irregularities included the deduction of 12 points from next season's Premiership campaign, suspension from the 1994-95 FA Cup
Click to expand...
So within the scope of operating Chelsea did Abramovich declare all these 'payments' within the annual accounts to HMRC?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back