Probably because we didn't make a £49m loss under FFP rules and that we're complying with the acceptable loss limit over the 3 year monitoring period

You did make a 49 mill loss, it's just unfortunate that FFP allowed you to interpret things differently.

This isn't knocking Chelsea, rather UEFA who have implemented a scheme that is aimed at maintaining status quo and not really controlling the obscenely stupid finances in football.

Last week I stated in this thread

http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/245353

"One thing is for sure the accountants will make a bundle coming up with schemes to obviate the ffp rules."

Now I read in the link you posted

"FFP regulations state a club can have a deficit of no more than £37m a year, but head of communications Steve Atkins told Reuters that because of complicated accounting rules, Chelsea's actual loss was around £34m."

Looks like Chelsea's accountants have come up with a scheme that kicks FFP into the long grass.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

It's allowances for capital expenditure (not on players), youth development and community schemes.

The alternative would be a scheme which discourages expenditure on things like youth development and community schemes, just focusing on the first team. A scheme where no stadia will ever be invested in.

That said, I'm sure loopholes will be found, but I don't have a problem if this is really what the allowances are for in this case.

The idea that a £37m annual loss is acceptable does seem to be a joke though.

"You did make a 49 mill loss, it's just unfortunate that FFP allowed you to interpret things differently.
"

We made a £49m loss but in FFP rules not everything counts towards your financial report e.g. investment in infrastructure and youth development

Marco, completely understand, you still made a 49 mill loss though.

Sure but the alternative would be like what has already been said in that you spend everything on the first team

Has long has any loss is covered by the owner, I've no problem with any losses

Or do we want a closed shop where only the biggest clubs at this moment in time win anything

Marco, not sure that having multiple sets of accounting rules to try and make something look better is the best way to make sure that football gets its house in order regarding finances.

Now, more than ever the rules have created an environment where the same 4 or so teams are top 4 every year and it becomes harder and harder to change that.

So - if GFH spend £15m to buy the ground back does that get added to our loss account or will it be allowed as a capital expenditure?

Bates harped on about FFP and how we had to spend less to comply. And how we as a club would be in a position of strength because of it. And how the other
Clubs who are spending ridiculous amounts would crumble. Bollax. Complete bollax. Never believed
His twisted rationale at the time or since.

It was a convenient way for chairmen like him to pilfer
A club's resources for their own gain. Which Bates
Made a career of.

And after all his hot air, it seems all he had to do
Was employ the same accountants he employed to hide his own money and dealings, to help Leeds Utd
And we'd have been fine.

batty, exactly! Happy New Year btw!

Stoopo,

"So - if GFH spend £15m to buy the ground back does that get added to our loss account or will it be allowed as a capital expenditure?"
_____

Yes we'd get an allowance for the amount which would have been charged to the P & L account as depreciation each year.

(I think).