26 Feb 2026 15:33:07
Quite damning. In the 3rd full season under the new owners, chelsea booked an english record of £342m pre tax loss. Without the selling of assets to ourselves, it would be £582

If chelsea finish below 5th or don't win the UCL, it will be 3/4 seasons without UCL football. In Romans 19 years, we finished outside UCL twice (and won the Premier League in that season).

I won't even mention the FOS sponsor issue. To me, 3 nearly 4 years in, its fair to criticise.

1.) 26 Feb 2026
26 Feb 2026 17:27:36
I guess other fans of other clubs have been critical of their owners when it took them ages to win anything. I'm sure someone will remind how long it's taken new owners to win things at other clubs. I have no idea how our loss is presented to the regulators, as far as FFF is concerned, but my guess is the number mentioned will improve considerably for the next few years.

Of course, some fans couldn't wait to be critical of our present owners. I wonder who fans will be critical of if we get a points deduction, massive fine or transfer ban for our 74 supposed offences?

2.) 26 Feb 2026
26 Feb 2026 17:51:06
My main problem under the Roman years was that after we won a trophy and looked set to dominate for a couple of years, we'd make some woeful moves in the transfer market. I think it was around 2017 or so when we'd won a big trophy, and were linked to Alex Sandro, Naingollan and some big striker, and ended up with Drinkwater and Zappacosta.

I'm definitely getting mixed up, but I feel like we had a few chances to dominate for a few years, but just couldn't get it over the line.

3.) 26 Feb 2026
26 Feb 2026 17:57:07
Tom Let's start with the last one first. Whatever we get with regards to points deductions etc., is entirely down to Roman's ownership, nothing to do with our present owners. Now onto our present owners. They should have taken their time settling in and working out what we needed; instead, they went on a spending spree, taking advice from people they should have ignored.

They moved on from that mistake and went straight into buying youngsters, some excellent, some not so much. What they should have done was bring in some experienced heads. Now with the huge loss, perhaps an injection of £100mil plus through having a FOS might have somehow helped the situation. Hopefully this means the trading slows down and we have a settled squad.

4.) 26 Feb 2026
26 Feb 2026 18:09:04
I think we got £40m for our in-house FOS solution for the first year, and approx £20m last year, and apparently the same this year. I agree the rush for change was a mistake, but as I guessed at the time, my concern was always them trying to make supposed statement signings instead of logical signings.

It was a complete horlicks, but as ED02 they are getting better advice now. All clubs make transfer mistakes, and that first season was a complete disaster except for Cucarella. I also think sometimes about how many mistakes RA made.

5.) 26 Feb 2026
26 Feb 2026 19:24:45
I know ed2 said they're now getting better advice but really? None of the signings other than Jaoa pedro look that good.

6.) 26 Feb 2026
26 Feb 2026 19:56:19
Why wet your knickers and be a drama queen? Surely wait until the club publishes their accounts?

7.) 26 Feb 2026
26 Feb 2026 21:28:09
Greenaway and Tom are right, let's just keep waiting. Things may magically work themselves out. Ignore the warning signs, these owners know what they're doing - Todd even runs a successful baseball team! Trust the process - our team of 14-17-year-old wonder kids might just wake up as Barca 2009 in 5 years, and won't that be wonderful?

8.) 26 Feb 2026
26 Feb 2026 21:42:41
Kazblue, well said. Standard, I know we all always want an example to support an argument, but if you honestly think Pedro is our only decent signing, then I am just not sure what to say. While we all might have different ideas about players' abilities, I think a hell of a lot of supporters would think Caicedo, Cucarella, Palmer, Neto and Enzo tick most boxes for most supporters.

I also personally believe that Caicedo, Cucarella and Palmer get into most top European sides.

9.) 26 Feb 2026
26 Feb 2026 22:03:23
UEFA's report details Chelsea as having made the biggest loss in English football and having the most expensively assembled squad ever. However, there are also bits left out. Simply, Chelsea have had a major corrective season in the transfer market.

They won't be selling stars to survive, and expect to stay compliant with UEFA rules going forward. Standard (and your new poster mate ?), try not to fret too much.

10.) 27 Feb 2026
27 Feb 2026 08:38:09
Greenaway, can you please enlighten me as to what a corrective season in the transfer market is?

11.) 27 Feb 2026
27 Feb 2026 08:40:46
Tom, I'm referring to the last window in which Pedro was signed. I don't think they've set the world alight, and I cannot understand the Garnacho and Gittens signings. Greenway, I'm not fretting, it's just football, just highlighting the new financial report by UEFA.

I'm sure we will be fine, but I just started a discussion about why I think the criticism on here is justified. You seem to think not, which is fine.

12.) 27 Feb 2026
27 Feb 2026 09:26:32
If one casts one's mind back to when we were purchased, there were even doubts that we would exist. The new owners have made mistakes. The early transfer splurge was a poor but understandable attempt to make an impression. The lack of a shirt sponsor is most baffling, and ground capacity is a difficult problem to solve for anybody. On the plus side, we have a young squad, the most highly valued in football. I like the idea of buying young players and seeing if they grow. There will be more success than failure, and money will be made on most of them.

Although some were clearly purchased to be sold, Garnacho was only purchased because of price. I read somewhere that the UEFA loss doesn't take into account the women's teams or the hotels. In general, I think financially, apart from the shirt sponsorship, these guys appear to know what they are doing. On the pitch, with Palmer, Caicedo, Neto, Cucu, James, Estevao, Colwill and Pedro, we have the makings of a top side going forward. As with all these things, time will tell.

13.) 27 Feb 2026
27 Feb 2026 09:26:35
Bill, in answer to your question, mate... A "corrective season" in the football transfer market refers to a period where a club or the overall market adjusts its spending behavior, usually following a period of overspending, unsustainable high wages, or financial instability. It is a proactive effort to align player trading and squad costs with actual revenue and regulatory requirements (such as UEFA Financial Fair Play or Premier League Profit and Sustainability rules).

In layman's terms, it means "we used that accounting period to dump all our mess and baggage in one hit to clear the decks going forward", having already taken the UEFA punishment and agreed a plan going forward.

14.) 27 Feb 2026
27 Feb 2026 09:56:15
Seymns, the 382m figure includes the women's team and the selling of assets to ourselves. Otherwise, it would be the 500m figure I posted. Massive, massive losses, which is why I don't buy into the 'player trading' idea some have speculated on. We've lost a massive amount on players, and overall we're at a loss (with some like Palmer massively offsetting those losses).

15.) 27 Feb 2026
27 Feb 2026 10:17:58
Standard, you are looking at one set/season's figures; next season they will be much improved. Of course we will have overpaid on some players, but got good deals on others. That's the same at every club. Of course we will only find out about profit and loss on player investment when, and if, we decide to sell a player.

My valuation of a player is meaningless, and will no doubt be different from other fans'. Palmer, or any current squad player, does not offset any potential club loss until they are sold.

16.) 27 Feb 2026
27 Feb 2026 10:18:24
Seymns, really enjoyed your measure post.

17.) 27 Feb 2026
27 Feb 2026 10:37:14
Seymns, a great post, articulate and factual and without agenda, a pleasure to read. Hope you are feeling better now as well.

18.) 27 Feb 2026
27 Feb 2026 14:26:32
Sure Tom, but this was in the 3rd year of ownership. You are aware we posted heavy losses in the first, second, and now third consecutive years? Without much to show for it. Apparently I have an agenda. Can't win with some.

19.) 27 Feb 2026
27 Feb 2026 15:53:01
Standard, I'm not sure why your posts always make you sound like some sort of persecuted victim. I certainly have an agenda, and the vast majority of people have "certain" agendas, in my opinion. I can't see anything wrong with it. As far as the previous CFC losses, my guess is the present owners have only presented two sets of "new co" audited accounts. The first one may well have been more of a reflection of the previous owner. I certainly don't keep track of these things, so I have very little knowledge on the timings of these audits. I have said many times, with these owners and the previous owners, that I do NOT care about the financial results, other than if they break the (in my opinion) stupid FFP/PSR rules. I also think that longer financial reporting/performance is a much better way of judging a company's BP.

If you and others feel they in some way reflect poorly on these owners or previous owners, that is entirely up to you. I have made my opinion on our early player signings numerous times. I have also made my opinion very clear about the club's signings since we appointed our SD's. Some people rush to judge players, I do not. I think Hato and Gittens will prove themselves to be top players. I was not a fan of the Delap signing, as I wanted us to sign Sesko. Garnacho, I strangely knew nothing about, and I still haven't made up my mind. My player judgement is based on what I see over a period of time. Other fans prefer to make, what I consider to be, snap judgements. We all judge and see players' abilities and weaknesses differently.

20.) 27 Feb 2026
27 Feb 2026 16:44:25
Tom, those accounts will also have included losses taken on the likes of Lukaku, who were hangovers from the old era of Roman, but the headline hunters and bed wetters will always ignore those facts, as that doesn't fit their narrative.

21.) 27 Feb 2026
27 Feb 2026 16:56:21
Greenaway, I honestly have no idea or care about audited accounts. Some time ago on this site, I laid out a broad alternative to FFP/PSR. Strangely, a mate who is a ST holder and chartered accountant liked my alternative to the current rules. He also suggested that players within a squad (I think he referred to something called "Nett Present Value (NPV)") should also form part of a club's financial position.

It sounded complicated, and like a club could mark its own homework, so I switched off. I guess my message is, lots of people seem to think the current rules surrounding FFP/PSR are not fit for purpose.

22.) 27 Feb 2026
27 Feb 2026 17:08:37
Not a victim at all, but on every post of mine the other poster in this thread has constantly said, or at the very least insinuated, I have an agenda. Nothing to do with you. Doesn't bother me, but it gets very, very tiresome.

23.) 27 Feb 2026
27 Feb 2026 17:26:50
Tom, you are 100% correct in saying FFP/PSR needs improving, but what is the solution, as something needs to be in place?

24.) 28 Feb 2026
27 Feb 2026 23:26:33
Standard, I'm honest enough to admit I have an agenda. I repeat, I can't see what the problem. I also believe most people have an agenda, and, again, I couldn't care less.

25.) 28 Feb 2026
27 Feb 2026 23:54:17
Greenaway, my proposal - and I did send it to the FA and Premiership - involved each owner putting a bond into an escrow account. The bond was to cover one year's contractual obligation for every member of staff. A club could go out and sign whoever they liked on whatever salary they like, but they obviously then had to increase the value of their bond.

This would probably make a club like Newcastle the biggest club in the world. I personally don't care who is the supposed biggest club. It makes beating them all the sweeter.