The news filtering out of Stamford Bridge this week isn’t just eye-watering; for Evertonians, it’s a galling reminder of the Premier League’s grossly unfair financial restrictions as applied to "smaller" clubs.
Uefa data has confirmed that Chelsea FC posted a pre-tax loss of £355M for the 2024-25 season — the highest deficit ever recorded in the history of English football.
While the London club navigates these staggering numbers with a shrug and a "business as usual" outlook, those of us all too faniliar with previous gooings on at Goodison Park are left wondering: how is a £355M loss in a single year "sustainable," while Everton were docked a total of 10 points for successive breaches of the 3-year limit that were, by comparison, pocket change?
The Numbers: A Tale of Two Realities
Under the Premier League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR), clubs are permitted a maximum loss of £105M over a rolling three-year period. Let’s look at how the two clubs compare in their treatment by the authorities.
How Did Everton Fall Foul?
Everton’s downfall was a perfect storm of ambition meeting rigid bureaucracy. We admitted to exceeding the threshold, but argued that the unforeseeable impact of the Ukraine invasion (losing £20M+ in USM sponsorship) and the financing of a world-class stadium should be mitigating factors.
The Independent Commission disagreed. They ruled that the £105M limit was a "generous threshold" and that any breach was serious enough to warrant a sporting sanction. We were told that "prudent management" should have accounted for global geopolitical shifts. Apparently, the Premier League expects Everton to have a better intelligence network than MI6!
Why Chelsea Are "Safe" (For Now)
How can a club lose over a third of a billion pounds in 12 months and stay within the rules? The answer lies in the "creative accounting" that the Premier League continues to tolerate from its heavy hitters:
-
Asset Sales to Themselves: Chelsea famously sold two hotels and the women’s team to their own parent company, BlueCo, to generate "profit" on paper. While UEFA has begun to clamp down on these "related-party transactions," the Premier League’s current rules allowed them to count as legitimate income.
-
Amortisation Acrobatics: By putting players on unprecedented 8-year contracts, Chelsea spread the "cost" of their billion-pound spending spree thinly over nearly a decade, even while the cash flew out the door immediately.
-
The June "Fire Sale": Chelsea’s reported £300M in player sales (including academy products like Conor Gallagher and Mason Mount) provided "pure profit" that plugged the hole just enough to satisfy the domestic December 31st deadline.
The Double Standard
The core of the frustration for ToffeeWebbers isn't that Everton broke a rule; it’s that the rules are applied with a selective rigour that feels designed to protect the status quo.
When Everton overspent to build a legacy new stadium in a fantastic waterfront location for the city, we were hit with the "biggest sporting sanction in top-flight history." When Chelsea overspends on a scattergun recruitment policy that makes a mockery of the transfer market, they are given a pat on the back for their "business rationalisation."
If PSR was truly about "sustainability," a £355M loss would trigger an immediate red alert. Instead, it seems the Premier League is more concerned with the way you lose money than how much you actually lose. Sell a hotel to yourself? Fine. Build a stadium that transforms a derelict docklands? Minus ten points.
The Verdict
As we look at a Premier League table where points are won on the pitch but lost in front of so-called Independent Commissions, the Chelsea news confirms what we’ve long suspected: PSR is a blunt instrument used to keep the "aspiring" clubs in their place, while the elite are free to fully exploit their wealth.
Everton were the guinea pigs for a system that is clearly not fit for purpose. Unless the Premier League holds Chelsea to the same "rigorous standard" they applied to us, the integrity of the competition remains a hollow joke.
Yes, PSR is being phased out, with Squad Cost Ratio (SCR) taking their place. But the net effect will likely be the same in terms of protection for the Premier League's protected elite.
Reader Comments (7)
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer ()
2 Posted 26/02/2026 at 21:41:40
Chelsea will just convert that debt to Hotels, put them on Mayfair or Park Lane, have the Woman's team buy them and lease them back for buttons, Lo and behold the debt becomes an asset*.
* According to my Ladybird book of Accounting Jiggery Pokery by J R Hartley.
3 Posted 28/02/2026 at 21:27:18
The double standards are sickening.
Man City too, likely to get a big points deduction, but won't be imposed during the season, to not affect or decide the title.
If they win the Premier League or qualify for Champions League they shouldn't be allowed to take part in it.
4 Posted 01/03/2026 at 11:20:39
Chelsea have been bent for decades. The Head of the Russian Mafia / Soviet Leader laundering vast amounts of cash through his Chief Lieutenant, Abramovich. A fit and proper person by all (offshore) accounts, held by certain persons in charge at Lancaster Gate.
If it was all right to have Chelsea owned by a Russian mafia state sponsored crook shovelling loads-a-manny through its state of the art laundrette, then why wasnt it ok for Everton.
Quiet simply Usmanov was / is an Uzbekistani.
A gangster and corrupt. Jailed as such in his own country, but released by his mate who later took power. Usmanov, owned a high profile newspaper after release. He pissed off Putin by running a pretty funny, to anyone who wasnt Putin, cartoon and article satirizing a very corrupt election. One of the ballot papers had been altered and had the option, 'Putin go fuck yourself' as a candidate.
Usmanov managed to crawl and kiss the Russians ass enough to avoid death, ultimately borrowing money at a reduced rate, however paying back many times its worth.
Usmanov left a trial of crimes dotted over europe.
So whereas the Russian Abramovich kept his financially questionable, yet somehow legit affairs quiet(ish) and his bezzie well out of the paper trail, Evertons non Rusky, non mate of the Soviet leader just lurched from one fuck up to the next, using his strange and complete dope buddy Moshiri as his puppet.
Evertons previous owner, Kenwright, was not a popular figure at PO Box 1966 either. The northern equivalent of Arfur Daylee was indeed a low level crook not fit to wipe his knock off leatherette oxfords on the (You're not) Welcome mat at London HQ.
Simply put its who you and your connections are not what you pretend you and your connexions are. And The London PL Committee had long had their sites on those at the rickety Old Lady. ( Testimony required #lol).
So ask yourselves, who is most likely to be influential in all matters David Brent, compare the haves and the have nots then tug that forelock as the Lords of The Manor carry on as usual.
5 Posted 03/03/2026 at 02:16:57
6 Posted 03/03/2026 at 15:02:21
1. Their constant involvement in Champions league or European competitions over the years
2. Very rich owners
3. Hardly any history before the 90s. But they got rich owners with deep pockets just at the right time. By the time, anything could be done, these clubs were well established in the Champions league. Currently both these clubs are well established brands abroad with strong fan support globally.
If the Premier League decide to punish them, they will be relegated. Don't think the Premier league have it in them to punish these clubs. Everton are an easy target. A club that has seen no silverware in the last 2-3 decades. Hoping clubs like City, Chelsea and others punished heavily in near future
7 Posted 03/03/2026 at 15:07:51
The 115 charges that Manchester City have accrued were announced in February of 2023, a full three years ago. The haste at which Everton and Nottingham Forest were charged, found guilty, and given points deductions for a mere two charges each was nothing short of breathtaking compared to how City's been treated.
The excuse that I've heard is that "It takes a long time to get through the 115 charges." Well that's just utter hypocrisy and a further confirmation of how clubs are treated differently.
Perhaps, if Everton were owned by a nation-state, we too could have had our two charges pushed back an indefinite amount of time. The fact that it's take even this long to punish City for just, say 10, of the 115 charges tells us all we need to know, that the Premier League bureaucrats aren't fit for the purpose, and that they've brought the league into considerable disrepute by how they've treated clubs disproportionately.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.
How to get rid of these ads and support TW
1 Posted 26/02/2026 at 20:33:31
I don't know how they are supposed to turn that around without facing sanctions?