Chelsea and Tottenham have been on opposite sides in the legal battles that have quietly engulfed the Premier League of late, with wildly different opinions on everything from PSR to commercial rules.
In many ways, Chelsea and Spurs’ ownership regimes are almost diametric opposites to one another.
Daniel Levy and ENIC, Tottenham’s owners for over 20 years, are quiet and conservative, persisting with a business model that has left many fans disenfranchised but seen the club’s revenue and value skyrocket.
Nine miles away in West London, Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital have been a bombastic presence since their £2.25bn takeover of Chelsea in October 2021.
Their investment has almost defied logic, as well as the Premier League’s PSR enforcers, in that time. Chelsea have spent over £1bn on transfers in the last three-and-a-half years as the wage bill has spiralled.
Thanks to some crafty accountancy, however, the Blues have managed to avoid a Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) breach, as confirmed by the Premier League earlier this week.
Spurs are at the other end of the spectrum in terms of PSR.
For them, spending rules are essentially a non-issue given Levy’s emphasis on self-sufficiency, with every pound spent accounted for elsewhere in the business.
They have more PSR headroom than just about any club, which is why they have lobbied for PSR to be tightened to stifle free-spending rivals like Chelsea.
Both clubs gave evidence in Manchester City’s challenge to the Premier League’s APT rules in November.
Spurs backed the Premier League while Chelsea were in City’s corner in the tribunal on the APT system, which dictates that commercial deals with owner-linked entities must be struck at fair market value.
Tottenham, along with Arsenal, Liverpool and Man United, have also reserved the right to seek compensation if City are found guilty in the hearing into over 115 instances of financial misconduct.
Chelsea have not, which represents another split in the lawfare that has gripped the Premier League in recent times.
However, the most controversial episode in this ongoing saga may be yet to come.
Premier League investigating secret Eden Hazard payments
While City’s 115 charges case may have taken up the most column inches, Chelsea have already admitted some allegations of a similar nature.
When Boehly and Clearlake bought the club, the due diligence process uncovered what have been characterised as irregular parallel payments to new signings during the Roman Abramovich era.
These payments were essentially off the books, so they did not impact Chelsea’s PSR/FFP calculation.
The new owners reported these irregularities to the Premier League themselves and are in no way implicated in any wrongdoing, nor are the players in question.
However, if they are deemed to have illegally bypassed PSR, the club itself will be penalised.
According to The Times, Chelsea are now negotiating a financial settlement with the Premier League, which would be seen as a victory in that it avoids a points deduction or other sporting sanction.
As well as Samuel Eto’o and Willian’s moves to the Bridge, it is said that payments linked to the signing of Eden Hazard have also been under investigation.
Hazard almost signed for Tottenham before he eventually chose Chelsea back in 2012, a move that saw him become an all-time Premier League great and a nemesis for Spurs.
Off-the-books payments gave Chelsea edge over Spurs in Hazard race, says finance expert
Speaking to talkSPORT back in August, legal expert and former Man City adviser Stefan Borson explained why the secret payments gave Chelsea an advantage in the battle for Hazard’s signature.
“What is interesting about these scenarios is that most of them occurred in competitive transfer situations for some very big players – players like Eden Hazard and Willian,” Borson told talkSPORT.
“They will have a problem, I think, arguing that there was no sporting advantage.
“We know from the Everton and Nottingham Forest cases that where the independent commissions sees sporting advantages, they like to go for sporting penalties.
“That is why I think there is a realistic prospect that this [punishment] won’t just be financial and it won’t just be transfer bans.
“It could be something more serious in terms of sanctions around sporting points and deductions.
“Just as an example, you look at Hazard and Willian in particular. Those were players that Spurs were in the running for.
“Spurs will argue that had those players signed for them, there would have been a different outcome on the field.
“We know a big driver of that is hidden payments. They have admitted that – it’s not in dispute.”
Could Chelsea co-owner Todd Boehly take over Tottenham?
In other news, there has been little in the way of updates on the in-fighting in the Chelsea boardroom between factions led by Todd Boehly and Clearlake supremo Behdad Eghbali.
The two men are understood to have different visions for the club, with the future of Stamford Bridge and whether or not to move to a new stadium among the points of contention.
The dispute, of which details emerged last year, was believed to only likely be resolved by one party buying the other out.
Boehly, who only personally owns 13 per cent of the club, doesn’t have much leverage here, so it had been suggested that the private equity billionaire could cash out and look elsewhere.
Boehly held talks over investing in Tottenham alongside business partner and Spurs fan Jonathan Goldstein but a deal proved unworkable.
But with Daniel Levy in the market for minority investment, a return to the negotiating table has been mooted for the Chelsea co-owner.
The Premier League’s conflict of interest rules, however, would prevent him from buying into the club until he has divested his stake in the Blues.
As evidenced by John Textor’s failed bid to sell his equity in Crystal Palace to unlock the takeover of Everton, who have since been bought by Dan Friedkin, this would be no mean feat.
In fact, the limited pool of investors interested in buying a minority stake, particularly one that would be as expensive as Chelsea, would make the process exceedingly difficult.