Chelsea 'AVOID breaking the Premier League's financial rules' after clubs voted not to close loopholes which allowed them to sell hotels to a sister company - and it could transform their transfer business

The Premier League were unsuccessful in their attempts to close a loophole that enables clubs to use profits from the sale of hotels, training grounds or other tangible assets to stay in keeping with financial fair play rules, according to reports.

Chelsea had sparked outrage in April after the west London club sold a hotel on their Stamford Bridge site to another company the club owns - in a bid to avoid breaching the Premier League’s profit and sustainability rules (PSR).

The consortium, led by Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital, offloaded two hotels situated next to the ground generating around £75.6million - with the sale reducing the club's losses from £248.5m to £90.1m after tax, the club had said. 

According to The Athletic the Premier League proposed a ban on clubs from performing such actions at its Annual General Meeting at the Rudding Park Hotel in Harrogate on Thursday. It appears only 11 of the 20 clubs backed their movement - short of the two-thirds majority needed to ratify an amendment to the rules.

The outlet claims that the Premier League had looked to emulate the EFL’s ban on using the sale of tangible assets in a club’s spending calculations. That ban was made in 2021 after multiple clubs had sold stadiums and training grounds to themselves in a bid to avoid PSR breaches.

Manchester City’s former financial advisor, Stefan Borson, had also claimed that Chelsea had attempted to use the loophole again in May by allegedly trying to sell their Cobham training ground to themselves.

While there was much outrage towards Chelsea’s previous hotel sales - with insiders at the club claiming they had ran the deal past the top-flight - the Premier League's action to prohibit teams from capitalising from the loophole had failed - with clubs voting against the proposed rule change.

The Athletic claims that member clubs believed the ‘wording on the ban was too wide' prompting Premier League clubs to vote against the change. The report adds that the language used did not make clear the type of non-football revenue streams that could be used in a club's profit and sustainability calculations and those that should be avoided.

During the meeting, Premier League sides also dissented against Wolves’ proposals to abolish VAR, while clubs are also set to trial two forms of salary cap next season, with executives agreeing to use UEFA’s Squad Cost Rules and the ‘anchoring’ system on a ‘shadow basis’.

According to the BBC, the Premier League released a briefing document to all 20 clubs before Thursday's AGM, explaining the reasons why it believes VAR should remain.

They allegedly claimed that there would be 100 more incorrect refereeing decisions made per season if clubs voted to scrap the technology - adding several other reasons as to why the league feels VAR should stay.

Gary O'Neil's side have not been the only team to be aggrieved by the controversial system this season, which was first used in the top-flight in 2019. Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta was fined for blasting the system following a controversial incident away to Newcastle, while Jurgen Klopp said in May that he would vote to scrap VAR as 'referees cannot use it properly'.

Wolves formally submitted a resolution to the Premier League in May which triggered the vote on whether VAR should remain in place for the 2024-25 season after having been on the wrong end of several contentious decisions this season.

But it was expected that Wolves' proposals would fall flat with other clubs in the league voting against the motion and were of the view that they simply want the system to be tweaked.

One senior source at a rival club told Mail Sport that they were in favour of video-assisted refereeing technology but would like assurances over quicker decisions from the PGMOL.

Despite that, Premier League clubs did agree to a new salary cap trial which would begin at the start of the 2024-25 season. The new cap will form part of several new regulations that will replace the much-criticised PSR rules.

Clubs agreed to implement UEFA's Squad Cost Rules (SCR) and the controversial 'anchoring' system on a 'shadow basis'.

The meeting also came just two days after Manchester City issued that they would be taking legal action against the Premier League over their concerns over the league's rules on Associated Party Transactions (APT) - but there was no discussion on the legal battle.

Elsewhere on the agenda, Premier League newcomers Southampton, Leicester and Ipswich were also set to be confirmed as top-flight clubs during the AGM.