Chelsea have been given a suspended one-year transfer ban and fined £10.75million for historical breaches of Premier League rules under former owner Roman Abramovich
Christian Purslow (right) spent three years at Chelsea(Image: Rich Polk/Getty Images for Hublot)
Former Chelsea executive Christian Purslow has labelled the Blues’ punishment for breaking Premier League rules ‘way too generous’. Purslow, who headed up Chelsea’s commercial department from 2014 to 2017, suggested that a full transfer ban should be imposed on the club.
On Monday, it was announced that Chelsea had received a suspended one-year transfer ban and fined £10.75million, the biggest fine in Premier League history. The Blues were founded to have breached rules under former owner Roman Abramovich.
Chelsea avoided a points deduction after admitting to the breaches which took place between 2011 and 2018. They relate to more than £47m in undisclosed payments by third parties associated with Chelsea which were made to players, unregistered agents and other third parties.
Purslow, who insists that he ‘had nothing to do with the playing side’ while at Stamford Bridge, described Chelsea’s punishment as ‘extremely lenient’. The ex-Liverpool and Aston Villa chief compared their punishment to that of Everton and Nottingham Forest, who’ve been deducted points for breaking Premier League Profit and Sustainability Rules in recent years.
FOLLOW OUR CHELSEA FB PAGE! Latest Blues news and more on our dedicated Facebook page
READ MORE: Liam Rosenior feeling the pressure as Chelsea fans turn and Enzo Fernandez aims digREAD MORE: UK Government prepares to sue Roman Abramovich over £2.5bn Chelsea funds after missed deadline
“The level of mitigation that has been applied here is way too generous, and in my opinion very inconsistent with previous regulatory cases and sanctions,” Purslow said on The Football Boardroom podcast.
“This is essentially a litany of offences related to how you conduct transfer business, so a transfer ban makes sense. But to see that ban suspended in full, again, seems extremely lenient.
“That must really rankle with clubs like Everton and Forest who I don’t think have had much credit in the past where they have co-operated. I think this is the most serious thing to break in the Premier League for a long time.”
Should Chelsea have received a stronger punishment? Have your say in the comments section.
Eden Hazard was among Chelsea’s high-profile signings between 2011 and 2018(Image: Darren Walsh/Chelsea FC)
In the wake of Monday’s announcement, Chelsea declared in a statement: “From the outset of this process, the club has treated these matters with the utmost seriousness, providing full cooperation to all relevant regulators.”
Chelsea’s current ownership group, BlueCo, made voluntary disclosures and showed ‘exceptional co-operation’. This is believed to have helped the Blues avoid a sporting sanction like the ones imposed on Everton and Forest.
“Sporting sanctions first came into the frame as an acknowledgement that sometimes punishing with a fine just didn’t fit the crime,” Purslow went on to say.
“In other words, when football clubs had gained meaningful football advantage, you needed to sanction with sporting penalty to compensate. It is blindingly obvious that sporting benefits were attained through this transfer activity.”
Join our new WhatsApp community and receive your daily dose of Mirror Football content. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us – and our partners. If you don’t like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you’re curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.
Content cannot be displayed without consent