Chelsea's owners are reportedly extremely confident that they will not face any charges related to their end-of-year submission under the Premier League's profitability and sustainability rules (PSR). The Blues have made significant investments in the transfer market since a consortium, including billionaires Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali, took over the club in the summer of 2022.

They reported losses of £90.1million for the year ending June 30, 2023, following a loss of £121.4m the previous year. Despite this, sources close to Chelsea are entirely confident and relaxed that the club complies with the PSR, which allows maximum permitted losses of £105m over three seasons.

Teams with aggregate losses in their 2021-22 and 2022-23 accounts must submit a PSR calculation to the league no later than December 31 regarding their 2023-24 accounts. If clubs are found to have exceeded the maximum loss figure, the league must issue a complaint within 14 days from the December 31 submission deadline and refer clubs to an independent commission under the league's 'standard directions' for dealing with PSR cases, which were voted through by clubs in the summer of 2023.

READ MORE: Tyson Fury's wife Paris tells devastating 'lie' hours before Oleksandr Usyk fight

READ MORE: Every word Unai Emery said about 2-2 Brighton draw, 'big mistake', Torres injury and Watkins

Last season, complaints were issued against Everton and Nottingham Forest on January 15, with both cases fully completed before the end of the season. Investment in infrastructure, academies, charity foundations and women's football can all be treated as 'add backs' in a club's PSR calculation.

Sources close to Chelsea have asserted that they've adhered to all Premier League regulations. The current rules allow for the inclusion of profits from the sale of 'fixed tangible assets' to associated parties in a club's revenue figures, as long as those transactions are at fair market value.

In September, the PA news agency reported that the Premier League had approved the sale of two hotels to a company linked to Chelsea's owners. Additionally, the club has sold its women's team to the parent company, which is under Premier League review.

A proposal to eliminate this loophole did not pass at the league's annual general meeting in June, with only 11 clubs supporting it, short of the required 14-club majority. Premier League chief executive Richard Masters, in August, stated he encourages clubs to "find an angle" for competitive advantage, provided they comply with the rules.

Manchester United recorded losses of £113.2m for the year ending June 30, 2024, on September 11, but are confident of their compliance. Sources close to Nottingham Forest are also reportedly fully confident about their Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) calculation after last season's penalty.

Everton declined to comment but are believed to be assured of their standing.

The Premier League is testing new financial cost control measures this season, which could replace PSR from the 2025-26 season if approved. One aspect of this is the new squad cost rules (SCR), which will cap "on-pitch" spending on things like player wages and transfer amortisation costs to 85 per cent of a club’s football revenue and their net profit or loss on player sales.

The second part is top-to-bottom anchoring (TBA), which effectively limits a club’s spending – regardless of their revenue – as a multiple of the smallest central Premier League television and prize money allocation received by any club. The Professional Footballers’ Association has expressed concerns about anchoring, and has stated it will oppose any measure that amounts to a salary cap.

It is believed to have instructed leading sports barrister Nick De Marco KC on the matter. Masters said in August that a separate Premier League investigation into Chelsea, focused on allegations of financial misconduct during the tenure of former owner Roman Abramovich, was "reaching a conclusion".

This investigation was triggered by the new owners self-reporting information they had discovered during the takeover process to the Premier League and other regulatory bodies about what they described as "potentially incomplete financial reporting concerning historical transactions during the club’s previous ownership".