Stefan Borson reveals why Chelsea avoided '15-point deduction and relegation'

Chelsea were "never" going to be handed a 15-point deduction, as the FA never intended to impose such a harsh sanction.

That is according to former Manchester City financial adviser Stefan Borson, who exclusively told Football Insider that evidence to support a points deduction was not presented at the original hearing.

The Blues have, however, been handed a £10million fine and suspended two-window transfer ban related to secret payments to agents during Roman Abramovich's reign.

It was revealed quite quickly that the governing body felt a 15-point deduction would be "appropriate" before mitigation was taken into account.

The deduction was reduced by a third, then by a third again, until it was reduced to zero, causing Premier League rival fans to riot against the decision.

With the likes of Everton and Nottingham Forest being docked points in recent seasons, many have been left with the question, why not Chelsea?

Chelsea were 'never going to be deducted 15 points'

Speaking exclusively to Football Insider, Borson has explained why a points deduction was always unlikely at Stamford Bridge, especially one that would get Chelsea relegated.

"It was never going to be fifteen points. It was always going to be reduced down. That's important because fifteen points would have relegated them," he said.

"They're obviously going to be super careful. And so this is all a bit theoretical because they're not going to breach the thing that triggers the transfer ban or the points penalty.

"The question really is why wasn't why was it suspended at all and why wasn't it a points deduction as a primary case brought by the FA?

"They turned up at the original hearing and had no case at all to present to the hearing about points penalties and when they got into the hearing, the FA effectively had no answer.

"They hadn't presented anything, and they hadn't intended to present anything in respect of points deductions.

"Their belief was that the deal that effectively they agreed with Chelsea, which was a fine plus a transfer ban, was sufficient.

"The commission said, 'Well, hang on a minute, we think most people would think this is worthy of severe sporting sanction because we think they had sporting advantage'."

The FA 'put no evidence forward'

Borson further explained the situation, with Chelsea successfully arguing that the FA had put forward no evidence of any sporting advantage.

"The question was put to the FA as to what Chelsea's motivation may have been if it wasn't to receive a sporting advantage," Borson said.

"And the answer was telling. The FA hadn't really come fully prepared for a an aggressive prosecution of Chelsea.

"And they said, 'Well, we don't know, and it would be wrong to speculate, but maybe Chelsea and Roman Abramovich just wanted to buy these players for the thrill of the chase.

"Anyway, the commission rejected all that, but then when it went back to an appeal, the appeal said, 'Well, we understand that it's open to the commission to assess what it can in terms of what the motivation for Chelsea might have been'.

"The appeal didn't cut across the motivation that Chelsea would have been seeking a sporting advantage. But Chelsea successfully argued that the FA effectively had put no evidence in play of actual sporting advantage."