Chelsea are set to back both a wage increase cap and a compromise financial fair play deal at Thursday's showdown meeting of all 20 Premier League chairmen.
The Roman Abramovich-owned club had been viewed as being opposed to financial fair play (FFP) but Press Association Sport understands Chelsea will agree to a system that obliges clubs to break even but allows owners to cover some losses.
Insiders at Stamford Bridge insist they have never been opposed to a compromise agreement, and that position should now ensure that both spending control systems are agreed on Thursday.
Arsenal, Manchester United, Tottenham and Liverpool will still argue however that wealthy owners should not be allowed to underwrite any losses, but in order to push FFP through will have to settle for a compromise where up to £105million over three years can be covered.
Opponents of a no-compromise FFP argue that the system maintains the status quo and favours the biggest clubs with large stadia and high commercial income. Four clubs - Manchester City, Fulham, West Brom and Aston Villa - are still expected to vote against it.
Chelsea's backing of a compromise however should enable the necessary 14 out of the 20 votes to be reached.
The wage increase cap may also be watered down however - initially Sunderland owner Ellis Short had suggested a maximum 10% increase allowed for player wages. It now looks likely that the cap will only affect those clubs whose total bill is higher than £52million so that promoted sides are not prevented from improving their squads.
Furthermore, spending money earned from clubs' individual sponsorship deals on wages will not be restricted. That can be significant - in Manchester United's case commercial income totalled £117.6m last year and their wage bill £160m.
But some form of wage increase cap will satisfy club owners who are fearful of the bulk of the income from next season's bumper new television rights deals - expected to be worth £25m-£30m per club - going straight into the pockets of the players and agents.
The Premier League's expected FFP system would be less restrictive than UEFA's, which is being brought in from next season and will oblige clubs to break even or face possible exclusion from European competition.
Under UEFA's system, for the first three years owners will be permitted to cover annual losses of up to £12million via equity but that will then be phased out.
Arsenal, Manchester United, Tottenham and Liverpool - styled as the 'gang of four' after they sent a joint letter to the last shareholders meeting calling for owners not be allowed to cover any losses at all - argue that tough FFP measures will maintain the Premier League's competitiveness and its attraction to a global TV audience, rather than risk a situation developing such as in Spain where only two clubs dominate the football landscape.
In September last year, Chelsea's chief executive Ron Gourlay said the club wanted to promote financial stability. He told the club's website then: "We have geared ourselves up for the financial regulatory structure now in place in Europe, and would like to think that we could develop an appropriate set of financial stability regulations to apply to all Premier League clubs.
"Everyone at the club is working hard to comply with the rules and we will participate positively in the Premier League's forthcoming meetings."