At least they will make a big profit on them in a couple of years
Boehly is going to ruin Chelsea (hopefully)
- Thread starter UnitedSofa
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
I don't think this had to do with Chelsea not producing good youth products but simply the path of integration into the first team was muddled till Lampard came in as manager. You had this weird strategy of loaning players out till they turned 40.
Even the masseurs are leaving. Chelsea in the mud.
He should be in prison for malpractice given all our muscle injuries but I guess Arsenal is punishment enough.
Allegedly Chelsea have sold their women's team to themselves to meet PSR requirements:
And it would
And it would be wrong. We shifted ownership of the women’s team from Chelsea FC to Blueco 22 (the same group that owns the men’s team).
We did this to follow the Lyon model of making the women’s team its own unique entity, and not simply property of the men’s team. We announced this with a lot of fanfare on 5/29.
The investment of 11m was for a stake in the women’s team , and it notably came from one of a number of separate interested investing parties, negotiated by third party banks. Until we did what we did, the women’s team were not allowed to accept investment separate from the mens
The 11 million goes to the women’s team, NOT the men’s team.
This does not in any way help the mr s team meet PSR. In fact, I’m not sure they get the credits towards investing in women’s sport now that the men don’t own the women’s team.
Blueco did not register a movement of funds in transferring the women to Independence. I do t think they could if they wanted to. When the hotels were sold “to themselves” that wasn’t particularly true. A group that owns a percentage of Blueco bought 100% of the hotels. That is a very different thing. Blueco22 already owns everything associated with Chelsea FC.
If Eldridge had purchased the women’s team then maybe there would be a story, but that isn’t what happened.
And, once again, we were nowhere near missing PSR for the 6/30 deadline. We have intentionally moved the reporting of sales we could’ve counted back forwards to next year.
How can the reporting over there be so, so bad?
And it would be wrong. We shifted ownership of the women’s team from Chelsea FC to Blueco 22 (the same group that owns the men’s team).
We did this to follow the Lyon model of making the women’s team its own unique entity, and not simply property of the men’s team. We announced this with a lot of fanfare on 5/29.
The investment of 11m was for a stake in the women’s team , and it notably came from one of a number of separate interested investing parties, negotiated by third party banks. Until we did what we did, the women’s team were not allowed to accept investment separate from the mens
The 11 million goes to the women’s team, NOT the men’s team.
This does not in any way help the mr s team meet PSR. In fact, I’m not sure they get the credits towards investing in women’s sport now that the men don’t own the women’s team.
Blueco did not register a movement of funds in transferring the women to Independence. I do t think they could if they wanted to. When the hotels were sold “to themselves” that wasn’t particularly true. A group that owns a percentage of Blueco bought 100% of the hotels. That is a very different thing. Blueco22 already owns everything associated with Chelsea FC.
If Eldridge had purchased the women’s team then maybe there would be a story, but that isn’t what happened.
And, once again, we were nowhere near missing PSR for the 6/30 deadline. We have intentionally moved the reporting of sales we could’ve counted back forwards to next year.
How can the reporting over there be so, so bad?
Adding to what @Bluelion7 said: how can you view this as anything but a good thing for the women‘s team? It sets them on equal footing.
Thats just transfer fees, never mind the millions they're still paying Potter & Poch to sit on the beach.
Now do one for sales. I wanna see something 
Now do one for sales. I wanna see something
Do we include the hotels you sold to yourselves?
That is utterly ridiculous
Your decision.
They said they were willing to invest 1.75 billion pounds when they bought the team. I'm curious how much of that figure they've eaten through and where it leaves the new stadium plan. I would guess that, broadly speaking, the stadium redevelopment is looking trickier and more expensive than it did in early 2022 given how much interest rates have gone up, inflation in the cost of materials, and other factors. But I don't see this whole thing working in the big picture without monetizing the new stadium and real estate.
In the end, Clearlake is a private equity firm and they didn't buy the majority of the club to be a billionaire's toy or sportswashing enterprise. They identified an investment opportunity and must have bought the team thinking they could invest a certain amount, grow the value of the asset substantially, and then cash out at some point in the 2030s. Its the nature of these things that they'll never admit if things aren't going to plan. But I do wonder what their larger investors think about the situation. If you're investing a substantial part of your net worth with Clearlake, you don't give two fecks about whether Todd Boehly likes to run a sports team or not, you want to see how that part of the portfolio is performing. And if you're Eghbali then you are ultimately answerable to those investors. As with any other investment you've made, you've got to explain the calculus for it to be a winning bet and also assure them that you have an exit strategy if you need to cut your losses.
In the end, Clearlake is a private equity firm and they didn't buy the majority of the club to be a billionaire's toy or sportswashing enterprise. They identified an investment opportunity and must have bought the team thinking they could invest a certain amount, grow the value of the asset substantially, and then cash out at some point in the 2030s. Its the nature of these things that they'll never admit if things aren't going to plan. But I do wonder what their larger investors think about the situation. If you're investing a substantial part of your net worth with Clearlake, you don't give two fecks about whether Todd Boehly likes to run a sports team or not, you want to see how that part of the portfolio is performing. And if you're Eghbali then you are ultimately answerable to those investors. As with any other investment you've made, you've got to explain the calculus for it to be a winning bet and also assure them that you have an exit strategy if you need to cut your losses.
The bolded bit is where you're mistaken.
Clearlake themselves own the full 60% of Chelsea FC, the people investing millions upon millions in the funds managed by Clearlake own as much of the club as you or I do and therefore shouldn't really give a feck.
I haven't spent any time diving deep into Clearlake's investment documents but generally speaking that's not how private equity works. Big investors (very high net worth individuals, hedge funds, pension fund managers) put substantial sums of money into a private equity fund, that capital are then used to buy private companies with the goal of turning a profit via asset stripping or raising the asset value and flipping the company. The managers of the private equity funds make their personal money via fees and/or taking a percentage of the profits but directly own only very small chunks of the assets under management. That's why Clearlake has $72 billion under management but Eghbali is "only" worth $3b.
Maybe they have a different ownership arrangement with Chelsea/BlueCo than the other portfolio companies, I don't know.
It's no wonder clubs are annoyed and find them ridiculous. Especially the clubs beneath that spending threshold who have been hit with deductions!
That's exactly what I was telling you.
So Todd Boehly has spent more on players in one year than Everton have in their entire history?
feck me, that’s one of those stats that just boggles belief.
He’s also spent 50% as much in one year as Manchester United have done in their whole history, and 65% as much as Liverpool in their entire history.
I mean, just let that sink in. That’s so ridiculous that it’s really hard to wrap your head around.
I guarantee this guy describes himself as a “disrupter”, and probably enjoys the smell of his own farts.
Who doesn't enjoy the smell of their own farts?
The craziest thing is that these players on these 7/8/9 year contracts aren’t going to be worth any money. When you spend 60-80m for a player and sit him on the bench for years you can’t resell them at any value. The whole model is downright crazy. Chelsea are a mess.
How much under Boehly though?
His model is truly detestable. At least when Abramovich took over Chelsea, it was with the intention of immediate success and trophies and that was reflected in the personnel brought in.
For Chelsea, it’s a case of hoarding young talent, hoping some of which develop but selling the large majority for profit later down the line. They are admittedly good at doing so. It really is abhorrent and certain parameters should be put in place regarding squad size (even prior to submitting squads for the season) and number of acquisitions that can be made in one season. The turnover of their squad in just two years is unfathomable.
I don’t really care for Chelsea but I hope it all comes crashing down. A club that operates in this fashion doesn’t deserve success.
For Chelsea, it’s a case of hoarding young talent, hoping some of which develop but selling the large majority for profit later down the line. They are admittedly good at doing so. It really is abhorrent and certain parameters should be put in place regarding squad size (even prior to submitting squads for the season) and number of acquisitions that can be made in one season. The turnover of their squad in just two years is unfathomable.
I don’t really care for Chelsea but I hope it all comes crashing down. A club that operates in this fashion doesn’t deserve success.
There's probably some volatility built in because the top sales account a lot for the total. Ronaldo, Lukaku and Di Maria are... 1/4 or 1/5-ish of that billion+. Same for other clubs that sold players for approx 100m€. Arsenal never sold a player for an absurdly high fee, they'd be much closer to the tier above if they did.
Also United maybe have a longer history at selling players to the A and B tier of elite clubs (whenever it happened) and some head start since 1992. Though transfer fees then were much smaller.
Chelsea apparently sold 26 players for 20m€ or more while we sold 11. Liverpool 14. Arsenal 15. City 16.
Last edited:
Spot on. And I can just picture the sycophants' and smart, young assholes surrounding him thinking they're cleverer than anyone elseSo Todd Boehly has spent more on players in one year than Everton have in their entire history?
feck me, that’s one of those stats that just boggles belief.
He’s also spent 50% as much in one year as Manchester United have done in their whole history, and 65% as much as Liverpool in their entire history.
I mean, just let that sink in. That’s so ridiculous that it’s really hard to wrap your head around.
I guarantee this guy describes himself as a “disrupter”, and probably enjoys the smell of his own farts.
I think the issue people have is the model Chelsea use for selling. Even before Boehly they've treated players like cattle and farmed shitloads out to the likes of Vitesse. Players like Van Ginkel just sitting on the books for nearly a decade, barely even playing for Chelsea whilst stagnating because they either couldn't or wouldn't get rid. It's not like you're famous for buying gems for cheap and selling high either bar a couple names like Hazard. You've tended to sell for a similar price that you bought them for usually because the turnover at the club is so high their value hasn't had a chance to change much.
The new model appears to go for a buy low sell high approach but instead of picking out the odd shrewd purchase it seems they're just buying every young talent that enters their field of vision.
I don’t enjoy this approach to football and I am massively relieved he’s nowhere near our club.
Not sure, pretty easy to find out through sites like Transfermarkt though. It's only been 2 years of Clearlake.
Apparently it's c. 446.36 m euros. So net spend is c. 873.64 million euros.
Van Ginkel is a bad example because he was actually perpetually injured and Chelsea kept giving him 1 year extensions to allow him to rehab at Chelsea and then find him a home through Chelsea's connections. He left for free in the end when he found a club willing to give him a multi year contract, and it's no surprise that team was where he had his most successful loan spell. Chelsea did him a solid.
I think we're good at selling in general, but I agree with you on the criticisms of this type of model. I'm no fan of it either, but I still want to add as much context as possible if people are posting spending lists like the one above.
I read somewhere that Chelsea's net spend the last 5 years, which obviously includes the 2 years of Clearlake's endless reckless spending, is actually lower than Arsenal's. Not sure how we compare vs the rest of the top teams in the league.
Sadly it's not even close. Your net spend for the last 5 years is nearly a billion, whereas Arsenal is only at around 576m. You're ahead of everyone by about 300m.
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1
Only us, Brighton, Wolves and Leicester are positive.
Dammit. I've been hoodwinked. Give it a couple more windows. We'll get there
The billion or 2 billion that Roman forgave Chelsea, what was that for. Did it include transfers money as well?
Top of the league.
I’m staggered that we’re in 2nd place on that list. It feels like we have never been good at selling players, even before the Glazers.
Sigh Beckham for 40M and thinking that was an insane fee