LawCharltonBest
Enjoys watching porn..with foxes
At least they will make a big profit on them in a couple of yearsYea, but it is currently loaned out to some random Serie A club.
At least they will make a big profit on them in a couple of yearsYea, but it is currently loaned out to some random Serie A club.
Neil Bath has been at Chelsea at Chelsea since the 90s. There was a period of 15 years from when Abramovich took over till 2019 where Chelsea managed just 1 academy player to come through and establish himself. For many years, up until 2017, Terry remained the last academy product and he came through in the late 90s. Current Chelsea is a million miles better at integrating Chelsea youth than at any point before 2019 and after 2000.
Allegedly Chelsea have sold their women's team to themselves to meet PSR requirements:
Allegedly Chelsea have sold their women's team to themselves to meet PSR requirements:
Now do one for sales. I wanna see something
That is utterly ridiculous
Do we include the hotels you sold to yourselves?
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.
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.
It's no wonder clubs are annoyed and find them ridiculous. Especially the clubs beneath that spending threshold who have been hit with deductions!
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.
So Todd Boehly has spent more on players in one year than Everton have in their entire history?It's no wonder clubs are annoyed and find them ridiculous. Especially the clubs beneath that spending threshold who have been hit with deductions!
Surprised to see us so high given how we seem so bad at selling players normally.
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.
How much under Boehly though?
Apparently it's c. 446.36 m euros. So net spend is c. 873.64 million euros.Not sure, pretty easy to find out through sites like Transfermarkt though. It's only been 2 years of Clearlake.
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.
Apparently it's c. 446.36 m euros. So net spend is c. 873.64 million euros.
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.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.
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 600m. 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.
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.
Sigh Beckham for 40M and thinking that was an insane feeThere'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.