Roman Abramovich plans to sell Chelsea | SOLD for £4.25BN
- Thread starter Ali Dia
- Start date
The Times report was false, and a lie, i dont know any other way of putting it to you
This probably won't happen but if this continues on without a clear resolution, could Chelsea be disqualified from the ucl and their slot gone to the 5th team on the table?
itll be signed tomorrow.
Why are Chelsea fans responding so positively to it? Surely a huge downgrade from Roman?
Because they appear to be the best option out of the available candidates. We've made our peace with the downgrade from Abramovich. We're cool with it.
Than my question is moot, good luck with the new owners!
As others have said it's unlikely but if it falls through that's absolutely on the table - without a concrete new ownership plan in place we'd probably effectively stop existing as a football club? Can't realistically envision a scenario where we'd be allowed to compete in the CL without registering for the PL by the deadline in June.
Honestly this whole thing is a dumb mess, they never should have sanctioned your sale if this was going to happen, British government fecked this up.
Anyway that other fella said its going to be signed tomorrow? Good luck to you all if that's the case.
The whole Chelsea sale is likely to be a screw up. Don’t forget it’s “Mad Nad” Nadine Dorries overseeing it.
Well we'll see! The noises have been positive that this is heading towards a conclusion sooner rather than later, but after the timeline has shifted consistently I won't hold my breath.
Not really. The quintessential 'Roman' you're referring to has long gone; with the club on a path of sustainable operation for quite some time. Net spend has been way below the top 3 for a few years as well. The club still operates on the brink though so anything affecting revenue leaves a loss for Roman to cover.
I don't see Boehly running the club much differently to how it has been for the last few years. Mostly they will try to focus on revenue/brand increasing activities (stadium redevelopment, sponsorships) and a possible change in transfer strategy to a stricter, data-driven approach. Most importantly for the casual fan though is that money will be available for transfers.
That summary is probably bang on. Chelsea under Boehly will be the same as the last 5yrs or so roughly. Albeit the main difference being that commerical deals and revenue could be larger than it has been as Boehly has some strong links in the entertainment industry aswell.
£200m every window just wont happen, but there will still be the usual big money signings. As Boehly stated in an interview, one of the best ways to improve revenue and brand growth, is by bringing in the best players and putting a team on the field that no one wants to play against.
Explain like I’m 5 years old to me please… what’s the latest developments?
Boehly's group will sign their contract tomorrow
They then get forwarded to govt for approval. [owners and director test with PL already done]
Takeover done [unless govt decide no]
Cheers mate, positive steps it looks like then.
You are in for a rude awakening.
Chelsea has been run at a significant loss even in recent years.
Beyond top line accounting, the club relies on a very unusual model that is almost certainly unsustainable without Roman, which is to run at a very large operating loss but close the gap via higher levels of player sales than any other club in the world. That is largely accomplished through juggling a huge loan army and almost certainly some very creative accounting. Any non-Roman owner like Boehly, however, is likely to act like other owners, which means being concerned with operating profit/loss. This isn’t going to fly for him:
Sounds quite... dramatic.
'Significant loss even in recent years' - I assume you're referring to the exacerbated losses under covid and not the profitable ones just prior? The model you're referring to is unsustainable with or without Roman because as I said, the club has been on a path of financial sustainability for a number of years.
Make no mistake, in the short-term, the club will continue spending on players and bridging operational losses with player sales and loans. The Chelsea board ruled out any bidders who a) were attempting a debt-financed bid; and b) were not committed to spending in the short-medium term. Without a doubt the Boehly group had to present on how they were going to tackle this issue during the previous bidding phase and would be fully aware of the club's situation.
As intimated in my previous post, I have zero concerns that the club will spend to be competitive. Most warnings and concerns on that seem to come from opposition fans...for some reason.
"Clauses preventing Chelsea's new owners paying dividends or management fees until 2032 are being discussed as a consortium spearheaded by Todd Boehly tries to finalise a binding £4bn takeover, Sky News learns."
£4bn?! Where do these guys see the value in paying this much for a club?
Its not about debt financing, it’s really just about profit and loss. If you don’t have an owner like Roman, you will have a business that largely attempts to spend about as much money as it makes each year. Chelsea doesn’t do that right now. It has Arsenal/Spurs level projectable revenue streams and a City/United level wage bill. It’s not a combination that works without an owner willing to take losses and do some very creative accounting. I’m sure Boehly will spend money but the club wont be as financially competitive as the last ten years.
Really really really really hope this goes tits up and they go into administration in the near future. A man can dream.
There is no claim in my post about it being related to debt financing. The club does spend as much as it makes, it's just not sustainable in the medium-long term as it's reliant on transfer and loan incomes. Actual revenue and projected revenue streams are above Tottenham and Arsenal levels, with projected revenue to increase quite a bit over the next 5 years (excl. transfer outgoings).
You would then wonder why groups of billionaires would want to buy a club with guaranteed transfer spending, no dividend payouts, and being unable to sell the club for a decade being part of a binding agreement...
I think it's an overall package they're quoting - 2.5b for the purchase and 1.5b minimum investment over the next 10 years.
The club has lost over 200m pounds in the last six years, as the Swiss Ramble thread showed (there is a tweet several higher than the one I posted). And that is accounting for transfer income and not fully factoring in Covid-related losses. It has not at all been a sustainable model, even with extremely high income from transfer dealings that itself surely won't continue.
Matchday revenues are lower than Arsenal and Tottenham and that won't change until there is a big stadium renovation which is a very long term project, commercial revenues are slightly ahead but probably not for long as the most lucrative deals (shirt sponsorship, etc) are locked in for the long term and therefore not going to grow, domestic broadcast revenue is roughly the same. Chelsea has higher revenues simply from making CL more consistently and selling more players, but those are just variables going forward they are not reliably fixed parts of a revenue projection.
In the end, Chelsea is not Liverpool or United. The fan base is much smaller, the stadium is smaller, and the ability to commercialize the club's appeal is at a totally different level, despite the club's success on the pitch in recent years. Chelsea are also not City or Newcastle for obvious reasons. The only reason Chelsea played in a similar sandbox financially was Roman.
No big club owner except the Glazers takes significant dividends and hardly any owner will sell within a decade, so those provisions are basically nothingburgers.
Lots of billionaires want to buy Chelsea because (a) it is a scarce and high status asset/toy and only a few billionaires can own one of those and (b) the global economy right now is beset by massive uncertainty and turmoil across asset classes due to a combination of factors, but most importantly the war in Russia, and a unique asset like Chelsea is an extremely good bet to at least retain its value and likely appreciate over time. If a club like Tottenham went up for sale right now, it would be the exact same situation.
Last edited:
Well nobody will do what Roman did for Chelsea. Simply nobody thought we would go for more than 1 bn. But new owners see the potential in making money out from their investment. We simply have to increase our revenue and it's their lifeline for the money they invested. Boehly have well connected within sports commercials. So he see the worth especially Chelsea have one of the largest fan base in US.
He not only wanted Chelsea in this desperate situation but he already approached roman about buying Chelsea before 2021 I think. So he sees the value and want to explore it. Any way Roman ensured cash injection initially for this coming window.
With proper window we will be sorted out for two to three seasons without any major investment in our squad. And we have some sellable assets in our team too.
Without Roman chelsea can bank on our longevity with manager and transfers could be done with more mature approach rather big money signings. In fact all of our big money signings not worked out well for us. Avoiding them itself give us enough balance over all. Looking forward to next season.
It
It‘s going to be interesting. I for one think the club has underperformed commercially and that there are serious funds to be found there. You mention shirt sponsorships being tied in long term but the main shirt sponsor finishes next year I believe. Add on additional revenue from a new stadium and potentially naming rights and I think we’ll be just fine.
I also think we run a bit bloated in some areas so shrinking the squad slightly and using our talented academy can really knock huge sums off the wage bill
It‘s going to be interesting. I for one think the club has underperformed commercially and that there are serious funds to be found there. You mention shirt sponsorships being tied in long term but the main shirt sponsor finishes next year I believe. Add on additional revenue from a new stadium and potentially naming rights and I think we’ll be just fine.
I also think we run a bit bloated in some areas so shrinking the squad slightly and using our talented academy can really knock huge sums off the wage bill
Anti glazers rule
Chelsea are a bit of a odd one. Revenue wise they probably bring in a lot less than they should do for a team that has had their success. I suspect that is somewhere the new owners will look to expand, especially with there connections Stateside.
As for the matchday revenue, that is an issue but they have had previous planning permission. That means they will secure it pretty quickly so long as the new owners do not try to do something crazy. Equally, I suspect that a move to Wembley would increase their revenue quickly as it is double the size, although they obviously wouldn't sell that out every game nor would they be allowed too. I wouldn't be surprised if they do something on to address that in the next 18-24 months i.e. start playing at Wembley from 23/24 while they develop.
What is also interesting about Chelsea is regard to their fan base, since they have a bit of an odd demographic. In the US they're one, if not the most popular team, while they also have a bit of a weird generational spread over here. I remember reading an article in the early 10's that said something like they don't really have many Gen X fans but with the Millennials and Boomers they were pretty popular and particularly with the younger Millennials i.e those born after 1990. The conclusion was that owing to their hooligan problem during the 70s-80s they essentially lost a generation of supporters as they weren't taken by their parents' or went to different teams, while the club underperformed on the pitch.
This leads me to the domestic rights'; that really isn't an issue as while they may not be growing, they're stable. I say this because of the revenues from overseas which are showing massive growth. There are a few articles knocking about where people in the US are predicting the PL will become the 3rd most popular league over there in the next decade or two. I have written about this previously on this thread, so won't repeat myself, but Chelsea will be one of the biggest winners from this (as they're incredibly popular there) and especially because of the way this got sliced up a few years back. Thus, they are essentially a club with a lot of potential as the Millennial and US markets will be where a lot of future growth comes from.
Essentially, the whole reason Chelsea created such massive interest from the States is because, unlike over here, they're not seen as a smaller team than Utd or Liverpool but rather one of the top teams, if not the most popular (see my previous post if you want details) with a fairly young fan base (if you exclude the Boomers.)
Last edited:
In terms of revenue, i'd argue that we may have landed on our feet with Boehly due to his entertainment and media links. Without being too clued up on MLB, i did read the Dodgers have some of the best revenue, although it was a while back so could be mistaken.
I could most certainly see a big american media company becoming sponsor, and 3 being fecked off, if contract allows. And given the popularity of Chelsea in the states, i'd imagine a handful of companies wanting to replace 3, should that be allowed. I just do not want a stadium renaming scenario, ever.
"Anti Glazer" clause as media report it is an interesting one, too...
All about to become clear as purchase agreement is now signed.
Telegraph reporting signed and done.
https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2022/05/06/club-statement
Chelsea Football Club can confirm that terms have been agreed for a new ownership group, led by Todd Boehly, Clearlake Capital, Mark Walter and Hansjoerg Wyss, to acquire the Club.
Of the total investment being made, £2.5bn will be applied to purchase the shares in the Club and such proceeds will be deposited into a frozen UK bank account with the intention to donate 100% to charitable causes as confirmed by Roman Abramovich. UK Government approval will be required for the proceeds to be transferred from the frozen UK bank account.
In addition, the proposed new owners will commit £1.75bn in further investment for the benefit of the Club. This includes investments in Stamford Bridge, the Academy, the Women’s Team and Kingsmeadow and continued funding for the Chelsea Foundation.
The sale is expected to complete in late May subject to all necessary regulatory approvals. More details will be provided at that time.
Chelsea Football Club can confirm that terms have been agreed for a new ownership group, led by Todd Boehly, Clearlake Capital, Mark Walter and Hansjoerg Wyss, to acquire the Club.
Of the total investment being made, £2.5bn will be applied to purchase the shares in the Club and such proceeds will be deposited into a frozen UK bank account with the intention to donate 100% to charitable causes as confirmed by Roman Abramovich. UK Government approval will be required for the proceeds to be transferred from the frozen UK bank account.
In addition, the proposed new owners will commit £1.75bn in further investment for the benefit of the Club. This includes investments in Stamford Bridge, the Academy, the Women’s Team and Kingsmeadow and continued funding for the Chelsea Foundation.
The sale is expected to complete in late May subject to all necessary regulatory approvals. More details will be provided at that time.
New era begins. Sure there was a story that premier league had already passed them through the owner and director test, so hopefully a quick process now.
#ToddBoehlysBarmyArmy
This is great news. We can start renewing players contracts soon and start talking to potential new players. We obviously don't know what the future holds, but all things considered, I think we've ended up in an alright situation.
Roman era is officially over. Good luck.
Turning up to sign a 4 billion pound deal looking like he's just popped out to the supermarket for some milk
