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.
You cannot really extrapolate too much from the Dodgers. The MLB is different to the NFL in that teams have a lot more protection in regard to their 'markets' i.e. the city and State they play in. That is why the Dodgers and Yankees earn so much more as the revenues generated by those markets aren't split as evenly as in other leagues.
That said, he has run them very well.
They are in a mess and need to replace Christensen and Rudiger first and foremost. They then need to look at Lukaku and Werner whilst making a decision on the midfield.
Basically there’s plenty of work for them to do in the summer but this time without Romans magic chequebook.
Interesting times
The problem here is he has committed £1.75bn to investing in the club over the next ten years. Additionally, Chelsea have quite a few players that they can sell even if it is for losses. I suspect there is money there.
he’s a businessperson first and foremost. stamford bridge is ripe for turning into kensington flats and that’s one of the first things on his agenda, blaming chelsea and kensington planning for the move. he’s keen not to alienate the fans though and he will move the team to pitsea, so the imaginative fans at the bridge don’t have to work too hard to replace the “chelsea, chelsea” chant.
I know a little about the London real estate market and I wouldn't be surprised to see Chelsea move. However, I suspect it will be to Earls Court.
Earls Court has been a disaster from start to finish and essentially, owing to the saturation of luxury flats in London that aren't selling, it's really isn't in a place to be developed like that for some time.
Consequently, rumours are the council want an anchor tenant to go in and get things moving. Expect some sort of land swap with sizable cash going to Chelsea and/or a virtual freehold (999 lease on peppercorn terms) to happen. Another thing I have heard is that this hasn't happened already because no one wanted to get tied up with RA once the project looked doomed owing to the political cilmate, the US owners won't have such an issue.
The SB site I expect will get turned into high end housing with a mix of flats. That area is more ripe for that sort of development rather than a mega flat project like Battersea of Nine Elms.
If that happens, Chelsea will do very nicely out of it.
I still find it somewhat pathetic, that with all the FFP rules, Chelsea can literally just be allowed to wave off £1.5bn debt and other clubs are punished harshly for having much smaller debts.
It changes the entire landscape and puts Chelsea in an unfair position in terms of fair play.
FFP was designed for this type of ownership to make it fairer and here we see it being totally disregarded.
All these small clubs taken to court and wound up for such small amounts of debt despite new ownership, surely must have a legal case
The problem is the way the debt was structured. You may have heard, prior to any indication of a sale, that Chelsea were essentially debt free. The reason for that was due to the option for RA to turn that debt into equity (read shares) as and when he wanted to. That is why the debt can be written off as it will be converted to equity.
[ZQUOTE="TheReligion, post: 28830464, member: 23584"]
The new owners would have to be willing to take huge losses on Lukaku and Werner. Will they fancy that? I’m not sure.
[/QUOTE]
Bit of a moot point, the owners have brought Chelsea with these two as an ongoing concern that would've been factored into their budgets. By selling Lukaku say for £20m isn't going to be a £80m loss for them, as they would've put that into their figures when buying.
Tbh, I think Chelsea, the club itself, have come out of this quite nicely. The only real concern for them will be if the new owners are hopeless at signing people and continue their trend of buying players like Kepa, Bakayoko, Drinkwater and Lukaku etc.
