Roman Abramovich plans to sell Chelsea | SOLD for £4.25BN

[Powderfinger]

I think one of the things that interests Bohely is the media market for Chelsea. The midwest of the US has really blown up in the last several years for Chelsea. One of the ways that Bohely makes a lot of money from the Dodgers is media and merchandise deals in the US.

Maybe, but media rights work a lot differently in baseball. For baseball the national TV deal is split between the teams but its relatively small in general. The biggest money is in local market TV/cable deals, which the teams negotiate themselves and reap the benefits of themselves. And that's why the Dodgers (and also the Yankees) are so much richer than everybody else, they are in the biggest markets and have these massive deals. Its like if Chelsea could negotiate its own deal with Sky to broadcast all Chelsea matches to the Greater London market and take all the money for themselves.

I don't really see how that translates into a lot of revenue expansion for Chelsea from the US market. Arguably in digital media and marketing there is room to grow, as with all big clubs. But they can't sell TV or streaming to Chelsea matches in the US on their own, everything is done via the PL and then split among the clubs.

 

[Zaphod2319]

Yeah but Chelsea aren't exactly an iconic club. Talk about wasting cash on trash.

They actually are here. They were competing and winning during the last 20 years. The years that the Premier League really started becoming popular in the US. Man Utd and Arsenal have always had a following in the US. Chelsea won a lot during a pretty explosive time in viewership in the US and gained a lot of new fans. I just bought tickets for the Chelsea vs Arsenal game in Orlando on July 23. It was not long ago they could not get very many people to buy tickets for $30, it is scary what those tickets are selling for now. $100ish for the cheap seats and the lower level seats are really high.....and they are selling fast.

Timing is everything.

 

[TsuWave]

He was born in Failsworth and grew up as a United fan. Started going to Chelsea when he lived in London so now supports them as well.

I see. Bit weird for a UK fan to “support” two top flight clubs, potential rivals and all. Sounds like he was a boyhood United fan who now supports Chelsea due to attending their games/living in London as an adult. Which makes him a Chelsea fan in my eyes. Only way I can make sense of it.

I mean he’s reportedly trying to buy Chelsea and everything

 

[Gandalf]

They actually are here. They were competing and winning during the last 20 years. The years that the Premier League really started becoming popular in the US. Man Utd and Arsenal have always had a following in the US. Chelsea won a lot during a pretty explosive time in viewership in the US and gained a lot of new fans. I just bought tickets for the Chelsea vs Arsenal game in Orlando on July 23. It was not long ago they could not get very many people to buy tickets for $30, it is scary what those tickets are selling for now. $100ish for the cheap seats and the lower level seats are really high.....and they are selling fast.

Timing is everything.

As an exiled Brit living in the States I can verify the above. To those of us from the UK we know that Chelsea have had most of their success in the relatively recent past but to most American fans Roman was already the owner before they even knew the PL was a thing. My son is 16 and plays football in school and in a club side and the Chelsea fans outnumber the United fans by about 10 to 1 and genuinely seem to believe that Chelsea are and always have been a bigger club than United.

 

[TheReligion]

As an exiled Brit living in the States I can verify the above. To those of us from the UK we know that Chelsea have had most of their success in the relatively recent past but to most American fans Roman was already the owner before they even knew the PL was a thing. My son is 16 and plays football in school and in a club side and the Chelsea fans outnumber the United fans by about 10 to 1 and genuinely seem to believe that Chelsea are and always have been a bigger club than United.

This is unsurprising given American has a limited history as a country itself..

 

[Classical Mechanic]

I see. Bit weird for a UK fan to “support” two top flight clubs, potential rivals and all. Sounds like he was a boyhood United fan who now supports Chelsea due to attending their games/living in London as an adult. Which makes him a Chelsea fan in my eyes. Only way I can make sense of it.

I mean he’s reportedly trying to buy Chelsea and everything

I don't disagree. He's previously said United was too expensive and badly run but now he's throwing £4bn at Chelsea. He's obviously more enamoured with Chelsea. I'm from Oldham which Failsworth is now a part of. If he bought Oldham he could make such a massive difference to the town. I don't think he's that interested in where he came from. I don't think I've ever seen him doing anything around here.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

Is there going to be any debt involved if this Boehly bid goes through ?

 

[Billy Bullcrap]

I find it bizarre that “Mad Nad” Nadine Dorries is in a position to dictate who buys an English football club!

 

[Tom Cato]

Is there going to be any debt involved if this Boehly bid goes through ?

Chelsea owe Roman £2bn. From what I read he will forfeit the debt in full.

No idea about takeower payment structure, but you would expect there to be some leverages in the funding. Either the owner(s) pay in direct cash, or they borrow from the bank/their own companies - at which point the debt could be interest free. So the answer is "maybe"

 

[Zaphod2319]

Chelsea owe Roman £2bn. From what I read he will forfeit the debt in full.

No idea about takeower payment structure, but you would expect there to be some leverages in the funding. Either the owner(s) pay in direct cash, or they borrow from the bank/their own companies - at which point the debt could be interest free. So the answer is "maybe"

After the sanctions are lifted, if any debt was repaid, the old Roman brown paper bag might happen.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

I wanted to stay away from the Palace pair because I thought it was such a bad look to buy into a club and then drop them as soon as another club (a local one even) becomes available. Don't trust them and I'm glad it looks like we're staying well clear of them. Now they have to go back and deal with the Palace community.

I'm a bit of an ITK about those two and their acquisition of Palace - they would have been atrocious for Chelsea. Glazer-tier if not worse.

 

[Red the Bear]

I have a feeling that Chelsea are fecked.

They should have savored every moment of their last season's glory .
They might not get to have such success in a very long time.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

I have a feeling that Chelsea are fecked.

They should have savored every moment of their last season's glory .
They might not get to have such success in a very long time.

Not trying to be a muppet but I very much disagree. We'd have been proper fecked if the Ricketts had bought us - but if Boehly uses a similar approach for Chelsea as he has done for the Dodgers we'll be in a good position. Certainly it won't be akin to the Roman free-spending days, but there's nothing in Boehly's history to suggest he isn't a very committed owner who is more focused on success than profits. Also has to be said that he has previous for redeveloping an old and logistically-challenging stadium.

It's also very encouraging that bids were being turned down due to debt-leveraging (reportedly the Broughton bid) - that suggests we'll be fairly stable financially in the near term.

 

[Dancfc]

Not trying to be a muppet but I very much disagree. We'd have been proper fecked if the Ricketts had bought us - but if Boehly uses a similar approach for Chelsea as he has done for the Dodgers we'll be in a good position. Certainly it won't be akin to the Roman free-spending days, but there's nothing in Boehly's history to suggest he isn't a very committed owner who is more focused on success than profits. Also has to be said that he has previous for redeveloping an old and logistically-challenging stadium.

It's also very encouraging that bids were being turned down due to debt-leveraging (reportedly the Broughton bid) - that suggests we'll be fairly stable financially in the near term.

This will probably come across as a trying to convince myself post but if under Boely we go after targeted system based signings that is probably a better strategy to try and catch those two freaks than a vanity £100m Lukaku signing.

 

[Red the Bear]

Not trying to be a muppet but I very much disagree. We'd have been proper fecked if the Ricketts had bought us - but if Boehly uses a similar approach for Chelsea as he has done for the Dodgers we'll be in a good position. Certainly it won't be akin to the Roman free-spending days, but there's nothing in Boehly's history to suggest he isn't a very committed owner who is more focused on success than profits. Also has to be said that he has previous for redeveloping an old and logistically-challenging stadium.

It's also very encouraging that bids were being turned down due to debt-leveraging (reportedly the Broughton bid) - that suggests we'll be fairly stable financially in the near term.

Political implications aside, roman was one hell of an owner, I just find hard to believe anyone could come in and be of the same caliber .
Us style club owning is lot more different as its just a very closed eco system where chances of relegation and such are non, the feckers make cities pay for their stadiums so them being from that cloth is not very confidence inducing to be honest.
You lot have made enough pedigree ro be self sustaining but I'll doubt you will ever reach the heights you did under your sugar daddy, you'll be more spurs level from now on o think but a lot more competent.

 

[ZolaWasMagic]

Sure i read earlier that Clearlake Capital actually will own more than half. Be interested to see what Goldman sachs involvement will be from here on.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Political implications aside, roman was one hell of an owner, I just find hard to believe anyone could come in and be of the same caliber .
Us style club owning is lot more different as its just a very closed eco system where chances of relegation and such are non, the feckers make cities pay for their stadiums so them being from that cloth is not very confidence inducing to be honest.
You lot have made enough pedigree ro be self sustaining but I'll doubt you will ever reach the heights you did under your sugar daddy, you'll be more spurs level from now on o think but a lot more competent.

I think that's all entirely fair - but at the same time, that sort of scattergun approach that goes hand in hand with Roman's largesse wasn't necessarily always successful. We bought a lot of middling players for stupid fees - Boehly's approach has always been to supplement homegrown talent with premium signings. The Dodgers target the very best players when they are available (e.g. Mookie Betts, Freddie Freeman, etc.) but do so in order to build around their core of in-house developed players. Personally I've always thought this is the approach Chelsea should be taking and that we haven't leveraged our top-class academy properly - obviously we've been a bit better of late but there is still room for growth there.

This will probably come across as a trying to convince myself post but if under Boely we go after targeted system based signings that is probably a better strategy to try and catch those two freaks than a vanity £100m Lukaku signing.

Yep, this basically. Especially because we had to sell young premium CB talent to fund it when we could have just used Broja. The news that we had a €40m agreement set for Tchouameni last summer only to pull out at the 11th hour was incredibly depressing.

 

[Red the Bear]

I think that's all entirely fair - but at the same time, that sort of scattergun approach that goes hand in hand with Roman's largesse wasn't necessarily always successful. We bought a lot of middling players for stupid fees - Boehly's approach has always been to supplement homegrown talent with premium signings. The Dodgers target the very best players when they are available (e.g. Mookie Betts, Freddie Freeman, etc.) but do so in order to build around their core of in-house developed players. Personally I've always thought this is the approach Chelsea should be taking and that we haven't leveraged our top-class academy properly - obviously we've been a bit better of late but there is still room for growth there.



Yep, this basically. Especially because we had to sell young premium CB talent to fund it when we could have just used Broja. The news that we had a €40m agreement set for Tchouameni last summer only to pull out at the 11th hour was incredibly depressing.

That's all fine and dandy but relying on academy products has it's limits, at the end of the day you might just need that 100 mill marquee signing to put you over the top to compete for the highest honors, I feel you will lack that initiative under the new ownership but it's to be seen.

 

[George The Best]

If Chelsea go for £4bn, how bloody much would it take for the Glazers to sell us?

All that bullshit about Abramhovic being happy to forget the £1.5bn loan is surely disproved now. The only way anyone is paying £4bn is if it includes him making all that back.

It’s not £4bn upfront though. It’s a bid of around £2.5bn to buy the club with the rest coming in investment into the club and infrastructure over next 10 years

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

That's all fine and dandy but relying on academy products has it's limits, at the end of the day you might just need that 100 mill marquee signing to put you over the top to compete for the highest honors, I feel you will lack that initiative under the new ownership but it's to be seen.

Oh I agree! I am not opposed to spending big fees on premium talent - I think that's what we should be doing exactly! What I'm opposed to are the signings of the likes of Bakayoko when we had Chalobah the elder, or Drinkwater when we had literally anyone with a pulse, or Fabregas when we had KdB.

What's encouraging to me is that this is more or less what the Dodgers do - they have a homegrown core that they've enhanced by giving out some of the richest contracts in baseball to premium talent at ideal ages. They're on the forefront of baseball analytics and player evaluations - hopefully that will translate to football.

I don't think there's any reason to think Boehly will be less competent than FSG - and in fact, he's savvy enough to have learned from some of their initial missteps. I would say that you are right that we will no longer be able to just throw money at problems, but personally I'm optimistic that some of those costs will not really be a factor (surely we won't be firing coaches at the same rate, for instance). We will have to be smarter in order to stay competitive - going forward the template is now Liverpool instead of Man City.

 

[ExecutionerWasp001]

Still don't get it. How and why are Chelsea going for £4b+?

I don't see how it makes sense to buy a football club for £4 Billion hoping for a return on your investment.

If the club were to make £100 Million a season profit it would still take 40 years to recoup your original investment. When talking about profit i'm not including the money that needs to be spent on squad improvements each season.

We have the highest (genuine) revenue in the league. I don't think we make £100 Mill profit each season even before the Glazers have paid off the loans & took a piece for themselves.

 

[Gandalf]

Despite living here I don't follow baseball because it lacks anything remotely resembling entertainment value but as far as I can make out Todd Boehly is a minority owner of the Dodgers and so I am curious as to why people are crediting him with the good management of the team? Is there evidence that he is the mastermind behind the teams success or he is just a lucky beneficiary? The one thing that would make me run a mile if I was a Chelsea supporter is that Boehly made his money at Credit Suisse where his specialty was leveraged finance, two words that should make your blood run cold.

 

[WeePat]

Despite living here I don't follow baseball because it lacks anything remotely resembling entertainment value but as far as I can make out Todd Boehly is a minority owner of the Dodgers and so I am curious as to why people are crediting him with the good management of the team? Is there evidence that he is the mastermind behind the teams success or he is just a lucky beneficiary? The one thing that would make me run a mile if I was a Chelsea supporter is that Boehly made his money at Credit Suisse where his specialty was leveraged finance, two words that should make your blood run cold.

One of the main owners at the Dodgers is on board the Boehly group, if that means anything to you.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Despite living here I don't follow baseball because it lacks anything remotely resembling entertainment value but as far as I can make out Todd Boehly is a minority owner of the Dodgers and so I am curious as to why people are crediting him with the good management of the team? Is there evidence that he is the mastermind behind the teams success or he is just a lucky beneficiary? The one thing that would make me run a mile if I was a Chelsea supporter is that Boehly made his money at Credit Suisse where his specialty was leveraged finance, two words that should make your blood run cold.

Well, he's part of the consortium that owns it - whilst you're correct that he is a minority owner in terms of the stake he owns personally, his input and vision are core to the way the team is run because he's not a silent partner.

A leveraged buyout is something I would absolutely dread (another untenable part of the Ricketts' bid beyond their deplorability character-wise), but fortunately for Chelsea supporters this was also a disqualifying factor for the Raine Group / Abramovich. Broughton's bid was rejected on this basis reportedly - and that was not a fully-leveraged buyout, just a partial one. Don't think there's anything to suggest that this is what Boehly's group is intending.

 

[Red the Bear]

Oh I agree! I am not opposed to spending big fees on premium talent - I think that's what we should be doing exactly! What I'm opposed to are the signings of the likes of Bakayoko when we had Chalobah the elder, or Drinkwater when we had literally anyone with a pulse, or Fabregas when we had KdB.

What's encouraging to me is that this is more or less what the Dodgers do - they have a homegrown core that they've enhanced by giving out some of the richest contracts in baseball to premium talent at ideal ages. They're on the forefront of baseball analytics and player evaluations - hopefully that will translate to football.

I don't think there's any reason to think Boehly will be less competent than FSG - and in fact, he's savvy enough to have learned from some of their initial missteps. I would say that you are right that we will no longer be able to just throw money at problems, but personally I'm optimistic that some of those costs will not really be a factor (surely we won't be firing coaches at the same rate, for instance). We will have to be smarter in order to stay competitive - going forward the template is now Liverpool instead of Man City.

I'm obviously not in the know with the way Chelsea operated but I thought you guys dropped off a clif after 2014 in your recruitment, but it got a lot better recently, this whole debacle (sadly due to the war in Ukraine) came in a very unfortunate time for you lot as I would certainly imagine you have gone big in the following summer window to finally compete for the league title, but that's shelved now I imagine.

Your certainly correct, liverpool is the model to follow and while I'm going off your description (don't know much about Dodgers tbh) these lot seem capable of pulling this off , im just a bit cynical about how all of this is coming together.

 

[Zaphod2319]

Todd Boehly has a lot of input on the Dodgers. If you listen to his interviews, he does not have a big ego. He always consults with people that are more experienced than he does. He was talking once about how one of the first things they were going to renovate at Dodger’s stadium was the player’s clubhouse to make them happy. The longtime executive they were using as a consultant told his group if they want the players happy, make their wives happy. They delayed the clubhouse renovation and instead built a family area for the player’s families to be during the games. The wives were very happy, and the players loved it. I think that is where his strength lies. Knowing there are good people to get sound advice from instead of proving you have all the answers.

 

[Dave Smith]

I don't see how it makes sense to buy a football club for £4 Billion hoping for a return on your investment.

If the club were to make £100 Million a season profit it would still take 40 years to recoup your original investment. When talking about profit i'm not including the money that needs to be spent on squad improvements each season.

We have the highest (genuine) revenue in the league. I don't think we make £100 Mill profit each season even before the Glazers have paid off the loans & took a piece for themselves.

I do and I know exactly why the Yanks are circling. As @Gandalf and @Zaphod2319 have discussed, and we have discussed elsewhere (PL TV rights thread.) The PL is seriously taking off in the US and they also have the WC coming in 2026, which is going to be massive for them.

What I think is underappriciated in the UK, is how big "Soccer" is becoming in the US and what this exactly means.

People need to understand that the US is absolutely sports mad. However, unlike the UK it takes on quite a different guise.

First is winning or 'winningest' teams as they like to call it (this word does feck me off btw.) Tbh, Chelsea couldn't have timed their successful era any better (City also.) As they are the team that has been the most successful in the of era of rapid rise of interest in the PL. Therefore, they were the go to team for a lot of Americans as they were the most successful; whilst now, as the market matures over their, they have a strong base, which then breeds more fans i.e. friends get their friends to watch with them, couples have kids and pass their fandom on etc. Never underestimate how much the Americans love a winner and especially one in the recent past.

Second is that the rights deal the PL got recently will be a drop in the ocean compared to what it will get in upcoming cycles if growth trends continue. In many measures, the PL has overtaken the NHL as the US 4th favourite/watched league and if growth continues it may even become the 3rd in the not too distant future. The reasons for this are multiple, but three common themes are:

1) The PL is fortunate in that it's games are aired at a time in which it does not have any real competition in the US as it is in the morning primarily, which is a issue MLS faces (don't underestimate how sports mad they are.)

2) Parents' are moving their kids away from some traditional US sports, particularly American Football, and having them play Soccer. This is increasing interest in the Sport at participation level, which then bleeds into viewership.

3) Language. Sharing a common language is important for accessibility.

4) London based. Chelsea being in London, is more accessible than teams elsewhere (although tbf, this is only a real concern for a small percentage.)

If this continues, rights deals will continue to rises in multiples moving forward.

Fourth is that Chelsea, have the US golden boy of Soccer. Americans love nothing more than supporting one of their own, this combined with the 'winningest' thing should be taken into consideration when thinking about why they are so popular in the US.

Fifth. Unlike European fans, US fans have been raised on having multiple teams in different sports to support. In the UK, you typically have a football fan, that may enjoy some other sports and may follow a couple of teams in other sports. In the US, there are a lot more people who are pretty avid fans of multiple teams in different sports. An example would be in Boston, where you'll get a people being crazy about the Red Soxs, Celtics and Patriots, or in NY where they will be a Giants, Knicks and Yankee fan, and move their attention as the seasons come and go (traditionally Basketball, AF and Baseball didn't really overlap.)

Sixth is heavily linked to five. Sports merch in the US, is very much on a different level. Americans, love their sports merch; or more Americans percentage wise to Europeans do (Ty is obviously excluded from this.) In the UK people will generally buy a piece of merch here or there, in the US it is much more extensive by a order of magnitude and it applies to their habit of having multiple teams/sport interests'. Additionally, casual purchasing of iconic individual American (this is where Pulisic is helpful) merch is also more common even if said person isn't even really a fan of the team they play on or the sport; that said this has also become more common with players such as CR7, Messi, Mbappe etc, in Europe. Thus, if ratings and participation continue to rise, the Merch will rise in conjunction.

There are more reason why US investors are so interested in the PL but I will stop here as I haven't read enough to be certain to make claims.

Whereas, I am sure I have probably got some things wrong about Sports in the US as I am UK based, but have spent quite a lot of time in the US and consume quite a lot of US media coverage due to my interest in the NFL, so it is quite ancedotal (the boys/girls I mentioned above (or any other US poster) please correct me if I am wrong.

However, imo, this is why the Americans are so interested in PL teams and in particular why Chelsea created such buzz. Additionally, it is also why Chelsea are selling for such a premium and why it shouldn't be seen as too much of an over payment, because if the popularity of the PL continues to rise in the US, revenues of PL teams are going to be due a serious uptick (especially the top teams owing to the way overseas percentages are now handed out) in the next decade or two.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

I'm obviously not in the know with the way Chelsea operated but I thought you guys dropped off a clif after 2014 in your recruitment, but it got a lot better recently, this whole debacle (sadly due to the war in Ukraine) came in a very unfortunate time for you lot as I would certainly imagine you have gone big in the following summer window to finally compete for the league title, but that's shelved now I imagine.

Your certainly correct, liverpool is the model to follow and while I'm going off your description (don't know much about Dodgers tbh) these lot seem capable of pulling this off , im just a bit cynical about how all of this is coming together.

Yeah the nadir was the recruitment after Conte won the league his first year - he asked for VVD, Koulibaly, Nainggolan, Lukaku, and Alex Sandro. Instead we bought the likes of Morata, Bakayoko, and Drinkwater - and the chance to really push on with an elite manager was thrown away. In some ways the transfer ban forced us to recalibrate to some extent - we've starting bringing more academy players through but there is still massive room for improvement.

I do and I know exactly why the Yanks are circling. As @Gandalf and @Zaphod2319 have discussed, and we have discussed elsewhere (PL TV rights thread.) The PL is seriously taking off in the US and they also have the WC coming in 2026, which is going to be massive for them.

What I think is underappriciated in the UK, is how big "Soccer" is becoming in the US and what this exactly means.

People need to understand that the US is absolutely sports mad. However, unlike the UK it takes on quite a different guise.

First is winning or 'winningest' teams as they like to call it (this word does feck me off btw.) Tbh, Chelsea couldn't have timed their successful era any better (City also.) As they are the team that has been the most successful in the of era of rapid rise of interest in the PL. Therefore, they were the go to team for a lot of Americans as they were the most successful; whilst now, as the market matures over their, they have a strong base, which then breeds more fans i.e. friends get their friends to watch with them, couples have kids and pass their fandom on etc. Never underestimate how much the Americans love a winner and especially one in the recent past.

Second is that the rights deal the PL got recently will be a drop in the ocean compared to what it will get in upcoming cycles if growth trends continue. In many measures, the PL has overtaken the NHL as the US 4th favourite/watched league and if growth continues it may even become the 3rd in the not too distant future. The reasons for this are multiple, but three common themes are:

1) The PL is fortunate in that it's games are aired at a time in which it does not have any real competition in the US as it is in the morning primarily, which is a issue MLS faces (don't underestimate how sports mad they are.)

2) Parents' are moving their kids away from some traditional US sports, particularly American Football, and having them play Soccer. This is increasing interest in the Sport at participation level, which then bleeds into viewership.

3) Language. Sharing a common language is important for accessibility.

4) London based. Chelsea being in London, is more accessible than teams elsewhere (although tbf, this is only a real concern for a small percentage.)

If this continues, rights deals will continue to rises in multiples moving forward.

Fourth is that Chelsea, have the US golden boy of Soccer. Americans love nothing more than supporting one of their own, this combined with the 'winningest' thing should be taken into consideration when thinking about why they are so popular in the US.

Fifth. Unlike European fans, US fans have been raised on having multiple teams in different sports to support. In the UK, you typically have a football fan, that may enjoy some other sports and may follow a couple of teams in other sports. In the US, there are a lot more people who are pretty avid fans of multiple teams in different sports. An example would be in Boston, where you'll get a people being crazy about the Red Soxs, Celtics and Patriots, or in NY where they will be a Giants, Knicks and Yankee fan, and move their attention as the seasons come and go (traditionally Basketball, AF and Baseball didn't really overlap.)

Sixth is heavily linked to five. Sports merch in the US, is very much on a different level. Americans, love their sports merch; or more Americans percentage wise to Europeans do (Ty is obviously excluded from this.) In the UK people will generally buy a piece of merch here or there, in the US it is much more extensive by a order of magnitude and it applies to their habit of having multiple teams/sport interests'. Additionally, casual purchasing of iconic individual American (this is where Pulisic is helpful) merch is also more common even if said person isn't even really a fan of the team they play on or the sport; that said this has also become more common with players such as CR7, Messi, Mbappe etc, in Europe. Thus, if ratings and participation continue to rise, the Merch will rise in conjunction.

There are more reason why US investors are so interested in the PL but I will stop here as I haven't read enough to be certain to make claims.

Whereas, I am sure I have probably got some things wrong about Sports in the US as I am UK based, but have spent quite a lot of time in the US and consume quite a lot of US media coverage due to my interest in the NFL, so it is quite ancedotal (the boys/girls I mentioned above (or any other US poster) please correct me if I am wrong.

However, imo, this is why the Americans are so interested in PL teams and in particular why Chelsea created such buzz. Additionally, it is also why Chelsea are selling for such a premium and why it shouldn't be seen as too much of an over payment, because if the popularity of the PL continues to rise in the US, revenues of PL teams are going to be due a serious uptick (especially the top teams owing to the way overseas percentages are now handed out) in the next decade or two.

This is all more or less spot on. Of course the "Christian Pulisic is the LeBron James of soccer" is a fecking joke, that's the kind of mentality Americans have and it's what works to sell merchandise.

I think as well the point that Americans are entirely used to supporting multiple teams (and often at the same time) is key - adding a football team is pretty straightforward for most and that's something of a strange concept for many Europeans.

 

[DevilRed]

I don't see how it makes sense to buy a football club for £4 Billion hoping for a return on your investment.

If the club were to make £100 Million a season profit it would still take 40 years to recoup your original investment. When talking about profit i'm not including the money that needs to be spent on squad improvements each season.

We have the highest (genuine) revenue in the league. I don't think we make £100 Mill profit each season even before the Glazers have paid off the loans & took a piece for themselves.

You don't buy a football club for cashflow.

You buy it for capital appreciation.

 

[Zaphod2319]

Oof, how old is this quote?

 

[V.O.]

Oof, how old is this quote?

Obviously knows nowt about football then. If we'd spent our money on more players like Fred rather than the rest of the shite we've brought in over the past few years, we'd be a lot better off.

 

[Pintu]

 

[UsualSuspect]

I do and I know exactly why the Yanks are circling. As @Gandalf and @Zaphod2319 have discussed, and we have discussed elsewhere (PL TV rights thread.) The PL is seriously taking off in the US and they also have the WC coming in 2026, which is going to be massive for them.

What I think is underappriciated in the UK, is how big "Soccer" is becoming in the US and what this exactly means.

People need to understand that the US is absolutely sports mad. However, unlike the UK it takes on quite a different guise.

First is winning or 'winningest' teams as they like to call it (this word does feck me off btw.) Tbh, Chelsea couldn't have timed their successful era any better (City also.) As they are the team that has been the most successful in the of era of rapid rise of interest in the PL. Therefore, they were the go to team for a lot of Americans as they were the most successful; whilst now, as the market matures over their, they have a strong base, which then breeds more fans i.e. friends get their friends to watch with them, couples have kids and pass their fandom on etc. Never underestimate how much the Americans love a winner and especially one in the recent past.

Second is that the rights deal the PL got recently will be a drop in the ocean compared to what it will get in upcoming cycles if growth trends continue. In many measures, the PL has overtaken the NHL as the US 4th favourite/watched league and if growth continues it may even become the 3rd in the not too distant future. The reasons for this are multiple, but three common themes are:

1) The PL is fortunate in that it's games are aired at a time in which it does not have any real competition in the US as it is in the morning primarily, which is a issue MLS faces (don't underestimate how sports mad they are.)

2) Parents' are moving their kids away from some traditional US sports, particularly American Football, and having them play Soccer. This is increasing interest in the Sport at participation level, which then bleeds into viewership.

3) Language. Sharing a common language is important for accessibility.

4) London based. Chelsea being in London, is more accessible than teams elsewhere (although tbf, this is only a real concern for a small percentage.)

If this continues, rights deals will continue to rises in multiples moving forward.

Fourth is that Chelsea, have the US golden boy of Soccer. Americans love nothing more than supporting one of their own, this combined with the 'winningest' thing should be taken into consideration when thinking about why they are so popular in the US.

Fifth. Unlike European fans, US fans have been raised on having multiple teams in different sports to support. In the UK, you typically have a football fan, that may enjoy some other sports and may follow a couple of teams in other sports. In the US, there are a lot more people who are pretty avid fans of multiple teams in different sports. An example would be in Boston, where you'll get a people being crazy about the Red Soxs, Celtics and Patriots, or in NY where they will be a Giants, Knicks and Yankee fan, and move their attention as the seasons come and go (traditionally Basketball, AF and Baseball didn't really overlap.)

Sixth is heavily linked to five. Sports merch in the US, is very much on a different level. Americans, love their sports merch; or more Americans percentage wise to Europeans do (Ty is obviously excluded from this.) In the UK people will generally buy a piece of merch here or there, in the US it is much more extensive by a order of magnitude and it applies to their habit of having multiple teams/sport interests'. Additionally, casual purchasing of iconic individual American (this is where Pulisic is helpful) merch is also more common even if said person isn't even really a fan of the team they play on or the sport; that said this has also become more common with players such as CR7, Messi, Mbappe etc, in Europe. Thus, if ratings and participation continue to rise, the Merch will rise in conjunction.

There are more reason why US investors are so interested in the PL but I will stop here as I haven't read enough to be certain to make claims.

Whereas, I am sure I have probably got some things wrong about Sports in the US as I am UK based, but have spent quite a lot of time in the US and consume quite a lot of US media coverage due to my interest in the NFL, so it is quite ancedotal (the boys/girls I mentioned above (or any other US poster) please correct me if I am wrong.

However, imo, this is why the Americans are so interested in PL teams and in particular why Chelsea created such buzz. Additionally, it is also why Chelsea are selling for such a premium and why it shouldn't be seen as too much of an over payment, because if the popularity of the PL continues to rise in the US, revenues of PL teams are going to be due a serious uptick (especially the top teams owing to the way overseas percentages are now handed out) in the next decade or two.

Pretty spot on. But another undeniable element is the untapped revenue potential at the club, which in some cases ties-in with what you've mentioned. The stadium will be redeveloped with NFL games in mind, much-increased matchday revenues, naming rights deals etc. They would have also noted the low net transfer spend over the last few seasons with Granovskaia at the helm and I'm sure they'll do everything to keep her at the club.

 

[WeePat]

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Makes a lot of sense. I have some ties to baseball analytics people and they universally rave about the Dodgers - their ownership is generally considered among the best because they don't pretend to be experts about everything, are grounded enough to listen to others, and prefer to trust in and empower those they hire to oversee the day to day.

 

[SirReginald]

Obviously knows nowt about football then. If we'd spent our money on more players like Fred rather than the rest of the shite we've brought in over the past few years, we'd be a lot better off.

Quite debatable really considering he is part of your worst midfield for at least a decade but ok.

 

[TheReligion]

Oof, how old is this quote?

Its from 2019. The same interview where he said he wouldn’t touch Chelsea due to the financial issues around Stamford Bridge.

 

[Maciej]

This is actually interesting.

 

[TheReligion]

This is actually interesting.

I think it will be interesting to see how they operate without Roman. Is also a bit tricky for them right now as they need to spend heavily on the CB position and also can’t afford to simply absorb the £150m spent on the misfiring Lukaku and Werner (which they would have previously)

 

[AlexUTD]

This is actually interesting.

This is actually hilarious if true. Got some Chel$ki supporting mates that have laughed at us beeing owned by americans and in debt.