1 hour ago, Deino said:

Our co-owner, the guy who is part of BlueCo, also just bought the majority stock for LA Lakers for 10B.

A guy like that won't allow billion dollar assets to get to the point where that asset doesn't make money

Does depend on the motive of the owners tbh. Like we didnt have debt after Roman (Written off/however he cooked his books), we are now in debt (however theyre cooking the books) Just depends on who owns the debt and when they send the grim repo men in to collect. We're what, four years into the project and not turned a profit until selling the womens team this year?? i guess this season better deliver or we'll be in a bit of a financial pickle.

1 hour ago, Deino said:

Our co-owner, the guy who is part of BlueCo, also just bought the majority stock for LA Lakers for 10B.

A guy like that won't allow billion dollar assets to get to the point where that asset doesn't make money

Co owner? He is a minority shareholder

2 hours ago, 19seventyone said:

No we are not.

Where do you get your information from because it’s nearly always BS.

So how do you explain not paying the 5m to get the GK?

Why are Chelsea considering selling Josh?

WE HAVE TO SELL BEFORE WE BUY

47 minutes ago, salmonjumper said:

Does depend on the motive of the owners tbh. Like we didnt have debt after Roman (Written off/however he cooked his books), we are now in debt (however theyre cooking the books) Just depends on who owns the debt and when they send the grim repo men in to collect. We're what, four years into the project and not turned a profit until selling the womens team this year?? i guess this season better deliver or we'll be in a bit of a financial pickle.

No cooking of the books with Roman. Where is the evidence of this with Chelsea. The clubs borrowings were as a subordinated loan against Abramovich's holding company. Upon the enforced sake of the club he wrote that debt off. I think this is also forgotten. The fact that the sale proceeds were impounded as part of the sanction still doesn't clear the club's debt. Roman wrote that off.

This lot took the clean position and have run up a similar level of debt, but in just 3 years. The big difference of course, is that the debt they have run up has been to external financial organisations. This debt will have to be serviced.

I don't think that the two scenarios are comparable.

2 hours ago, WhiteWall said:

No cooking of the books with Roman. Where is the evidence of this with Chelsea. The clubs borrowings were as a subordinated loan against Abramovich's holding company. Upon the enforced sake of the club he wrote that debt off. I think this is also forgotten. The fact that the sale proceeds were impounded as part of the sanction still doesn't clear the club's debt. Roman wrote that off.

This lot took the clean position and have run up a similar level of debt, but in just 3 years. The big difference of course, is that the debt they have run up has been to external financial organisations. This debt will have to be serviced.

I don't think that the two scenarios are comparable.

We owed Roman billions and we owe someone else billions with this lot, does it really matter who it is owed to? (didnt the new kings report the old king for financial irregularities) With both owners we bought, under roman finished products, with the new lot hyped youngsters. turns out Romans way was cheaper to sustain success.

Bottom line is club owes 1.5 billion. (Roman most likely would have recouped what he spent on us if he ever wanted to sell up)

Lord knows what happens to chelsea under the new lot and how much they'll sell for. i reather suspect we'll all be supporting Real CFC playing on Battersea Common at some point when the club moves to New York. Anyhow, thunderstorm stops play...

11 hours ago, salmonjumper said:

We owed Roman billions and we owe someone else billions with this lot, does it really matter who it is owed to? (didnt the new kings report the old king for financial irregularities) With both owners we bought, under roman finished products, with the new lot hyped youngsters. turns out Romans way was cheaper to sustain success.

Bottom line is club owes 1.5 billion. (Roman most likely would have recouped what he spent on us if he ever wanted to sell up)

Lord knows what happens to chelsea under the new lot and how much they'll sell for. i reather suspect we'll all be supporting Real CFC playing on Battersea Common at some point when the club moves to New York. Anyhow, thunderstorm stops play...

But my point is that under Roman it was a subordinated loan to ourselves. Under Bruce Buck we were working towards the club becoming self sustaining. Of course we'll never know if this would have been achievable but with Roman's redesigned Stamford Bridge and the club owners trying to move away from collective bargaining from Sky it might have happened.

This mob have run up 20 years of debt in three years which is owed to external companies, and which was not how the original sale agreement was intended. Who was appointed to ensure that the terms of the sale agreement were adhered to? Abramovich can't sue, he is still sanctioned.

Yes there was self reporting, but again I think some of this was vanity grandstanding by Blueco. If you delved back ten years and looked at the accounts of most clubs I'll bet there are financial irregularities of some sort. If for no other reason than the required standards have evolved. Ironically where we did fall foul of the regs was for sweeteners for youngsters (that doesn't look a good phrase actually!). Was the Gael Kakuta deal the primary case?

15 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

But my point is that under Roman it was a subordinated loan to ourselves. Under Bruce Buck we were working towards the club becoming self sustaining. Of course we'll never know if this would have been achievable but with Roman's redesigned Stamford Bridge and the club owners trying to move away from collective bargaining from Sky it might have happened.

This mob have run up 20 years of debt in three years which is owed to external companies, and which was not how the original sale agreement was intended. Who was appointed to ensure that the terms of the sale agreement were adhered to? Abramovich can't sue, he is still sanctioned.

Yes there was self reporting, but again I think some of this was vanity grandstanding by Blueco. If you delved back ten years and looked at the accounts of most clubs I'll bet there are financial irregularities of some sort. If for no other reason than the required standards have evolved. Ironically where we did fall foul of the regs was for sweeteners for youngsters (that doesn't look a good phrase actually!). Was the Gael Kakuta deal the primary case?

Argue around it all you want, the fact is we owe 1.5 billion. Doesnt matter if its to Roman or Florida mobsters.

Im genuinely struggling to think of any time under Roman CFC self sustaining. Just didnt happen. Lovely work of fiction though the club, like its new owners are trying to spin. SSDD.

9 hours ago, salmonjumper said:

Argue around it all you want, the fact is we owe 1.5 billion. Doesnt matter if its to Roman or Florida mobsters.

Im genuinely struggling to think of any time under Roman CFC self sustaining. Just didnt happen. Lovely work of fiction though the club, like its new owners are trying to spin. SSDD.

https://iol.co.za/sport/soccer/premier-league/2014-11-14-chelsea-post-healthy-profit/

2 hours ago, Scott Harris said:

That is a very positive post for me, so none of it will happen. I like Kudus, I like Silva. Thank god we didn't go for Duran. Any player that breaks the first two years of his Saudi deal, and therefore get hammered for tax, mutually with his Saudi club, is clearly bad news to be avoided.

If we are bound to this continued youth policy, then I do think the two do actually have potential.

I'm also going to grab my tin helmet and wait for the pelting. If Madueke is moved on, I wouldn't be averse to Harvey Eliott who is leaving the scouse. I don't know what it is, maybe he reminds me of Mata a little bit with his body language, but I just think he could do well here like Palmer has. I notice that apparently he had a blinding end of the U21 Euros.

3 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

That is a very positive post for me, so none of it will happen. I like Kudus, I like Silva. Thank god we didn't go for Duran. Any player that breaks the first two years of his Saudi deal, and therefore get hammered for tax, mutually with his Saudi club, is clearly bad news to be avoided.

If we are bound to this continued youth policy, then I do think the two do actually have potential.

I'm also going to grab my tin helmet and wait for the pelting. If Madueke is moved on, I wouldn't be averse to Harvey Eliott who is leaving the scouse. I don't know what it is, maybe he reminds me of Mata a little bit with his body language, but I just think he could do well here like Palmer has. I notice that apparently he had a blinding end of the U21 Euros.

Harvey Elliot is the kind of youth player that has actually shown he can impact games and big games unlike a lot of the young players we keep buying and getting linked to.

Not sure we have a position for him as he’s not a proper winger. Could easily have a Palmer like impact if given game time.

2 minutes ago, DarkMata said:

Harvey Elliot is the kind of youth player that has actually shown he can impact games and big games unlike a lot of the young players we keep buying and getting linked to.

Not sure we have a position for him as he’s not a proper winger. Could easily have a Palmer like impact if given game time.

Good start. One response without a pelting. Waiting on a hammering from UB now though 😁

12 hours ago, WhiteWall said:

https://iol.co.za/sport/soccer/premier-league/2014-11-14-chelsea-post-healthy-profit/

that's hilarious. Please... post the years around that article from 10 years ago.

Anyhow, 1.5 billion is owed. doesnt matter who to, CFC owe that money. tell me im wrong.

6 hours ago, salmonjumper said:

that's hilarious. Please... post the years around that article from 10 years ago.

Anyhow, 1.5 billion is owed. doesnt matter who to, CFC owe that money. tell me im wrong.

Yes you're wrong. You are right now but prior to this under Roman it was owed to ourselves and because he wrote it off we effectively had no debt.

Pointless argument though as we're going round in circles. Fact remains these clowns have blown the same or more in 3 years than the previous regime took 20 years to generate, with known of the success and having come in on the basis of investing 1.5bn, not borrowing (the implication being that they had it to invest from with in their finances)

36 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

Yes you're wrong. You are right now but prior to this under Roman it was owed to ourselves and because he wrote it off we effectively had no debt.

Pointless argument though as we're going round in circles. Fact remains these clowns have blown the same or more in 3 years than the previous regime took 20 years to generate, with known of the success and having come in on the basis of investing 1.5bn, not borrowing (the implication being that they had it to invest from with in their finances)

That's why I'm surprised no-one has sued The Raine Group. Weren't they supposed to come up with a buyer who would invest £1.75m on top of the purchase price, not load us with debt ? Took a huge fee for their "work" as I recall ...

59 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

Yes you're wrong. You are right now but prior to this under Roman it was owed to ourselves and because he wrote it off we effectively had no debt.

Pointless argument though as we're going round in circles. Fact remains these clowns have blown the same or more in 3 years than the previous regime took 20 years to generate, with known of the success and having come in on the basis of investing 1.5bn, not borrowing (the implication being that they had it to invest from with in their finances)

I must be financially illiterate... Help a blues brother out, if Chelsea didnt owe Roman money, why was he able to write it off?

So who do we currently owe 1.5 billion to?

In both examples, Money has been invested. What is the return here?

Edited June 30, 20251 yr by salmonjumper

FACTS...

3 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

That's why I'm surprised no-one has sued The Raine Group. Weren't they supposed to come up with a buyer who would invest £1.75m on top of the purchase price, not load us with debt ? Took a huge fee for their "work" as I recall ...

This is what I keep asking. Who was the appointed regulator. What are the consequences for breaching the sale terms. RA remains sanctioned and we don't even have the same government any more

3 hours ago, salmonjumper said:

I must be financially illiterate... Help a blues brother out, if Chelsea didnt owe Roman money, why was he able to write it off?

So who do we currently owe 1.5 billion to?

In both examples, Money has been invested. What is the return here?

So, in the first instance it was internal debt from one of Abramovich's entities (the club) to his holding company. As such there would have been preferential servicing costs and cross entity cost charging at a balance sheet level on a captive basis.

Upon the enforced sale of the club that internal debt became crystallised and due to Roman's company because the UK government impounded the sale proceeds. If Roman had called the debt it would have affected the sale (how would Clearlake send sale proceeds to a sanctioned entity. Result Chelsea would have folded.

Roman wrote off the debt and therefore the club that Clearlake purchased was completely debt free and stacked with assets, that we have since seen being sold off, internally. As part of this deal Roman stipulated that the money that he wrote off was to be invested by Clearlake into the club over a ten year.

Far from investing from Clearlake's funds they have run up 1.5m of debt against the club in just three years and this debt is true, external debt that will need to be serviced at the prevailing rates as well as the sum borrowed being repaid in full.

Back to those assets. We are led to believe that the debt that has been built up is actually investments into the playing staff. This is slightly disingenuous because the clubs operating losses have been significant. No CL income, no FOS sponsor. 4/5 manager payoffs etc.

The coverall to hide all this is the sale of the assets internally. This is the reverse of the RA model. Now when the club is eventually sold you will see that the individual assets have been partitioned and reside within BlueCo.

There are far more astute and eloquent posters on here than me who have a better familiarity with the finances, but this is what passes a lot of us off.

That and the sh*t boring football from Maresca.

13 hours ago, WhiteWall said:

So, in the first instance it was internal debt from one of Abramovich's entities (the club) to his holding company. As such there would have been preferential servicing costs and cross entity cost charging at a balance sheet level on a captive basis.

Upon the enforced sale of the club that internal debt became crystallised and due to Roman's company because the UK government impounded the sale proceeds. If Roman had called the debt it would have affected the sale (how would Clearlake send sale proceeds to a sanctioned entity. Result Chelsea would have folded.

Roman wrote off the debt and therefore the club that Clearlake purchased was completely debt free and stacked with assets, that we have since seen being sold off, internally. As part of this deal Roman stipulated that the money that he wrote off was to be invested by Clearlake into the club over a ten year.

Far from investing from Clearlake's funds they have run up 1.5m of debt against the club in just three years and this debt is true, external debt that will need to be serviced at the prevailing rates as well as the sum borrowed being repaid in full.

Back to those assets. We are led to believe that the debt that has been built up is actually investments into the playing staff. This is slightly disingenuous because the clubs operating losses have been significant. No CL income, no FOS sponsor. 4/5 manager payoffs etc.

The coverall to hide all this is the sale of the assets internally. This is the reverse of the RA model. Now when the club is eventually sold you will see that the individual assets have been partitioned and reside within BlueCo.

There are far more astute and eloquent posters on here than me who have a better familiarity with the finances, but this is what passes a lot of us off.

That and the sh*t boring football from Maresca.

Im sure that's all great and compliant accounting... I just read what you have said and again come to the conclusion Roman wrote off 1.5 billion to clear Chelsea debts. Without doing so we couldnt have been sold to the florida mobsters. he wrote it off because it was money he was owed. That's my simple understanding of it. Sorry...

Reports of 34m offered for real madrids gonzalo garcia.

17 hours ago, ALTE said:

Reports of 34m offered for real madrids gonzalo garcia.

It wouldn’t surprise me. All we needed was a quality no.9. Now we’re going to corner the market on potentially good no9’s all competing for the same game time stifling one another while still having potentially good no9’s Broja,Jackson, Guiu on the books and academy players arguably with as much potential refusing to sign because their pathway is congested.

A bit like the keeper situation, I’m seeing quantity when I want to see quality😔.

Sort this squad out Chelsea it’s a f**king mess. Have a good clear out, there’s still some quality signings out there.🤬

Arsenal appear to be after Rodrygo.

2 hours ago, RMH said:

Arsenal appear to be after Rodrygo.

That is what a serious club would do, not messing around buying prospects

3 hours ago, RMH said:

Arsenal appear to be after Rodrygo.

If they sign Rodyrgo, Eze and a striker, I don't see how we catch them in the next 3 or 4 years. We'll just have to pray the likes of Delap, Gittens, Estevao etc grow to be incredible footballers.