Companies should pay a premium to have their names under that gold WC badge for the next 4 yrs.

I know the club didn’t want to undervalue the deal but without CL the last couple of years maybe they overvalued it. Something is only worth what people will pay.

I think the paramount deal screwed things up, it was a good deal. Premier league bullsh*t stopped it.The club then didn’t want to accept less.

We took a very short term sponsor just for the conference and a quick buck, surely something could have been done similar for the season?

That’s all history now, let the bidding war begin😁

20 hours ago, Caps_Lock_King said:

that prick TY is the worst, he was insistent that PSG would come back back from 3 goals down, and the other Arsenal supporters in the studio with him couldn't believe him, not only that when Chelsea supporters asked him questions about how many CL Arsenal had won his only comeback was the Arsenal invincible season

Funniest thing ever was when someone pulled Ty's bobble hat off when he was talking to AFTV outside the Bridge!!

On 17/07/2025 at 10:55, evissy said:

On 16/07/2025 at 19:10, chelseablueboy said:

I must say i really do think some on here will NEVER accept the new ownership and are torn between being right and wishing the team well.
After the initial, what appeared to be a mad spending spree on young unproven players i was as sceptical as most on here. But we do have to bear in mind that these players are on small wages (relative to others we've signed in the past) and long contracts. The benefit of this is beginning to show this season, two prospects who helped us along but aren't top, top quality have been sold at substantial profit.
i see a few more going that way this summer too, Jackson being the main one (hopefully), it's likely the profit from him will have paid for Joa pedro and some of Delap which i see as a brilliant piece of business.
I honestly think after the CWC win on top of the two bob conference we are looking very good for next season, we actually look potent up top now.
Along with the ones that don't make it but still turn a profit there is these to consider..
Palmer, Caicado, Enzo, Cucu & a quickly improving Neto all of whom are turning into top class players and only two of those were big, big money.
All in all i'm currently happy, as an ol' duffer that's watched and supported Chelsea for coming up to 60yrs with all it's ups and downs for me the futures bright and bet your arse the others are not laughing at us anymore, unlike Manure !!

As with every other Chelsea fan, I am delighted with our outstanding CWC final win 🏆.It was a superb performance.

We actually had a few performances like that last season, unfortunately not many, of course we are all hoping that this is how we are going to play every game. But it's very unlikely though .

A one off brilliant win , is just that . A one off isn't it ? If it's a blueprint for the future, f**king can't wait, bring it on , what I think is holding us back is the constant player churn every season, but that's the model, player trading appears to be the priority.

Anyway.

Win or lose up- the BLUES ! 🏆🏆🏆🏆

Can anyone explain..

Why do billionaires and multi billion asset Private Equity Entities decide to raise money to fund and maintain their investments by borrowing and paying interest instead of simply using money at their disposal ?

BlueCo raised £800 of debt within months of the buyout . They also raised debt from "Ares" management (?) at very high interest rates not long ago .

It's not just us, it happens all the time, loads of examples in different industries?

18 hours ago, guddy69 said:

Look on ALL the socials.. We have millions more followers

I suppose social media has to be included these days in any measure of how big a club is .Not when I were a lad, t' were no computers and such like . 😂

19 hours ago, guddy69 said:

Look on ALL the socials.. We have millions more followers

@The Rising Sun is right. Back in our day Socials was the local CIU where we could get cheap beer before and after the game.

18 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Can anyone explain..

Why do billionaires and multi billion asset Private Equity Entities decide to raise money to fund and maintain their investments by borrowing and paying interest instead of simply using money at their disposal ?

BlueCo raised £800 of debt within months of the buyout . They also raised debt from "Ares" management (?) at very high interest rates not long ago .

It's not just us, it happens all the time, loads of examples in different industries?

The true measure of wealth someone once told me was how much you can borrow.

42 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Can anyone explain..

Why do billionaires and multi billion asset Private Equity Entities decide to raise money to fund and maintain their investments by borrowing and paying interest instead of simply using money at their disposal ?

BlueCo raised £800 of debt within months of the buyout . They also raised debt from "Ares" management (?) at very high interest rates not long ago .

It's not just us, it happens all the time, loads of examples in different industries?

Risk management, lower cost of capital, preserving liquidity (cash), cash flow management, tax advantages of interest on loans, depreciation benefits, and longer-term growth on overall asset value.

No different than at home. My mortgage is fixed at 2.6% - sure I could pay it off, but I'd rather carry that borrowing cost, deduct the interest from my taxes (with it deducted from the highest marginal rate of tax), invest the cash with returns far exceeding the cost of borrowing, and play a longer game of compounded interest growth. That is, until the market crashes - which is the next buying opportunity! But even a balanced portfolio, with bonds (example, bonds paying at 4.3%), exceeds the cost of borrowing.

If they want to real push themselves to a level above they need to get on that Earls Court site ASAP and build the best stadium in London.

Not only the biggest but the best as well.

47 minutes ago, PhilH930 said:

Risk management, lower cost of capital, preserving liquidity (cash), cash flow management, tax advantages of interest on loans, depreciation benefits, and longer-term growth on overall asset value.

No different than at home. My mortgage is fixed at 2.6% - sure I could pay it off, but I'd rather carry that borrowing cost, deduct the interest from my taxes (with it deducted from the highest marginal rate of tax), invest the cash with returns far exceeding the cost of borrowing, and play a longer game of compounded interest growth. That is, until the market crashes - which is the next buying opportunity! But even a balanced portfolio, with bonds (example, bonds paying at 4.3%), exceeds the cost of borrowing.

Thanks for the explanation 👍.

We used to be able to deduct interest on mortgage loans from taxes in the UK many years ago, but it only applies to landlords now .

So, I'm guessing the advantages you mention must outweigh the interest payments on our owner's loans .

1 hour ago, terraloon said:

The true measure of wealth someone once told me was how much you can borrow.

There was a Netflix drama/documentary (" Inventing Anna ") during which billionaires were trying to raise bank loans to purchase a New York property. Someone said , "why don't they just use their own wealth"

And the answer came back.." what you have to understand is that the rich don't use their own money, they always use someone else's money " "

1 hour ago, terraloon said:

51 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

If they want to real push themselves to a level above they need to get on that Earls Court site ASAP and build the best stadium in London.

Not only the biggest but the best as well.

I'm not convinced they do. Spending (borrowing) billions to eventually ( years later) get a few million extra a year ? And fans will expect the extra income to be spent on transfers , and not on loan repayments.

13 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

I'm not convinced they do. Spending (borrowing) billions to eventually ( years later) get a few million extra a year ? And fans will expect the extra income to be spent on transfers , and not on loan repayments.

Sentiment aside, we do need a new stadium. I love Stamford Bridge, but like many on here, visiting new stadiums you can quickly see how we are falling behind.

The value proposition is a difficult one though. The BBC published the below article on matchday ticket sales for 2023/4 - a few examples, Arsenal £127M, Man Utd £107M, Spurs £102M, Liverpool £90M, City £74M, Chelsea £71M - this before expansions at Anfield and Etihad. I assume there is a monetization aspect to this (hence the new VIP experiences we offer), and a simple venue capacity and amenities aspect.

Stadium development costs are through the roof though. With zero data other than recent stadium development costs, one would think building at Earls Court would be £1.5B (and that's not to say redeveloping SB would be significantly cheaper). Interest costs aside, lets say a new stadium increased annual matchday income by £50M per year, that's a minimum of 30+ years payback. I struggle with that payback - perhaps it all comes back to asset value and a key enabler to grow other revenue streams.

Anyway, when do we get our new stadium then!

BBC Sport

Premier League ticket price rises: How much do clubs make...

A new financial report breaks down who makes the most from tickets and how the cost of running a football club is rising.

5 minutes ago, PhilH930 said:

Sentiment aside, we do need a new stadium. I love Stamford Bridge, but like many on here, visiting new stadiums you can quickly see how we are falling behind.

The value proposition is a difficult one though. The BBC published the below article on matchday ticket sales for 2023/4 - a few examples, Arsenal £127M, Man Utd £107M, Spurs £102M, Liverpool £90M, City £74M, Chelsea £71M - this before expansions at Anfield and Etihad. I assume there is a monetization aspect to this (hence the new VIP experiences we offer), and a simple venue capacity and amenities aspect.

Stadium development costs are through the roof though. With zero data other than recent stadium development costs, one would think building at Earls Court would be £1.5B (and that's not to say redeveloping SB would be significantly cheaper). Interest costs aside, lets say a new stadium increased annual matchday income by £50M per year, that's a minimum of 30+ years payback. I struggle with that payback - perhaps it all comes back to asset value and a key enabler to grow other revenue streams.

Anyway, when do we get our new stadium then!

BBC Sport

Premier League ticket price rises: How much do clubs make...

A new financial report breaks down who makes the most from tickets and how the cost of running a football club is rising.

Don't forget that from that extra revenue, a chunk will have to be used to "service" the debt incurred from the loans to finance the stadium.

Arsenal, Spurs, West Ham have not benefitted football wise from larger stadiums. Utd have an over 70,000 capacity stadium now, and look where they..and 60,000 capacity Spurs both finished..! 😂

Chelsea🏆...... 40,000 capacity, .....miles ahead on the football pitch.

3 hours ago, axman2526 said:

If they want to real push themselves to a level above they need to get on that Earls Court site ASAP and build the best stadium in London.

Not only the biggest but the best as well.

And not sell it to the investment company to call it the BlueCo Bridge or something like that. And they’d need to increase the ST allocation and the seats available for supporters with loyalty points that try to go to games every week, and not sell tickets to tourist through non-Chelsea Club web sites… And many more things. @axman2526 , you showed me the right way 😉

22 hours ago, PhilH930 said:

Risk management, lower cost of capital, preserving liquidity (cash), cash flow management, tax advantages of interest on loans, depreciation benefits, and longer-term growth on overall asset value.

No different than at home. My mortgage is fixed at 2.6% - sure I could pay it off, but I'd rather carry that borrowing cost, deduct the interest from my taxes (with it deducted from the highest marginal rate of tax), invest the cash with returns far exceeding the cost of borrowing, and play a longer game of compounded interest growth. That is, until the market crashes - which is the next buying opportunity! But even a balanced portfolio, with bonds (example, bonds paying at 4.3%), exceeds the cost of borrowing.

Hi Phil

This is from the Daily Mail ( not a trusted source! ) and I can't find anything on those quoted interest payments anywhere else.

What dya reckon, any truth in it ?

Cheers.

"One of the most damning figures in the 22 Holdco accounts relates to their £1.16billion in borrowings, attracting interest rates of up to 11.96 per cent.

The group paid over £94million in interest alone in the year ending June 2024.

This level of debt has been amassed while also purchasing French Ligue 1 club Strasbourg, who were acquired for £43.8million and are now valued by the group at £68million."

Edited July 19, 2025Jul 19 by The Rising Sun
Info

On 18/07/2025 at 16:53, The Rising Sun said:

Can anyone explain..

Why do billionaires and multi billion asset Private Equity Entities decide to raise money to fund and maintain their investments by borrowing and paying interest instead of simply using money at their disposal ?

BlueCo raised £800 of debt within months of the buyout . They also raised debt from "Ares" management (?) at very high interest rates not long ago .

It's not just us, it happens all the time, loads of examples in different industries?

Yes

On 18/07/2025 at 21:25, The Rising Sun said:

Don't forget that from that extra revenue, a chunk will have to be used to "service" the debt incurred from the loans to finance the stadium.

Arsenal, Spurs, West Ham have not benefitted football wise from larger stadiums. Utd have an over 70,000 capacity stadium now, and look where they..and 60,000 capacity Spurs both finished..! 😂

Chelsea🏆...... 40,000 capacity, .....miles ahead on the football pitch.

On some of the 'money'/value tables that float around the internet Tottenham is above Chelsea and that has to be the reason why. For the stature of our club we are miles behind even our local rivals.

But is moving to Earls Court still a problem because of Chelsea Pitch owners?

On 19/07/2025 at 02:44, PhilH930 said:

Risk management, lower cost of capital, preserving liquidity (cash), cash flow management, tax advantages of interest on loans, depreciation benefits, and longer-term growth on overall asset value.

No different than at home. My mortgage is fixed at 2.6% - sure I could pay it off, but I'd rather carry that borrowing cost, deduct the interest from my taxes (with it deducted from the highest marginal rate of tax), invest the cash with returns far exceeding the cost of borrowing, and play a longer game of compounded interest growth. That is, until the market crashes - which is the next buying opportunity! But even a balanced portfolio, with bonds (example, bonds paying at 4.3%), exceeds the cost of borrowing.

Underrated post

On 18/07/2025 at 16:53, The Rising Sun said:

Can anyone explain..

Why do billionaires and multi billion asset Private Equity Entities decide to raise money to fund and maintain their investments by borrowing and paying interest instead of simply using money at their disposal ?

BlueCo raised £800 of debt within months of the buyout . They also raised debt from "Ares" management (?) at very high interest rates not long ago .

It's not just us, it happens all the time, loads of examples in different industries?

Wasn't it widely reported at the time that all the billionaires in Boehly's "minority" contingent used their own money to fund their investment ?

It's Clearlake that are the money borrowers if that is true.

On 18/07/2025 at 20:25, The Rising Sun said:

Don't forget that from that extra revenue, a chunk will have to be used to "service" the debt incurred from the loans to finance the stadium.

Arsenal, Spurs, West Ham have not benefitted football wise from larger stadiums. Utd have an over 70,000 capacity stadium now, and look where they..and 60,000 capacity Spurs both finished..! 😂

Chelsea🏆...... 40,000 capacity, .....miles ahead on the football pitch.

Spurs' loans are long term, over about 20 years, at low interest rates. They earn roughly 100m a year from stadium earnings alone not including NFL games which earn about 6m per game. Then there are the concerts, etc. They are fine.

On-field performance is nowt to do with stadium size. That's down to football department bungling.

34 minutes ago, dermott said:

Spurs' loans are long term, over about 20 years, at low interest rates. They earn roughly 100m a year from stadium earnings alone not including NFL games which earn about 6m per game. Then there are the concerts, etc. They are fine.

On-field performance is nowt to do with stadium size. That's down to football department bungling.

Spurs may never earn 100m again. That was a one off last season and depending on the entertainment sector crisis and post-tariff environment, may never be repeated. Any stadium we build would be in competition with that, meaning a dilution of income.

As for their loans, they might be relatively low interest but their repayments are still massive, and any loans we try and get will be on much less favourable terms in the current economic climate.

Funny how our transfer policy is under scrutiny and our contracts are laughed over. Liverpool just landed Ekitike on 90m deal with 6 year contract. 😅

Pioneers.

On 19/07/2025 at 01:53, The Rising Sun said:

Can anyone explain..

Why do billionaires and multi billion asset Private Equity Entities decide to raise money to fund and maintain their investments by borrowing and paying interest instead of simply using money at their disposal ?

BlueCo raised £800 of debt within months of the buyout . They also raised debt from "Ares" management (?) at very high interest rates not long ago .

It's not just us, it happens all the time, loads of examples in different industries?

Because "billionaires" have very little actual cash and their entire wealth is based on what someone else might pay for their assets. Of course whenever they sell stock, that causes a price crash.

That's the brilliant thing about being a billionaire. Wealth gives you power and influence because people think you own something tangible, and banks will give you other people's money to spend based entirely on that perception.

9 minutes ago, PhilH930 said:

Sentiment aside, we do need a new stadium. I love Stamford Bridge, but like many on here, visiting new stadiums you can quickly see how we are falling behind.

The value proposition is a difficult one though. The BBC published the below article on matchday ticket sales for 2023/4 - a few examples, Arsenal £127M, Man Utd £107M, Spurs £102M, Liverpool £90M, City £74M, Chelsea £71M - this before expansions at Anfield and Etihad. I assume there is a monetization aspect to this (hence the new VIP experiences we offer), and a simple venue capacity and amenities aspect.

Stadium development costs are through the roof though. With zero data other than recent stadium development costs, one would think building at Earls Court would be £1.5B (and that's not to say redeveloping SB would be significantly cheaper). Interest costs aside, lets say a new stadium increased annual matchday income by £50M per year, that's a minimum of 30+ years payback. I struggle with that payback - perhaps it all comes back to asset value and a key enabler to grow other revenue streams.

Anyway, when do we get our new stadium then!

BBC Sport

Premier League ticket price rises: How much do clubs make...

A new financial report breaks down who makes the most from tickets and how the cost of running a football club is rising.

Just looking at income versus income there is absolutely no doubt that a new stadium at EC would generate circa £50m more a season but having an additional 20k at the ground massively increases money generated they key would be to what I believe is called sweating the assets.

21 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Spurs may never earn 100m again. That was a one off last season and depending on the entertainment sector crisis and post-tariff environment, may never be repeated. Any stadium we build would be in competition with that, meaning a dilution of income.

As for their loans, they might be relatively low interest but their repayments are still massive, and any loans we try and get will be on much less favourable terms in the current economic climate.

I think we need to, grudgingly, accept that Spurs stadium is something else but and this is the big but after the fanfares the stadium is not generating the levels of income that were envisaged.

Anyone that has been to WHL will know that the area will never be a tourist hotspot and that is the flaw in their business model.

It’s worth noting that Tottenham Hotspur Stadium is a stand alone company not actually owned by THFC Ltd. Yes the ultimate owner of the stadium is the beneficial trust.

There is absolutely no doubt that they had hoped to have more games and more concerts at the stadium but far from an increase there appears to be a reduction in non football events.Indeed in their latest accounts, well THStadium Ltd, they talk about the need to increase revenue from restaurants, concerts, NFL, Rugby and they highlight things like the skywalk as a “ success “.

For me geography is key. Earls Court isn’t Tottenham, it’s far closer to central London and consequently it is a far more tourist friendly location.

One thing that did surprise me is just how little they generate from match day. Before expenses the 19 PL games generated £42 million.

The bulk of Spurs stadium debt is on very beneficial terms over a very long period but keep an eye on their accounts because their amortisation numbers are growing, they don’t generate great sums from players sales and the profits generated from the stadium are around £25 million Pa

Edited July 21, 2025Jul 21 by terraloon