On 03/03/2026 at 02:43, forbzy said:

I think a lot of United's decent signings of late were made under Vivell.

Leny Yoro LOSC Lille Lille €62.00m

Manuel Ugarte Paris Saint-Germain PSG €50.00m

Matthijs de Ligt Bayern Munich Bayern Munich €45.00m

Joshua Zirkzee Bologna FC 1909 Bologna €42.50m

Patrick Dorgu US Lecce Lecce €30.00m

Noussair Mazraoui Bayern Munich Bayern Munich €15.00m

Benjamin Sesko RB Leipzig Leipzig €76.50m

Bryan Mbeumo Brentford FC Brentford €75.00m

Matheus Cunha Wolverhampton Wanderers Wolves €74.20m

Senne Lammens Royal Antwerp FC Royal Antwerp €21.00m

Diego León Club Cerro Porteño Cerro Porteño €4.00m

Outside of Cunha and Mbuemo, who anyone could see would be good signings, Utd's signings under him have been as bad or worse than ours.

32 minutes ago, GarnachoCheese said:

Leny Yoro LOSC Lille Lille €62.00m

Manuel Ugarte Paris Saint-Germain PSG €50.00m

Matthijs de Ligt Bayern Munich Bayern Munich €45.00m

Joshua Zirkzee Bologna FC 1909 Bologna €42.50m

Patrick Dorgu US Lecce Lecce €30.00m

Noussair Mazraoui Bayern Munich Bayern Munich €15.00m

Benjamin Sesko RB Leipzig Leipzig €76.50m

Bryan Mbeumo Brentford FC Brentford €75.00m

Matheus Cunha Wolverhampton Wanderers Wolves €74.20m

Senne Lammens Royal Antwerp FC Royal Antwerp €21.00m

Diego León Club Cerro Porteño Cerro Porteño €4.00m

Outside of Cunha and Mbuemo, who anyone could see would be good signings, Utd's signings under him have been as bad or worse than ours.

The only two signings that were already playing in the league and were used to the physicality of English football.

Dorgu and Mazraoui have been good for United.

15 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Dorgu and Mazraoui have been good for United.

Really stretching the definition of good here.

9 minutes ago, GarnachoCheese said:

Really stretching the definition of good here.

Not really. Dorgu was one of their best players this season before his injury and I don't think I've ever seen Mazraoui have a stinker.

I also think Lammens has been pretty good since he’s been given the nod…

Even Sesko is showing some signs of coming good after an awful start. A number of the players seemed to be massively underperforming under Amorim but have since improved. Of that list I would say Zirkzee and Ugarte stand out as the biggest flops.

We have been linked with a move for Yoro on a few occasions. So if our SD's are interested I'd probably add him to the list of poor signings ;)

2 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Not really. Dorgu was one of their best players this season before his injury and I don't think I've ever seen Mazraoui have a stinker.

They signed him as a LB and his only good games have been on the wing

3 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Not really. Dorgu was one of their best players this season before his injury and I don't think I've ever seen Mazraoui have a stinker.

Actually i think Dorgu was being panned when playing at full back but really came into his own when pushed further upfield, which was an absolute no brainer to anybody other than Amorim apparently.

What's happening to Spurs is another warning to us about BlueCo.

Incompetent Ownership focused on money first, football secondary can lead to a potential disaster.

Not long ago we could laugh at arsenal coverting the 4th place cup. It is not a achievement.

27 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

What's happening to Spurs is another warning to us about BlueCo.

Incompetent Ownership focused on money first, football secondary can lead to a potential disaster.

Not long ago we could laugh at arsenal coverting the 4th place cup. It is not a achievement.

A five-alarm warning. They've got the commercial side sorted and yet are unable to turn it into results on the pitch. Though serviceable at present, their debt is massive. It shows that despite fancy stadiums and sponsors and all that non-football sh*t, results on the pitch are the only thing that make for sustainability.

We've gone from 1.5bn in cash to ~2bn in debt, no real sponsors, looming contingent liabilities (improved contracts for top performers) and mixed (at best) results.

Here's hoping he lets that money sleep at the bank then uses it to buy out Clearlake.

From Bloomberg...vvv

"In a leveraged buyout (LBO), private equity firms use the assets of the target company as collateral to secure the debt needed for the acquisition. This allows them to finance a significant portion of the purchase price with borrowed money while investing a smaller amount of their own capital."

6 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Here's hoping he lets that money sleep at the bank then uses it to buy out Clearlake.

Starmer is such a prick, lets hope he tries to take Roman to court, he will lose

Can someone explain WHY the government havent taken the 3 houses in Bishops Avenue owned by the leader of IRAN who was killed, they couldn’t wait to attack Roman, im sure Ehgbali should be investigated

10 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

From Bloomberg...vvv

"In a leveraged buyout (LBO), private equity firms use the assets of the target company as collateral to secure the debt needed for the acquisition. This allows them to finance a significant portion of the purchase price with borrowed money while investing a smaller amount of their own capital."

BlueCo did not use a leveraged buyout. The parties used their own capital, albeit that capital is raised by leveraging their own assets to investment banks. . A leveraged buyout is what the Glazers did to purchase Manchester United, borrowing a 1bn from banks to purchase the club using the club's assets as security, and the club's revenues to pay down the loan. As of 2023, leveraged buyouts are capped at 65% (ie you can only use debt to finance up to 65% of a club's purchase price).

None of Chelsea's assets are directly being used as collateral to secure a debt. Chelsea's issue is more that our assets (eg women's team or hotels) are being sold to pay off our own debt, a debt that was largely incurred by the current ownership. The added issue is that those assets now belong to a private third-party in BlueCo, which is fine as long as they have an interest in the club but there is also little stopping them from say, selling the hotels to someone else at profit that the club will never see. A more realistic example is that, should the women's team continue its growth, BlueCo (who purchased the team from Chelsea for 200m) might be able to sell it to other investors for 500m. BlueCo, not Chelsea, would see the profit.

8 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

BlueCo did not use a leveraged buyout. The parties used their own capital, albeit that capital is raised by leveraging their own assets to investment banks. . A leveraged buyout is what the Glazers did to purchase Manchester United, borrowing a 1bn from banks to purchase the club using the club's assets as security, and the club's revenues to pay down the loan. As of 2023, leveraged buyouts are capped at 65% (ie you can only use debt to finance up to 65% of a club's purchase price).

None of Chelsea's assets are directly being used as collateral to secure a debt. Chelsea's issue is more that our assets (eg women's team or hotels) are being sold to pay off our own debt, a debt that was largely incurred by the current ownership. The added issue is that those assets now belong to a private third-party in BlueCo, which is fine as long as they have an interest in the club but there is also little stopping them from say, selling the hotels to someone else at profit that the club will never see. A more realistic example is that, should the women's team continue its growth, BlueCo (who purchased the team from Chelsea for 200m) might be able to sell it to other investors for 500m. BlueCo, not Chelsea, would see the profit.

Very well explained. In addition to loading the debt onto MU, the Glazers took $166m out of the club in dividends until 2022 when they were shamed by the fans into stopping.

20 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

BlueCo did not use a leveraged buyout. The parties used their own capital, albeit that capital is raised by leveraging their own assets to investment banks. . A leveraged buyout is what the Glazers did to purchase Manchester United, borrowing a 1bn from banks to purchase the club using the club's assets as security, and the club's revenues to pay down the loan. As of 2023, leveraged buyouts are capped at 65% (ie you can only use debt to finance up to 65% of a club's purchase price).

None of Chelsea's assets are directly being used as collateral to secure a debt. Chelsea's issue is more that our assets (eg women's team or hotels) are being sold to pay off our own debt, a debt that was largely incurred by the current ownership. The added issue is that those assets now belong to a private third-party in BlueCo, which is fine as long as they have an interest in the club but there is also little stopping them from say, selling the hotels to someone else at profit that the club will never see. A more realistic example is that, should the women's team continue its growth, BlueCo (who purchased the team from Chelsea for 200m) might be able to sell it to other investors for 500m. BlueCo, not Chelsea, would see the profit.

Thanks for the explanation mate.

But Clearlake use borrowing ( debt) to finance their acquisitions don't they? We are only protected from the United scenerio by the "anti - Glazer" clauses in the contract. which also limit the amount of debt that that the owners can load onto the club. I asked a while back who is responsible for enforcing those clauses. One worrying answer was that as the Government had to be shown and be satisfied with the terms of the contract before they allowed the sale to go ahead, it would probably be their responsibility to enforce the clauses!!

I've yet to see a figure for the actual amount the debt limit, is ...don't know if you have ?

11 hours ago, dermott said:

Very well explained. In addition to loading the debt onto MU, the Glazers took $166m out of the club in dividends until 2022 when they were shamed by the fans into stopping.

Our owners can take dividends out once the 10 year embargo is lifted and pay themselves management fees

21 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

BlueCo did not use a leveraged buyout. The parties used their own capital, albeit that capital is raised by leveraging their own assets to investment banks. . A leveraged buyout is what the Glazers did to purchase Manchester United, borrowing a 1bn from banks to purchase the club using the club's assets as security, and the club's revenues to pay down the loan. As of 2023, leveraged buyouts are capped at 65% (ie you can only use debt to finance up to 65% of a club's purchase price).

None of Chelsea's assets are directly being used as collateral to secure a debt. Chelsea's issue is more that our assets (eg women's team or hotels) are being sold to pay off our own debt, a debt that was largely incurred by the current ownership. The added issue is that those assets now belong to a private third-party in BlueCo, which is fine as long as they have an interest in the club but there is also little stopping them from say, selling the hotels to someone else at profit that the club will never see. A more realistic example is that, should the women's team continue its growth, BlueCo (who purchased the team from Chelsea for 200m) might be able to sell it to other investors for 500m. BlueCo, not Chelsea, would see the profit.

Hi . In addition to my earlier reply, I now understood the distinct between the leveraged buyouts and our buyout. Thanks again ,👍

23 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Thanks for the explanation mate.

But Clearlake use borrowing ( debt) to finance their acquisitions don't they? We are only protected from the United scenerio by the "anti - Glazer" clauses in the contract. which also limit the amount of debt that that the owners can load onto the club. I asked a while back who is responsible for enforcing those clauses. One worrying answer was that as the Government had to be shown and be satisfied with the terms of the contract before they allowed the sale to go ahead, it would probably be their responsibility to enforce the clauses!!

I've yet to see a figure for the actual amount the debt limit, is ...don't know if you have ?

Clearlake borrow against their own assets to obtain cash, but that is standard wealth management practice. Collect assets, borrow cash against them to avoid tax etc. Abramovich would have done the same, it's not as if he had 10bn sitting in the bank in cash. BlueCo in general raise money both by borrowing cash against their assets but also by issuing equity or the promise of equity - for example, they made a big payment-in-kind deal with Ares Management that involves cash now for a future stake in any stadium redevelopment.

I wouldn't worry about Clearlake's finances just yet, no more than anyone else exposed to the AI bubble. Let's not forget that Chelsea FC is just one asset in Clearlake's ~$90bn worth of assets, in other words, less than 5% of their stable. We are little more than a blip, a passion project, a side hustle for Clearlake just as likely to have been purchased for vanity reasons as financial ones. We are probably no more than a means to offer corporate hospitality to their stakeholders or a marketing ploy to increase investment. To me at least, it explains why they care so much more about doing things their own way than footballing or financial success, because that would result in the largest overall business gain. I'd be curious though, since American private equity funds often rely on cash injections from sovereign wealth funds like Saudi Arabia's PIF, does that mean that PIF or the Qatari/Emirati equivalent can exert some influence on Clearlake? If Newcastle wanted a player and we wanted a player, could they effectively blackmail Clearlake by withdrawing funding? After all, financially we are a drop in the ocean for Clearlake, and the Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds don't care about profit, they care about reputation washing.

There's no public information about the clauses, just speculation that was published by The Athletic/NYT. There's no actual evidence that BlueCo can't sell for 10 years or that there is a debt limit. Enforcement is a problem because I would think it would be up to the parties to the contract. Would Abramovich himself be the one responsible for enforcing it? Some of the issues could be enforced by the new government football regulator, as the club now operates under licence from the UK government and therefore that licence could be revoked from BlueCo and sold to a new owner. Any legal dispute would leave the club in a similarly terminal limbo as 2022. I just assume the clauses don't exist and/or are unenforceable.

Sobering

Sack the f**king lot of them.

0 On Field Success

0 Commerical Success

And 0 Squad Building Success.

Look at Spurs right now. That is us in 3-5 years just without the fancy stadium.

Embarrassment.