59 minutes ago, timetowaste said:

But that's my point, let's say you're right and they only care about making a return, where is this money gonna come from? The billions they've spent have been pissed away and they've got nothing to show for it. We aren't making money commercially, stadium plans are moving at a snails pace, no long term sponsor for years which has cost us over £100m, looking more and more likely that we won't qualify for the CL so that's more income lost, player values are decreasing because we're playing like sh*t and even worse, hundreds of millions have been spent on players who's value is already way below what we spent on them.

The only conceivable way they have of making money is if they find someone to pay an inflated price for the club, but the more debt the clowns we have in charge put us in the less likely that is to happen.

So it's all well and good saying the owners want the Brighton model of no trophies and just steady revenue, but realistically with the money they've spent the Brighton model is completely out of reach for them. To justify what they've spent and have even half a chance of making their money back we need to be an elite team to bring in elite team revenue. Brighton are Brighton because they spend little and make money, BlueCo have spent billions and make a loss. So if they really care about making money, they need to sack the people heading up the project.

You are missing what is right there in your face. There is a reason why Americans are snapping up every PL team, watch what happens when they get their 14 owners in place. They are currently on 11, and voting in blocks. Once they hit 14, they can force a rule change and reshape the league.

1 minute ago, forbzy said:

I don't think they can be forced to sell.

I think it meant forced by their investors.

58 minutes ago, markpitts said:

You are missing what is right there in your face. There is a reason why Americans are snapping up every PL team, watch what happens when they get their 14 owners in place. They are currently on 11, and voting in blocks. Once they hit 14, they can force a rule change and reshape the league.

I'm more inclined to think Americans are snapping up clubs because compared to NFL/MLB/NBA teams they're cheap and the potential revenues are much higher. However, this load of gimps have spent so much money poorly that they're never gonna see the benefit.

1 hour ago, markpitts said:

You are missing what is right there in your face. There is a reason why Americans are snapping up every PL team, watch what happens when they get their 14 owners in place. They are currently on 11, and voting in blocks. Once they hit 14, they can force a rule change and reshape the league.

Games in the US will be almost assured. Probably another push for some sort of Superleague etc.

14 hours ago, timetowaste said:

I'm more inclined to think Americans are snapping up clubs because compared to NFL/MLB/NBA teams they're cheap and the potential revenues are much higher. However, this load of gimps have spent so much money poorly that they're never gonna see the benefit.

Correct, but like @markpitts is saying once they control the voting bloc, they will immediately profit.

Once there are 14 clubs willing to vote in favour of overseas rounds, mid-season tournaments, salary cap, super leagues etc. all the other clubs will ride the wave to double valuation on paper.

I keep saying this but as bad as things are now, I promise that much, much worse will be to come from the vultures stupid enough to buy out BlueCo

Sport without jeopardy sucks. I think the premier league is getting boring already imagine these clowns wanting a closed shop, no relegation like America.

I mean I don’t even understand how that works in America I don’t watch it but surely you have teams with literally nothing to play for and completely meaningless games. Teams able to just down tools halfway through a season. Really can’t be good for the integrity of the sport.

I don’t think they understand the sort of push back they will get. This was my problem with the super league, the closed shop element not the idea itself which we already have a European league in a way.

"They’ve had big financial losses but that was in recent seasons. The word from Stamford Bridge is they are in better shape now and they do not need to sell any of their key players and they do not intend to. You will see periphery sales that I’m sure will raise big money again and they WANT to invest in the summer. In attack, in midfield, in defence."

They need to be more worried about a CL spot, without which the house of cards they have built will crumble. Strasbourg are also 6pts off a Conference League spot. When it rains it’s pours.

All these briefings about new summer signings, I would be more concerned about registering the 3 new signings they have made; Quenda, Emegha & Satpaev. They will need to get rid of 3 players currently registered before any additions.

Chelsea have been handed a 1 year transfer ban suspended for 2 years

Also a 10.75 million fine

And a academy 9 month transfer ban

5 minutes ago, Andy2461 said:

Chelsea have been handed a 1 year transfer ban suspended for 2 years

Also a 10.75 million fine

And a academy 9 month transfer ban

This is actually one of the things they've done right. Noticed some of the figures didn't line up doing their due diligence when buying, reported it when they didn't have to, got a lighter punishment rather than taking a risk of it being uncovered years later and getting a much tougher one.

17 minutes ago, Andy2461 said:

Chelsea have been handed a 1 year transfer ban suspended for 2 years

Also a 10.75 million fine

And a academy 9 month transfer ban

Only academy ban.

5 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Only academy ban.

5 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Only academy ban.

shame a transfer ban would have made it interesting

We cant catch a break with our owners. Would have loved a 18 month club transfer ban as it would have stopped us buying dross. Means we'll have to sell to pay for the fine, which of the cobham grads gets the boot this season?

Can it be stretched to a ban signing anyone under 21 please 😁

Edited March 16Mar 16 by 2211

1 minute ago, bluelightening said:

We cant catch a break with our owners. Would have loved a 18 month club transfer ban as it would have stopped us buying dross. Means we'll have to sell to pay for the fine, which of the cobham grads gets the boot this season?

Transfer ban would not have stopped us selling though, just buying replacements.

But otherwise yeah a nice 2 year ban so our summers can be fully off anything Chelsea related. Would have been a nice break.

1 hour ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Only academy ban.

We got what j wrote

What does a 1 year transfer ban suspended for two years mean? Is it a 1 year ban that doesn't come into effect for two years, or we have a ban but that is suspended and if the club operates within the rules set forward by the FA/PL, the ban goes away in 2 years without ever being actioned?

1 minute ago, PhilH930 said:

What does a 1 year transfer ban suspended for two years mean? Is it a 1 year ban that doesn't come into effect for two years, or we have a ban but that is suspended and if the club operates within the rules set forward by the FA/PL, the ban goes away in 2 years without ever being actioned?

I means if we do something else wrong in next 2 years we automatically get a 1 year ban

We should’ve got a transfer ban.

Not for the historic rule breaking just to stop Dumb & Dumber doing any more damage to the squad.

On 15/03/2026 at 16:12, timetowaste said:

But that's my point, let's say you're right and they only care about making a return, where is this money gonna come from? The billions they've spent have been pissed away and they've got nothing to show for it. We aren't making money commercially, stadium plans are moving at a snails pace, no long term sponsor for years which has cost us over £100m, looking more and more likely that we won't qualify for the CL so that's more income lost, player values are decreasing because we're playing like sh*t and even worse, hundreds of millions have been spent on players who's value is already way below what we spent on them.

The only conceivable way they have of making money is if they find someone to pay an inflated price for the club, but the more debt the clowns we have in charge put us in the less likely that is to happen.

So it's all well and good saying the owners want the Brighton model of no trophies and just steady revenue, but realistically with the money they've spent the Brighton model is completely out of reach for them. To justify what they've spent and have even half a chance of making their money back we need to be an elite team to bring in elite team revenue. Brighton are Brighton because they spend little and make money, BlueCo have spent billions and make a loss. So if they really care about making money, they need to sack the people heading up the project.

Thank for your reply mate.

Yes I must admit, it's difficult to understand how they will profit from their " investment"

Nothing seems to make sense in a financial way does it ? All I know is they've f**ked up our elite club in the process of whatevers they're trying to achieve.

On 15/03/2026 at 16:12, timetowaste said:

But that's my point, let's say you're right and they only care about making a return, where is this money gonna come from? The billions they've spent have been pissed away and they've got nothing to show for it. We aren't making money commercially, stadium plans are moving at a snails pace, no long term sponsor for years which has cost us over £100m, looking more and more likely that we won't qualify for the CL so that's more income lost, player values are decreasing because we're playing like sh*t and even worse, hundreds of millions have been spent on players who's value is already way below what we spent on them.

The only conceivable way they have of making money is if they find someone to pay an inflated price for the club, but the more debt the clowns we have in charge put us in the less likely that is to happen.

So it's all well and good saying the owners want the Brighton model of no trophies and just steady revenue, but realistically with the money they've spent the Brighton model is completely out of reach for them. To justify what they've spent and have even half a chance of making their money back we need to be an elite team to bring in elite team revenue. Brighton are Brighton because they spend little and make money, BlueCo have spent billions and make a loss. So if they really care about making money, they need to sack the people heading up the project.

On 15/03/2026 at 16:12, timetowaste said:

But that's my point, let's say you're right and they only care about making a return, where is this money gonna come from? The billions they've spent have been pissed away and they've got nothing to show for it. We aren't making money commercially, stadium plans are moving at a snails pace, no long term sponsor for years which has cost us over £100m, looking more and more likely that we won't qualify for the CL so that's more income lost, player values are decreasing because we're playing like sh*t and even worse, hundreds of millions have been spent on players who's value is already way below what we spent on them.

The only conceivable way they have of making money is if they find someone to pay an inflated price for the club, but the more debt the clowns we have in charge put us in the less likely that is to happen.

So it's all well and good saying the owners want the Brighton model of no trophies and just steady revenue, but realistically with the money they've spent the Brighton model is completely out of reach for them. To justify what they've spent and have even half a chance of making their money back we need to be an elite team to bring in elite team revenue. Brighton are Brighton because they spend little and make money, BlueCo have spent billions and make a loss. So if they really care about making money, they need to sack the people heading up the project.

On 15/03/2026 at 16:12, timetowaste said:

But that's my point, let's say you're right and they only care about making a return, where is this money gonna come from? The billions they've spent have been pissed away and they've got nothing to show for it. We aren't making money commercially, stadium plans are moving at a snails pace, no long term sponsor for years which has cost us over £100m, looking more and more likely that we won't qualify for the CL so that's more income lost, player values are decreasing because we're playing like sh*t and even worse, hundreds of millions have been spent on players who's value is already way below what we spent on them.

The only conceivable way they have of making money is if they find someone to pay an inflated price for the club, but the more debt the clowns we have in charge put us in the less likely that is to happen.

So it's all well and good saying the owners want the Brighton model of no trophies and just steady revenue, but realistically with the money they've spent the Brighton model is completely out of reach for them. To justify what they've spent and have even half a chance of making their money back we need to be an elite team to bring in elite team revenue. Brighton are Brighton because they spend little and make money, BlueCo have spent billions and make a loss. So if they really care about making money, they need to sack the people heading up the project.

Thinking back, I remember a Raine guy saying that the new owners were gambling on a massive increase in broadcast revenue, predicting that it would double in ( I think he said) in 5 years !!

21 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Thinking back, I remember a Raine guy saying that the new owners were gambling on a massive increase in broadcast revenue, predicting that it would double in ( I think he said) in 5 years !!

Exactly this.

It’s the Premier League they’ve bought into, not Chelsea.

We’re just the access ticket to that revenue as far as these odious c**ts are concerned.

From Financial Times August 2022

Central to the thesis is that Chelsea is a global brand and asset with the ability to exploit its own intellectual property. The consortium, which has shared control between Boehly and Clearlake, also sees opportunities for the Premier League to generate more revenue from selling the rights to screen live matches to broadcasters.

From "Phillips talks Chelsea" substack

Jose Feliciano said, Clearlake’s revenue goals for Chelsea are very high:

“We think we have an incredible opportunity to double revenue. We think we have one of the best media properties and sport properties in the world where we can get to a £1billion of revenue.”

Jose Feliciano, March 2023

10th march this year Clearlake co-owner on Tribuna.. obvious the FA Cup doesn't count as a trophy for the Arse!! ....

Jose Feliciano has responded to criticism about the Chelsea's recent form, highlighting their achievements over the past season.

Speaking about Chelsea's so-called rough patch, Feliciano said: "Well, we just won two trophies last year. So, kind of depends a rough patch for whom. Arsenal haven't won in 20 years since that I have checked."

More on Tribuna.com:

Edited March 16Mar 16 by The Rising Sun
Information

8 hours ago, abigsmurf said:

This is actually one of the things they've done right. Noticed some of the figures didn't line up doing their due diligence when buying, reported it when they didn't have to, got a lighter punishment rather than taking a risk of it being uncovered years later and getting a much tougher one.

I agree, although there was very little chance of it being uncovered. The players allegedly involved (Christensen, Hazard etc.) are long gone and the charges were spurious at best. I read it more as a corporate due diligence ('protect the shareholders') and maybe even a token from the ownership to the PL.

3 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

From Financial Times August 2022

Central to the thesis is that Chelsea is a global brand and asset with the ability to exploit its own intellectual property. The consortium, which has shared control between Boehly and Clearlake, also sees opportunities for the Premier League to generate more revenue from selling the rights to screen live matches to broadcasters.

@dkw thinks that BlueCo and the American owners might push for La Liga style individualised broadcasting contracts where clubs negotiate directly with broadcasters rather than a league-wide deal. I tend to disagree given that American sports broadcasting deals are similarly testament to the collective bargaining approach, but my opinion also assumes that our owners are reasonable and logical people.

The biggest problem with the 'doubling revenue' approach is that we are fast approaching saturation point for the EPL. There is even growing evidence that we may have passed it, and a period of stagnation if not decline is in the near future. The article points out that:

• PL was only able to secure a 4% increase in its 6.7bn deal with Sky, but clubs are required to do more for the money (dressing room access etc.) so the overall return is lower for clubs and being less than inflation, means domestic football broadcast rights are in decline

• International rights have stagnated except in the US, however, the US has had a major (14%) decline in actual viewership meaning that even international rights deals may have hit their peak

It's increasingly likely that BlueCo may have bought into the PL at the peak of the bubble, and if so, we are going to be horrified at what is to come. Either they sell to someone who has even less interest in Chelsea as a football club, or they push for changes that permanently change the nature and integrity of the PL in the pursuit of profit.