Yeah Olise will go down as the SDs biggest fumble and it set the precedent. The fact the alternative to him was Pedro Neto makes it all the worse.

Cannot wait to see how these clowns appoint as manager and the players they bring in. Going to be a fun summer.

Just seen Pochs interview basically slamming the ownership running the club off data instead of the human element. Just hammers home that we are where we are because of incompetence and not bad luck. Sickening.

Younes exposes the nepotism behind Joe Shields, Harry Hudson, Kinetic et al:

20 hours ago, KonaKai Blue said:

Just seen Pochs interview basically slamming the ownership running the club off data instead of the human element. Just hammers home that we are where we are because of incompetence and not bad luck. Sickening.

That Poch interview really just confirms what we are seeing on the pitch and reinforces what we know, they are all f**king incompetent every single one of them.

They are running the clubs on data that doesn’t translate into performance and what Poch is saying it’s you still have to pass the ey test which these clowns seems to think it’s beneath them.

On 29/04/2026 at 01:28, yaz said:

Welp, that's that then.

Chelsea Tottenham derbies in the Championship will be sensational!

And that’s why we will not make any progress with these clowns!!

The Kinetic Academy thing needs proper investigating along with the Vivid Seats ordeal.

But there aren't any russians in BlueCo so nothing will happen.

1 minute ago, Sconnie Blue said:

The Kinetic Academy thing needs proper investigating along with the Vivid Seats ordeal.

But there aren't any russians in BlueCo so nothing will happen.

What's this Kinetic thing, with energy (yes/no) connected to it I keep reading here. What did I f**king miss now?

2 hours ago, Valerie said:

What's this Kinetic thing, with energy (yes/no) connected to it I keep reading here. What did I f**king miss now?

Kinetic Foundation

Home | Kinetic Foundation

The Kinetic Foundation is an innovative London-based football and education charity which helps young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to stay in education through their passion for football.

49 minutes ago, dermott said:

Kinetic Foundation

Home | Kinetic Foundation

The Kinetic Foundation is an innovative London-based football and education charity which helps young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to stay in education through their passion for football.

7 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

More detailed information on BlueCos scam of our club and why we need to keep the pressure on them:

What I think the guys haven't joined the dots on yet though is that it can't be BlueCo out because no idiot would pay for this massive fck up of a loss making machine. If I am understanding this correctly there is loan debt of 3.8Bn plus 1.8Bn of operating losses for the group. Who's pockets run to 5.6 Bn and rising for club in a small ground, with an underperformed team, financial restrictions imposed by Uefa, strict domestic PSR rules.

Surely the ultimately end, which the guys haven't openly said, is that we could well be bust and it's just a matter of time before these fakes go pop.

Down to 10th. What a fantastic season.

23 hours ago, WhiteWall said:

What I think the guys haven't joined the dots on yet though is that it can't be BlueCo out because no idiot would pay for this massive fck up of a loss making machine. If I am understanding this correctly there is loan debt of 3.8Bn plus 1.8Bn of operating losses for the group. Who's pockets run to 5.6 Bn and rising for club in a small ground, with an underperformed team, financial restrictions imposed by Uefa, strict domestic PSR rules.

Surely the ultimately end, which the guys haven't openly said, is that we could well be bust and it's just a matter of time before these fakes go pop.

Could well be we go bust, head to administration, players sold off and points deduction sees us tumble down leagues.

Is a huge amount of debt. I don't see how it gets cleared.

9 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Is a huge amount of debt. I don't see how it gets cleared.

By selling the club/holding company. The holding company's debt has little material affect on Chelsea, because the financial rules strictly limit how much an owner can invest to clear club losses anyway. There is more risk of problems from BlueCo's inability to find commercial sponsors, and our lack of CL football, than we are because of their debt-fuelled spending.

Right now, despite the omnishambles, they would likely break even on the amount they have invested. A healthy club would been ripe to sell at a profit. The only difference is that BlueCo are likely to divest completely if all they can get is break even, whereas they will almost certainly never sell if they are in a healthy, profitable position since the club's value would continue to appreciate.

I've slowly got around to watching some of the fan/social media commentary in those videos you posted about. I think that while some of the concerns are valid, ultimately the accountants are thinking like PE accountants and not PE investors. Anyone thinking that Eghbali et al actually listen to professionals like accountants and actuaries and data analysts before making investment decisions is deluded; expert advice is only needed to negotiate price. At that level of wealth, the only decisions that matter are the ones that you can fully take credit for. The loan fromJP Morgan can and will be refinanced, and the PIK debt to Ares Management simply means that they will own a minority stake in the club in 2033, assuming BlueCo decide not to pay them back. It is even likely that is a deliberate strategy by BlueCo, to further their stakeholders' other interests.

The idea that these debts are leveraged against the club's assets is a stretch and is unnecessarily alarmism. The current rules limit owners to injecting £35m a season to cover debts, so we'd actually be better off overall if we ditched BlueCo and signed a £40m/season shirt sponsor.

It's also really important to understand that this way of financing is the default across the Premier League, and most of football. It's a house of cards, but it is what it is. There are probably only 5 clubs in the last 20 years that did not use this model - PSG, Man City and Newcastle being directly financed with cash from a sovereign investment fund, and Real Madrid and Bayern who are genuinely profitable. It's possible that Roman also financed the club with personal cash rather than leveraging his assets, not sure. It's also about to get a whole lot more common because shareholder loans eg what Arsenal, Brighton and Forest have been bankrolled by are now required to charge market interest instead of being interest-free.

Your mate Johnny Minerals is spot on actually, when he said his biggest fear is that despite all the apparent financial turmoil and debt, there also seem to be so many escape routes that it doesn't matter and Clearlake will just keep on doing what they do. I agree with this, and I agree with anyone else who says that protest is the only vehicle that impacts Clearlake's reputation and ultimately, makes for change.

Edited May 4May 4 by SydneyChelsea

On 30/04/2026 at 20:44, Sconnie Blue said:

Yeah Olise will go down as the SDs biggest fumble and it set the precedent. The fact the alternative to him was Pedro Neto makes it all the worse.

Cannot wait to see how these clowns appoint as manager and the players they bring in. Going to be a fun summer.

The big fumble was the season before, and Olise was likely targeted ahead of Cole Palmer. That was a real mistake as there was no suggestion of any issue with wages, nor did it preclude us from also getting Palmer as we still had the CL money offsetting our PSR books.

IMO missing out on either Kvaratskhelia or Barcola for LW, considering the sheer state of that position and the millions wasted on it, is worse.

27 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

By selling the club/holding company. The holding company's debt has little material affect on Chelsea, because the financial rules strictly limit how much an owner can invest to clear club losses anyway. There is more risk of problems from BlueCo's inability to find commercial sponsors, and our lack of CL football, than we are because of their debt-fuelled spending.

Right now, despite the omnishambles, they would likely break even on the amount they have invested. A healthy club would been ripe to sell at a profit. The only difference is that BlueCo are likely to divest completely if all they can get is break even, whereas they will almost certainly never sell if they are in a healthy, profitable position since the club's value would continue to appreciate.

I've slowly got around to watching some of the fan/social media commentary in those videos you posted about. I think that while some of the concerns are valid, ultimately the accountants are thinking like PE accountants and not PE investors. Anyone thinking that Eghbali et al actually listen to professionals like accountants and actuaries and data analysts before making investment decisions is deluded; expert advice is only needed to negotiate price. At that level of wealth, the only decisions that matter are the ones that you can fully take credit for. The loan fromJP Morgan can and will be refinanced, and the PIK debt to Ares Management simply means that they will own a minority stake in the club in 2033, assuming BlueCo decide not to pay them back. It is even likely that is a deliberate strategy by BlueCo, to further their stakeholders' other interests.

The idea that these debts are leveraged against the club's assets is a stretch and is unnecessarily alarmism. The current rules limit owners to injecting £35m a season to cover debts, so we'd actually be better off overall if we ditched BlueCo and signed a £40m/season shirt sponsor.

It's also really important to understand that this way of financing is the default across the Premier League, and most of football. It's a house of cards, but it is what it is. There are probably only 5 clubs in the last 20 years that did not use this model - PSG, Man City and Newcastle being directly financed with cash from a sovereign investment fund, and Real Madrid and Bayern who are genuinely profitable. It's possible that Roman also financed the club with personal cash rather than leveraging his assets, not sure. It's also about to get a whole lot more common because shareholder loans eg what Arsenal, Brighton and Forest have been bankrolled by are now required to charge market interest instead of being interest-free.

Your mate Johnny Minerals is spot on actually, when he said his biggest fear is that despite all the apparent financial turmoil and debt, there also seem to be so many escape routes that it doesn't matter and Clearlake will just keep on doing what they do. I agree with this, and I agree with anyone else who says that protest is the only vehicle that impacts Clearlake's reputation and ultimately, makes for change.

Thanks for that. Any buyer will also have to deal with a lot of debt though, and BlueCo will demand a healthy profit too.

What are we looking at? 6billion plus taking on debt? Who's going to do that?

18 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Thanks for that. Any buyer will also have to deal wth a lot of debt though, and BlueCo will demand a healthy profit too.

What are we looking at? 6billion plus taking on debt? Who's going to do that?

I doubt they would get more than 3bn including debt in the current environment, unless someone just really wants to buy the club. It's up to any future owner whether they settle the debt at sale or continue the debt. Thing is though, both JP Morgan and Ares are essentially making the same bet that BlueCo are i.e that football is a 'rising tide' and therefore clubs will be worth a lot more in 2033 than they were in 2023. They also have a vested interest in the club doing well, because that is how they make their money in 2033.

From Clearlake's perspective, selling early would result in reputational damage (and credibility with two of their biggest backers in JP Morgan and Ares) rather than financial damage. In fact you wouldn't put it past either lender to be doing work behind the scenes to find someone who might be able to take a football club off a bunch of naive clowns. I've heard both JP Morgan and Ares are heavily financed by Saudi's PIF themselves, maybe they will ask them to sell Newcastle and 'trade up' for a shiny London plaything.

Edited May 4May 4 by SydneyChelsea

50 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

I doubt they would get more than 3bn including debt in the current environment, unless someone just really wants to buy the club. It's up to any future owner whether they settle the debt at sale or continue the debt. Thing is though, both JP Morgan and Ares are essentially making the same bet that BlueCo are i.e that football is a 'rising tide' and therefore clubs will be worth a lot more in 2033 than they were in 2023. They also have a vested interest in the club doing well, because that is how they make their money in 2033.

From Clearlake's perspective, selling early would result in reputational damage (and credibility with two of their biggest backers in JP Morgan and Ares) rather than financial damage. In fact you wouldn't put it past either lender to be doing work behind the scenes to find someone who might be able to take a football club off a bunch of naive clowns. I've heard both JP Morgan and Ares are heavily financed by Saudi's PIF themselves, maybe they will ask them to sell Newcastle and 'trade up' for a shiny London plaything.

Like you said our only hope is the protests get bigger, better and force them out. 6 years is a long time to suffer this

On 01/05/2026 at 04:21, KonaKai Blue said:

Just seen Pochs interview basically slamming the ownership running the club off data instead of the human element. Just hammers home that we are where we are because of incompetence and not bad luck. Sickening.

I am not so sure data vs human is our problem

1 hour ago, SydneyChelsea said:

I doubt they would get more than 3bn including debt in the current environment, unless someone just really wants to buy the club. It's up to any future owner whether they settle the debt at sale or continue the debt. Thing is though, both JP Morgan and Ares are essentially making the same bet that BlueCo are i.e that football is a 'rising tide' and therefore clubs will be worth a lot more in 2033 than they were in 2023. They also have a vested interest in the club doing well, because that is how they make their money in 2033.

From Clearlake's perspective, selling early would result in reputational damage (and credibility with two of their biggest backers in JP Morgan and Ares) rather than financial damage. In fact you wouldn't put it past either lender to be doing work behind the scenes to find someone who might be able to take a football club off a bunch of naive clowns. I've heard both JP Morgan and Ares are heavily financed by Saudi's PIF themselves, maybe they will ask them to sell Newcastle and 'trade up' for a shiny London plaything.

I've been kind of hoping that Boehly and his cronies pair up with someone like Kingdom Holdings who are also massive in real estate in Knightsbridge, Chelsea, Fulham etc. And buy out Clearlake. I read that both have to agree to any sale and finding a buyer to have mutual appeal to both factions could be difficult.

Whilst I want Boehly out as well, his lot seem the lesser of the two evils and if he paired up with real Saudi wealth then I think something like that could work better than going the other route with the greasy Eghbali twat.

16 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Could well be we go bust, head to administration, players sold off and points deduction sees us tumble down leagues.

Is a huge amount of debt. I don't see how it gets cleared.

This is why I've been so concerned about our lack of a new stadium. It's a certainty now one won't be built. But a new stadium would provide us with an asset that will secure our future as a top flight club.

A 39k stadium, impossible to relocate with the CPO and incredibly expensive to redevelop, saddled with debts. We won't be a very attractive proposition when blueco/clearlake are forced to sell us

19 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

This is why I've been so concerned about our lack of a new stadium. It's a certainty now one won't be built. But a new stadium would provide us with an asset that will secure our future as a top flight club.

A 39k stadium, impossible to relocate with the CPO and incredibly expensive to redevelop, saddled with debts. We won't be a very attractive proposition when blueco/clearlake are forced to sell us

If Tottenham went down, the debt owing on their stadium would permanently destroy them, and it is crippling enough as it is without refinancing. They would be unable to service that debt on Championship revenues regardless of how many Ed Sheeran concerts and NFL games they host. Modern stadia are white elephants. The true reason they are attractive is solely because their generated revenue is disproportionately effective for FFP/PSR purposes. As Tottenham are finding out, it is no substitute for league or commercial success in real terms, and its not as if a club can sell their stadium to pay off debts*

Any stadium we build now would be even more expensive, in a less favourable interest rate climate. Oh and our owners have pissed off two of the entities who may have been interested in providing said financing. The only reason why anyone would ever finance that is to get their equity hands on a slice of London, and should the current problems continue to occur they would be able to carve the stadium off the club (because the CPO was removed) and sell it, leaving the club homeless. Far from securing our financial status, it would likely be a millstone around the club's neck.

* unless you are Real Madrid. I don't suppose Hammersmith & Fulham Council would be interesting in buying Cobham and selling it back for a few quid?

Edited May 4May 4 by SydneyChelsea

2 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

If Tottenham went down, the debt owing on their stadium would permanently destroy them, and it is crippling enough as it is without refinancing. They would be unable to service that debt on Championship revenues regardless of how many Ed Sheeran concerts and NFL games they host. Modern stadia are white elephants. The true reason they are attractive is solely because their generated revenue is disproportionately effective for FFP/PSR purposes. As Tottenham are finding out, it is no substitute for league or commercial success in real terms, and its not as if a club can sell their stadium to pay off debts*

Any stadium we build now would be even more expensive, in a less favourable interest rate climate. Oh and our owners have pissed off two of the entities who may have been interested in providing said financing. The only reason why anyone would ever finance that is to get their equity hands on a slice of London, and should the current problems continue to occur they would be able to carve the stadium off the club (because the CPO was removed) and sell it, leaving the club homeless. Far from securing our financial status, it would likely be a millstone around the club's neck.

* unless you are Real Madrid. I don't suppose Hammersmith & Fulham Council would be interesting in buying Cobham and selling it back for a few quid?

Fundamentally disagree with this entire premise.

The stadium debt isn't affecting Tottenham the way it did arsenal which is what I assume is driving your opinion. The very fact they have that stadium is why if they are relegated they will bounce back. The reason they are doing poorly is despite the stadium, not because of it.

Their revenue is eclipsing us and if they can get their affairs in order on the pitch, which I think is inevitable, they will permanently displace us as the second biggest club in London.

Our revenue is completely drawn from our status as a global club and success on the field. Tottenham's is drawn from their infrastructure. That is a solid footing we do not have. Blueco are slowly stripping it away, not enhancing it.

Relegation will kill our primary revenue generators, it will have no impact on Tottenham's. The NFL and the concerts will still be there and in turn sponsors will be happier to be associated because they have so many perks.

If we had a 60k stadium in the heart of Chelsea, Jesus Christ, we'd be on fire financially. But sadly because of incompetence by the British government and then blueco, it's never happening.

Edited May 4May 4 by bisright1

We had plans approved for a new stadium, Clearlake could re submit them... but they wont. they dont want to build a new ground on the current site, they want to sell it and move us somewhere else.