Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.
The Shed End - Chelsea FC Forums

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

BlueCo buy Chelsea FC

Old Shaggy
in General Chelsea FC

Featured Replies

20 hours ago, Cap said:

Well the NFL has a hard salary cap, so I’d argue that Major League Baseball is probably closer to the Premier League in terms of the economic environment.
 

The relative success of the Dodgers doesn’t guarantee anything, of course, but they certainly spend a lot more than they need to in order to just remain competitive; they spend to win.

I'm no expert on the MLB, but I feel safe to assert that its economic environment is incomparable to the Premier League's.

As a snapshot, just look at both the largest source of expenditure for Premier League clubs (transfers) and the largest source of income (television revenue) -

Transfers - I don't think I need to explain too much about football's flamboyant transfer industry. MLB on the other hand appears to have a "trading" system whereby clubs simply swap players with each other, or pull them up from the annual draft. Money is very rarely exchanged in these transactions.

Television revenue - Again, I don't think I need to explain too much about the Premier League's collective bargaining approach and relatively even distribution of revenue. The LA Dodgers however are able to sell their rights individually and draw a huge competitive advantage over their rivals through pulling in vastly superior TV revenue. This is how they have managed to outspend the rest of the MLB (they were the only team forced to pay the "luxury tax" for exceeding salary rules last season), but this would be a practice they could not repeat in the Premier League.

    2 minutes ago, Fatty_Speeding said:

    I'm no expert on the MLB, but I feel safe to assert that its economic environment is incomparable to the Premier League's.

    As a snapshot, just look at both the largest source of expenditure for Premier League clubs (transfers) and the largest source of income (television revenue) -

    Transfers - I don't think I need to explain too much about football's flamboyant transfer industry. MLB on the other hand appears to have a "trading" system whereby clubs simply swap players with each other, or pull them up from the annual draft. Money is very rarely exchanged in these transactions.

    Television revenue - Again, I don't think I need to explain too much about the Premier League's collective bargaining approach and relatively even distribution of revenue. The LA Dodgers however are able to sell their rights individually and draw a huge competitive advantage over their rivals through pulling in vastly superior TV revenue. This is how they have managed to outspend the rest of the MLB (they were the only team forced to pay the "luxury tax" for exceeding salary rules last season), but this would be a practice they could not repeat in the Premier League.

    You are correct. With most American sports there is no transfer fee between clubs, it is all about the wages and commitments within existing contracts. Nevertheless those amounts quickly rack up with the big name players.

    The individual TV rights won't be an option but I am sure they will have other ideas and how to raise funds. Most likely via improved sponsorship deals etc.

    1 hour ago, SW6Blue said:

    Where's Elon Musk's late bid? 😁

    You can see it now £xbn rebuild £xbn loans £xbillion players and Chelsea FC will be the first club to send a player to the Moon!

    @Mana Marina used to work as PA at Sibneft before CFC.

    6 minutes ago, Valerie said:

    Comparing it to the Brexit negotiations and the backstop is somehow not making me feel hopeful.

    Hmm now you and I are in the same boat living abroad but I dare say nothing this government does leaves me feeling hopeful.

    Not that the government here are amazing either by no means, maybe they are better when you are Val? Kept happy by importing that wonderful Belgium chocolate over the boarder.

    1 hour ago, Fatty_Speeding said:

    I'm no expert on the MLB, but I feel safe to assert that its economic environment is incomparable to the Premier League's.

    As a snapshot, just look at both the largest source of expenditure for Premier League clubs (transfers) and the largest source of income (television revenue) -

    Transfers - I don't think I need to explain too much about football's flamboyant transfer industry. MLB on the other hand appears to have a "trading" system whereby clubs simply swap players with each other, or pull them up from the annual draft. Money is very rarely exchanged in these transactions.

    Television revenue - Again, I don't think I need to explain too much about the Premier League's collective bargaining approach and relatively even distribution of revenue. The LA Dodgers however are able to sell their rights individually and draw a huge competitive advantage over their rivals through pulling in vastly superior TV revenue. This is how they have managed to outspend the rest of the MLB (they were the only team forced to pay the "luxury tax" for exceeding salary rules last season), but this would be a practice they could not repeat in the Premier League.

    As an American, I have more knowledge of the business side of the US sports, so forgive me if I mistake or misunderstand how the finances for a Premier League club work, but my understanding is that there are substantial revenue differences between Premier League clubs that, like an MLB team, can be used to a competitive advantage (if used smartly). This link, for example, has Chelsea at €513 million in revenue for 2018-19 season, while a club like West Ham had €216 million in revenue for the same year: https://soccer.nbcsports.com/2020/01/15/where-do-premier-league-clubs-rank-on-rich-list/

    To me that looks somewhat similar to the gap between the Dodgers' and, say, the Padres’ respective revenue streams, and while the MLB financial structure has disincentives for spending above a certain amount, a motived owner can pay the luxury tax to do so, if they think doing so will enable them to win.

    For example, John Henry wouldn’t go into the luxury tax to retain star player Mookie Betts, who had recently won the MVP and led the Red Sox to a World Series victory. The Dodgers were willing to go into the luxury tax, so they traded for Betts, gave him a highly lucrative new deal, and subsequently won the World Series. Now, John Henry could have paid to keep Betts, the Red Sox make enough revenue to do so, but he didn’t want to spend into the luxury tax (there are other non-monetary penalties for reaching or staying in the luxury tax, such as loss of draft picks, it should be noted).  

    On the other hand, NFL teams are constrained from exceeding a hard cap and cannot utilize a revenue disparity in the same way. If a team is willing to pay more for a star player, it is about how much of the set salary cap amount they are willing to allocate to that player, not about how much of the team’s revenue that the owner is willing to pay to the player.

    The systems are all very different from each other, but both the Premiere League and the MLB, to my understanding, present an opportunity to outspent the opposition in a way the NFL does not.

    “Our issue if you look at the preferred bid - it’s not the Boehly bid, it’s the Clearlake bid. It’s a private equity bid and the NFL don’t allow private equity firms to take major stakes in clubs, so why should the Premier League?"

    "Jim spent seven years working in private equity and the nature of private equity is investors have a requirement for a relatively short to medium term return. How do you do that with a club like Chelsea, which needs a huge amount of investment in the next 10 years?”

    - Ratcliffe spokesperson

     

    Ouch. Handbags out. 

    🗣 @Matt_Law_DT on Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s bid (🧵)

    “The interesting thing about this bid is that his team tried to put it out that they made a £4.25bn bid. They hadn't. They made a £2.5bn bid with a commitment to spend £1.75bn. That actually puts them under some of the other bids.”

    🗣 @Matt_Law_DT (🧵):

    “Some of the other bids, the initial actual bid was more than £2.5 billion. The other bidders would tell you that they’ve committed to spending a billion, but in likelihood, they’ll spend way more than a billion over 10 years.”

    13 minutes ago, JM7 said:

    🗣 @Matt_Law_DT on Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s bid (🧵)

    “The interesting thing about this bid is that his team tried to put it out that they made a £4.25bn bid. They hadn't. They made a £2.5bn bid with a commitment to spend £1.75bn. That actually puts them under some of the other bids.”

    🗣 @Matt_Law_DT (🧵😞

    “Some of the other bids, the initial actual bid was more than £2.5 billion. The other bidders would tell you that they’ve committed to spending a billion, but in likelihood, they’ll spend way more than a billion over 10 years.”

    Didn't boehly come out the other day saying their bid was slightly more by that id assume max 250m more at 4.5b total package, Its no better and with the clearlake stuff ratcliffes is probably better

    Its looking dodgy as hell that raine has just dismissed the richest guy in the country that clearly wants the club, Sounds greasy as hell

    Only thing against Ratcliffe is the man utd stuff but it would be absolute financial suicide to spend billions just to sink the ship!

    Edited by Kantesmini

    I've been out of town on a work trip since Friday morning, seems like there has been a lot of movement on the new owners. Also seems that there are some that would love it if there was a big ol wrench thrown into the process and caused the sale not to go through. I have very little faith in the powers that be.

    40 minutes ago, JM7 said:

    “Our issue if you look at the preferred bid - it’s not the Boehly bid, it’s the Clearlake bid. It’s a private equity bid and the NFL don’t allow private equity firms to take major stakes in clubs, so why should the Premier League?"

    "Jim spent seven years working in private equity and the nature of private equity is investors have a requirement for a relatively short to medium term return. How do you do that with a club like Chelsea, which needs a huge amount of investment in the next 10 years?”

    - Ratcliffe spokesperson

     

    Ouch. Handbags out. 

    Is a valid point. Clearlake have been the only major concern I have with that bid, ok and Wyss. They have no interest in football, they are there to make money.

    39 minutes ago, JM7 said:

    Sir Jim Ratcliffe:

    "My message to Raine is don't discount our offer. We are British and have great intentions for #Chelsea. If I was Raine I wouldn't close any door."

    [via @BBCSport]

    I personally don't give a toss you are British Sir Jim. I only care the right person, who will love and take care of the club, takes it over. If that is a Brit, an American, a Saudi or even someone from Portsmouth it don't matter to me.

    10 minutes ago, Zeta said:

    Mike Ashley is British as well, don't want him as an owner. Nationality is irrelevant.

    Mike ashley is but a minion compared to ratcliffe though, Ratcliffe is richer than roman although has gone down in known assets to 11b from 25b!

    Create an account or sign in to comment
    Go to topic listing

    Recently Browsing 0

    • No registered users viewing this page.
    Background Picker
    Customize Layout

    Account

    Navigation

    Search

    Search

    Configure browser push notifications
    Chrome (Android)
    1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
    2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
    3. Adjust your preference.
    Chrome (Desktop)
    1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
    2. Select Site settings.
    3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.