1 hour ago, Frankie8Lampard said:

Can we make a poll on who people would prefer, boehly or clearlake? @coco

 

There are some doubts on the Boehly side as to whether Eghbali carries enough football knowledge to be such a pivotal figure in the recruitment set-up. 

After all, only two years ago, he was pitching tactics to Thomas Tuchel using a novel 4-4-3 formation. 

This well-publicised incident, which the Boehly side deny they were also part of, is emphatically dismissed by Clearlake as little more than human error. 

And Chelsea point-blank deny it ever even happened, yet it made a pretty significant impact on Tuchel, who was surely not hallucinating what he saw and heard.

(@JacobsBen @GiveMeSport)

Some within the football department question how Tosin Adarabioyo is an upgrade on Trevoh Chalobah, a Cobham product and one of Chelsea’s form players at the end of last season. 

It’s understood Boehly would prefer to keep squad size down and back Cobham talents even if appealing like minded profiles become available on the market. 

(@JacobsBen) #CFC

1 hour ago, JM7 said:

Clearlake sources believe Boehly is the more volatile character. They point to his decision to go on a dressing-room rant against Sterling after Chelsea's 2-1 defeat to Brighton (2023) in which Sterling was called "embarrassing" in front of his teammates. [@JacobsBen]

😅😂

Lol now the PR spin we have been fed for the long years they have been here is directed at each other.

Thanks for posting the updates @JM7

It's quite predictable how both sides are throwing barbs at one another.

This is now becoming quite funny but if im not mistaken with the No outside sale rule for another 7 years or whatever. wouldn't that mean that if Boehly wants to buyout clearlake, he basically needs to do an internal share swap, so clearlake selling to an internal party? meaning that Mark Walters (CEO of guggenheim partners 300b or so assets under managment) would likely be the only realistic buyer of the clearlake shares? I suppose wyss could take some on too. but just seems like unfortunately for us all, because eghbali seems the worse of the two, ball is mostly in clearlakes court...

4 hours ago, H2SO4aq said:

This is now becoming quite funny but if im not mistaken with the No outside sale rule for another 7 years or whatever. wouldn't that mean that if Boehly wants to buyout clearlake, he basically needs to do an internal share swap, so clearlake selling to an internal party? meaning that Mark Walters (CEO of guggenheim partners 300b or so assets under managment) would likely be the only realistic buyer of the clearlake shares? I suppose wyss could take some on too. but just seems like unfortunately for us all, because eghbali seems the worse of the two, ball is mostly in clearlakes court...

So it's "No outside sale".

 

Some of us are trying to figure out how they can sell shares if they can't sell the club, it made no sense. But that clears it up.

So all our hope if we want boehly to stay is for the other 2 to step up because I think Boehly has put in all he can right? 

I'll read up about the other 2 but cheers for that. I keep forgetting their names too. I know the guggenheim, they opened another one in Abu Dhabi a while back, I can imagine they have a strong financial portfolio. I don't know anything about the Wyss guy though.

 

Boehly, including billionaire partners Hansjorg Wyss and Mark Walter, which owns the other 38.5% of the club.

Edited September 11, 20241 yr by Simplymo

Can I say i want neither party in charge? Both have little to no idea what they're doing, hence why they're warring with themselves.

Long read here - quite interesting:

Inside Chelsea's 'civil war'.🔵
- Hope for a resolution in 60 days.
- Owner can change despite Raine terms.
- Boehly backed Pochettino, and Chalobah over Tosin.
- Eghbali has no interest in leaving.
- Clearlake plan to double #CFC's value in ten years.

https://www.givemesport.com/exclusive-why-there-is-a-civil-war-at-chelsea/

Whichever side prioritises academy products over the likes of meaningless signings has my backing. 

39 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

Whichever side prioritises academy products over the likes of meaningless signings has my backing. 

100% 

The most important thing right now imho is to reconnect the club with its fans. Clearlake is never going to to that

52 minutes ago, AndyDowsleftflank said:

100% 

The most important thing right now imho is to reconnect the club with its fans. Clearlake is never going to to that

Nope. Their press release about holding discussions with Earls court, only for the earls court development group to deny it minutes later, was quite a hilarious epic fail at trying to manipulate the fan base.

15 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Nope. Their press release about holding discussions with Earls court, only for the earls court development group to deny it minutes later, was quite a hilarious epic fail at trying to manipulate the fan base.

Roman enquired about the site some years ago didn't he, and was unsuccessful!

Why should people think it is any different now?

1 hour ago, AndyDowsleftflank said:

100% 

The most important thing right now imho is to reconnect the club with its fans. Clearlake is never going to to that

And this is before we get into how Mount left compared to Azpi and Silva, or our best ever group that had one academy player in it.

I don't get how we of all supporters can base connection/soul on how many academy players are in the team, and even if we do our best Xl has two of them in which I'm pretty sure only United out of every other big club can top.

8 minutes ago, Argo said:

And this is before we get into how Mount left compared to Azpi and Silva, or our best ever group that had one academy player in it.

I don't get how we of all supporters can base connection/soul on how many academy players are in the team, and even if we do our best Xl has two of them in which I'm pretty sure only United out of every other big club can top.

f**king hell bore off with this bo**ocks again hahaha

We are f**ked aren't we?? 

Civil war between rich men is never good for the people/company in the middle. 

 

If the fall out escalates then ways will be found to sell the shares.

It will be Todd that ends up being forced out I think.

 

This is well worth a listen. Matt Law who is well sourced. 
 

 

I just remembered when I first heard of the Americans taking over I was worried we'd be a laughing stock but in a different way.

Commercials and ads everywhere, maybe try and fit a sponsor in during throw ins 😆, compulsory baseball caps for the team, half time concerts and cheerleaders. Stupid stuff really.

 

Fk me, I was way off...lol

There's a longstanding tradition in football that's fallen by the way side in the modern era, in the event of a draw such as this situation the outcome is determined by a simple toss of a coin.

Club could also make a bit of dosh in the process as well by pay televising the coin toss, which of course would be performed on the centre circle at The Bridge, I for one would pay a tenner to see that go down !!

 

1 hour ago, General said:

There's a longstanding tradition in football that's fallen by the way side in the modern era, in the event of a draw such as this situation the outcome is determined by a simple toss of a coin.

Club could also make a bit of dosh in the process as well by pay televising the coin toss, which of course would be performed on the centre circle at The Bridge, I for one would pay a tenner to see that go down !!

 

Sod that...a boxing ring in the centre circle with bohely vs eghbali as the main fight.

Maybe start with Walter and wyss tag teaming vs fellatio guy (the other one at clearlake).

Or poch vs maresca...trev vs tosin, etc.

I bet they could raise more than a tenner a seat. Lol

Ooo...add weapons too depending on what they've done or achieved!

 

Whoever bought palmer gets a bat.

Whoever bought mudryk gets a balloon poodle or a blow up sheep (you know the one!)

Stuff like that...get even more revenue.

Get a few premium telephone lines in for bets and votes, etc.

 

Fk football, we can make billions!

I did a stupid thing I regret, and that was listening to one of those 'Chelsea podcasts' (London is Blue) where two pretend journalists talk about how important and knowledgeable they are.

A few things I learned:

• Virtually all of the 'information' out there about this is situation is PR from one camp or the other, and the only fact is that the parties are in dispute. Over what, is still unclear.
• Boehly and Clearlake have never run a business together prior to Chelsea; they made acquaintance from a failed sale to Clearlake.
• Boehly would need to raise funds, whereas Clearlake would likely not. Any direct third-party investment or ownership would need to be ratified by the PL as well (leading to further delay)
• Clearlake's Chelsea investment is its own discretionary fund, meaning that Eghbali/Feliciano can make decisions to sell/buy without needing the permission of Clearlake investors as a whole
• The supposed restrictions on selling shares apply to third-party buyers, but not to current investors wanting to increase/decrease their shares.

The journalist on the podcast (Matt Law) seemed very much in the employ of Clearlake tbh. He speculated that Todd Boehly was wishy-washy, irrational, and making decisions based on feelings whereas he was at pains to describe, in very great detail, Clearlake's "analytic" methodology, implying that only Clearlake make evidence-based decisions. I think even the host called him out on this, pointing out that the seems the media were very keen to portray the dispute to Chelsea fans as "head vs heart". The reality is probably unknowably different. The host also (fairly IMO) pointed out that this portrayal of Boehly is at odds with the way his group has run the LA Dodgers and the apparent success of their 'hands-off' approach.

In short, it seems unlikely that Boehly (and his co-investors) can win.

As for the 'no-sale' clause, even if it does exist, how would it be enforced, and by who? It's not as if Abramovich could take action against the offending party in court.

13 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

I did a stupid thing I regret, and that was listening to one of those 'Chelsea podcasts' (London is Blue) where two pretend journalists talk about how important and knowledgeable they are.

A few things I learned:

• Virtually all of the 'information' out there about this is situation is PR from one camp or the other, and the only fact is that the parties are in dispute. Over what, is still unclear.
• Boehly and Clearlake have never run a business together prior to Chelsea; they made acquaintance from a failed sale to Clearlake.
• Boehly would need to raise funds, whereas Clearlake would likely not. Any direct third-party investment or ownership would need to be ratified by the PL as well (leading to further delay)
• Clearlake's Chelsea investment is its own discretionary fund, meaning that Eghbali/Feliciano can make decisions to sell/buy without needing the permission of Clearlake investors as a whole
• The supposed restrictions on selling shares apply to third-party buyers, but not to current investors wanting to increase/decrease their shares.

The journalist on the podcast (Matt Law) seemed very much in the employ of Clearlake tbh. He speculated that Todd Boehly was wishy-washy, irrational, and making decisions based on feelings whereas he was at pains to describe, in very great detail, Clearlake's "analytic" methodology, implying that only Clearlake make evidence-based decisions. I think even the host called him out on this, pointing out that the seems the media were very keen to portray the dispute to Chelsea fans as "head vs heart". The reality is probably unknowably different. The host also (fairly IMO) pointed out that this portrayal of Boehly is at odds with the way his group has run the LA Dodgers and the apparent success of their 'hands-off' approach.

In short, it seems unlikely that Boehly (and his co-investors) can win.

As for the 'no-sale' clause, even if it does exist, how would it be enforced, and by who? It's not as if Abramovich could take action against the offending party in court.

I agree with all this except the bold bit.

1) I think Boehly can come up with the money to buy clearlake out but he has to make it really tasty that the investors at clearlake over rule eghbali and fellatio. He was forced to go with clearlake initially due to time constraints for the original bid.

2) I think the American company Roman used would be the ones that would take them to court. Raine (sp?) I think they were called. They can enforce the contract as the sale was through them.

 

But other than that, I agree mate. It's a lot of "ITK" speculation. Actual facts though are extremely thin on the ground.

Also personally I agree too about boehly. I don't think he's "wishy washy" as the opposing pr camp suggest. I really do think he wants to be a fan for the long run, 30 yrs + compared to clearlake who will/may asses their investment every 10yrs.