33 minutes ago, POCH OUT said:

Absolutely spot on, it was a labour MP who first put forward the idea to sanction Roman, he has since been cleared BUT there is no chance in hell this LEFT WING government will allow Roman anywhere near this country let alone Stamford Bridge 

Left wing politics destroyed Chelsea football club.

1 hour ago, Term_X said:

Well, bit of a ridiculous comparison, as Trump was ‘voted’ in, by a large majority. We had no vote, the vote was for Roman, but our left wing government said no. 

Putin even said himself if Trump had been president during that period, the war could have been avoided and Roman may have never been sanctioned in the first place. 

The simple fact is that neither of the scum leading left and right wing parties (both are the same thing by the way) cared a single bit about Chelsea football club or the fans. Their one and only incentive was getting one over Russia and Putin. We had no say, we weren't allowed a say.

Edited February 17, 20251 yr by Scott Harris

On 16/02/2025 at 04:49, Vialli96 said:

Palmer made his impact last year playing on the right. Doesnt Salah and didnt Messi also play out there?

God I wish someone could just post Palmer's in possession heat maps of this (Premier League) season vs last and put the myth to bed once and for all that he was playing a different position last year.

Yes there were exemptions when he temporarily as a striker due to injuries, but for the most part, he played both this season and last in the right hand half space. The space between the opposition left centre back and left back but trying to sit between the defense and midfield lines.

The difference was the last year, Gusto overlapped from right back to give the width, whereas now it's a right winger (Madueke usually or Neto) providing width to stretch the play and give Palmer room to move.

7 minutes ago, Qaz said:

God I wish someone could just post Palmer's in possession heat maps of this (Premier League) season vs last and put the myth to bed once and for all that he was playing a different position last year.

Yes there were exemptions when he temporarily as a striker due to injuries, but for the most part, he played both this season and last in the right hand half space. The space between the opposition left centre back and left back but trying to sit between the defense and midfield lines.

The difference was the last year, Gusto overlapped from right back to give the width, whereas now it's a right winger (Madueke usually or Neto) providing width to stretch the play and give Palmer room to move.

24/25

23/24

 

Feel free to edit your post 🙂 

 

3 hours ago, POCH OUT said:

Absolutely spot on, it was a labour MP who first put forward the idea to sanction Roman, he has since been cleared BUT there is no chance in hell this LEFT WING government will allow Roman anywhere near this country let alone Stamford Bridge 

It was the Conservative government that sanctioned, and then forced the sale of our club.

They were NOT left wing and neither is the current Labour government.

2 hours ago, Term_X said:

Left wing politics destroyed Chelsea football club.

It was the Conservative government that destroyed our club.. Labour had no power whatsoever to do anything at all. . ( They no doubt would have done the same, but they couldn't and didn't)

The present Labour government and the last Conservative government are nowhere near being left wing

I'm still f**king angry about what happened to our club, I've never thought of it in terms of blaming the left or right that's missing the point, we were an easy target.

No charities have benefited from the billions received from Abramovich.

The Americans benefited from Roman wiping out our £1.5 billion debt though

f**king criminal acts against against our football club . c**ts, the lot of em

3 hours ago, POCH OUT said:

BRIGHTON HAVE NEVER WON ANYTHING 

Yeah, I'm aware of that.

4 hours ago, Term_X said:

Well, bit of a ridiculous comparison, as Trump was ‘voted’ in, by a large majority. We had no vote, the vote was for Roman, but our left wing government said no. 

Putin even said himself if Trump had been president during that period, the war could have been avoided and Roman may have never been sanctioned in the first place

What do you mean by " we had no vote..the vote was for Roman. Our left wing government said no " ???

Nadine Dories not my favourite politician 😐

Hello,

Long time lurker here, I do not usually join forums however for this one I had to. Let's do our best to get these clowns out of our club or at the very least change their baby day care policy. We are CFC, not an orphanage. Lets put some shame on these clowns names!

I've noticed following our loss to Brighton there is a lot more scrutiny on us, Mikel openly calling out the others and the manager, a lot of pundits calling out how much money we've wasted etc. All of this is a good thing, the more scrutiny on our owners, sporting directors and manager the better.

Agreed. (See it does happen) ;)

1 hour ago, timetowaste said:

I've noticed following our loss to Brighton there is a lot more scrutiny on us, Mikel openly calling out the others and the manager, a lot of pundits calling out how much money we've wasted etc. All of this is a good thing, the more scrutiny on our owners, sporting directors and manager the bette

2 hours ago, timetowaste said:

I've noticed following our loss to Brighton there is a lot more scrutiny on us, Mikel openly calling out the others and the manager, a lot of pundits calling out how much money we've wasted etc. All of this is a good thing, the more scrutiny on our owners, sporting directors and manager the better.

Mikel tends to change opinions regularly. Pretty sure he was cosying up to the owners recently. The press are fickle in this respect too as I remember them writing some positive stuff about our ownership strategy back in December when things looked better.

But inevitably, there will be more scrutiny and negative press on Clearlake as long as we struggle on the pitch.

1 hour ago, forbzy said:

Mikel tends to change opinions regularly. Pretty sure he was cosying up to the owners recently. The press are fickle in this respect too as I remember them writing some positive stuff about our ownership strategy back in December when things looked better.

But inevitably, there will be more scrutiny and negative press on Clearlake as long as we struggle on the pitch.

I think Mikel has been consistent in his critique of the owners, he has done corporate hospitality but he has continually been critical of this ownership and many Chelsea fans have even said he's gone too far.

I don't think the press have been fickle, apart from the occasional hipster there has been startling little critique of Boehly/Clearlake. A lot of Chelsea news appears curated by the club and we have been subjected to a lot of feelpinions about how the American owners are 'doing things differently'. The dominant narrative two months ago seemed to be "I Told You So".

It has been said that BlueCo borrowed money from 2 different organizations in order to fund things such as player recruitment and purchases like the Stoll mansions and Strasbourg.

One is worth $700mill borrowed from a collection of US banks at a much lower interest rate than the second, due for repayment in 2027.

The second is worth $500mill, and is at a rate of 13% interest. It is a sealed debt so the interest goes on and builds until maturity, in 2033.

Debt is placed against assets owned by Blueco, protecting Clearlake, Eldridge and the other parent companies of Blueco.

So basically Cobham, Stoll, the Bridge, car parks etc are collateral for the money they spent. They did not invest their own money, they borrowed it to meet purchase obligations so they can take money out.

Very concerning If true.

1 hour ago, axman2526 said:

It has been said that BlueCo borrowed money from 2 different organizations in order to fund things such as player recruitment and purchases like the Stoll mansions and Strasbourg.

One is worth $700mill borrowed from a collection of US banks at a much lower interest rate than the second, due for repayment in 2027.

The second is worth $500mill, and is at a rate of 13% interest. It is a sealed debt so the interest goes on and builds until maturity, in 2033.

Debt is placed against assets owned by Blueco, protecting Clearlake, Eldridge and the other parent companies of Blueco.

So basically Cobham, Stoll, the Bridge, car parks etc are collateral for the money they spent. They did not invest their own money, they borrowed it to meet purchase obligations so they can take money out.

Very concerning If true.

That's pretty standard practice. Even under Abramovich we funded the club through loans from his associated companies, albeit on paper this means that Chelsea was debt-free as any asset sale would just reimburse Abramovich and not some third-party.

The 1.75bn pledged for spending as part of the takeover agreement was financed against the owners' assets, not the club (unlike Man United). This is extra funding.

Interestingly this will leave us in a very good place with the impending new APT/PSR rules. A club like Arsenal, for example, owes almost all its debt to its owners paid back at zero or near-zero interest. The impending rule changes will mean that these clubs will now need to recalculate their finances to account for market-rate interest payments on these loans.

I like to try and think more logical about the situation. even if it is slightly frustrating. But thinking logical, I don't think the ownership have been lacking in ambition. They overspent for Caicedo and Enzo Fernandez, which by all accounts, Chelsea fans were happy about. Fans were also happy about signings such as Lavia and Fofana, too. I think in this regard the ownership have shown ambition to go out of their way to invest in better players. Granted, there are a number of signings which haven't worked out. Truth is, we were happy to sign Nkunku and I'd imagine many of us thought he would be our answer up top, but it's failed and he has been poor. I will be honest, when it came to Palmer I knew very little about him apart from a couple goals he scored for them. It seemed that many of our fans were a little surprised by that signing and ultimately didn't expect much of him, so when he came here and started becoming our main man it came as a big surprise.

When Felix signed I read nothing but positive comments about him coming back. Jackson wasn't the ST signing we were expecting, I'll admit that. But he was signed for £32m (or thereabouts) so I didn't think we would be getting a 20 goal a seasons striker. I genuinely thought and expected that Nkunku would be our main goalscorer, but look how that turned out. I still have faith that we are only 2/3 signings away from being genuine title challengers next season, especially given the players will have gained more experience and gone from some hardship, especially this season. I still maintain a glass half full mindset. We have Andrey Santos returning next season, along with Estevao, so that is two more positions providing cover. We will have to sell Sterling, hopefully to the Saudis, but who knows. We will make more sales and then bring in some higher calibre players and I am confident for next season.

16 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

That's pretty standard practice. Even under Abramovich we funded the club through loans from his associated companies, albeit on paper this means that Chelsea was debt-free as any asset sale would just reimburse Abramovich and not some third-party.

The 1.75bn pledged for spending as part of the takeover agreement was financed against the owners' assets, not the club (unlike Man United). This is extra funding.

Interestingly this will leave us in a very good place with the impending new APT/PSR rules. A club like Arsenal, for example, owes almost all its debt to its owners paid back at zero or near-zero interest. The impending rule changes will mean that these clubs will now need to recalculate their finances to account for market-rate interest payments on these loans.

That £1.7 billion of finance you mention. Doesn't it still have to be repaid however it was financed? . The owner's aren't going to gift that money to Chelsea, it's borrowed money that they now owe to the lender's.?

And how does the debt that BlueCo now have affect the club going forward, how does that debt get squared off or does it sit there until we are sold ?

Cheers Syd !

Edited February 18, 20251 yr by The Rising Sun
Info

22 hours ago, forbzy said:

Mikel tends to change opinions regularly. Pretty sure he was cosying up to the owners recently. The press are fickle in this respect too as I remember them writing some positive stuff about our ownership strategy back in December when things looked better.

But inevitably, there will be more scrutiny and negative press on Clearlake as long as we struggle on the pitch.

The press are fickle, exactly the same as us

We were writing positive stuff on here when it was going well, Now we are writing negative stuff.. it'll be positive stuff on here again if we ever do well again.

On 17/02/2025 at 16:39, The Rising Sun said:

What do you mean by " we had no vote..the vote was for Roman. Our left wing government said no " ???

The word ‘politics’ next to left-wing rather than ideology ends up being misconstrued by party technicalities. The UK is left leaning/liberal in ‘ideology’, liberal internationalism rife thanks to globalist alliances, even the Conservatives have failed to be on the right in any measurable way on the big issues, but that’s another conversation.

And what I mean by “vote” that wasn’t ‘literal’, our wishes were overruled by geopolitics of course, for which, possibly, as Putin himself has mentioned, a fellow nationalist may have been able to deescalate. If we're looking at the Ukraine situation through nationalism (right ideology), a leader like Trump would have most likely prioritised American or, in our case, British interests over international solidarity, potentially leading to a different outcome. And as I mentioned, Putin literally said this about him btw, despite the annexation of Crimea under his watch but there you go. Whether you believe that is another thing; but again, not something that can be dismissed as obviously we’ll never know.

There's also a sidebar as to whether such actions genuinely affect Russian policy or merely serve as political theatre, but hey. The ethics of wealth and role of sports in geopolitics ey.. 😉 lovely stuff.

7 hours ago, Sunspear_88 said:

I like to try and think more logical about the situation. even if it is slightly frustrating. But thinking logical, I don't think the ownership have been lacking in ambition. They overspent for Caicedo and Enzo Fernandez, which by all accounts, Chelsea fans were happy about. Fans were also happy about signings such as Lavia and Fofana, too. I think in this regard the ownership have shown ambition to go out of their way to invest in better players. Granted, there are a number of signings which haven't worked out. Truth is, we were happy to sign Nkunku and I'd imagine many of us thought he would be our answer up top, but it's failed and he has been poor. I will be honest, when it came to Palmer I knew very little about him apart from a couple goals he scored for them. It seemed that many of our fans were a little surprised by that signing and ultimately didn't expect much of him, so when he came here and started becoming our main man it came as a big surprise.

When Felix signed I read nothing but positive comments about him coming back. Jackson wasn't the ST signing we were expecting, I'll admit that. But he was signed for £32m (or thereabouts) so I didn't think we would be getting a 20 goal a seasons striker. I genuinely thought and expected that Nkunku would be our main goalscorer, but look how that turned out. I still have faith that we are only 2/3 signings away from being genuine title challengers next season, especially given the players will have gained more experience and gone from some hardship, especially this season. I still maintain a glass half full mindset. We have Andrey Santos returning next season, along with Estevao, so that is two more positions providing cover. We will have to sell Sterling, hopefully to the Saudis, but who knows. We will make more sales and then bring in some higher calibre players and I am confident for next season.

That was then...while the aspirations and intentions seemed a step in the right direction it has since gone to sh*te, mainly due too many players being brought and too many players for the same position; it was obvious that unless the 'star players' got game time fractions would appear and with the insistence and stubborn stance of an inexperienced manager its been badly managed from the boardroom to the pitch. We are no better off today than we were under Potter or Potch, not necessarily because of a bad run but nothing has changed tactically or otherwise to suggest we are moving forward. We are boring to watch, predictable to play against and the energy has been sapped out of these players by this Manager. I'm not sure what the off season holds other than a rethink by the Board to create a balanced squad by keeping with a core of young players, but with the introduction of experienced winners instead of the mindset of buying children and hope you are going to finish in a European spot, let alone challenge for anything worth while.

It's okay, there's no need to worry, God is with us, God is also with Real Madrid, though I'm not sure about Florentino Perez's recent remarks about referees and apparently leaving La Liga and joining Serie A, possibly, Perez is 78 next month but I don't want to make insinuations about his mental health.

3 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

That £1.7 billion of finance you mention. Doesn't it still have to be repaid however it was financed? . The owner's aren't going to gift that money to Chelsea, it's borrowed money that they now owe to the lender's.?

And how does the debt that BlueCo now have affect the club going forward, how does that debt get squared off or does it sit there until we are sold ?

Cheers Syd !

Yes, it still needs to be repaid. However, as per the terms of the deal reported at the time, that debt belongs to Clearlake, Boehly etc personally, not BlueCo or the club. The ownership consortium supposedly paid that cash to BlueCo, who pay it to the club.

I can't find any reports to expand on the debt @axman2526 is talking about, but as explained that would be a debt that BlueCo owns, since it is secured against BlueCo's assets not the club directly. BlueCo would loan Chelsea money and use those repayments to pay their lenders. Either way, the club will need to repay that money itself, however as it is for operational costs it is subject to PSR scrutiny.

Prior to City's legal challenge, BlueCo could loan this money to Chelsea at zero interest, but with the new PSR rules, any loan from BlueCo to Chelsea will need to be assessed for a market value interest rate. No idea what the market interest rate is like for business loans in the UK but i'd guess it's around 5%, meaning we have to pay back any money loaned from the owners (via BlueCo) at 5% interest. One unexpected advantage is that BlueCo/Chelsea go into this initial funding round under the new rules with a blank slate, whereas other clubs such as Arsenal, Tottenham and Liverpool now must recalculate the repayments owed to their owners on their existing debt.

There is a distinct advantage to this arrangement. If the club can't make those repayments to BlueCo, and BlueCo in turn defaults on the debt, the lenders can't touch the club, although they can pursue the former club assets owned by BlueCo. The second thing is that any interest payments made by Chelsea are recirculated back into BlueCo, which means that Chelsea are effectively paying themselves, although again BlueCo might use the interest payments to offset their own.

here we go again more bo**ocks

Chelsea News

Chelsea double down on 'leader' Enzo Maresca and see his...

Chelsea have doubled down on their support for head coach Enzo Maresca and believe his style is a route to success at the club.

followed by this

Chelsea News

The Athletic deliver news that will anger Chelsea fans wh...

The Athletic are reporting some news that is going to anger the Chelsea fans even more as they gear up for a potential protest.

22 hours ago, Sunspear_88 said:

I like to try and think more logical about the situation. even if it is slightly frustrating. But thinking logical, I don't think the ownership have been lacking in ambition. They overspent for Caicedo and Enzo Fernandez, which by all accounts, Chelsea fans were happy about. Fans were also happy about signings such as Lavia and Fofana, too. I think in this regard the ownership have shown ambition to go out of their way to invest in better players. Granted, there are a number of signings which haven't worked out. Truth is, we were happy to sign Nkunku and I'd imagine many of us thought he would be our answer up top, but it's failed and he has been poor. I will be honest, when it came to Palmer I knew very little about him apart from a couple goals he scored for them. It seemed that many of our fans were a little surprised by that signing and ultimately didn't expect much of him, so when he came here and started becoming our main man it came as a big surprise.

When Felix signed I read nothing but positive comments about him coming back. Jackson wasn't the ST signing we were expecting, I'll admit that. But he was signed for £32m (or thereabouts) so I didn't think we would be getting a 20 goal a seasons striker. I genuinely thought and expected that Nkunku would be our main goalscorer, but look how that turned out. I still have faith that we are only 2/3 signings away from being genuine title challengers next season, especially given the players will have gained more experience and gone from some hardship, especially this season. I still maintain a glass half full mindset. We have Andrey Santos returning next season, along with Estevao, so that is two more positions providing cover. We will have to sell Sterling, hopefully to the Saudis, but who knows. We will make more sales and then bring in some higher calibre players and I am confident for next season.

In my private Chelsea whattsapp group I was labelled negative about our signings.

Everyone getting excited about every signing but not me.

Enzo - 100m for one world cup, I wasn't convinced

Caicedo - I thought we overpaid but granted he's turned out better than I thought

Sanchez - 30m i knew at the time was too much. He doesn't even look or have the aura of a good keeper

Jackson - 30m just as I expected. Again gives off the aura as a bozo finisher

Disasi and Badishile - again they both look half asleep and like bozos. Turned out how I expected

Palmer- 40m i was like who the hell is this kid? I was wrong about this one

Cucurella - 60m i knew he wasn't worth the money. He's been better but still not worth what we paid

Felix return - 60m smelt like dodgy business. He wasn't that great first time around. I was only happy he returned because of squad depth

KDH - 30m for a championship player. Didn't make sense then and doesn't make sense now.

99% of fans would love their owners to spend what ours have spent. The major problem is those in charge of recruitment have failed miserably. How no one has been sacked for wasting millions baffles me.