10 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

As it stands he should go down as baseball's Maradona or Pele. Truly exceptional player.

The way the Dodgers are run vs the way Chelsea is run makes me wonder if Boehly's group just has no say or no power within BlueCo.

Isn't it basically the same pattern, more or less?

Dodgers were almost bankrupt when Boehly and Guggenheim and all the others bought the club in 2012 and then through the first years they just steadied the ship and invested in all the areas of the organization and in the minor leagues and did not care about the results that much. Up until around 2019 or 2020 when things finally started to work as planned and also started to sign lots of superstars.

Not really that much different from what Boehly is doing at Chelsea and he mentioned it numerous times in his business conferences that they prefer to follow a long term plan, rather than instant success as is more risky.

This was from a year ago when it was announced he'd be leaving Liverpool.

Seems he had a very important part to play in their success.

8 hours ago, petre ispirescu said:

Isn't it basically the same pattern, more or less?

Dodgers were almost bankrupt when Boehly and Guggenheim and all the others bought the club in 2012 and then through the first years they just steadied the ship and invested in all the areas of the organization and in the minor leagues and did not care about the results that much. Up until around 2019 or 2020 when things finally started to work as planned and also started to sign lots of superstars.

Not really that much different from what Boehly is doing at Chelsea and he mentioned it numerous times in his business conferences that they prefer to follow a long term plan, rather than instant success as is more risky.

NO , It's not the same at all.

Chelsea were an elite European football club , not some down at heel club that needed " steadying" in fact we had just finished 3rd in a 20 team League and reached 2 domestic finals losing only on penalties. We also won the club world cup and the EUFA super cup AND we did that in a tumultuous season when we were sanctioned.

THAT'S the club Todd bought, and we were also debt free and not "almost bankrupt" (like the Dodgers were) when Todd bought us.

Edited November 3, 2025Nov 3 by The Rising Sun
Info

On 01/11/2025 at 17:25, Sexyfootball said:

More empire-building behind the scenes.

A right circle jerk of "delight" LOL

When you have to keep ramming the word "talented" down people's throats, pretty much certain that there is very little of it in actual practice ...

Good luck Dave anyway LOL.

Should be a pretty easy group to blaze a trail in !

If the transfer strategy remains the same as it is , I can't see how this is gonna work better, especially as the current SD's have been praised and awarded extended contracts ??

Edited November 3, 2025Nov 3 by The Rising Sun
Info

I suppose we have to wait for Todd's next interview with " Bloomberg" to accidentally find out a few things about our club ?

9 hours ago, WhiteWall said:

Is anybody wound up?

😂 I always wondered why American teams always won it though !

15 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

NO , It's not the same at all.

Chelsea were an elite European football club , not some down at heel club that needed " steadying" in fact we had just finished 3rd in a 20 team League and reached 2 domestic finals losing only on penalties. We also won the club world cup and the EUFA super cup AND we did that in a tumultuous season when we were sanctioned.

THAT'S the club Todd bought, and we were also debt free and not "almost bankrupt" (like the Dodgers were) when Todd bought us.

But how sustainable was that long term? Abramovich's way of doing things was dependable on results and Chelsea was not in debt because of his love for the club and because he chose to erase that debt. Technically, if Russia did not attack Ukraine and if he were to sell in normal conditions, he would have had all the right to ask for that debt, which was around 1.5B owned to him at that moment. But he chose to erase it which not a lot of owners would do.

For any new owners to follow the same way of doing business it would have been risky because the only thing that is not guaranteed in pro sports is results and you might end up in Man United's current position of being desperate for Champions League football in the next couple or seasons or they are in big trouble. Not of going bust, but of having to reevaluate their business and be restricted in the transfer market big time to the point of having to go for several seasons of being very quiet in the transfer market and rely on their squad at the time.

Imagine United without their massive pull and global brand. They'd already be restricted in the market by now and be in a difficult situation.

Chelsea could have gone the Abramovich route with the new owners and win, but at the same time things could have easily gone bad and end up as United, with massive spending and no results and having go reevaluate things.

They chose not to risk and even if things don't really work out in the next years, the club has incredibly valuable assets to sell if needed to reinvest even more in even better players. It's why I compared it to the Dodgers as Boehly, Walter and the others did not really start to sign superstar players up until 2020, which was 8 years after the takeover. Maybe this is the plan at Chelsea as well, organise the club first on all layers and make it financially super stable and later on have the type of business of mixing young wonderkids with a few world class, experienced players.

12 hours ago, petre ispirescu said:

Isn't it basically the same pattern, more or less?

Dodgers were almost bankrupt when Boehly and Guggenheim and all the others bought the club in 2012 and then through the first years they just steadied the ship and invested in all the areas of the organization and in the minor leagues and did not care about the results that much. Up until around 2019 or 2020 when things finally started to work as planned and also started to sign lots of superstars.

Not really that much different from what Boehly is doing at Chelsea and he mentioned it numerous times in his business conferences that they prefer to follow a long term plan, rather than instant success as is more risky.

No, the devil is in the detail. You would be right if we were just to accept the PR pushed out in the media. The way BlueCo has run Chelsea could not be more different from how Guggenheim have handled the Dodgers. What you are describing is more akin to what Abramovich did by investing in Cobham, the academy etc. Guggenheim took a struggling club, rebuilt it, and now are leveraging their success. Chelsea were not a struggling club, had an existing infrastructure that was the envy of most clubs, and crucially, at the time of purchase, was debt-free.

BlueCo have not spent a cent improving the infrastructure of the club. They have done what was necessary to cut wage expenses and reshape the first-team squad, but nothing has been invested into Cobham or the academy. They have not spent any money to improve the backroom staff, instead sacking whole analytics and medical teams and merely replacing them with different people. In fact, BlueCo have divested the club's infrastructure, selling assets in the women's team and hotels to fund short-term spending issues. Unlike Guggenheim they have almost exclusively spent on player expenses, which has had very mixed returns. The ~£1bn player portfolio is worth significantly less in real terms than what the club paid for it, apart from a few obvious exceptions. We have failed to obtain or retain significant sponsors.

To me it is clear that while Boehly's faction of the consortium may well have wanted to adopt a Guggenheim strategy, Clearlake do not and are purely interested in inflating asset value for the long term. That means riding the market until the fabled 10bn valuation eventuates.

3 hours ago, petre ispirescu said:

But how sustainable was that long term? Abramovich's way of doing things was dependable on results and Chelsea was not in debt because of his love for the club and because he chose to erase that debt. Technically, if Russia did not attack Ukraine and if he were to sell in normal conditions, he would have had all the right to ask for that debt, which was around 1.5B owned to him at that moment. But he chose to erase it which not a lot of owners would do.

For any new owners to follow the same way of doing business it would have been risky because the only thing that is not guaranteed in pro sports is results and you might end up in Man United's current position of being desperate for Champions League football in the next couple or seasons or they are in big trouble. Not of going bust, but of having to reevaluate their business and be restricted in the transfer market big time to the point of having to go for several seasons of being very quiet in the transfer market and rely on their squad at the time.

Imagine United without their massive pull and global brand. They'd already be restricted in the market by now and be in a difficult situation.

Chelsea could have gone the Abramovich route with the new owners and win, but at the same time things could have easily gone bad and end up as United, with massive spending and no results and having go reevaluate things.

They chose not to risk and even if things don't really work out in the next years, the club has incredibly valuable assets to sell if needed to reinvest even more in even better players. It's why I compared it to the Dodgers as Boehly, Walter and the others did not really start to sign superstar players up until 2020, which was 8 years after the takeover. Maybe this is the plan at Chelsea as well, organise the club first on all layers and make it financially super stable and later on have the type of business of mixing young wonderkids with a few world class, experienced players.

It was as sustainable as any other club. Do you think the current strategy is more sustainable, when almost every player we have signed will need to be sold at a loss in real terms, there is no improvement on commercial revenue thanks to a lack of sponsors, and we are at risk of missing out on Champions' League football every season? Were it not for the fortunate circumstance that is the CWC, we would be in even more dire straits.

The idea that Chelsea under Abramovich was spending big every season is revisionist nonsense. The spending strategy has not changed meaningfully, under Abramovich the club had already shifted to targeting younger players with better potential/resale value. This model has risks like any other, being that young players do not always turn out as good as we hope them to be, often for a variety of circumstances outside the club's control (such as injury). It is also not as if we are signing these players on the cheap, we are routinely spending £50m+ and amassing large amounts of players.

We have spent massively, we have spent wastefully, and we are at risk of limited revenue streams to recoup our spending. At the very best, it is no better than before. At the worst, it's worse.

14 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

No, the devil is in the detail. You would be right if we were just to accept the PR pushed out in the media. The way BlueCo has run Chelsea could not be more different from how Guggenheim have handled the Dodgers. What you are describing is more akin to what Abramovich did by investing in Cobham, the academy etc. Guggenheim took a struggling club, rebuilt it, and now are leveraging their success. Chelsea were not a struggling club, had an existing infrastructure that was the envy of most clubs, and crucially, at the time of purchase, was debt-free.

BlueCo have not spent a cent improving the infrastructure of the club. They have done what was necessary to cut wage expenses and reshape the first-team squad, but nothing has been invested into Cobham or the academy. They have not spent any money to improve the backroom staff, instead sacking whole analytics and medical teams and merely replacing them with different people. In fact, BlueCo have divested the club's infrastructure, selling assets in the women's team and hotels to fund short-term spending issues. Unlike Guggenheim they have almost exclusively spent on player expenses, which has had very mixed returns. The ~£1bn player portfolio is worth significantly less in real terms than what the club paid for it, apart from a few obvious exceptions. We have failed to obtain or retain significant sponsors.

To me it is clear that while Boehly's faction of the consortium may well have wanted to adopt a Guggenheim strategy, Clearlake do not and are purely interested in inflating asset value for the long term. That means riding the market until the fabled 10bn valuation eventuates.

It was as sustainable as any other club. Do you think the current strategy is more sustainable, when almost every player we have signed will need to be sold at a loss in real terms, there is no improvement on commercial revenue thanks to a lack of sponsors, and we are at risk of missing out on Champions' League football every season? Were it not for the fortunate circumstance that is the CWC, we would be in even more dire straits.

The idea that Chelsea under Abramovich was spending big every season is revisionist nonsense. The spending strategy has not changed meaningfully, under Abramovich the club had already shifted to targeting younger players with better potential/resale value. This model has risks like any other, being that young players do not always turn out as good as we hope them to be, often for a variety of circumstances outside the club's control (such as injury). It is also not as if we are signing these players on the cheap, we are routinely spending £50m+ and amassing large amounts of players.

We have spent massively, we have spent wastefully, and we are at risk of limited revenue streams to recoup our spending. At the very best, it is no better than before. At the worst, it's worse.

I can't agree with this because the Abramovich way of doing things was going to be limited at some point through more and more financial restrictions, something we see it happening now. Personally I do not think that going that way was sustainable anymore because even years before Abramovich left, we were not really doing a great job in the market in terms of incomings. The Abramovich way was totally dependable on results - you win, you have the pull on big players, money was not a problem.

Abramovich did not care about money, but it is easy to understand why Boehly and others would not follow the same path as a consortium and are assets orriented. It's easier to sell any of the current Chelsea players for value in case things do not work, rather than sell Werner, Kovacic, Bakayoko, Pulisic or Ziyech. I compared the current Chelsea board to the Dodgers one because of one aspect mainly and that is the way of assembling the squad. It does not seem that Boehly and others are currently desperate for results, like Dodgers were not either in the first years, and want to steady the wage bill and bring a lot of assets that ensure the long term stability of the squad. Estevao, Quenda, Palmer, Caicedo, Joao Pedro, Enzo, Lavia, Penders, Sarr and all the others do not work in 3-4 years? Ok, they are still relatively young and 24, 26, 27 years with a big resale value, you cand ship some out for really good money and try again. It is what I was pointing to. Or you have the better scenario that they all gel together, the project is going smooth and then Boehly and Eghbali just add some top players that improve the club even more, like the Dodgers did with Ohtani, Snell, Yamamoto, Betts and more others.

I mean, for me the belief is that the Chelsea board will, at some point, stop with signing all the best young players in the world and mainly concentrate on some top, well known ones. But only after they assembly a squad worth of taking the risks for and not only for footballing reasons, but business reasons as well. I think they will start bidding for someone like Yamal in his prime or Kane in his prime once they feel that even if they spend big money and those fail, ok the squad has a lot of valuable assets that can be sold and erase those failures. Plus this way is easier to find then next big thing like Messi or Ronaldo and long term it could prove a genius move because during the Abramovich era there was not really a superstar that we could say we developed since 17-18 and totally transformed the club. Even Hazard had already played four full seasons in France and only joined because of the UCL Final win, as he admited numerous times. So, once again, a signing that was 100% dependable on results.

8 hours ago, petre ispirescu said:

I can't agree with this because the Abramovich way of doing things was going to be limited at some point through more and more financial restrictions, something we see it happening now. Personally I do not think that going that way was sustainable anymore because even years before Abramovich left, we were not really doing a great job in the market in terms of incomings. The Abramovich way was totally dependable on results - you win, you have the pull on big players, money was not a problem.

Abramovich did not care about money, but it is easy to understand why Boehly and others would not follow the same path as a consortium and are assets orriented. It's easier to sell any of the current Chelsea players for value in case things do not work, rather than sell Werner, Kovacic, Bakayoko, Pulisic or Ziyech. I compared the current Chelsea board to the Dodgers one because of one aspect mainly and that is the way of assembling the squad. It does not seem that Boehly and others are currently desperate for results, like Dodgers were not either in the first years, and want to steady the wage bill and bring a lot of assets that ensure the long term stability of the squad. Estevao, Quenda, Palmer, Caicedo, Joao Pedro, Enzo, Lavia, Penders, Sarr and all the others do not work in 3-4 years? Ok, they are still relatively young and 24, 26, 27 years with a big resale value, you cand ship some out for really good money and try again. It is what I was pointing to. Or you have the better scenario that they all gel together, the project is going smooth and then Boehly and Eghbali just add some top players that improve the club even more, like the Dodgers did with Ohtani, Snell, Yamamoto, Betts and more others.

I mean, for me the belief is that the Chelsea board will, at some point, stop with signing all the best young players in the world and mainly concentrate on some top, well known ones. But only after they assembly a squad worth of taking the risks for and not only for footballing reasons, but business reasons as well. I think they will start bidding for someone like Yamal in his prime or Kane in his prime once they feel that even if they spend big money and those fail, ok the squad has a lot of valuable assets that can be sold and erase those failures. Plus this way is easier to find then next big thing like Messi or Ronaldo and long term it could prove a genius move because during the Abramovich era there was not really a superstar that we could say we developed since 17-18 and totally transformed the club. Even Hazard had already played four full seasons in France and only joined because of the UCL Final win, as he admited numerous times. So, once again, a signing that was 100% dependable on results.

I don't get this logic, as if somehow the club's prospects are magically divorced from success these days. This is a perspective that is severed from reality. We have had to make unprecedented, emergency asset sales just to remain functional thanks to sporting sanctions and non-compliance with spending rules, which are entirely of our own making thanks to profligate spending and poor performance and governance limiting our ability to raise revenue. No trophies, no sponsors = no money. That is reality whether Abramovich owned the club or Blueco owns it.

The CWC was a lucky boon, given it wasn't even announced until after the club had been acquired. The only reason we are in any sort of financial normalcy is because we made that tournament (winning was a bonus).

The player examples you gave are not great ones because we did end up selling them easily (well except Ziyech, but that was on BlueCo), all at a book profit too. We also somehow profited on the likes of Morata and Costa even though they were openly considered surplus. The club has long had a policy of limiting contracts to 29+ year old players, and buying <24 to maintain resale value.

On 03/11/2025 at 19:12, petre ispirescu said:

But how sustainable was that long term? Abramovich's way of doing things was dependable on results and Chelsea was not in debt because of his love for the club and because he chose to erase that debt. Technically, if Russia did not attack Ukraine and if he were to sell in normal conditions, he would have had all the right to ask for that debt, which was around 1.5B owned to him at that moment. But he chose to erase it which not a lot of owners would do.

For any new owners to follow the same way of doing business it would have been risky because the only thing that is not guaranteed in pro sports is results and you might end up in Man United's current position of being desperate for Champions League football in the next couple or seasons or they are in big trouble. Not of going bust, but of having to reevaluate their business and be restricted in the transfer market big time to the point of having to go for several seasons of being very quiet in the transfer market and rely on their squad at the time.

Imagine United without their massive pull and global brand. They'd already be restricted in the market by now and be in a difficult situation.

Chelsea could have gone the Abramovich route with the new owners and win, but at the same time things could have easily gone bad and end up as United, with massive spending and no results and having go reevaluate things.

They chose not to risk and even if things don't really work out in the next years, the club has incredibly valuable assets to sell if needed to reinvest even more in even better players. It's why I compared it to the Dodgers as Boehly, Walter and the others did not really start to sign superstar players up until 2020, which was 8 years after the takeover. Maybe this is the plan at Chelsea as well, organise the club first on all layers and make it financially super stable and later on have the type of business of mixing young wonderkids with a few world class, experienced players.

£1.5B of debt over a 20 year ownership is only about £75M a season. I'd say that's pretty manageable under a new ownership model with minor adjustments. Just negotiate a couple of better commercial deals (these lot can't even sort a shirt sponsor though) or sign one less player a season. Remember Clearlake told us we were massively underperforming on the commercial side of things, so it should have been so easy.

Edited November 5, 2025Nov 5 by GarnachoCheese

Apparently Blue Co are in advance discussion to purchase SantosFC

Edited November 5, 2025Nov 5 by charierre

On 06/11/2025 at 01:17, charierre said:

Apparently Blue Co are in advance discussion to purchase SantosFC

They have been trying for 3 years. Santos, Strasbourg and Sporting were their initial targets, the latter having fallen out of favour due to likely multi-club CL conflicts

Chelsea are close to announcing a new front-of-shirt sponsor. The Oracle deal is reportedly tied to broader investments by Clearlake Capital. The deal is expected to last until the end of the current season. Oracle will pay significantly less than the club initially expected.

what are they playing at here? I don’t see how a 6mth sponsorship deal helps anyone.

I deal with Oracle through work and they are complete and utter c**ts. Not surprising that they’re in bed with this shower.

At this point, they surely are trolling us.

12 minutes ago, RMH said:

At this point, they surely are trolling us.

We need Boehly to buy Clearlake out.

Don’t worry guys, this is part of the plan to get the £60m+ per annum 10 year deal that the CWC win was going to guarantee us.

On 27/08/2025 at 22:42, terraloon said:

The difference between us is that I can see why deals aren’t just agreed on the nod you on the other hand want to blame the owners for everything.As we know all too well you just can’t accept their business approach and you no doubt will say I can see no wrong with Clearlake which believe me is not the case

I examples primarily Newcastle to point out that deals don’t all come within a couple of weeks and the Man City was clear evidence where the PL delayed Man Cities FOS renewal by an excessive period. They did indeed have a FOS sponsorship for week one but not under the increased sum being assessed

Dodgy Oracle deal agreed on the nod for a much reduced value after failing again to secure the FOS deal (Riyadh Air, where are you?)

Looks like everything that was feared in summer was absolutely correct.

They are liars.

3 full seasons without a permanent sponsor it is then.

This is complete bullsh*t. It's just excuses. What was the reason last season for not finding a long term sponsor? How about the season before that?

We have probably missed out on over £100m at this point. So even if they do somehow manage to secure a £55-60m sponsor in the future, it's going to take the best part of a decade to make that money back before we see the benefits.

This has been a complete failure by the BlueCo.

First the excuse was no champions league and now it’s the “punishment”.

Funny enough there were also reports Infinite Athlete would go past the 6 months but we knew that was a lie given how dodgy that company was to begin with.

BlueCo Out

Another infinite athlete deal as "The Oracle" are part of the Clearlake group.

1 hour ago, axman2526 said:

Another infinite athlete deal as "The Oracle" are part of the Clearlake group.

Complete joke isn't it! It's actually embarrassing!

Smart investing by Oracle

We are so unbelievably f**ked when the AI Bubble pops