Todd Boehly & Co buy Chelsea FC

[SimonH]

2 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Thiago Silvas misses Bella has stared on X that things have to change now, before it is too late.

His wife is even speaking out against the owners.

It’s already too late. This is hard truth for us all to unfortunately accept. 
 

We now have no money and terrible players. We are f**ked 

[SimonH]

2 hours ago, Scott Harris said:

Signings under Abramovich were always hit and miss, but they were never made with the risk of ruining the club. There was always a way out because even if the new signings didn't work out, there was enough quality already in the squad to go again.

The new owners have done the complete opposite. They have left no room for failure. Failure means the end of Chelsea FC as a top club. We're already there, it's just not been made official yet. It will be by the end of next season though when we are forced to sell Palmer.

Yep, we are now a selling club and need to, to survive because of the financial pressures THEY put on us. When they didn’t f**king need to!!! My god, honestly. 

[axman2526]

15 minutes ago, SimonH said:

It’s already too late. This is hard truth for us all to unfortunately accept. 
 

We now have no money and terrible players. We are f**ked 

Unfortunately some of us saw this poisonous lot for what they really are, and not drawn in by nice words and flashing huge sums.

All the while the fan base was up in arms to stop the snakes the Ricketts family getting in, we let these Vultures in the back door.

Sir Martins bid would have kept Chelsea, Chelsea, not this West London Cowboys carp.

[SimonH]

1 minute ago, axman2526 said:

Unfortunately some of us saw this poisonous lot for what they really are, and not drawn in by nice words and flashing huge sums.

All the while the fan base was up in arms to stop the snakes the Ricketts family getting in, we let these Vultures in the back door.

Sir Martins bid would have kept Chelsea, Chelsea, not this West London Cowboys carp.

Probably because Todd and the Clearlake crew can pull together a very nice slide pack and sales pitch to get in the door. Trouble is they know f**k all about football. 
 

wonder if this is keeping Todd up at night? I f**king hope so. 

[axman2526]

2 minutes ago, SimonH said:

Probably because Todd and the Clearlake crew can pull together a very nice slide pack and sales pitch to get in the door. Trouble is they know f**k all about football. 
 

wonder if this is keeping Todd up at night? I f**king hope so. 

Psh no, he is a minority stake holder.

[JJ8]

16 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Psh no, he is a minority stake holder.

Thats doesnt matter. He is one of the owners

[WhiteWall]

3 hours ago, KonaKai Blue said:

Believe it or not, Roman started this mess. 

The Champions League was great in 2021 but the recruitment that summer under Lampard was made with good intentions but all of those players failed, bar an experienced Silva. 

Todd has come in and again, great intentions but failed even worse. We got a life line this summer to do something after selling failed players and have just spent more money on rubbish. 

Roman and Marina started the downfall and Todd and Clearlake have cemented it. 

Our recruitment under Bates with the likes of Lampard, Terry and Gallas was good then Roman took it to the next level with Drogba and Cech. Players who would last for 10 years no matter who the manager was.

Signings like Kepa, Havertz, Werner, Pulisic, Sterling, Jackson, Mudryk and Caicedo have been god awful.

We are finished.

You mean the Roman that was sanctioned and was exiled from even entering this country. Had to make his base in Tel Aviv. The Roman that could only see us in the tunnel of a European final.

Why is it Roman's fault? Bruce Buck was in charge here, Marino was in charge of recruitment and prior to her Michael Emenalo was. 

I can only recall one or two Abramovich driven player purchases which, granted, were poor, but laying everything at Roman's door is a bit harsh.

 

[WhiteWall]

2 hours ago, KonaKai Blue said:

Im not making excuses for Roman or the new Owners. We had 15 plus years of overall greatness with Roman but we didn't create a sustainable model when we had many opportunities to do so. Since 2012 the only two windows we got right were signing Hazard (followed by what we thought was rock bottom when Rafa was hired) and Costa/Cesc. In between that, its been a circus of bad recruitment. It is what it is and now here we are. Im gutted because this summer I was fine with us being mid table and gradually improving the squad year after year in a 5 year project. The amount of cash we have wasted on players I've never heard of worried me. 

I think you are being a little disingenuous here. You are forgetting that Roman had finally got full planning consent and unveiled plans for a dramatic rebuild of Stamford Bridge, the next phase of building a sustainable elite club on the richest real estate in the country.

From the point of the Salisbury poisonings and the political issues arising thereafter Roman's tenure in charge and his very status was called into question.

Having been a fan of this club since 1972 I've seen a bit to this point. For the money, the passion, the energy, the drive, the commitment, oh and the debt free departure, Roman gets a pass from me on pretty much anything tbh. Oh and also for a multi billionaire Russian oligarch he also didn't come in here, big dick swinging, telling the establishment we were all 20 years behind the US. Fcking clowns

Edited February 4 by WhiteWall

[icecoolguy22]

Be surprised if they even watched the last couple of games. As long as we stayed out of FFP troubles,  the football team doesn't have to be good for them to make money. Enough debate about Roman vs the new owners, one is for winning football at all cost, the other one is here to make sports money, so 🤔

[Jezz]

It’s looking grim 😞

I remember saying if the Pochettino appointment didn’t work out, the fans would turn on them quickly. 

The club is now mired in a state of entrenched mediocrity and there’s a real possibility of FFP issues down the track.

[KonaKai Blue]

2 hours ago, WhiteWall said:

I think you are being a little disingenuous here. You are forgetting that Roman had finally got full planning consent and unveiled plans for a dramatic rebuild of Stamford Bridge, the next phase of building a sustainable elite club on the richest real estate in the country.

From the point of the Salisbury poisonings and the political issues arising thereafter Roman's tenure in charge and his very status was called into question.

Having been a fan of this club since 1972 I've seen a bit to this point. For the money, the passion, the energy, the drive, the commitment, oh and the debt free departure, Roman gets a pass from me on pretty much anything tbh. Oh and also for a multi billionaire Russian oligarch he also didn't come in here, big dick swinging, telling the establishment we were all 20 years behind the US. Fcking clowns

I'm not forgetting anything or oblivious to what good Roman did for us. I know all the things you mentioned and appreciate them. I also remember how toxic the fanbase was during the rafa years and towards Emanalo. It was toxic then as it is now but for different reasons (we never knew how good we had it). 

Ultimately I'm not talking about Romans plans for the club or the time of being banned from the UK or sanctioned. My gripe is with the recruitment under his ownership, was very bad. We failed to build a long term world class squad around Hazard. We sold a gem in KDB, we failed to capitalise and maintain a super team after Costa left by signing Lukaku. 

Even though City have deeper pockets, we simply failed in the transfer market for so many years. So many top 4 battles since 2012 as opposed to title races.

[The Rising Sun]

18 minutes ago, KonaKai Blue said:

I'm not forgetting anything or oblivious to what good Roman did for us. I know all the things you mentioned and appreciate them. I also remember how toxic the fanbase was during the rafa years and towards Emanalo. It was toxic then as it is now but for different reasons (we never knew how good we had it). 

Ultimately I'm not talking about Romans plans for the club or the time of being banned from the UK or sanctioned. My gripe is with the recruitment under his ownership, was very bad. We failed to build a long term world class squad around Hazard. We sold a gem in KDB, we failed to capitalise and maintain a super team after Costa left by signing Lukaku. 

Even though City have deeper pockets, we simply failed in the transfer market for so many years. So many top 4 battles since 2012 as opposed to title races.

if you think the recruitment during the 2O years under Abramovich was poor , it's nowhere as poor and disastrous as under the new ownership who've been hear just a couple of years.

[axman2526]

Turning us in to a mid table PL side trying to make money out of is one thing.

If they break FFP to do so and send us down, it will be something else entirely. 

[cfcforeverfan]

Can the local fans start protesting and call out the ownership? They are destroying our club and getting away with it because stupid us keep blaming the manager or the players instead

[axman2526]

1 hour ago, cfcforeverfan said:

Can the local fans start protesting and call out the ownership? They are destroying our club and getting away with it because stupid us keep blaming the manager or the players instead

Needs to happen.

On a side note I totally get all the other club fans enjoying this. Arrogant blowhards coming in thinking they know all these secret tricks to take over the game, spend a fortune and it blows up in their faces.

They deserve this, they deserve a lot, lot worse from our fanbase.

[WhiteWall]

7 hours ago, KonaKai Blue said:

I'm not forgetting anything or oblivious to what good Roman did for us. I know all the things you mentioned and appreciate them. I also remember how toxic the fanbase was during the rafa years and towards Emanalo. It was toxic then as it is now but for different reasons (we never knew how good we had it). 

Ultimately I'm not talking about Romans plans for the club or the time of being banned from the UK or sanctioned. My gripe is with the recruitment under his ownership, was very bad. We failed to build a long term world class squad around Hazard. We sold a gem in KDB, we failed to capitalise and maintain a super team after Costa left by signing Lukaku. 

Even though City have deeper pockets, we simply failed in the transfer market for so many years. So many top 4 battles since 2012 as opposed to title races.

My point is that none of this was from any strategy of Roman. He was exiled, allowing those in charge of the club to run. The appointment of those that did make the decisions is absolutely down to him but he was our benefactor not the strategist.

This lot are our investors and they have laid down the strategy, they have employed people expressly to deliver that strategy and that is what they are doing.

The fact that their strategy is sh*t and is doomed to failure has not yet crossed their minds because of their arrogance.

[micky droys boots]

Does anyone know  IF they are allowed  to sell the club without   breaking clauses that Roman put  in ?  I think they have underestimated  how nasty things can get with fans in football .How fans will not allow  a couple of yanks to ruin  this club the constant chanting for Roman , they not suffered stuff like that in the US sports they got .They got just a few loud yanks with they arse hanging out they jeans eating a hot dog .But I think these yanks will do something  to get the fans onside like a PR thing but knowing  these they would probably  put Will Ferrall in as manager .

 

[Sexyfootball]

Can we sue Raine Group for their bid selection ?

 

[RMH]

Not sure if anyone has already mentioned this, but yesterday there were "Roman Abramovich" chants from the fans at the Bridge.

[Valerie]

16 hours ago, Kev56 said:

f**k me can this get any more depressing?

Probably yes.

[axman2526]

2 hours ago, RMH said:

Not sure if anyone has already mentioned this, but yesterday there were "Roman Abramovich" chants from the fans at the Bridge.

A nice gesture for the man who does love this club.

Want to get to the new owners? Those chants have to be at them. Clownlake, Todd, Wyss etc. Needs to become "unpleasent" for them to be in and around the Bridge.

[Gol15]

16 hours ago, Jezz said:

It’s looking grim 😞

I remember saying if the Pochettino appointment didn’t work out, the fans would turn on them quickly. 

The club is now mired in a state of entrenched mediocrity and there’s a real possibility of FFP issues down the track.

Everything points towards the club suffering in the future because of failing the FFP which could result in losing some important players.

Tough future for the club, the new owners have failed already and no manager will be able to fix this mess so the only hope is that the youth grows fast and fills some big shoes of the not so distant past.

[General]

This chap seems to know whats up w FFP and CFC, from JL @ The Guardian

 

"You don’t see much of Todd Boehly these days. In the first weeks after he fronted the Clearlake takeover of Chelsea, he was a regular presence, telling European football what it could learn from US sport, proudly announcing his disruptive intent. Which is a shame: it would be good to know exactly where spending $1bn to transform a Champions League-winning squad side into one that sits 11th in the Premier League fits into his master plan.

There had been a thought around the turn of the year that things might be falling into place for Chelsea. They reached the Carabao Cup final and won three league games in a row to haul themselves into the top half of the table. Maybe Mauricio Pochettino was at last starting to find some order amid a chaotic squad. The last two games have obliterated that idea.

Having let in four while being comprehensively outplayed at Liverpool in midweek, they leaked another four at home to Wolves on Sunday. The former may be understandable, the latter is not. This wasn’t a team having four chances and taking them all; Wolves were much the better side and could easily have won by more. Chelsea were a shambles, players arguing among themselves as sections of the crowd called for Pochettino to be sacked and wistfully sung about the Roman Abramovich era.

The problems go far deeper than results. In the short term, Chelsea’s activities since the Boehly/Clearlake takeover are not a problem. The football finance expert Swiss Ramble noted in August that the transfer activity since the takeover was exactly neutral, with £143m in wages plus £116m in amortisation from purchases offset by a £192m reduction in wages and £62m in amortisation from sales. Even better, there was a £215m profit in terms of player sales.

Which looks excellent – in the short term. But Chelsea’s signings have committed them to £1.9bn of future spending. And this is a club that has posted operating losses in each of the past 10 seasons, a picture that has been getting worse in the past four years. In 2021-22 operating losses were £224m, bringing total losses over the decade to £944m. That has to an extent been balanced by £706m in player sales.

Taking into account the reduction in wage bill, and projecting other income and outgoings for this season, Swiss Ramble calculated estimated losses of £131.6m for 2023-24 to go with £70.2m last season and £121.4m the season before that. There are allowable deductions for ‘healthy’ spending such as that on the academy and women’s team, which can be estimated at £40m or so a season. Which, when the extra allowances for losses in the Covid season are taken into account, kept Chelsea just above the threshold of £105m in losses for the three-year period up to 2022-23.

For 2023-24, though, they would appear to be in big trouble, with Swiss Ramble estimating their losses at £201m – and that was on an assumption they would finish sixth, which now looks extremely optimistic.

Uefa’s regulations are not immediately relevant but it is changing its FFP model to a cost control ratio, by which player wages, transfers and agent fees will by 2025 be limited to 70% of revenue and profit on player sales. At the moment, Chelsea’s is around 90%.

Chelsea are already being investigated for possible historical breaches of FFP in the Abramovich era, which could lead to points deductions (or worse) that would make their job even harder going forward. And it is extremely hard already. They just about kept their heads above water in the three-year period to last June but that was with exceptional sales. They don’t have many academy products or fully amortised players left. Say they sold Moisés Caicedo next summer for the £100m they paid for him: yes, they would reduce costs from his amortisation and wages, but his eight-year contract means the profit would only be £100m minus his book value which, with seven of the eight years of his contract remaining would be £87.5m: that is, £12.5m.

To keep making the sort of profits that have sustained them over the past decade will be extremely difficult. Those academy products who remain, the likes of Conor Gallagher and Reece James, are likely to find the owners extremely eager to listen to offers. And of course this is the reverse of standard footballing wisdom, that clubs benefit from having a core of players brought up in the ways of club, the John Terry and Frank Lampard figures, who have an attachment to the institution that goes beyond salary.

Perhaps Chelsea will be granted additional dispensation for losses suffered after the imposition of sanctions on Abramovich, although there are no guarantees, but with the likelihood of no Champions League football, it’s hard to see how revenues will rise significantly next season. With 12 players on contracts of eight years or more, the amortisation trick looks increasingly like an albatross.

This is a club in a terrible mess and the only people who can really be blamed are the disruptive new owners".

 

 

[timetowaste]

As crap as things are at the minute I think there's a lot of overreaction regarding the ownership. Obviously the situation we are in table wise is rubbish but I don't think there's much that needs tweaking until we are in a decent position again. As much as some people want to throw around 'clownlake and 'Ted lasso' these guys aren't gonna just chuck a £5bn investment in the bin and accept it, they've definitely made mistakes but I don't think anything they've done is irreparable.

[forbzy]

40 minutes ago, General said:

This chap seems to know whats up w FFP and CFC, from JL @ The Guardian

 

"You don’t see much of Todd Boehly these days. In the first weeks after he fronted the Clearlake takeover of Chelsea, he was a regular presence, telling European football what it could learn from US sport, proudly announcing his disruptive intent. Which is a shame: it would be good to know exactly where spending $1bn to transform a Champions League-winning squad side into one that sits 11th in the Premier League fits into his master plan.

There had been a thought around the turn of the year that things might be falling into place for Chelsea. They reached the Carabao Cup final and won three league games in a row to haul themselves into the top half of the table. Maybe Mauricio Pochettino was at last starting to find some order amid a chaotic squad. The last two games have obliterated that idea.

Having let in four while being comprehensively outplayed at Liverpool in midweek, they leaked another four at home to Wolves on Sunday. The former may be understandable, the latter is not. This wasn’t a team having four chances and taking them all; Wolves were much the better side and could easily have won by more. Chelsea were a shambles, players arguing among themselves as sections of the crowd called for Pochettino to be sacked and wistfully sung about the Roman Abramovich era.

The problems go far deeper than results. In the short term, Chelsea’s activities since the Boehly/Clearlake takeover are not a problem. The football finance expert Swiss Ramble noted in August that the transfer activity since the takeover was exactly neutral, with £143m in wages plus £116m in amortisation from purchases offset by a £192m reduction in wages and £62m in amortisation from sales. Even better, there was a £215m profit in terms of player sales.

Which looks excellent – in the short term. But Chelsea’s signings have committed them to £1.9bn of future spending. And this is a club that has posted operating losses in each of the past 10 seasons, a picture that has been getting worse in the past four years. In 2021-22 operating losses were £224m, bringing total losses over the decade to £944m. That has to an extent been balanced by £706m in player sales.

Taking into account the reduction in wage bill, and projecting other income and outgoings for this season, Swiss Ramble calculated estimated losses of £131.6m for 2023-24 to go with £70.2m last season and £121.4m the season before that. There are allowable deductions for ‘healthy’ spending such as that on the academy and women’s team, which can be estimated at £40m or so a season. Which, when the extra allowances for losses in the Covid season are taken into account, kept Chelsea just above the threshold of £105m in losses for the three-year period up to 2022-23.

For 2023-24, though, they would appear to be in big trouble, with Swiss Ramble estimating their losses at £201m – and that was on an assumption they would finish sixth, which now looks extremely optimistic.

Uefa’s regulations are not immediately relevant but it is changing its FFP model to a cost control ratio, by which player wages, transfers and agent fees will by 2025 be limited to 70% of revenue and profit on player sales. At the moment, Chelsea’s is around 90%.

Chelsea are already being investigated for possible historical breaches of FFP in the Abramovich era, which could lead to points deductions (or worse) that would make their job even harder going forward. And it is extremely hard already. They just about kept their heads above water in the three-year period to last June but that was with exceptional sales. They don’t have many academy products or fully amortised players left. Say they sold Moisés Caicedo next summer for the £100m they paid for him: yes, they would reduce costs from his amortisation and wages, but his eight-year contract means the profit would only be £100m minus his book value which, with seven of the eight years of his contract remaining would be £87.5m: that is, £12.5m.

To keep making the sort of profits that have sustained them over the past decade will be extremely difficult. Those academy products who remain, the likes of Conor Gallagher and Reece James, are likely to find the owners extremely eager to listen to offers. And of course this is the reverse of standard footballing wisdom, that clubs benefit from having a core of players brought up in the ways of club, the John Terry and Frank Lampard figures, who have an attachment to the institution that goes beyond salary.

Perhaps Chelsea will be granted additional dispensation for losses suffered after the imposition of sanctions on Abramovich, although there are no guarantees, but with the likelihood of no Champions League football, it’s hard to see how revenues will rise significantly next season. With 12 players on contracts of eight years or more, the amortisation trick looks increasingly like an albatross.

This is a club in a terrible mess and the only people who can really be blamed are the disruptive new owners".

 

 

Unfortunately I think this summarizes the situation we are in very well. Pretty clear that the club will have to sell off a number of homegrown (academy trained) players in the summer to meet FFP requirements. But that will leave us mostly banking on the players that have been signed under Clearlake to come good. We could offload some of their signings too but even if we get the money that we paid for them, that would not amount to much in the way of profit. Most likely we will look to raise 100m or so from sales early in the summer but that will only get us past the current FFP hurdle. The only way to solve this issue longer term will be success on the pitch followed by the case bonuses of European football etc. But on current form that looks a long way off.