16 hours ago, The Boehly Babes said:

OK. So Clearlake infected the club 3 years ago. Sir Roman was here 15 years. That’s a 5 x difference. So taking the league position and trophies under Clearlake and x’ing by 5 we’ll still win f**k all of importance.

Clearlake inherited a Champions League winning squad, the only reason Rudiger & Christensen went on free’s was due to the sanctions from the UK Government, which have now been proven to be wholly unlawful and unreasonable, totally out of Romans control. Clearlake also ‘inherited’ Bruce Buck, Marina Granasvokia & Petr Cech who were all instrumental in the success of the club and knew its DNA, they were cast out immediately.

PSG appointed Luis Enrique to lead their project, a Champions League winning coach who has experience managing and developing some of the world’s greatest players. Clearlake have appointed Graham Potter, Enzo Maresca & now Liam Rosenior.

PSG spent 70M on Kvara, we spent 60M on Gittens. PSG spent 50M on Doue we spent 60M on Pedro Neto. PSG spent 45M on Barcola, we spent 40M on Nicholas Jackson.

Okay.

Clearlake inherited a champions league winning squad. Leicester City recently had PL winning squad. Crystal Palace had an FA cup winning squad. This in no way contextualises the reality of the squad and future expectations. Tuchel was the real magician. If you think Rudiger and Christensen left because of sanctions - to the two biggest clubs in the world - while their teammates stayed, then I can't help you.

Clearlake inherited Marina and Cech. Marina, as much as I love her, also oversaw some of the worst transfer activity and squad building under Roman (post Emenalo) and most likely the illicit payments. Cech was an underqualified patsy.

Luis Enrique and 'developing some of the world's greatest players' is a stretch. Yes he definitely coached some. Bayern appointed Kompany, Madrid appointed Xabi Alonso, and Barca recently appointed Xavi - also once appointed a young Guardiola with no senior managerial experience.

'Spent' does not only encompass transfer fees. If you're going to critique the work of people who are highly qualified in their field, best to not do it like an absolute layman.

Edited January 12Jan 12 by venom2011

Well I take it no-one else will be attending then, just me 🤣

13 hours ago, venom2011 said:

Care to qualify that? Or are we just shouting popular inaccuracies for likes?

What's your understanding of the current business model and what exactly makes it unsound, in your opinion?

Yes. The "business" as you like to call our football club has gone from having no debt at all to having over £1.5 millions worth of debt while at the same time on the football side, it got worse .

The commercial side of the "business" has failed to get a FOS sponsor.

The "business" is under EUFA restrictions for failing to comply with financial conditions...

If you actually know what the "business" model is, and not what you believe it might be, please enlighten us. .

3 hours ago, venom2011 said:

Okay.

Clearlake inherited a champions league winning squad. Leicester City recently had PL winning squad. Crystal Palace had an FA cup winning squad. This in no way contextualises the reality of the squad and future expectations. Tuchel was the real magician. If you think Rudiger and Christensen left because of sanctions - to the two biggest clubs in the world - while their teammates stayed, then I can't help you.

Clearlake inherited Marina and Cech. Marina, as much as I love her, also oversaw some of the worst transfer activity and squad building under Roman (post Emenalo) and most likely the illicit payments. Cech was an underqualified patsy.

Luis Enrique and 'developing some of the world's greatest players' is a stretch. Yes he definitely coached some. Bayern appointed Kompany, Madrid appointed Xabi Alonso, and Barca recently appointed Xavi - also once appointed a young Guardiola with no senior managerial experience.

'Spent' does not only encompass transfer fees. If you're going to critique the work of people who are highly qualified in their field, best to not do it like an absolute layman.

Yes Leicester won the Premier League and then sold 2 of the 3 key players to ‘bigger clubs’ who between them won multiple trophies? A sign of great recruitment and squad building on Leicesters behalf.

I think Rudiger & Christensen left on frees because of the sanctions as we were unable to negotiate new contracts. I believe Rudiger himself even said he hadn’t envisaged leaving at that point until staying at Chelsea became impossible.

I agree Tuchel was a fantastic manager for us.

We’ll have to agree to disagree regards Marina & Cech’s roles at the club. It just seems rather damning that since both have left their roles the clubs prestige has dropped numerous levels to a point where we don’t even have a FOS sponsor anymore, gone are the days of Fly Emirates & Samsung!

Bayern, Real & Barca all appointed World Class players who had worked under some of the brightest minds in football during their playing days as head coaches? Is that your point? Whilst we’ve appointed Graham Potter who largely played under Terry Dolan & Liam Rosenior who spent most of his playing career under Steve Bruce? I’m failing to grasp what you’re trying to say here?

I apologise ever so profusely for using layman terms once more but to summarise your comparison of Chelsea & PSG, both are currently PSR/FFP Compliant in UEFA’s eyes (I think?) which encompasses everything included in a transfer and sale and all the lovely figures in between. However one of those clubs is domestically dominant and viewed as the undisputed best side in Europe and one is a mid table also ran that just finished as the lowest English side in the UCL League stage.

As I said if we claim both models are ‘similar’ once club is definitely doing a better job of executing it.

I sincerely hope that its tongue in cheek when you refer to Winstanley & Stewart as ‘Highly Qualified in their field’

To summarise Clearlake have built a squad based on spreadsheets not success, created the largest disconnect with the fanbase in a generation and have realistically only managed to avoid huge fines/points deductions so far by using some (very clever, in fairness) financial loopholes that have now been closed. I am just struggling to see where your optimism and praise for the regime comes from?

1 hour ago, The Boehly Babes said:

Yes Leicester won the Premier League and then sold 2 of the 3 key players to ‘bigger clubs’ who between them won multiple trophies? A sign of great recruitment and squad building on Leicesters behalf.

I think Rudiger & Christensen left on frees because of the sanctions as we were unable to negotiate new contracts. I believe Rudiger himself even said he hadn’t envisaged leaving at that point until staying at Chelsea became impossible.

I agree Tuchel was a fantastic manager for us.

We’ll have to agree to disagree regards Marina & Cech’s roles at the club. It just seems rather damning that since both have left their roles the clubs prestige has dropped numerous levels to a point where we don’t even have a FOS sponsor anymore, gone are the days of Fly Emirates & Samsung!

Bayern, Real & Barca all appointed World Class players who had worked under some of the brightest minds in football during their playing days as head coaches? Is that your point? Whilst we’ve appointed Graham Potter who largely played under Terry Dolan & Liam Rosenior who spent most of his playing career under Steve Bruce? I’m failing to grasp what you’re trying to say here?

I apologise ever so profusely for using layman terms once more but to summarise your comparison of Chelsea & PSG, both are currently PSR/FFP Compliant in UEFA’s eyes (I think?) which encompasses everything included in a transfer and sale and all the lovely figures in between. However one of those clubs is domestically dominant and viewed as the undisputed best side in Europe and one is a mid table also ran that just finished as the lowest English side in the UCL League stage.

As I said if we claim both models are ‘similar’ once club is definitely doing a better job of executing it.

I sincerely hope that its tongue in cheek when you refer to Winstanley & Stewart as ‘Highly Qualified in their field’

To summarise Clearlake have built a squad based on spreadsheets not success, created the largest disconnect with the fanbase in a generation and have realistically only managed to avoid huge fines/points deductions so far by using some (very clever, in fairness) financial loopholes that have now been closed. I am just struggling to see where your optimism and praise for the regime comes from?

Good post mate 👍

It never ceases to amaze me that every defence of the current regime always starts out by telling us about the numerous failings of that awful period under Roman. .

Roman built us Cobham, overcame all objections and got fully approved planning permission for a new Stadium.. The trophy cabinet tells you everything else.

Ken Bates set up the CPO and got our old crumbling stadium rebuilt. into the one we currently have. And eventually provided us with a great entertaining football team with fantastic players..

This lot had all the hard work done for them and landed themselves with a debt free elite football club..

3 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

Yes. The "business" as you like to call our football club has gone from having no debt at all to having over £1.5 millions worth of debt while at the same time on the football side, it got worse .

The commercial side of the "business" has failed to get a FOS sponsor.

The "business" is under EUFA restrictions for failing to comply with financial conditions...

If you actually know what the "business" model is, and not what you believe it might be, please enlighten us. .

Okay so let's break this down:

1. "football club has gone from having no debt at all to having over £1.5 millions worth of debt"

   • 1.5 million...seems a tad low so I'll go ahead and assume you meant 1.5 billion. The debt you speak of is with the holding company, not the club. The burden is shouldered by the ownership unlike at Man Utd. Yes, they would in all likelihood pay it off using generated profits in an ideal world.

2. "The commercial side of the "business" has failed to get a FOS sponsor."

   • No it hasn't, the commercial team have and have had concrete offers. They haven't agreed a deal. That is their choice - transparency on this would be great but it doesn't equal incompetence.

3. "The "business" is under EUFA restrictions for failing to comply with financial conditions."

   • *UEFA FSR regulations were breached and other than the fine, the repercussions were fairly insignificant. It would in all likelihood been part of the club's thinking and processes for quite some time.

   So say Ineos purchased Chelsea, took on zero debt for transfer activity and structural improvements - No Caicedo, No Estevao, No Quenda, No Palmer. Kepa still here. Azpi still here. Werner still here. They sign the first FOS deal that comes across Sir Jim's desk. Comply with UEFA FSR because they've only bought 6 mediocre talents incl Hojland and Zirkzee. You think you or the 'Roman Abramovich!' chanters would be happy? I guarantee not.

Edited January 12Jan 12 by venom2011

AI

Chelsea's financial debt within the football club accounts was approximately £303 million in the year ending June 30, 2024, which is primarily owed to the parent company. However, the ultimate holding company for Chelsea has a total external debt of over £1.165 billion.

• Club-Level Financial Debt: As of the end of the 2023-24 financial year, the amount classified as debt within the Chelsea FC club accounts was around £303 million. This is much lower than the £1.5 billion that was written off by the previous owner, Roman Abramovich, as part of the club's sale in 2022.

• Holding Company External Debt: The parent company, 22 Holdco Limited, has external borrowings of over £1.165 billion, split between a revolving credit facility (£755.2m due by July 2027) and a loan from Ares Management (£410.2m due by August 2033). This debt is the owner's responsibility and not the club's direct burden, which is a key distinction from other club ownership models.

• Transfer Debt: Additionally, Chelsea has the highest estimated transfer payables (money owed to other clubs for transfers) in the Premier League, at around £498 million.

• Total Debt (UEFA definition): Based on the UEFA definition which combines financial debt and transfer debt, Chelsea's total gross debt was approximately £801 million in 2024. 

18 minutes ago, Caps_Lock_King said:

AI

Chelsea's financial debt within the football club accounts was approximately £303 million in the year ending June 30, 2024, which is primarily owed to the parent company. However, the ultimate holding company for Chelsea has a total external debt of over £1.165 billion.

• Club-Level Financial Debt: As of the end of the 2023-24 financial year, the amount classified as debt within the Chelsea FC club accounts was around £303 million. This is much lower than the £1.5 billion that was written off by the previous owner, Roman Abramovich, as part of the club's sale in 2022.

• Holding Company External Debt: The parent company, 22 Holdco Limited, has external borrowings of over £1.165 billion, split between a revolving credit facility (£755.2m due by July 2027) and a loan from Ares Management (£410.2m due by August 2033). This debt is the owner's responsibility and not the club's direct burden, which is a key distinction from other club ownership models.

• Transfer Debt: Additionally, Chelsea has the highest estimated transfer payables (money owed to other clubs for transfers) in the Premier League, at around £498 million.

• Total Debt (UEFA definition): Based on the UEFA definition which combines financial debt and transfer debt, Chelsea's total gross debt was approximately £801 million in 2024. 

Correct

2 hours ago, Caps_Lock_King said:

AI

Chelsea's financial debt within the football club accounts was approximately £303 million in the year ending June 30, 2024, which is primarily owed to the parent company. However, the ultimate holding company for Chelsea has a total external debt of over £1.165 billion.

• Club-Level Financial Debt: As of the end of the 2023-24 financial year, the amount classified as debt within the Chelsea FC club accounts was around £303 million. This is much lower than the £1.5 billion that was written off by the previous owner, Roman Abramovich, as part of the club's sale in 2022.

• Holding Company External Debt: The parent company, 22 Holdco Limited, has external borrowings of over £1.165 billion, split between a revolving credit facility (£755.2m due by July 2027) and a loan from Ares Management (£410.2m due by August 2033). This debt is the owner's responsibility and not the club's direct burden, which is a key distinction from other club ownership models.

• Transfer Debt: Additionally, Chelsea has the highest estimated transfer payables (money owed to other clubs for transfers) in the Premier League, at around £498 million.

• Total Debt (UEFA definition): Based on the UEFA definition which combines financial debt and transfer debt, Chelsea's total gross debt was approximately £801 million in 2024. 

According to Venom, that's us being run as a "sound business" 😂😂

3 hours ago, venom2011 said:

Okay so let's break this down:

1. "football club has gone from having no debt at all to having over £1.5 millions worth of debt"

   • 1.5 million...seems a tad low so I'll go ahead and assume you meant 1.5 billion. The debt you speak of is with the holding company, not the club. The burden is shouldered by the ownership unlike at Man Utd. Yes, they would in all likelihood pay it off using generated profits in an ideal world.

2. "The commercial side of the "business" has failed to get a FOS sponsor."

   • No it hasn't, the commercial team have and have had concrete offers. They haven't agreed a deal. That is their choice - transparency on this would be great but it doesn't equal incompetence.

3. "The "business" is under EUFA restrictions for failing to comply with financial conditions."

   • *UEFA FSR regulations were breached and other than the fine, the repercussions were fairly insignificant. It would in all likelihood been part of the club's thinking and processes for quite some time.

   So say Ineos purchased Chelsea, took on zero debt for transfer activity and structural improvements - No Caicedo, No Estevao, No Quenda, No Palmer. Kepa still here. Azpi still here. Werner still here. They sign the first FOS deal that comes across Sir Jim's desk. Comply with UEFA FSR because they've only bought 6 mediocre talents incl Hojland and Zirkzee. You think you or the 'Roman Abramovich!' chanters would be happy? I guarantee not.

You defend the club by claiming they haven't failed to get a FOS . it's just that they haven't signed a FOS deal and that's ok because it's completely different to failing to get a FOS and anyway, " it's their choice" ??

The club missing out on millions of pounds in sponsorship money is us being run as a "sound business" ??

The debt being held in a Holding Company was a condition of the sale. I doubt if it's a condition that is enforceable by anyone and I doubt if it's a condition that was considered to last forever

Roman's debt was held in his Fordstam holding company. But it was still linked to the club , that's why Roman had to wipe it clean to prevent the new owners from having the debt when they purchased the club.

Us not being owned by Ineos is irrelevant.

Hang on FA cup draw. We're no 8 I think...

Hang on , hang on... Hang on...

Hang on.... Hull away !!

6 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

According to Venom, that's us being run as a "sound business" 😂😂

Not at all even remotely close to anything I've said - but that's not surprising. And debt financing is just debt financing. It's neither sound nor rubbish without context.

6 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

You defend the club by claiming they haven't failed to get a FOS . it's just that they haven't signed a FOS deal and that's ok because it's completely different to failing to get a FOS and anyway, " it's their choice" ??

The club missing out on millions of pounds in sponsorship money is us being run as a "sound business" ??

The debt being held in a Holding Company was a condition of the sale. I doubt if it's a condition that is enforceable by anyone and I doubt if it's a condition that was considered to last forever

Roman's debt was held in his Fordstam holding company. But it was still linked to the club , that's why Roman had to wipe it clean to prevent the new owners from having the debt when they purchased the club.

Us not being owned by Ineos is irrelevant.

Hang on FA cup draw. We're no 8 I think...

Hang on , hang on... Hang on...

Hang on.... Hull away !!

The commercial team have quite literally chosen not to sign any of the deals they've had on the table. I can't answer exactly as to why, if I did it would be conjecture. But what it is not....is incompetence - which is what layfans are insinuating.

There may (likely) be strategic or long-term economic reasons as why they would turn down those millions. Who are you - or even I - to call it sound or unsound.

The debt being carried by a holding company was not a condition of the sale. All we've heard are rumours about debt limits.

Roman's debt being cleared was a natural condition of the sale as it related to the sanctions.

Us being owned by Ineos is not irrelevant as that was the other path that was on the table.

15 hours ago, Zeta said:

Well I take it no-one else will be attending then, just me 🤣

I'll be with you in spirit #utc

8 hours ago, venom2011 said:

The commercial team have quite literally chosen not to sign any of the deals they've had on the table. I can't answer exactly as to why, if I did it would be conjecture. But what it is not....is incompetence - which is what layfans are insinuating.

There may (likely) be strategic or long-term economic reasons as why they would turn down those millions. Who are you - or even I - to call it sound or unsound.

The debt being carried by a holding company was not a condition of the sale. All we've heard are rumours about debt limits.

Roman's debt being cleared was a natural condition of the sale as it related to the sanctions.

Us being owned by Ineos is not irrelevant as that was the other path that was on the table.

I've got a genuine question for you. It's not a dig or anything. How do you think Clearlake are going to make money for its investors from it's investment in our club ? ??

Your view on the debt and the holding company is a worry though. If you are correct, that debt isn't seperate from the club as a condition of the sale There's an unknown amount that can be loaded onto the club..

Btw, wasn't the head of commercial activities sacked ??

5 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

13 hours ago, venom2011 said:

The commercial team have quite literally chosen not to sign any of the deals they've had on the table. I can't answer exactly as to why, if I did it would be conjecture. But what it is not....is incompetence - which is what layfans are insinuating.

There may (likely) be strategic or long-term economic reasons as why they would turn down those millions. Who are you - or even I - to call it sound or unsound.

The debt being carried by a holding company was not a condition of the sale. All we've heard are rumours about debt limits.

Roman's debt being cleared was a natural condition of the sale as it related to the sanctions.

Us being owned by Ineos is not irrelevant as that was the other path that was on the table.

On the lack of a FOS sponsor you say "the commercial team have decided not to sign any of the deals" you continue by saying..

"There may (likely) be .... economic reasons why they've turned down those million

Turning down millions for "economic reasons" doesn't make sense to a layman like me !!😂😂😂

We've never had a problem with getting a FOS sponsor in the past. The problem started with these owners. It doesn't seem a very hard thing to get done for anyone else.

No other PL club is without a FOS sponsor.

On 11/01/2026 at 21:14, bisright1 said:

Now at least I can see a strategy to bring in younger talent and see it's value grow.

The problem with this is that they’re ignoring what every man & their dog is telling them. Growing and developing players whether to compete in the first team is all well and good but they develop better with senior pro’s to mentor them whilst hopefully helping to take a degree of pressure off the youngsters & maintain results on the pitch.

If I were a young defender I’d certainly much rather have Thiago Silva as my senior over Tosin!

17 minutes ago, Munkunku said:

The problem with this is that they’re ignoring what every man & their dog is telling them. Growing and developing players whether to compete in the first team is all well and good but they develop better with senior pro’s to mentor them whilst hopefully helping to take a degree of pressure off the youngsters & maintain results on the pitch.

If I were a young defender I’d certainly much rather have Thiago Silva as my senior over Tosin!

I'm less bothered by this tbh, yes it would be nice to have Thiago Silva, but I'm also comfortable with Enzo F, R James, Cucurella. There's a lot of experience just in those three.

If I had my way, we would sign 2 experienced players, but I would be incredibly selective. I wouldn't have brought back Silva this window though.

34 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

I'm less bothered by this tbh, yes it would be nice to have Thiago Silva, but I'm also comfortable with Enzo F, R James, Cucurella. There's a lot of experience just in those three.

If I had my way, we would sign 2 experienced players, but I would be incredibly selective. I wouldn't have brought back Silva this window though.

James yes but the other two are wee little babies

Give it another 5 years and they will come up with an innovative project enhancement of having a few experienced players who fall at the extremities of the wonderful model. I cant wait to learn from the Americans as per Todds suggestions.

2 hours ago, Munkunku said:

James yes but the other two are wee little babies

I mean Cucurella is 27, has played 350 senior games and won an international trophy.

1 hour ago, bisright1 said:

I mean Cucurella is 27, has played 350 senior games and won an international trophy.

Yeah but he has the mental capacity of a 13 year old.

On 13/01/2026 at 01:37, venom2011 said:

The commercial team have quite literally chosen not to sign any of the deals they've had on the table. I can't answer exactly as to why, if I did it would be conjecture. But what it is not....is incompetence - which is what layfans are insinuating.

There may (likely) be strategic or long-term economic reasons as why they would turn down those millions. Who are you - or even I - to call it sound or unsound.

The debt being carried by a holding company was not a condition of the sale. All we've heard are rumours about debt limits.

Roman's debt being cleared was a natural condition of the sale as it related to the sanctions.

Us being owned by Ineos is not irrelevant as that was the other path that was on the table.

As a matter of interest do you have details of the actual deals that they have had on the table that they haven’t signed. I appreciate that providing reasons why they didn't sign these would be conjecture but who are the companies that have made FOS offers that we have turned down.

11 hours ago, Munkunku said:

Yeah but he has the mental capacity of a 13 year old.

I mean thats really harsh.....on 13 year olds.

5 hours ago, WhiteWall said:

As a matter of interest do you have details of the actual deals that they have had on the table that they haven’t signed. I appreciate that providing reasons why they didn't sign these would be conjecture but who are the companies that have made FOS offers that we have turned down.

According to Venom, there may be "economic reasons" why they turned down those millions !!😂😂😂 ( That's assuming we've actually had those offers in the first place! ).

Edited January 14Jan 14 by The Rising Sun
Information