12 minutes ago, forbzy said:

I am pretty sure that when you look at individual players we are not paying more than other clubs. It is the sheer amount of players we have on the payroll on notable wages that is probably the issue and that is 100% down to the Clearlake strategy.

I agree with you on the current state of the game. Many other clubs are in financial peril too and I do think we will reach a tipping point with football soon where the money just isn't there and it will be a messy outcome for all (not just our club). My guess is that the European Super League will happen in next 5-10 years as the big clubs will demand more money to continue funding their operational models.

Best we can do as fans as try to enjoy the ride and the good days. I feel fortunate to have been a fan when just attending a game was exciting enough and a win was the icing on the cake ;)

I think American owners are being strategic by picking up PL assets. I think currently there are 11 American owners in the PL, and they need 14 to swing votes in their favour. They have all been voting in a block which isn’t a good sign for the league. Bad news is even though they might be losing Burnley, they could potentially add one of Millwall, Ipswich or Wrexham.

22 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

United almost got relegated yet signed two of the best attackers in the league last summer.

We're a big club that will always attract interest. The issue is our sporting directors failing to secure any top player without Eghbali having to get involved (which it doesn't look like he does anymore).

WAGES?

5 minutes ago, Caps_Lock_King said:

WAGES?

I don't think United are ideal to compare us to. They are also in a big mess behind the scenes. Things look a bit better for them in short term. Their signings last summer were decent and they look well placed to make Champs League next season. They also have a much bigger stadium etc. But they do have massive debt, a large wage bill, and their squad looks less favorable once you take out a few first teamers. Remains to be seen how they will do with European football to balance next season.

  

 

Man city are part owned by Americans and Newcastle are owned by the nation of Saudi Arabia. American ownership continues to influence the future of the Premier League, both on and off the pitch.

 Arsenal
Owner: Stan Kroenke (Kroenke Sports & Entertainment)
Details: Stan Kroenke became Arsenal’s sole owner in 2018, consolidating his control over one of England’s most historic clubs.

Aston Villa
Owner: V Sports (co-owned by Wes Edens and Nassef Sawiris)
Details: American billionaire Wes Edens, alongside Egyptian businessman Nassef Sawiris, jointly owns Aston Villa, emphasizing transatlantic investment strength.

AFC Bournemouth
Owner: Bill Foley (Black Knight Football Club)
Details: Bill Foley acquired Bournemouth in December 2022, with actor Michael B. Jordan also investing as a minority partner.

 Burnley
Owner: ALK Capital (led by Alan Pace)
Details: ALK Capital finalized its takeover of Burnley in late 2020, introducing American-backed financial management into the club’s operations.

Chelsea
Owner: Clearlake Capital (Behdad Eghbali, Jose Feliciano) and Todd Boehly
Details: The consortium, led by American businessman Todd Boehly and private equity firm Clearlake Capital, acquired Chelsea in May 2022.

Crystal Palace
Owners: John Textor (45%), Josh Harris (18%), David Blitzer (18%)
Details: American investors control a combined 81% of Crystal Palace, significantly shaping the club’s strategic direction.

Everton
Owner: The Friedkin Group (Dan Friedkin)
Details: Dan Friedkin acquired a 94.1% controlling stake in Everton in December 2024, signaling new American leadership at Goodison Park.

Fulham
Owner: Shahid Khan
Details: Shahid Khan, who also owns the NFL’s Jacksonville Jaguars, continues to oversee Fulham after initially purchasing the club in 2013.

Liverpool
Owner: Fenway Sports Group (John W. Henry, Tom Werner)
Details: Fenway Sports Group, also owners of the Boston Red Sox and Pittsburgh Penguins, have owned Liverpool since 2010 and have overseen a highly successful era.

Manchester United
Owner: Glazer Family
Details: The Glazer family has held a controlling stake in Manchester United since 2005, maintaining one of the most prominent examples of American ownership in English football.

West Ham United
Minority Owner: J. Albert “Tripp” Smith
Details: While West Ham remains majority British-owned, American investor Tripp Smith holds a notable minority share.

Owned.

Vulture capitalists looked at the EPL and saw a very financially vulnerable group of companies/clubs and then they decided to buy it all up. They now own it all. It has already happened.  Brexit advanced the rise of vulture capitalism in the UK, as it has facilitated the flow of dark money and influenced political discourse, allowing aggressive investors to target distressed firms/companies more easily.

You just know that had Roman still been the owner and spent the same £1.5 billion that Clearlake did, we wouldn't have plunged down the table and out of the CL ..

Evissy maintained that things HAD to change.

In fact, when it came to transfer spending it didn't change, it continued and broke records, the amount they spent should have propelled us into title contenders.

And Evissy's big error, like Clearlake, was to continually tell everyone how awful it was under Roman.

33 minutes ago, TheCeleryKing said:

Vulture capitalists looked at the EPL and saw a very financially vulnerable group of companies/clubs and then they decided to buy it all up. They now own it all. It has already happened.  Brexit advanced the rise of vulture capitalism in the UK, as it has facilitated the flow of dark money and influenced political discourse, allowing aggressive investors to target distressed firms/companies more easily.

It seems that Private Equity can extract millions for themselves even when their ownership of a company swamps that company with debt and without making a penny in profit .

Thames Water's privatisation is an example of owners being legally able to pay themselves millions in dividends from a debt ridden company which was actually debt free when it was sold.

Arsenal are a well run club with American owners. Same with Liverpool

14 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

You just know that had Roman still been the owner and spent the same £1.5 billion that Clearlake did, we wouldn't have plunged down the table and out of the CL ..

Evissy maintained that things HAD to change.

In fact, when it came to transfer spending it didn't change, it continued and broke records, the amount they spent should have propelled us into title contenders.

And Evissy's big error, like Clearlake, was to continually tell everyone how awful it was under Roman.

Roman had already started to change the spending model to adapt to the PSR rules. I think he saw that coming and perhaps that was one of the big incentives to creating the strong academy. He had set the club up so that we could in theory just promote the best of the academy players and align that with a few experienced signings from time to time. The summer after 2022 we would have seen some departures regardless of him being forced out. But the reaction would have been very different with just a few squad tweaks as needed. Instead, Blueco chose to bulldoze everything and do it their own way because they knew so much better than everybody else.

3 hours ago, TheCeleryKing said:

So we shall get a shirt sponsor in the summer and all will be well.

More likely to be these

Than these though

59 minutes ago, KonaKai Blue said:

Arsenal are a well run club with American owners. Same with Liverpool

Interestingly both have a pretty low profile from the boardroom. Its not often you see John Henry spouting bo**ocks about a subject he knows nothing about, making himself look ridiculous.

2 hours ago, forbzy said:

I don't think United are ideal to compare us to. They are also in a big mess behind the scenes. Things look a bit better for them in short term. Their signings last summer were decent and they look well placed to make Champs League next season. They also have a much bigger stadium etc. But they do have massive debt, a large wage bill, and their squad looks less favorable once you take out a few first teamers. Remains to be seen how they will do with European football to balance next season.

Difference with United is they are a much bigger club than us.

We are the 6th biggest club in England. If things do hit the fan financially, and we get relegated, it will be at a minimum decades until we compete at the top again.

United can drop out for a few years and will always bounce back. With our small stadium and not massive fan base, we could easily experience a journey like Leeds.

16 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

Interestingly both have a pretty low profile from the boardroom. Its not often you see John Henry spouting bo**ocks about a subject he knows nothing about, making himself look ridiculous.

Agreed. They are showing that good ownership is not limited by nationality. Thy are both doing good jobs with their respective clubs.

7 hours ago, GarnachoCheese said:

They gave as good as they got

This. The only thing I attacked was their opinions, because their view of things just didn't match up with what we were seeing.

1 hour ago, WhiteWall said:

Interestingly both have a pretty low profile from the boardroom. Its not often you see John Henry spouting bo**ocks about a subject he knows nothing about, making himself look ridiculous.

Low profile is key. The best thing about old Roman was that he never said nuffink. Lets face it, Roman was a nasty b'stard and a criminal and he planned to sell Chels long before he was forced to. Don't be fooled - He was not the nicest bloke, but he had the good sense to keep quiet. These new lads really are mouthy pratts and thats what we hate about them. You're not going to find "nice" owners/capitalists but they could have some decorum.

3 minutes ago, TheCeleryKing said:

Low profile is key. The best thing about old Roman was that he never said nuffink. Lets face it, Roman was a nasty b'stard and a criminal and he planned to sell Chels long before he was forced to. Don't be fooled - He was not the nicest bloke, but he had the good sense to keep quiet. These new lads really are mouthy pratts and thats what we hate about them. You're not going to find "nice" owners/capitalists but they could have some decorum.

AND. . . .We had Ken Bates and he was freaking annoying and mouthy too, but even he is nothing on this new crowd.

Bring back the electric fences.

14 minutes ago, KonaKai Blue said:

Arsenal are a well run club with American owners. Same with Liverpool

4

From " The boys of the King's Road " on substack.....vvv

"I said in the first part of this last week, there was never any doubt about Abramovich’s objectives. Winning was what really mattered, though there were nods to doing it while making the club sustainable along the way. We did actually make a profit in several years between 2014 and 2018, with record turnover and profits being recorded in the 2017/18 financial year.

If the current owners are serious about sustainability, that’s going to require a halt to the crazy number of players they sign. Champions League qualification will be needed in most seasons, along with the sale of players in most years. That’s right, it will require the model we had under Abramovich in the years after FFP. Their current path isn’t going to cut it ""

3 hours ago, KonaKai Blue said:

Arsenal are a well run club with American owners. Same with Liverpool

They just posted a loss following their best season in 20+ years. Liverpool were well run under Klopp. They still rely on decisions made 7-8 years ago. It remains to be seen if that will continue, however, FSG are also one of the few American investment firms with actual expertise in sports management.

The good news is that debt doesn't matter if it leads to return on investment. £342m will be a drop in the ocean if it puts in structures that allow us to compete for a CL, or a league, or trophies in general.

The bad news is....

Edited February 27Feb 27 by SydneyChelsea

We’ve wasted SO much money on pointless and wasted transfers. The list is endless.

I think it's worthwhile to clarity that the club didn't actually lose £342m. The club are right to say that, in the real world, the club made a operating profit thanks to the sale of the women's team (£200m) and the hotels (£76m). A holding company injecting cash by buying out seperate arms of its core business is a normal and common practice. It's only in UEFA's nerd money FFP rules that this common practice is made illicit, and ironically it's only necessary because the made-up rules don't allow direct investment.

However I don't think we should let that distract from the actual issues:

• These circumstances can never be repeated, other than selling Cobham or the stadium...

• We have no/poor sponsors. Deals are late in the season with very low-tier, niche firms. The idea that the club was waiting to leverage the CWC was a lie all along.

• Player trading is being used to prop up the paper valuation of the club with little regard to sporting success

• BlueCo is not a united front, and it's clear that Clearlake are calling the shots.

• Like I have said since the beginning, there is no actual strategy. They are simply doing things differently for the sake of it, to extract maximum credit in the rare event things go well. It's more important to them to sell the Clearlake "brand" than to profit from success.

Unlike most though I am not too worried about the club's supposed debt to other parties. The failing American economy/AI Bubble is a more immediate and serious threat to our finances than continued lack of success, given the owner's investment profiles. The worst case scenario is that this mob are forced to sell and the club regroups in a lower tier, which might actually make it about the football once again.

Kroncke’s have only been at Arsenal since 2018 and I believe the last two seasons were the only time they’ve genuinely backed the manager.

1 hour ago, SydneyChelsea said:

I think it's worthwhile to clarity that the club didn't actually lose £342m. The club are right to say that, in the real world, the club made a operating profit thanks to the sale of the women's team (£200m) and the hotels (£76m). A holding company injecting cash by buying out seperate arms of its core business is a normal and common practice. It's only in UEFA's nerd money FFP rules that this common practice is made illicit, and ironically it's only necessary because the made-up rules don't allow direct investment.

However I don't think we should let that distract from the actual issues:

• These circumstances can never be repeated, other than selling Cobham or the stadium...

• We have no/poor sponsors. Deals are late in the season with very low-tier, niche firms. The idea that the club was waiting to leverage the CWC was a lie all along.

• Player trading is being used to prop up the paper valuation of the club with little regard to sporting success

• BlueCo is not a united front, and it's clear that Clearlake are calling the shots.

• Like I have said since the beginning, there is no actual strategy. They are simply doing things differently for the sake of it, to extract maximum credit in the rare event things go well. It's more important to them to sell the Clearlake "brand" than to profit from success.

Unlike most though I am not too worried about the club's supposed debt to other parties. The failing American economy/AI Bubble is a more immediate and serious threat to our finances than continued lack of success, given the owner's investment profiles. The worst case scenario is that this mob are forced to sell and the club regroups in a lower tier, which might actually make it about the football once again.

I am waiting till we see the CFC accounts for 24/25 as opposed to what I suspect were the BlueCo numbers for 23/24.

It’s worth noting that the BlueCo loss to a significant degree was paper transactions . For instance a sum of in excess of £100m in those 23/24 losses was in respect of Goodwill impairment.