Chelsea 2022/2023 | THIS IS LAST YEARS THREAD YOU NUMPTIES

[Powderfinger]

Yes, but Clearlake’s ability to control alternate revenue streams is different and much more comprehensive than Fenways. Fenway is a “moneyball” organization based off the ideology of Billie Beane; use analytics to avoid spending huge amounts of money.

You've clearly drunk the kool aid regarding their vision. We'll see what is proven right.

In general, when you have tons of extremely smart people going one way and somebody else coming into the room with a completely different thesis and saying everybody else is wrong, the wise move is to be circumspect about what will happen. One of the oldest stories in the business world, repeated countless times with people far more accomplished than Todd Boehly, involves entrepreneurs and investors who have succeeded in one area becomeing overconfident about their ability to succeed in a very different sphere and then meeting reality in an unpleasant way.

 

[Bluelion7]

Don't know much about baseball but a quick google search says baseball teams make around 300m$ in revenue on average. So it's impossible that this kind of spending is taking place there.

I'd love for the new United owners to invest obviously, but I want it to also make sense to avoid impacting the future of the club. In the past 10 years we've had a lot of players that didn't contribute much and we've always found it very hard to sell due to their high wages, and based on that I don't want the club to commit to these crazy long contracts even for top players. Another thing is that in football as we've seen through the years, record signings tend to flop more than succeed for whatever reason. Imo there's a bit if impatience surrounding Chelsea and it could be harmful even if the money is there. If the new United owners commit to spending 600m over the next 3 years I'd feel much better about it more than spending 600m in one season.

The Dodgers lose 500m per year. They spend inordinately more than basically every other team. Because? They dont rely on the team to make money.

The Dodgers spent 188m last year just in luxury taxes on what, I think, was 1.5 billion in payroll?

If you are taking averages though there are MANY baseball teams that are nowhere near that.

 

[Maluco]

Final nail in the Potter coffin for me. He has an impossible task now.

He has startbadly, is 10 points behind a crucial target with much more settled teams ahead of him. There were signs that the players weren’t really buying what he was selling before, what about now?

Player unrest and unhappiness with too many to keep happy, and they have gone and added 4/5 more! How does he have a hope of maintaining a happy dressing room now?

One of their nailed on new first teamers already won’t be able to be registered for the CL and they had players unhappy with minutes before. There simply aren’t enough games and players are fully aware there will be more changes in the summer.

It’s not insane depth, it’s a mess, and it will all end in tears for Potter.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

The Dodgers lose 500m per year. They spend inordinately more than basically every other team. Because? They dont rely on the team to make money.

The Dodgers spent 188m last year just in luxury taxes on what, I think, was 1.5 billion in payroll?

If you are taking averages though there are MANY baseball teams that are nowhere near that.

What...? Not even remotely close.

Last year their payroll was about $270.6m:
https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/los-angeles-dodgers/payroll/2022/

 

[Powderfinger]

The Dodgers lose 500m per year. They spend inordinately more than basically every other team. Because? They dont rely on the team to make money.

The Dodgers spent 188m last year just in luxury taxes on what, I think, was 1.5 billion in payroll?

If you are taking averages though there are MANY baseball teams that are nowhere near that.

These numbers are massively off-base. Not even remotely close to reality.

You should really check the confidence of your opinions about any topic related to the finances of sports, Chelsea or otherwise.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

These numbers are massively off-base. Not even remotely close to reality.

You should really check the confidence of your opinions about any topic related to the finances of sports, Chelsea or otherwise.

Hah beat you to it mate!

 

[Powderfinger]

Hah beat you to it mate!

Damn..mind meld!

 

[Bluelion7]

You've clearly drunk the kool aid regarding their vision. We'll see what is proven right.

In general, when you have tons of extremely smart people going one way and somebody else coming into the room with a completely different thesis and saying everybody else is wrong, the wise move is to be circumspect about what will happen. One of the oldest stories in the business world, repeated countless times with people far more accomplished than Todd Boehly, involves entrepreneurs and investors who have succeeded in one area becomeing overconfident about their ability to succeed in a very different sphere and then meeting reality in an unpleasant way.

Well, one, it’s not a completely different sphere… it’s just a different sport. One that is, by the way, much more easy to monetize creatively than baseball in many ways.

Two, much more accomplished than Boehly? I’m going to guess you probably don’t have a massive grasp of his accomplishments, but the man was CEO of Guggenheim, in monetary circles that alone is massive. People don’t normally leave there, but not only did the allow him to do so, they thought so much of his to e there that they made the unprecedented decision to allow him to buy some of their own holdings on the way out, and Todd is only one factor in this group. These are heavy, heavy World financial players that have their feet in the Clearlake pool.

I don’t know about kool aid, but the idea seems to be floating that this a couple of random Americans who came into some money selling coal or something and overextending themselves naively. I’m providing the actual context as to why it would be a mistake to view it that way. Take that as you will.

 

[ZolaWasMagic]

I did see a rumour that some of Clearlake's investors /backers belong to the Saudi pif.

could explain why they come to watch us now and again

 

[mav_9me]

What...? Not even remotely close.

Last year their payroll was about $270.6m:
https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/los-angeles-dodgers/payroll/2022/

These numbers are massively off-base. Not even remotely close to reality.

You should really check the confidence of your opinions about any topic related to the finances of sports, Chelsea or otherwise.

No offense @Bluelion7 but being so wildly off with those numbers damages the credibility of everything you say.

 

[Zaphod2319]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Judas]

Brilliant stuff, how exciting for the league and sport as a whole.

 

[Giggs' right foot]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

This'll be their "We can do things in the transfer market that other clubs can only dream of. Watch this space." They'll be fecked in a year or two.

 

[Orc]

I’d be shocked if we brought in more than 2 players in the summer.

 

[Judas]

I expect at least 5 summer signings, new manger not included.

 

[Orc]

I expect at least 5 summer signings, new manger not included.

At this point it feels like many opposition fans are almost wishing Potter’s sacking into existence. We’ve already hit rock bottom this season and the ownership has not only stuck by him but they’ve backed him with an unprecedented January window. Don’t think there’s anything Potter could do at this point to not start next season as manager.

 

[Suedesi]

Our new owners are significantly richer than Abramovich ever was. Clearlake alone controls about $75 billion in assets. Boehly is cofounder and CEO of Eldridge Industries, which controls about $50 billion.

I don't think we'll be doing this every window - Boehly et al are just doing exactly what they did to revitalise the Dodgers and establish them as the model MLB franchise (well, them or the Braves). In both cases huge amounts were invested early on in young up-and-coming players, but once a core group was established they focused on commercial development, expansion of novel revenue streams, and completely overhauling the stadium.

In the coming years I'd expect us to continue to invest opportunistically in young players - but outlays like these past two windows are unlikely.

Huge difference - Abramovich was playing with his own money, Clearlake has LP's behind them who have committed capital and will require a return on that capital.

 

[Jim Beam]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I read that in Al Pacino voice.

 

[Aidan Azar]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Powderfinger]

Huge difference - Abramovich was playing with his own money, Clearlake has LP's behind them who have committed capital and will require a return on that capital.

Exactly. A PE fund controlling assets is also just not remotely same as personal wealth. In terms of personal wealth, Boehly and Eghbali combined have about as much estimated net worth as Roman now (and that is after a big fall for Roman).

Boehly/Clearlake clearly have plenty of money to invest into Chelsea but its all in order to drive a big return on their total investment in the form of rising asset value so the amount of capitol they keep injecting will be determined ultimately by an ongoing assessment of whether their initial thesis about the investment continues to hold. They're not going to just keep putting money in blindly and if things go bad, Chelsea is losing money year to year, and they decide that driving higher revenues/asset growth isn't as easy as they thought, then they'll pivot and quite possibly sell the team to cut their losses. The whole point of these PE funds is take over, restructure, then sell for a profit and if you can't do that, cut bait ruthlessly and move on. Nobody bats 1.000 at these funds and what often determines the best private equity investors are those willing to take in new information and turn on a dime if that information contradicts the initial thesis motivating an acquisition.

 

[Zaphod2319]

Exactly. A PE fund controlling assets is also just not remotely same as personal wealth. In terms of personal wealth, Boehly and Eghbali combined have about as much estimated net worth as Roman now (and that is after a big fall for Roman).

Boehly/Clearlake clearly have plenty of money to invest into Chelsea but its all in order to drive a big return on their total investment in the form of rising asset value so the amount of capitol they keep injecting will be determined ultimately by an ongoing assessment of whether their initial thesis about the investment continues to hold. They're not going to just keep putting money in blindly and if things go bad, Chelsea is losing money year to year, and they decide that driving higher revenues/asset growth isn't as easy as they thought, then they'll pivot and quite possibly sell the team to cut their losses. The whole point of these PE funds is take over, restructure, then sell for a profit and if you can't do that, cut bait ruthlessly and move on. Nobody bats 1.000 at these funds and what often determines the best private equity investors are those willing to take in new information and turn on a dime if that information contradicts the initial thesis motivating an acquisition.

They cannot cutbait for ten years, but yes, the moment the model turns to no profit, they can just sell off expensive players and replace them with crap.

 

[Walters_19_MuFc]

If Potter is there next season:

Mudryk Nkunku Sterling
Chilwell Enzo Caicedo James
Badiashile Silva Fofana
Mendy/Kepa​

 

[kouroux]

If Potter is there next season:

Mudryk Nkunku Sterling
Chilwell Enzo Caicedo James
Badiashile Silva Fofana
Mendy/Kepa​

Sterling is a bit if underwhelming tbh. They lack a good presence up front

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Huge difference - Abramovich was playing with his own money, Clearlake has LP's behind them who have committed capital and will require a return on that capital.

Yes, but they can't sell or take capital out of the club for a decade, and their established model has been long-term investing to grow the value of the core asset.

This isn't going to be some sort of pump-and-dump crypto flip - the goal is to turn Chelsea from a £‎2b asset to a £‎10+b asset over the next decade plus.

 

[charlenefan]

I’d be shocked if we brought in more than 2 players in the summer.

Another season outside the top 4 in that case

 

[WeePat]

Sterling is a bit if underwhelming tbh. They lack a good presence up front

I think he stands to benefit a lot from the added firepower up front. Rather than being the main driver of the ball, he can go back to relying on his elite movement in the box to finish off moves.

 

[ZolaWasMagic]

Exactly. A PE fund controlling assets is also just not remotely same as personal wealth. In terms of personal wealth, Boehly and Eghbali combined have about as much estimated net worth as Roman now (and that is after a big fall for Roman).

Boehly/Clearlake clearly have plenty of money to invest into Chelsea but its all in order to drive a big return on their total investment in the form of rising asset value so the amount of capitol they keep injecting will be determined ultimately by an ongoing assessment of whether their initial thesis about the investment continues to hold. They're not going to just keep putting money in blindly and if things go bad, Chelsea is losing money year to year, and they decide that driving higher revenues/asset growth isn't as easy as they thought, then they'll pivot and quite possibly sell the team to cut their losses. The whole point of these PE funds is take over, restructure, then sell for a profit and if you can't do that, cut bait ruthlessly and move on. Nobody bats 1.000 at these funds and what often determines the best private equity investors are those willing to take in new information and turn on a dime if that information contradicts the initial thesis motivating an acquisition.

its not just those 2 btw

mark walter. hansjorg wyss. jose feliciano, too

as i posted earlier ,ive seen some rumours the saudi pif are involved with clearlake.

 

[Righteous Steps]

Yes, but they can't sell or take capital out of the club for a decade, and their established model has been long-term investing to grow the value of the core asset.

This isn't going to be some sort of pump-and-dump crypto flip - the goal is to turn Chelsea from a £‎2b asset to a £‎10+b asset over the next decade plus.

Is there anymore scope to turn it into a £10b+ asset I don’t think there is? Best bet would be to double it, I don’t see any football club being worth £10b+ anytime soon(within next ten years).

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Wonder if Chaosea will finish in the top half next season. Brilliant stuff.

 

[Suedesi]

They cannot cutbait for ten years, but yes, the moment the model turns to no profit, they can just sell off expensive players and replace them with crap.

In the world of Private Equity you never have a 100% hit rate. Typically, 20-30% of deals make money (hopefully 5-10% of the portfolio make 2x -3x the entire portfolio) 10% probably break even and the rest are money losers that eventually go through restructuring, selling for parts, M&A etc. True they cannot cut bait for 10 years (which happens to be the harvesting period for a PE fund), but Chelsea success is not a sure thing.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Is there anymore scope to turn it into a £10b+ asset I don’t think there is? Best bet would be to double it, I don’t see any football club being worth £10b+ anytime soon(within next ten years).

They are probably thinking longer term than just a decade - and for all the shite other Chelsea sycophants have spouted on this thread and others it is true that this ownership group has a track record of identifying novel revenue streams.

I think the comparison to the NFL is illustrative - the NFL has a smaller global audience but makes roughly 3 times the amount as the PL annually in terms of overall revenue. And this is with 17 games per team per year as opposed to 38 - plus no cups, no European competition, etc. There is clearly space for the PL to grow, and Boehly et al are betting that they can figure out ways to accelerate that growth.

 

[Powderfinger]

They are probably thinking longer term than just a decade - and for all the shite other Chelsea sycophants have spouted on this thread and others it is true that this ownership group has a track record of identifying novel revenue streams.

I think the comparison to the NFL is illustrative - the NFL has a smaller global audience but makes roughly 3 times the amount as the PL annually in terms of overall revenue. And this is with 17 games per team per year as opposed to 38 - plus no cups, no European competition, etc. There is clearly space for the PL to grow, and Boehly et al are betting that they can figure out ways to accelerate that growth.

I agree there is plenty of space for the PL to grow, the issue is really how much.

In some ways, the question is why the PL, despite having such a large global audience, makes so much less money from its broadcast rights. The implication from people backing the Boehly perspective is that they're just not doing a good enough job monetizing the product. But not only does the owner of a big club actually have little control over that, there are also a number of factors that suggest that monetization isn't really the most important issue.

-The PL has a big global audience but a huge part of that audience has relatively little disposal income, at least vis-a-vis the US TV audience, and particularly isn't a major target demographic for the most lucrative of advertisers like car companies.

-Compared to the NFL, the structure of football offers very few advertising opportunities. The average NFL game includes 63 minutes of commercials, a totally insane number. Moreover, they come in short spurts so the audience often keeps their eyes glued to the TV/stream because they don't want to miss the next play. With a football match, if you just tune in right before kickoff and turn it off at the end, there are generally a couple commercial breaks right after the first half ends and right before the second half begins and that's a time when half the audience is going to piss, having a smoke, or just obliviously chatting with somebody else in the pub.

-Americans will basically watch any NFL game, even matchups between terrible teams put up huge audience numbers on national broadcasts. While the same may be true among a certain segment of PL diehards in the UK, the global audience of the PL just isn't interested in Bournemouth v. Forest at all. There are more PL games than NFL games, but the vast majority of PL matches aren't actually very big draws for the global audience. People in China may not care about NFL games between terrible teams either, but its the 330m strong US domestic audience - which does care and will watch - that drives the NFL broadcast revenues.

 

[Red in STL]

I agree there is plenty of space for the PL to grow, the issue is really how much.

In some ways, the question is why the PL, despite having such a large global audience, makes so much less money from its broadcast rights. The implication from people backing the Boehly perspective is that they're just not doing a good enough job monetizing the product. But not only does the owner of a big club actually have little control over that, there are also a number of factors that suggest that monetization isn't really the most important issue.

-The PL has a big global audience but a huge part of that audience has relatively little disposal income, at least vis-a-vis the US TV audience, and particularly isn't a major target demographic for the most lucrative of advertisers like car companies.

-Compared to the NFL, the structure of football offers very few advertising opportunities. The average NFL game includes 63 minutes of commercials, a totally insane number. Moreover, they come in short spurts so the audience often keeps their eyes glued to the TV/stream because they don't want to miss the next play. With a football match, if you just tune in right before kickoff and turn it off at the end, there are generally a couple commercial breaks right after the first half ends and right before the second half begins and that's a time when half the audience is taking a piss, having a smoke, or just obliviously chatting with somebody else in the pub.

-Americans will basically watch any NFL game, even matchups between terrible teams put up huge audience numbers on national broadcasts. While the same may be true among a certain segment of PL diehards in the UK, the global audience of the PL just isn't interested in Bournemouth v. Forest at all. There are more PL games than NFL games, but the vast majority of PL matches aren't actually very big draws for the global audience. People in China may not care about NFL games between terrible teams either, but its the 330m strong US domestic audience - which does care and will watch - that drives the NFL broadcast revenues.

Actually College Football is more popular that the NFL

 

[Zaphod2319]

I agree there is plenty of space for the PL to grow, the issue is really how much.

In some ways, the question is why the PL, despite having such a large global audience, makes so much less money from its broadcast rights. The implication from people backing the Boehly perspective is that they're just not doing a good enough job monetizing the product. But not only does the owner of a big club actually have little control over that, there are also a number of factors that suggest that monetization isn't really the most important issue.

-The PL has a big global audience but a huge part of that audience has relatively little disposal income, at least vis-a-vis the US TV audience, and particularly isn't a major target demographic for the most lucrative of advertisers like car companies.

-Compared to the NFL, the structure of football offers very few advertising opportunities. The average NFL game includes 63 minutes of commercials, a totally insane number. Moreover, they come in short spurts so the audience often keeps their eyes glued to the TV/stream because they don't want to miss the next play. With a football match, if you just tune in right before kickoff and turn it off at the end, there are generally a couple commercial breaks right after the first half ends and right before the second half begins and that's a time when half the audience is going to piss, having a smoke, or just obliviously chatting with somebody else in the pub.

-Americans will basically watch any NFL game, even matchups between terrible teams put up huge audience numbers on national broadcasts. While the same may be true among a certain segment of PL diehards in the UK, the global audience of the PL just isn't interested in Bournemouth v. Forest at all. There are more PL games than NFL games, but the vast majority of PL matches aren't actually very big draws for the global audience. People in China may not care about NFL games between terrible teams either, but its the 330m strong US domestic audience - which does care and will watch - that drives the NFL broadcast revenues.

I would say most NFL fans I know watch just their team and one more quality team vs a quality team. There are outliers that spend their entire Sunday watching everything they can, but that’s usual “that” guy. I stay away from them so I don’t have to listen to them talk about every freaking game. I imagine in England you have “that” guy too. Totally agree about the commercials. I am surprised that American broadcasts of the PL have not gone side by side to get in some commercials.

 

[Cantonagotmehere]

Actually College Football is more popular that the NFL

Look at the most watchrd TV shows in the USA for the year. The NFL will literally have about 30 of them and 9 of top 10. It's crazy.

 

[Donaldo]

It seems to be very veryimportant to Boehly and Chelsea's new owners that Chelsea win the lot before the World Cup in Murica, so that they can cash in on the continent where the actual sports megabucks reside.

It's bizarrely interesting to watch how this will play out.

 

[dinostar77]

If Potter is there next season:

Mudryk Nkunku Sterling
Chilwell Enzo Caicedo James
Badiashile Silva Fofana
Mendy/Kepa​

They will add a top elite striker. Potter will be there next season i dont doubt that. They will probably win the PL.

 

[GoonerInPeace]

They will add a top elite striker. Potter will be there next season i dont doubt that. They will probably win the PL.

Why would they?

Because they bought Fenandez for 107m.

I dont think Potter is getting anywhere near the title. Now matter who Boehly buys for him.

 

[GoonerInPeace]

The thing is. You can match what Chelsea are doing on the discount if your clever about it.

So many are intimidated by these signings as if they are value for money. Literally everyone of them, Chelsea have paid well over the odds.

I look at Wesley Fofona for example and laugh at the fact he cost 80m. Im not thinking, oh, Wesley Fofana, how can anyone match that centre half. Because this is a player who I know wouldn't be getting in the Arsenal team if he played for us. But some reason, people are revering him because of his fee.

I couldnt care less how much money Chelsea are spending on players, at the end of the day once you cross the white line only the football matters

 

[MayosNoun]

The thing is. You can match what Chelsea are doing on the discount if your clever about it.

So many are intimidated by these signings as if they are value for money. Literally everyone of them, Chelsea have paid well over the odds.

I look at Wesley Fofona for example and laugh at the fact he cost 80m. Im not thinking, oh, Wesley Fofana, how can anyone match that centre half. Because this is a player who I know wouldn't be getting in the Arsenal team if he played for us. But some reason, people are revering him because of his fee.

I couldnt care less how much money Chelsea are spending on players, at the end of the day once you cross the white line only the football matters

What a bizarre post.

Fofana started well and has sadly been injured.

If you had mentioned Koulibaly then you’d have made a much better point.