The most boring saga has finally concluded!
Roman Abramovich plans to sell Chelsea | SOLD for £4.25BN
- Thread starter Ali Dia
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I look forward to Chelsea being run as a "sustainable" business and thusly their inevitable slide down the table, though we've had near 20 years of seeing what that life is like under the Glazer's. Are the Chelsea fans happy/optimistic about this or do you see an equivalent and inevitable reduction in status without the oil money funding the megasignings you've been making on the regular (including Havertz, Werner etc)?
We're venturing into the unknown a bit here so it's hard to tell. There's every indication Boehly and his group will be nothing like the Glazers, so you won't find many Chelsea fans concerned about them being parasite leeches. We'll see though. The hope is that club continues to grow, and since it's no longer Abramovich's plaything, the need to grow the club's revenues, redevelop the stadium etc will be areas of huge focus and effort. It's optimistic times for me at least.
Speaking on behalf of all Chelsea fans, we're happy the takeover has happened given the situation and happy with who bought it, given the options.
I also don't see a reduction in status as inevitable. Liverpool have shown with good decisions at high levels you don't need a sugar daddy to compete.
.
Once Klopp leaves Liverpool, we will all see that the club is not being ran as good as it seems.
Klopp has them competing at the highest level, the owners are not the reason they are competing without a sugar daddy, not to mention they have only been competing for the top trophies for 4 years.
@duffer I suppose even before Abramovich came you were winning things and were regular top four contenders. He just pushed you to an ultra elite level. I think a reduction in status is inevitable without spending £100m on players every summer though.
The owners had the sense to not only pick Klopp but also back him fully. Maybe (hopefully) they'll fall off but its just as likely that Man City replace Pep with a clown and they fall off.
We're apparently spending £200 this summer.
It's not just about the figures though. It's about not spending 73 mil on Kepa, 98 mil on Lukaku or 35 mil on drinkwater.
Most of it will be spent on getting replacements for the players leaving though right?
These guys also don't really need to splash the cash so to speak every window to the same extent Abramovich did. They're taking over a very different club to the one Abramovich found in 2003.
If the owners aren't prepared to lose money long term we'll probably end up like Arsenal and Utd...
We can live in hope it's possible to be financially sustainable and win trophies.
In the City, PSG and now probably Newcastle era those two objectives are likely incompatible.
It isn't just as likely though, because City won 2 PL titles before Pep, Liverpool won none of the big two trophies before Klopp and he has only won 1 of each in his 6 year tenure anyway. City have unlimited resources to spend even when Pep leaves, it's far more likely Liverpool struggle without Klopp than City without Pep.
...
...
United are being 'leeched', Liverpool are only successful because of Klopp, City are an Arab plaything, the business model at Arsenal hasn't won them a major trophy for nearly 20 years, and Spurs last won a biggie before I was born.
I think Chelsea will continue to be a huge force, both in England and Europe, if they are able to hold on to Tuchel and continue buying/selling wisely. Chelsea's net expenditure per season in the last decade or so is less than many other notable English clubs - surprisingly less than even teams like Everton, Aston Villa, and Arsenal. Abramovich has done wonders for the club, literally transforming them from an above-average English side to a self-sustaining global elite.
People often clump the likes of City and PSG together with Chelsea, which is ridiculous given that Chelsea's business model is totally different.
Replacing players is generally the point of transfers, yes!
Completely agree. This is the reality we are in now.
Maybe I’m being over sensitive & the differences in the purchase/sale are obvious but the protections put in place for this sale to occur feel like a massive slap in the face to how we’ve been lumbered with a ridiculous amount of debt. Kind of like how I can’t not hear about how perilous a position Burnley are in despite United having been handicapped for years with nothing made of it.
Have they taken on debt to fund the purchase (i.e. similar to United)?
If not then I'd presume they'd use debt to fund spending, not too dissimilar to how Roman gave loans to Chelsea, only they won't be interest free but should still be low interest.
If there's anything these hedge fund types now, it's using debt to increase asset value. Elliot Management did the same after acquiring AC Milan on the cheap (the Chinese owner defaulted on $300-400m loan Elliot provided). They then proceeded to spend quite a bit improving the first XI, increasing the asset value of the club form which they'll now get a $1b+ sale from.
Of course if the + $1.75b spend promised over the next 10 years or whatever is solely for stadium spend then you'll be a bit screwed.
We spend money initially.No doubt about it. Which way we will spend determine our immediate success. Liverpool way or United way. Both teams spent well but one towards success another struck with some bad buys.
One huge bonus for us,we have tuchel before boehly group spend any money for playing staffs. Tuchel not afraid to use youngsters also good for us.
We also expect commercial side income to increase more. Boehly can spend 80 mn every year if he wanted to. That's exactly what Roman average spent for past decade to maintain us competitive. So no issues here.
Roman also ensured fund for stadium redevelopment/new stadium. Will see which way we will be going in one or two years.
I'll be really interested to see what happens with Chelsea. The original 'run at a consistent loss' megaclub. Will the new owners continue that? For me, the one guaranteed thing in today's European football market: the oil clubs will operate at a loss, so to compete you need to either do football operations better, or get lucky.
People talking about LFC being the bastion of sensibility, but imo they're only able to be that bastion because Barca bankrupted themselves trying to keep up with the oil spending. Coutinho was basically 3/4 seasons worth of solid profit LFC was able to reinvest. Of course Klopp is also a genius, so there's that.
Imo CFC will either become like United or Tottenham - operate within its means but not be near City in terms of squad quality - or continue to be sugar daddy, but with a different name supplying the funds.
People talking about LFC being the bastion of sensibility, but imo they're only able to be that bastion because Barca bankrupted themselves trying to keep up with the oil spending. Coutinho was basically 3/4 seasons worth of solid profit LFC was able to reinvest. Of course Klopp is also a genius, so there's that.
Imo CFC will either become like United or Tottenham - operate within its means but not be near City in terms of squad quality - or continue to be sugar daddy, but with a different name supplying the funds.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
If the options are United/Spurs or City, then it obviously won't be City.
You would think so, yes. Ultimately I see us being stronger next season with the right recruitment.
I agree mostly with this.
I think what some Chelsea fans won’t realise (and its understandable as some will not have known Chelsea pre Roman) is they’ve been incredibly fortunate to have an owner who has essentially allowed the club to run itself into debt. Debt which he has absorbed himself.
When you look at their recruitment over the years they’ve made some absolute howlers. Whilst other clubs would have to stick with that player for longer than they’d like, or try and get them into form, Chelsea have been able to loan them out and forget about it AND go out and spend big again to replace them. Everyone else would be stuck trying to sell them or wait until more money was put together to afford a replacement.
I think a few will have a surprise as they will have to start getting their recruitment better, much like United, as they won’t have the luxury of simply discarding errors, taking the hit and going out and dropping mega money again.
I think all or most of us accept this. That’s why we’ve been hearing so much about how our new owner will be trying to adopt the “Liverpool model.” We have to identify and scout up and coming players who may not be the sexiest or most famous names and sign them before they cost £80m or something. Sensible signings for the most part with the rare splash out on someone super expensive.
And most importantly, we have to let the manager lead when it comes to transfers. No more owner or board signings. Thankfully Boehly doesn’t know a thing about individual players so I can’t see him pushing the club to sign anyone above the manager’s head.
I doubt seriously Boehly is going to hand over player selection to the manager or board without his team being the major drivers. You only need to look at the model he has done at the Dodgers. He is a minority owner there, but this was his contribution to the consortium. If they follow that model, he believes in developing academy players, then going after proven free agents, then purchasing players that are on contracts. He has a team that studies players using software and then people scouting.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
USA USA Yew Ess Aye
Time to find out how smart and savvy we are in the market now. No more pissing huge sums of money up the wall on players who don’t fit the team at all, please!
200 quid? Insane, I knew things wouldn't be the same post-Roman but that's some serious penny pinching.
chelsea fans are putting on a brave face but the facts don’t lie. they haven’t scored a single goal since the takeover was completed. looking ominous.
Are Chelsea fans now pro-American?
As an American myself, yes.
But seriously, I’m optimistic about this American owner in particular. Mainly because he and members of the consortium that are taking over have shown here in the States that they’re willing to go big with the LA Dodgers. They know what it takes to create a “super team.”
From Chelski to Mega Chelsea with Bacon and Cheese sponsored by Coors LightAs an American myself, yes.
But seriously, I’m optimistic about this American owner in particular. Mainly because he and members of the consortium that are taking over have shown here in the States that they’re willing to go big with the LA Dodgers. They know what it takes to create a “super team.”
They will be fine. Tuchel has a bigger budget than us for next season. Plus they’ve developed a great academy. Only thing holding them back is stadium size, but match day income is such a small part of revenue these days.
This whole thing has been worth it for this.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
When we got bought by a Russian, idiots gave us a Polish nickname.
Now we are owned by someone from the USA, do we get a Canadian or Mexican nickname?
Now we are owned by someone from the USA, do we get a Canadian or Mexican nickname?
This is the best possible outcome for Chelsea IMO. They've captured all of the upside of Abramovich's ownership and none of the downside via this transaction.
Four of the five biggest clubs in English football right now now owned by Americans
Los Chelsea eh