Let's All Laugh At... Let's all laugh at Chelsea thread

[McFlash]

Yep, my dad watched Arsenal when Spurs were away in the early 60's, he was living in Highgate at the time and backs up what you say about fans going to watch multiple London clubs.

Even 25 odd years ago, I used to go to Spurs once a month and then also go watch games at Wimbledon when they were playing at Selhurst (mate was a Dons fan)
Spurs used to cost a fortune but Wimbledon were a couple of quid on the train and 15 quid for a ticket.

Watching live footie for probably what I'd spend watching a game in the pub.

 

[Spurs_1981]

Even 25 odd years ago, I used to go to Spurs once a month and then also go watch games at Wimbledon when they were playing at Selhurst (mate was a Dons fan)
Spurs used to cost a fortune but Wimbledon were a couple of quid on the train and 15 quid for a ticket.

Watching live footie for probably what I'd spend watching a game in the pub.

I'd go to see a few Dons games at Selhurst. They would give free tickets outside school and at little league back then. Good times

 

[Stamford]

But this was very different back in the days. My granddad started going to football in the 30s and although he was nominally an Arsenal fan and Arsenal were the best team at the time, he never disliked Tottenham and in those days it was very common for North Londoners to go to watch both sides' home games. When my dad then chose Spurs in the 60s (thanks to the '67 cup final), my grandad went more to Spurs than he did to Arsenal.

That sort of tribalistic nonsense we see today hasn't always been there.

I like the tribalism. Its actually one of the last bits of english football that makes it feel like a club rather than some weird tourist trap.

 

[MR_BEN]

would appear so and it couldn’t be a more blatant middle finger to PSR if they tried as they are still taking the profits from it apparently.

Most likely a sale and leaseback.

Not uncommon at all - but, given amortisation of infrastructure etc isn’t included in PSR calcs, then it would make sense if profits on sale proceeds of said assets were also excluded.

Surely the Premier can’t be that stupid?

 

[Tucker]

So they’ve sold a hotel to Clearlake have they? That might be a sly work around in the short term, but I don’t think I’d be happy about the club selling a long term asset to cover a short term accounting problem. What happens in 15 years time when Clearlake decide to sell up? They aren’t going to gift back a valuable central London property asset like that. They aren’t Roman Abramovich. They’re an investment vehicle.

 

[Frozen_Waffles]

So they’ve sold a hotel to Clearlake have they? That might be a sly work around in the short term, but I don’t think I’d be happy about the club selling a long term asset to cover a short term accounting problem. What happens in 15 years time when Clearlake decide to sell up? They aren’t going to gift back a valuable central London property asset like that. They aren’t Roman Abramovich. They’re an investment vehicle.

This whole idea that Chelsea is an investment is a laughable idea. Ken Bates ran them into the ground and Abramovic lost a shitload for the duration of his stint.

They don't have the stadium, the potential to actually earn from it is small. They don't own the land, the chance of building anything bigger is unlikely.

They have now boxed themselves into a corner with their playing squad with ridiculous wages that they can't support (by legal means).

If they don't get hit with FFP it means it doesn't work. The whole idea of it is so clubs can live within their means and stop massive outside investment to level the playing field (fair play).

Chelsea are not living within their means.

I do wonder if Boehly and Clearlake have realised how much they have fucked this up. I mean from any sort of business point of view its bananas.

The idea is you invest highly on young players and as the prices of these players increase the asset becomes more and the more assets you have the more your club is worth.

The idea in theory is not completely unsound, but in football it's ludicrous. You'd have to be spot on with almost every signing you made.

The problem is they went so far over the market value for these players that it's unlikely (even if they did become great players) that they'd be worth any more than what they paid.

I just pray we don't help them out, I don't want us to bother with any Chelsea players.

They rolled the dice and lost. Absolute insane levels of naivety from Boehly and Clearlake.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

This whole idea that Chelsea is an investment is a laughable idea. Ken Bates ran them into the ground and Abramovic lost a shitload for the duration of his stint.

Curious - setting aside the sanctions for a moment - how much do you think Abramovic put into the club - and how much was the final sale?

 

[luRRka]

Curious - setting aside the sanctions for a moment - how much do you think Abramovic put into the club - and how much was the final sale?

"It cost former Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich about £900,000 a week for 19 years in terms of interest-free loans to cover the club's losses," said Maguire.

Chelsea: What's the financial picture?

Chelsea: What's the financial picture?

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

"It cost former Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich about £900,000 a week for 19 years in terms of interest-free loans to cover the club's losses," said Maguire.

Quick maths tells me that is about £1B.

At a distressed sale - I think the new owners paid about £2.5B to Abramovic (frozen funds)


Aside from the whole sanctions issue - Chelsea was a solid investment for Abramovic - and got the ego trip of winning a few trophies along the way.

Just because he was having to constantly re-invest in the club, did not make it a bad investment overall.

 

[Marty]

Quick maths tells me that is about £1B.

At a distressed sale - I think the new owners paid about £2.5B to Abramovic (frozen funds)


Aside from the whole sanctions issue - Chelsea was a solid investment for Abramovic - and got the ego trip of winning a few trophies along the way.

Just because he was having to constantly re-invest in the club, did not make it a bad investment overall.

That doesn't mean it was a good business decision for Clearlake, though.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

That doesn't mean it was a good business decision for Clearlake, though.

Way too early to tell. But continued investment in the club is not necessarily a bad thing.

It has to be smart investment - and the jury is still out on the long-term impact of many of the signings, but as long as broadcast revenue continues to rise, its likely that this will have been a good financial investment.

 

[Frozen_Waffles]

Quick maths tells me that is about £1B.

At a distressed sale - I think the new owners paid about £2.5B to Abramovic (frozen funds)


Aside from the whole sanctions issue - Chelsea was a solid investment for Abramovic - and got the ego trip of winning a few trophies along the way.

Just because he was having to constantly re-invest in the club, did not make it a bad investment overall.

With Abramovic, he did make a large profit (even if he couldn't actually recieve any of it). But if he tried to sell in 2015 (example) I'd be surprised if any profit would have been made. The rapid financial growth of the PL and CL has increased clubs values more than anyone could have expected.

If Chelsea were not run by Abramovic and had tried to do what he did then they would have collapsed. He basically supported them single handedly through the sprees.

Also in any normal world running up a bill of 1bn would incur interest rates and it would be significantly over that figure given normal circumstances.

However he did it by maintaining a top squad with exuberant spending. Their revenue was always supplemented by champions league and high positions in the league. There was also a hell of a lot of nefarious dealings going on through his tenure that has gone unpunished.

The PL and champions league money had increased dramatically during the Roman era, it is ambitious in the extreme to think that will continue.

However they were early adopters of investing in the academy and kidnapping kids from all over the world to bolster their star studied squad. City have done the same and have received in abundance.

I'm surprised that Chelsea was bought for so much, even if they have the support (doubtful), do they have the infrastructure and is it even possible to 'do a Levy' and turn Chlesea into an all purpose money making machine?

Certainly not the way they are going about it so far.

However you turn it Chelsea will need to get back to the top 4 (at least) without falling foul of FFP and without significant further investment on the playing side. Even if they miraculously manage this (or more likely fiddle their books) they would struggle to keep afloat.

However my point stands, seeing football clubs as an investment is a dicey business. Now with FFP the limits are there to stop what Abramovic did. Outside of Liverpol and Manchester United football is a risky business, one mistep and the consequences could be severe, hopefully so in Chelsea's case.

If Clearlake and Boehly decided to sell today, would they recover their investment? I doubt it.

However as you say the long game would perhaps be more fruitful, with Chelsea I find it hard to believe.

If they had invested in 'ready now' players and invested further in youth development with the Abramovic model. And not bought everything with a pulse then they could have had a chance.

Anyway a good investment is always made good by good management in this I think most people would agree that if it ever was a good investment, they have fucked it up big time.

I still don't think Chelsea was or ever will be a good investment.