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

[slartibartfast]

I don't understand~ there was a deadline~ it passed
All the media happy about a new bidder after said deadline passed
This stinks of dodgy dealings
Corruption of the highest order
The bastards will land on their feet

Was listening to radio all day and I was thinking I'm sure the deadline was last week. Wasn't until late afternoon someone mentioned the deadline was last week and this bid is going to be knocked back.
The media are lapping it up though.
Shit will hit the fan from other bidders if they try and entertain the idea.

 

[glacierSpurs]

While I would love for that to happen, I still wonder why that really should be the only consequences for the football club?

Because their owner's home country is at war?

No. Is because I hate them. Very much.

 

[SirNiNyHotspur]

I’m sure this has been discussed over and over so apologies, but who gets the 3.5billion? It can’t be that scum abromovich, i read somewhere 1 billion of it gets plowed back into Chelsea team and the stadium? that can’t be right surely just giving them another advantage with no punishment for their Putin funding for 20 years. If Joe sold us we’d see none of that cash, makes no sense.

 

[SandroClegane]

Boehly winning is the worst possible outcome

Revived the LA Dodgers and he's very astute

Crazy that Chelsea won't suffer any consequences for being subsidized for twenty years with stolen money

Sends the message that sportswashing works - the government is too scared to act against a club, so it becomes a shield for nation states like UAE and Saudi who know they can exert influence, and be shielded from consequences. They won't care about writing off a couple of billion if they can use the club - and by extension the fans who support them - as leverage

A message should have been sent, to encourage fans to reject certain owners. This has done the opposite

It's definitely not the "worst possible outcome".

They have deep pockets but they're not limitless. And as they add teams it takes away money from the others. They aren't going to be funding this like Roman, nowhere close.

 

[spursfan77]

Does PE not always demand a return? Football club seems like a risky investment.

I am sure I read a couple of weeks ago it is where 50% of their funding is coming from too. I wonder if they are involved with sports anywhere else as like you say they’ll want a return. Maybe the other members of the consortium have got them to put up the money for the initial purchase and then they’ll reduce their exposure for a return over time (greater than they put in). Instead of using a bank to fund the purchase, I think not borrowing from banks was a condition of sale,, if you see what I mean. It gets around that.

 

[spursfan77]

Weird. Publicity stunt?

 

[UncleBuck]

Weird. Publicity stunt?

Self publicity 77! Especially when you posted your Times article yesterday afternoon with a breakdown of the figures.
Keep up your good work as you seem to be ahead of people who claim to know what’s going on!

 

[spursfan77]

Self publicity 77! Especially when you posted your Times article yesterday afternoon with a breakdown of the figures.
Keep up your good work as you seem to be ahead of people who claim to know what’s going on!

I haven’t got a fucking clue!

Just find it interesting that’s all.

 

[Delboy75]

I think this is much more a FSG type owner than Abramovich/Saudi. They are definitely in it to make money as the principle motivation not some vanity project or sports washing. They did do a good job at Dodgers but this is a different kettle of fish. I also hate the structure with consortiums. Are any big successful clubs really run by a consortium ? Most have one single identifiable owner. As they say to many cooks.

 

[UncleBuck]

I haven’t got a fucking clue!

Just find it interesting that’s all.

That was sort of my point mate! It was out there yesterday afternoon for the whole world to see yet this fella woke up from under his rock and felt the need to tell the world about his ‘shock’, I just don’t get it!

 

[wakefieldyid]

Decent outcome for us. No American gets involved in sports to lose money.

As someone with a background in the chemical industry, I would find it hard to believe that Ratcliffe would act any differently. Jim basically bought up distressed assets, worked them to death, and then closed them down. On this basis, he'd always be my favourite bidder for CFC! ?

 

[spursfan77]

That was sort of my point mate! It was out there yesterday afternoon for the whole world to see yet this fella woke up from under his rock and felt the need to tell the world about his ‘shock’, I just don’t get it!

Fair enough. This is from The Athletic this morning from their guy who’s covering it. Sounds like Ratcliffe is still in with a chance.

Spoiler

A consortium led by the Los Angeles Dodgers co-owner Todd Boehly was yesterday chosen as the preferred bidder for Chelsea, yet the most significant twist in the pursuit of the Premier League club came from a dramatic late bid from the British billionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe.

The Athletic understands that Boehly’s group, which includes his fellow Dodgers co-owner Mark Walters and the Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss, has not yet entered into an exclusivity agreement and while in theory they have a week to complete a deal, the process has taken on completely new look.

Boehly’s consortium had been in competition with two other groups to buy Chelsea from Roman Abramovich, who put it up for sale shortly before he was sanctioned for his alleged links to Russian president Vladimir Putin following the invasion of Ukraine. It is understood that the Boehly consortium’s total bid was in excess of £4 billion. This includes a pledge to spend £1.5 billion to develop the club and Stamford Bridge, on top of meeting Raine’s valuation of around £2.5 billion.

But now another credible bid, which did not follow the lengthy process, has emerged.

Ratcliffe, the owner of Ineos, the petrochemicals giant, held discussions with Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck on Thursday before making his offer.

“We put an offer in (on Friday) morning,” Ratcliffe told The Times. “We are the only British bid. Our motives are simply to try and create a very fine club in London. We have no profit motive because we make our money in other ways.”

Here we explain what happened on another extraordinary day for Chelsea and what it means for the club’s future ownership.

---

Ratcliffe’s bid for Chelsea was late, but has it come too late?

Put it this way, if you verbally agree to sell your house to someone who contacted your estate agent, has had a look around a few times and met your asking price, are you ignoring someone who knocks on your door and says “I’ll pay more and I can do it tomorrow”?

Good on you if you are big enough to honour that initial agreement but not many do. Gazumping is annoying when it happens to you but it is not illegal.

The Chelsea sale process has been run by American bank Raine Group. Operating under unprecedented circumstances, it has successfully marketed the club, weeded out time-wasters and set up a three-horse race between syndicates comprised of mega-rich investors, most of whom have considerable experience of running sports teams. As fire-sales go, it has been calm and considered.

In fact, Raine clearly felt it had done its bit by Friday when it contacted the two unsuccessful bids — the group backed by Crystal Palace co-owners David Blitzer and Josh Harris, and the one led by Boston Celtics co-owner Steve Pagliuca — and told them it was going with the gang led by Boehly.

We assume the conversation went something like “well played, chaps, but we are going with the guy who has been trying to buy Chelsea for years and did not blink this week when we asked you all to guarantee another £500 million for Roman’s charity fund”.

But while America was waking up, Ratcliffe informed The Times he was willing to put £2.5 billion into Abramovich’s charity and commit £1.75 billion for the stadium rebuild and subsidising the club over the next 10 years. As his subsequent press release puts it: “This is a British bid, for a British club.”

The Athletic understands this bid went direct to Chelsea, not Raine. The bank appeared to be unaware of the details of Ratcliffe’s bid hours after the US business papers had crowned Boehly as champion. To be fair, there are not many details in Ratcliffe’s statement — it is more of a mission statement than a fully-funded offer — but there is little doubt that they did not see this coming.

We understand Ratcliffe only decided to enter the fray this week but has moved quickly to get himself in a position to make what he believes is the most compelling offer. For example, he has spoken to the British government, which has a veto over this sale.

He is understood to have been in London this week, presumably speaking to his bankers. He has not found time to speak to any fan groups, though.

“Ratcliffe can win if he really wants to because he will be backed by Ineos and he could just increase the corporate credit lines to fund this purchase,” says one source who has dealt with the British businessman before. “Boehly and the others have to deal with the members of their syndicates.”

Ineos made post-tax profits of £1.7 billion last year. There is little doubt that Ratcliffe can afford Chelsea and he is believed to be confident he can close this deal in a matter of days. Time is short, after all. Chelsea are only fulfilling their fixtures because they have been given a special licence to operate. It expires at the end of May.

So, he has time but only if Raine is willing to tell Boehly, Blitzer, Harris, Pagliuca and all the other billionaires who have followed its timetable that it is not personal but £4.25 billion from Britain’s richest sports fan — who just so happens to be a Brexit-supporting, flag-waving patriot, albeit one domiciled in Monaco — beats £4 billion from a collection of American-based businessmen and private equity funds.

 

[CoopsieDeadpool]

Chelsea are a big draw and most of their fans are global. The PL wants as many big clubs as possible so that it continues being the most watched league and money making brand.

They won't see them fade away.

It's completely unsportive and corrupt but sadly this is the reality.

You've spelt ****s wrong.

 

[CoopsieDeadpool]

Think of it like a deadline for an essay or any kind of application. In theory you can still submit the paper after the deadline but there’s no guarantee anyone will look at it. I suspect that the media courting is a means of trying to ensure the bid isn’t ignored.

So, ignore it & fuck off up the park for a lunchtime spliff?

 

[Delboy75]

On my knees ?

 

[DogsOfWar]

I’m sure this has been discussed over and over so apologies, but who gets the 3.5billion? It can’t be that scum abromovich, i read somewhere 1 billion of it gets plowed back into Chelsea team and the stadium? that can’t be right surely just giving them another advantage with no punishment for their Putin funding for 20 years. If Joe sold us we’d see none of that cash, makes no sense.

All I've seen is a 'charitable trust for victims of the war'.
Theoretically Abramovich could claim he is a victim of the war so I'm a bit suspicious as to what will happen. regarding this money.
It could easily be syphoned offt o Russian victims only to find its way back into his pocket.

Also the money is minus fees. Does this mean the murky holding company is paid back?
Abramovich is not allowed to make a profit from Chelsea but is he allowed to be paid back his debt?

I find it hard to believe he will just walk away from one and a half billion plus any profit.

 

[neilp]

All I've seen is a 'charitable trust for victims of the war'.
Theoretically Abramovich could claim he is a victim of the war so I'm a bit suspicious as to what will happen. regarding this money.
It could easily be syphoned offt o Russian victims only to find its way back into his pocket.

Also the money is minus fees. Does this mean the murky holding company is paid back?
Abramovich is not allowed to make a profit from Chelsea but is he allowed to be paid back his debt?

I find it hard to believe he will just walk away from one and a half billion plus any profit.

There is also an issue with the potential for him to write off the loan by way of a charitable donation being used against future profits for tax purposes, and this would obviously be a benefit for him.

 

[Zaphod]

On my knees ?

Whilst it would be lovely, I think we all realise that it's never going to be allowed to happen.

 

[Dillspur]

On my knees ?

That's not going to happen.

 

[thebenjamin]

The Times & The Sunday Times

News and opinion from The Times & The Sunday Times

www.thetimes.co.uk