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

[sausage]

The simplified matter that I feel is missing between the back and to's here is this:

Regardless of what an owner invests, the club needs to be sustainable to meet FFP.

That is, an owner can't "invest" money that props the club up without risking FFP sanctions - which is entirely correct. A club shouldn't crumble as soon as the owner stops paying for it, like a rich adult kid with pocket money. That's the reason PSG and Man City (and now Newcastle) end up under scrutiny - because the owners misrepresent investment as income, and pretend that some airline genuinely wants to sponsor them for £200m per season, when it's just a mechanism.

So whilst "owner loans" aren't necessarily an issue with FFP, the underlying factors can be. A lot of FFP exist because of how Chelsea were doing things, let's not forget. We just see continuing tactics that look to bend the rules, like a company sponsoring a club for £400m, and independently via related companies, the club's owner gifts someone a bunch of money that ends up being the sponsor money.

In many ways, you wouldn't ever know how genuine a club's income is until a dodgy board is no longer there. What we do know is that Chelsea have both a 40k stadium, and a fanbase that doesn't necessarily match the "Made in Chelsea" affluence of the area, so they would naturally have the same limitations for their income as we had at the lane. Granted, they have won lots of stuff that is also revenue-generating, but Chelsea aren't exactly "well run" in terms of how any money is spent, so I suspect that all of the stuff that makes them look sustainable, and the owner loan things, is more likely to be a well-structured scheme to keep them out of the crosshairs of FFP.
I imagine that many of the bidders will end up having a lot of transparency over just whether buying Chelsea is going to end up making or costing them money.

 

[Stuart Leathercock]

Certainly has been the rules since FFP came in, until the CoVId update, 105m plus stadium and academy costs over 3 year period, with transfer fees depreciating over length of contract.
Since covid came in they changed things but by letting any covid losses slide has had no effect yet

Sorry mate but I think you are wrong....

https://www.uefa.com/news/0253-0d7f...00--financial-fair-play-all-you-need-to-know/

3) Are clubs no longer allowed to have losses?

To be exact, clubs can spend up to €5million more than they earn per assessment period (three years). However it can exceed this level to a certain limit, if it is entirely covered by a direct contribution/payment from the club owner(s) or a related party. This prevents the build-up of unsustainable debt.

The limits are:
• €45m for assessment periods 2013/14 and 2014/15
• €30m for assessment periods 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18

In order to promote investment in stadiums, training facilities, youth development and women’s football (from 2015), all such costs are excluded from the break-even calculation.

 

[Stuart Leathercock]

The simplified matter that I feel is missing between the back and to's here is this:

Regardless of what an owner invests, the club needs to be sustainable to meet FFP.

That is, an owner can't "invest" money that props the club up without risking FFP sanctions - which is entirely correct. A club shouldn't crumble as soon as the owner stops paying for it, like a rich adult kid with pocket money. That's the reason PSG and Man City (and now Newcastle) end up under scrutiny - because the owners misrepresent investment as income, and pretend that some airline genuinely wants to sponsor them for £200m per season, when it's just a mechanism.

So whilst "owner loans" aren't necessarily an issue with FFP, the underlying factors can be. A lot of FFP exist because of how Chelsea were doing things, let's not forget. We just see continuing tactics that look to bend the rules, like a company sponsoring a club for £400m, and independently via related companies, the club's owner gifts someone a bunch of money that ends up being the sponsor money.

In many ways, you wouldn't ever know how genuine a club's income is until a dodgy board is no longer there. What we do know is that Chelsea have both a 40k stadium, and a fanbase that doesn't necessarily match the "Made in Chelsea" affluence of the area, so they would naturally have the same limitations for their income as we had at the lane. Granted, they have won lots of stuff that is also revenue-generating, but Chelsea aren't exactly "well run" in terms of how any money is spent, so I suspect that all of the stuff that makes them look sustainable, and the owner loan things, is more likely to be a well-structured scheme to keep them out of the crosshairs of FFP.
I imagine that many of the bidders will end up having a lot of transparency over just whether buying Chelsea is going to end up making or costing them money.

I don't get your your second last paragraph in this context?.... Chelsea are sponsored by Three, Hyundai and Trivago. None of those (as far as I can tell) are 'related companies' to their owner.

Regarding Chelsea's valuation.... As I stated many times in the ENIC thread, all that the uber rich (whether individual or wealth fund) are interested in are asset values. The uber rich are awash with cash due to the World's continued and increased reliance on fossil fuels, minerals and metals. The uber rich park that cash in assets that they believe will/have proven to appreciate in value. The asset values of PL football teams have shown significant and continual growth over a prolonged period.

It is why it is nonsense when people say 'ENIC haven't made a penny of profit out of Spurs'. As though the uber rich need to actually sell an asset and convert it to cash, the very worst asset that there is, in order to be considered to have made a profit. In a World that is awash with cash, constantly being inflated away, asset value is king.

 

[sausage]

I don't get your your second last paragraph in this context?.... Chelsea are sponsored by Three, Hyundai and Trivago. None of those (as far as I can tell) are 'related companies' to their owner.

The point is that you won't see "related companies" in the aesthetic. There was a case recently - can't remember if it was City Group or someone else - but the Club's owner's owner had "separately" invested hundreds of millions in a holding company he had absolutely no links to, and that company owned a company, via a chain, that happened to be interested in a huge sponsorship deal with the football club.

The integrity of these deals is often so complex that it isn't clear that something odd is happening, but there are obviously ways which rules are bent in order to syphon - or, in most cases, launder - money into a football club.

 

[jay2040]

Any chance we would be talking to Hyundai or 3 as potential sponsors given their recent disassociation with Chelscum? They’d still be keen to have “presence” in the EPL and what better brand than to associate with the ‘next wealthiest club in London’

Maybe they could sponsor a sock each.

 

[spursfan77]

Wouldn't surprise me at all if that number was correct. There will be a lot of people thinking they could get them at a very knockdown price, and flip them within a few years for a tidy profit. I'm sure the serious bids that'll actually be considered you'll be able to count on one hand.

I would think this would have to be in the mind of most purchasers. I just don't see where the upside is without that. Unless they are just wanting to buy them with lots of debt and then take dividends out for themselves for the foreseeable future like the Glaziers. Why else would you buy them unless you're looking for a capital return on your investment or to take income out of the club. Unless it is another sports washer, that is what they will get.

 

[spursfan77]

You need to understand the amount of money that is out there under the control of the uber wealthy (individuals and investment funds) and then look at the asset value growth of English football teams over the last 10 to 20 years.

I do get that, but where is the future growth for Chelsea? TV Money - no, unless they change the model to own club TV channels. Matchday income - no without heavy investment in a new stadium or moving the club out of the capital. Commercial income - there is lots of room here as they are about level with us per year (£150m) Man U make £232m but that on it's own isn't enough of a reason to buy them.

To make it worth a purchasers while they are looking at a purchase price of approx £2bn and the cost of a new stadium £1/2bn on top of team investment. Where is the upside? Prestige? Or dividends and an increase in value of the club if and when they sell.

 

[djee]

I suspect the only two ways in which CFC are totally shafted is if either:

a) They cannot find a suitable buyer within the deadline leading to administration.
b) Roman is coerced by Putin not to agree to a sell (in order to vindictively punish/embarrass the government).

Both scenarios are extremely unlikely.

CFC will be bought by a team that will have plans to restructure the club and handle the short-term issues. It may cost them a few years but any illusions that this situation will send them down a spiral are fantasy/wishful thinking. There are serious players that recognise the strength of their brand and know the value of a top European club. This will go down as a minor blip for Chelsea and one they will recover from in a matter of seasons.

The only thing the last few weeks have done is to highlight the horrific sports washing of that club and tarnish their achievements. In reality it proves their doping was worth it.

 

[Stuart Leathercock]

I do get that, but where is the future growth for Chelsea? TV Money - no, unless they change the model to own club TV channels. Matchday income - no without heavy investment in a new stadium or moving the club out of the capital. Commercial income - there is lots of room here as they are about level with us per year (£150m) Man U make £232m but that on it's own isn't enough of a reason to buy them.

To make it worth a purchasers while they are looking at a purchase price of approx £2bn and the cost of a new stadium £1/2bn on top of team investment. Where is the upside? Prestige? Or dividends and an increase in value of the club if and when they sell.

Where is the future growth of any football club? Media and sponsorship.... I think the surface has merely been scratched so far when considering monetisation of social media and streaming.

I don't think Chelsea will bother to build a new stadium (unless somebody develops the Chelsea site and builds a stadium elsewhere). the money coming in from matchday will be dwarfed by media revenue in years to come.

Of course the above doesn't even consider the main reason why people want to own a successful PL football team.... and that is simply for the prestige of it. As the league becomes more and more watched the value of the assets within it become more and more valuable.... Especially the big assets who win the most trophies and get the most airtime.

And then on top of that there is the (somewhat inevitable) formation of the ESL/WSL).

 

[skiba]

I do get that, but where is the future growth for Chelsea? TV Money - no, unless they change the model to own club TV channels. Matchday income - no without heavy investment in a new stadium or moving the club out of the capital. Commercial income - there is lots of room here as they are about level with us per year (£150m) Man U make £232m but that on it's own isn't enough of a reason to buy them.

To make it worth a purchasers while they are looking at a purchase price of approx £2bn and the cost of a new stadium £1/2bn on top of team investment. Where is the upside? Prestige? Or dividends and an increase in value of the club if and when they sell.

They are probably betting on the value of the asset increasing as commercial and TV revenues continue to go up. They're based in one of the wealthiest parts of London and still achieve some of the biggest revenues in world football so if you want to own a 'top' PL side this will be big opportunity for someone to get it at a knockdown price.

In ten years time a Chelsea finishing between 5th and 8th could still be a worth a considerable more amount then they are now and that's what a potential buyer will probably be looking at.

 

[slartibartfast]

As has been stated numerous times, FFP has nothing to do with debt. FFP merely looks at the operating profit loss that a club makes and allows a maximum loss over any 3 year period. Chelsea have always stayed just the right side of the line, while we have always operated miles and miles above it.

You cant have profit if you are in debt so ffp does apply.

 

[Stuart Leathercock]

You cant have profit if you are in debt so ffp does apply.

*Sigh*...... Of course you can have profit if you are in debt.

Take a look at any of the thousands of companies listed on the London Stock Exchange that report a profit each year. Just about every single one of those companies will also have debt.

 

[djee]

Where is the future growth of any football club? Media and sponsorship.... I think the surface has merely been scratched so far when considering monetisation of social media and streaming.

I don't think Chelsea will bother to build a new stadium (unless somebody develops the Chelsea site and builds a stadium elsewhere). the money coming in from matchday will be dwarfed by media revenue in years to come.

Of course the above doesn't even consider the main reason why people want to own a successful PL football team.... and that is simply for the prestige of it. As the league becomes more and more watched the value of the assets within it become more and more valuable.... Especially the big assets who win the most trophies and get the most airtime.

And then on top of that there is the (somewhat inevitable) formation of the ESL/WSL).

Spot on..

 

[Gassin's finest]

Another usual day in the fit and proper Premier League

At Stamford Bridge, everything and nothing is altered as geopolitics and football fandom collide. How did any of this become normalised?

theathletic.com

Up and out from Fulham Broadway, the first thing that hits you is a wrinkling billboard for last night’s Evening Standard: “RUSSIA GEARS UP FOR ASSAULT ON KYIV”. Leaning on a metal barrier, 20 yards or so beyond a warning that “street sales of match tickets are illegal”, two lads in puffer jackets side-mouth a question: “Any spares, mate?” Across the road, the tat merchants are laying out half-and-half Chelsea and Newcastle United scarves.

It is 10am, four hours before kick-off on March 13, and the day’s routines are already kicking in. It is business as unusual at Stamford Bridge, where blue is the colour, lurching towards the red.

At Steve’s Football Memorabilia, you can still buy a copy of Abramovich: The Chelsea Diary. Banners hang from lampposts, Mason Mount kissing the badge. Home fans are squeezing into the Butcher’s Hook for a liquid breakfast. A little while earlier, a young boy and his dad are sitting on the Underground discussing the match. “Are Newcastle any good?” the boy asks. Dad’s reply: “We’ll fucking smash them, like we do everybody.”

As the minutes tick and the crowds thicken, it takes a hard look to notice much difference. Perhaps it is there in the deep, luminous line of stewards outside the main entrances to the stadium, in the throng of cameras opposite. French TV is asking to do interviews, but this is a self-eating media-fest: “Sorry, I’m a journalist, too.” Another reporter barks, “Can you give us 30 seconds on Russia please?”

It is there as the drizzle descends and a supporter wearing a flat cap and sunglasses holds up a small poster that has a blue heart in the top-left corner and reads: “Don’t use Chelsea for your bullshit politics. Forever Chelsea.” It is there as two bouncers chat outside the Chelsea Pensioner pub about a possible protest by fans and then clam up when asked against what, for what?

Beyond the bag checks, it is more of the same around the stadium, this vague, off-key tone as people mill about. “MEGASTORE SALE NOW ON! SAVE UP TO 50 per cent OFF”, it says on the window of the club shop, but the doors are barred and another sign, dashed off on the printer, counters, “Dear Customers, please note this store is closed today. We apologise for any inconvenience caused. Chelsea FC.” All the official merchandise stands are shuttered.

The club museum is open but only admitting ticket-holders who paid in the days before Roman Abramovich was sanctioned by the UK government for being “associated with a person who is or has been involved in destabilising Ukraine and undermining and threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, namely Vladimir Putin, with whom Abramovich has had a close relationship for decades”. It is a relationship Abramovich vehemently denies.

That was back when Chelsea were the establishment elite, not outsiders with frozen credit cards and shuddering foundations. Going, going and almost gone-ovich.

It is a profoundly normal abnormality — everything and nothing altered, with tourists clicking selfies in front of Peter Osgood’s statue and the club’s haul of trophies listed in silhouette. Nobody has taken down the hoardings for Three, the mobile phone company, which has suspended its sponsorship of Chelsea. “Following The Blues Needs a Big Network,” the advert reads. And nobody is getting into the Copthorne Hotel without a room key or reservation.

Chelsea’s shop was closed and programmes were not for sale as sanctions started to bite (Photo: Getty Images)
Two women bustle by carrying armfuls of match programmes. They are ferrying them to the media suite and the executive lounges, but none are for sale because Chelsea cannot trade. The editors have been at work; Abramovich is not listed as a director or board member. In his notes, Thomas Tuchel says, “We are keeping our focus as best we can on football — it helps us to have the familiar rhythm of regular fixtures when there is such a level of distraction around the club.”

And that rhythm is pounding now. Back on the main drag, near the Britannia Gate, a Newcastle fan is bleeding from the back of his head and a fella is being led away by police, but it is not a portent of huge animosity or tension; just one of those shitty flashpoints, one of those things, purely routine. And it is the away supporters who are making the noise, pissed-up comedians in black and white jester hats. “Oh, when the Mags, go marching in…”

At the Stamford Gate, the stewards are shouting, “Tickets out, tickets out,” and the queues are forming and the pat-downs are starting and these sullen streets are suddenly abuzz and throbbing. A pocket of Chelsea passes a pocket of Newcastle and the half-hearted call of “you’re going to lose” is met by the reply of, “Aye, well we’re used to that.” Except that was then and this is Eddie Howe. Newcastle are decent and drilled and on a roll.

And that jarring hum can only be exacerbated by the team Chelsea are playing and the peculiar circumstances, this meeting between old new money and the newest money, one engorged on success and the other hungry for it, released from Mike Ashley’s leaden shackles and embracing what’s next, because that rush of money and ambition feels precious and good. Their turn, their time.

There are moments when football coalesces around a cause, but they are as rare and fragile as principles and you do not encounter empathy inside a stadium. As the game kicks off, the away end is standing and bouncing and crowing. “Chelsea are skint and the Mags are rich” and “Where’s your money gone” and “No noise from the bankrupt boys” and “Mike Ashley, he’s coming for you”.

And Chelsea fans reply with, “Mike Ashley, he left ‘cause you’re shit”, and “Champions of Europe, you’ll never say that”. A brief, scattered chant of “Roman Abramovich” is outsung and hushed, but the banner featuring Abramovich’s face beside Russian colours and the phrase “The Roman Empire” is still there. Nestled amid some Newcastle fans, a flag of Saudi Arabia, whose Public Investment Fund (PIF) owns 80 per cent of the club.

Newcastle are confident and they press: “Is this a library?” When half-time comes, phones are scoured for replays about a possible red card and it sets a tone; ah, the referee, man. From this perspective, Chelsea are nervous and chuntering and it is only when their goal comes, near the end as Newcastle are tiring, that you understand what release and relief it brings. “Champions of Europe,” they sing again, “We know what we are.”

The whistle brings another roar, standards being waved on the touchline. There have been better games and more garlanded moments, but in the context of Chelsea and their transformed status, it has heft. “We just have to wait day by day,” Thomas Tuchel says, whose grand strategy is now reduced to getting by. “This is a huge club, we are in the focus but we are very privileged. Hundreds of people in this club are not so privileged, maybe face a more existential threat and are more worried about the future than us.”

Newcastle fans drain from the Shed Upper. One, who is singing the Ashley song, has a Ukraine flag warming his shoulders. A thicket of lads in Hawaiian shirts with Joelinton’s face printed on them are wellying a ball across the street as they make their way to the tube station. A couple are carrying a banner that says, “Until Amanda, I was never happy”, a reference to Amanda Staveley, the broker who made the club’s takeover happen and now runs the club on behalf of the consortium.

Wheel back towards the Stamford Gate and a pair of Tynedale coaches are turning into the ground. Drink steaming off him, a Chelsea supporter sways and bellows: “You’ve had your day out, now fuck off home.”

Inside the stadium, Howe is still talking. He is asked about the game. And he is asked about the 81 people executed in Saudi on Saturday and the juxtaposition of a Saudi flag in the away end and what it all means. “I’m just going to answer questions on the game and on football,” he says. “I’m still bitterly disappointed by the defeat, so it’s only right that I stick to football.”

Tuchel fields questions about war and Chelsea’s place in it. Howe fields questions about Newcastle and government-sanctioned killings. “I’m here to manage the football team and coach the football team,” Howe says. “So I’m well aware of what is going on around the world but my focus is on trying to produce a team to win football matches and get enough points to stay in the league. That’s all I’ll talk about.”

Howe stuck to his line of talking only about the “football” (Photo: Serena Taylor/Newcastle United via Getty Images)
There is more, about effectively working for Mohammad bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi, and the chairman of PIF, and Howe says, “I don’t know what to answer to that. I’m going to talk football. That’s all I’ll talk about.” And then he is asked whether he reflects on these wider questions and how Newcastle and football are being used politically. “I think I’ve made my position clear,” he says.

A few minutes later at 4.43pm, Howe and Jason Tindall, his assistant, walk out of Stamford Bridge. They have a minder beside them but are carrying their own bags, casual in tracksuits, a departure so quiet and demure that nobody notices aside from one Chelsea fan who, unsure of what else to do, briefly claps his hands. Howe nods and walks by, turning left towards Finborough Road.

This Premier League weekend — oligarchs vs autocrats, hedge-funders vs sovereign-wealthers, billionaires and betting moguls, all of them deemed to be fit and proper. This sporting weekend in buccaneering Britain, open for business, open for anything, a haven for your roubles and your riyals, please buy us and sell us, until that moment when the wind changes and our outrage sears. Somewhere among it, a game of football and two sets of supporters ripping the piss, as usual. As usual as business.

How did any of this become usual?

 

[Delboy75]

It’s interesting that is being widely reported they only have 2-3 weeks before going bust. It’s crazy a club like Chelsea live on that much of a tightrope tbh. But it does mean when these bids are in by Friday they literally have to accept one even if it’s not viewed as ideal. Obviously a very shit way to sell a football club.

 

[djee]

It’s interesting that is being widely reported they only have 2-3 weeks before going bust. It’s crazy a club like Chelsea live on that much of a tightrope tbh. But it does mean when these bids are in by Friday they literally have to accept one even if it’s not viewed as ideal. Obviously a very shit way to sell a football club.

They will be fine. They are too big to fail.

 

[carmeldevil]

 

[spursfan77]

No “direct” government links. Surely the PL won’t fall for it twice!?!?

Lots of bids though I suspect, this won’t be the only one.

 

[allatsea]

No Government links

 

[carmeldevil]

No “direct” government links. Surely the PL won’t fall for it twice!?!?

Lots of bids though I suspect, this won’t be the only one.

too bad we don't have optimistic rating