Manxst

Found it: “The lender’s co-founder Joe Ravitch was quoted in the Financial Times saying he expected the near $4 billion valuation of the club to more than double in the next five years. “My guess is that Chelsea and all of the top Premier League clubs will probably be worth in excess of $10 billion in five years,” he told the newspaper. Kishner agreed that, while the price might look eye-watering compared with any deal that has gone before, a sense of long-term perspective was required. "These clubs have a history of just appreciating in value,” he added, “at the time the deal is done it's like, ‘oh, my goodness, how can anybody in their right mind pay that much money for a football team?’ Fast forward 10 years? And it's like, ‘wow, that was a great deal.’ “You're probably going to pay more because it's such an iconic franchise. But ultimately, I suspect in the long term the owner is going to do rather well.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakgarnerpurkis/2022/04/28/chelsea-fc-10-billion-future-valuation-suggests-big-changes-to-the-english-game/amp/

I read from somewhere a while back that the new owners expect the Chelsea company (and other top elite teams) to be worth approx £10bn each in the next decade or so, and hence the seemingly inflated fee now.

Thanks for the explanation and understanding! ??

Sorry to be a pain- this isn’t really my thing at all! my point is that the new owners haven’t put anything towards the previous £1.5bn debt in their purchasing of the club as far as I’m aware- it’s simply been written off and disappeared. Hence, it gives them an immediate advantage of not having to service that debt once they get the ownership rights. Just seems drastically unfair on other teams who may need to go into debt themselves, simply because the government has said the Chelsea debt must vanish. Or am I totally fucking this up?! (Probably!)

But that was because the previous owner put his own money in to keep them afloat. Say, for example, the current/new owner can’t sustain/afford that and would want to borrow from elsewhere. Surely a £1.5bn debt would mean lenders are less willing to give them the money?

Yeah, I’m not bringing FFP into it. Just wondering from a company finance point of view- no debt makes them a better/stronger club, no?

But the company itself will be debt free to the tune of £1.5bn, having just had it simply written off? Doesn’t this give them an advantage of increased financial security now compared to other clubs? Or the ability to build that level of debt again with no penalty? I’m no business expert by a long way, but surely there must be some repercussion and consequence for this? Or is it because it was Abramovich’s own money, they can just say it doesn’t matter, as it’s himself losing out?

http://sportwitness.co.uk/newcastle-united-expressed-interest-belgian-transfer-imminent-hefty-ransom-needed/ new name- Wout Faes, 24 yr old Belgian CB

“According to El Mundo, Neymar receives more than 500,000 euros (about 4.35 crores) per month at PSG due to a clause in his contract called an ethical bonus. This means that the French club pays him nearly 6.5 million euros every year simply because he shows up and is polite. The clause obliges him to “greet and thank the fans before and after each match”, and the Brazilian must also avoid “any negative public comments about the tactical options of the team” and not “make negative comments about the club, including those who work there and those who publicly support it”.” ? https://beerheadbar.com/what-is-neymar-psg-contract/

Back to Barca…?

Nothing at all has been ‘confirmed’ yet.

Love the blue and yellow but not a huge fan of the yellow lines on the sleeves

Government have signed the deal off now, so it’s done. Confirming the terms of the deal, Chelsea said in a statement: "Of the total investment being made, £2.5bn will be applied to purchase the shares in the club, and such proceeds will be deposited into a frozen UK bank account with the intention to donate 100% to charitable causes as confirmed by Roman Abramovich. In addition the proposed new owners will commit £1.75bn in further investment for the benefit of the club. "This includes investments in Stamford Bridge, the academy, the women's team and Kingsmeadow and continued funding for the Chelsea Foundation.“ so the actual sale is ‘only’ £2.5bn? Or as per the media, £4.25bn (once the guaranteed investment is included)?

Doping rumour regarding the amount of alleged asthmatics in the Liverpool squad all puffing away on their inhalers. None of them had asthma before joining, and now they’ve all been diagnosed….

Yeah- my head is shredded to be honest. I don’t understand the writing off of £1.5bn, how that is fair to the other clubs in the league if there’s no penalty, how a buyer has to guarantee to invest a set amount on the stadium etc, and whether that’s included in the selling price or not. I’m sure someone here knows and understands, but it’s not me!

Unless the transfers are already lined up and agreed? Ekitike, Paqueta, Lodi, Botman?

Maybe? This is what I thought too.

“According to Mark Kleinman, those who remain in contention for the acquisition of the club have been told that they must commit at least £1 billion to future investment at the Blues. This will include investment in the squad and the redevelopment of Stamford Bridge, with binding offers needing to be submitted by the middle of April. As well as this Raine will be assessing the bids on a variety of factors, such as the price and their future commitments to spending.” https://www.si.com/soccer/chelsea/news/remaining-contenders-for-chelsea-takeover-told-to-commit-at-least-1-billion-to-future-club-investment maybe I’ve got it wrong, but I’ve put this guaranteed £1bn+ investment as part of the purchase price. But it might be added to the price. I’m not sure.

That’s what I thought it was- might be mistaken. I had it that the club itself was approx £2.5bn but the buyers had to agree to add the further £1.5bn for the stadium redevelopment which had been valued by Roman, and then he’s just recently out an extra £250m on the price for some reason. Or the selling firm has, anyway. The loan from Abramovich has just been written off and disappeared.

Roughly half to charity and half goes to the club to improve the stadium/womens team/ infrastructure/ signings.

If you take the story as gospel, aye. Sounds like bullshit to me though.

I think it’s more a case that Paqueta (or Lodi) is a quality player, has been extensively scouted by the club, we’ve probably spoken to his agent and/or club about availability/price/wages /desire to come, and finally, after doing the necessary due process, Howe may have spoken to Bruno to get a final last opinion. I’m 100% certain that our decisions on signings (or anything else) won’t be made with any bearing as a result of what Bruno (or any other player says).

But we actually wanted to sign Paqueta before we went for Bruno- we must have done our homework on him and made sure he was a good signing beforehand, not just because of Bruno’s say-so.

Bet half of them would still take Defoe back too.