The Other 19

[Erikse]

Some rumours circling today about Boehly and other Chelsea owners considering an exit. No idea where these rumours come from or how reliable they are, but this would be hilarious if it was the case. Chelsea fans have been talking about how they see the plan and the long term project.

[madras]

27 minutes ago, Erikse said:

Some rumours circling today about Boehly and other Chelsea owners considering an exit. No idea where these rumours come from or how reliable they are, but this would be hilarious if it was the case. Chelsea fans have been talking about how they see the plan and the long term project.

An exit means someone else buying them. Can't see it but would be interesting to see who would buy them.

[The College Dropout]

On 03/09/2024 at 12:53, WilliamPS said:

This summer city had the Alvarez cash but presumably couldn’t find a player that matched the profile they wanted, but generally Man City’s PSR issues come from their enormous salaries.

 

Talk Haaland gets 375k (19m per year) on basic but bonuses can bump that to 800k (40m per year). In his salary alone it’s a PSR cost way more than Isak and Bruno combined. 
 

Then also have KDB allegedly on 400k pw, and I’d imagine Ederson, Walker, Stones, Rhodri, Foden, Grealish, Gundogan, Bernardo Silva etc etc are all on north of 150k pw.
 

It all adds up and means their ability to pay multiple big transfer fees is quite limited. 

Man City don’t have a PSR issue. They do all types of accountancy tricks - mostly via the multi club model. 
 

 

£60m more than Liverpool. Which is our gap to Brighton. 

[Stifler]

5 hours ago, madras said:

An exit means someone else buying them. Can't see it but would be interesting to see who would buy them.

Well since our takeover the Premier League have allegedly closed the door on state backed takeovers. We have seen evidence of this with Chelsea’s takeover, the no buyers for Liverpool, and Roland Rats takeover of Man Utd. All 3 clubs who would have been ripe for Middle Eastern takeovers.

 

So let me get this right, when Chelsea sold things like their hotels, did they sell to Clearlake? If so, do Clearlake still retain ownership?

If they do, and Clearlake sell without selling that stuff back to Chelsea, surely they have been asset striped? 

[gbandit]

Wonder if Boehly knows the shit’s about to hit the fan for Chelsea. Sad

[Matt1892]

It would be Clearlake buying out Boehly, as they already own 62% of the shares and have said they have no interest in selling, but are open to buying everyone else out.

 

I have posted the video before but I wouldn’t bother watching it, it is nearly 9 minutes of the reported reiterating the same points.

 

 

[RodneyCisse]

Is this bad for Chelsea?

[SUPERTOON]

 

[Lordshola]

Absolute circus of a club 🎪 🤡 

[leffe186]

1 hour ago, Lordshola said:

Absolute circus of a club 🎪 🤡 

Burn it down. 
 

I’m considering constructing a daydream about Levy buying Chelsea and slowly bleeding it to death. No idea how he would manage it, trying to piece together the details.

[Erikse]

5 hours ago, Stifler said:

Well since our takeover the Premier League have allegedly closed the door on state backed takeovers. We have seen evidence of this with Chelsea’s takeover, the no buyers for Liverpool, and Roland Rats takeover of Man Utd. All 3 clubs who would have been ripe for Middle Eastern takeovers.

 

So let me get this right, when Chelsea sold things like their hotels, did they sell to Clearlake? If so, do Clearlake still retain ownership?

If they do, and Clearlake sell without selling that stuff back to Chelsea, surely they have been asset striped? 

 

Yeah, they sold to Clearlake, but also the contract said that Chelsea would still get all the profits from the hotels. As it currently stands, and from a financial point of view, it was basically just a donation (from my understanding of it). But ofcourse, Clearlake owns them on paper. I have no idea what they are free to do with them.

 

 

Edited September 7 by Erikse

[WilliamPS]

9 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

Man City don’t have a PSR issue. They do all types of accountancy tricks - mostly via the multi club model. 
 

 

£60m more than Liverpool. Which is our gap to Brighton. 

Man City have a massive PSR issue. That’s why they’ve ended up in all these legal fights. Yes they can spend the most in the PL, but it’s Real they want to be able to compete with financially and PSR prevents that.

[Lordshola]

1 hour ago, WilliamPS said:

Man City have a massive PSR issue. That’s why they’ve ended up in all these legal fights. Yes they can spend the most in the PL, but it’s Real they want to be able to compete with financially and PSR prevents that.

I don’t think that’s right.

 

City are in legal fights now because of alleged fraud.

 

This is different to Everton overspending by a few mil in a certain financial period..

[El Prontonise]

1 hour ago, WilliamPS said:

Man City have a massive PSR issue. That’s why they’ve ended up in all these legal fights. Yes they can spend the most in the PL, but it’s Real they want to be able to compete with financially and PSR prevents that.

 

Man city's legal fights are for inflating sponsorship deals before PSR came in.

[Kid Icarus]

They've been so blatantly stupid that I always have this nagging feeling that it's part of an elaborate plan to get away with it. If Boehly sells do Clearlake get away with what he's done? That's the first thing that comes to mind.

[gbandit]

5 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

They've been so blatantly stupid that I always have this nagging feeling that it's part of an elaborate plan to get away with it. If Boehly sells do Clearlake get away with what he's done? That's the first thing that comes to mind.

Nah, the only way Clearlake would get away with it is if they also sell before the shit explodes. They’re on an inevitable collision course at this point

[madras]

54 minutes ago, El Prontonise said:

 

Man city's legal fights are for inflating sponsorship deals before PSR came in.

There's other things as well isn't there ? Off the books payments to Mancini etc I think 

[El Prontonise]

2 minutes ago, madras said:

There's other things as well isn't there ? Off the books payments to Mancini etc I think 

 

Yeah, there's so many of them.

[The College Dropout]

2 hours ago, WilliamPS said:

Man City have a massive PSR issue. That’s why they’ve ended up in all these legal fights. Yes they can spend the most in the PL, but it’s Real they want to be able to compete with financially and PSR prevents that.

This is just wrong.  Or at least we are talking about separate things.  

[SUPERTOON]

 

[Yorkie]

And still you just know they'll never actually fuck off. I've made this point several times so forgive the repetition, but if you scaled-down Chelsea's basketcasery to anyone not shielded by institutional bias earned since 2003, it would be the end of them. Chelsea, meanwhile, will always be fine, always competitive. Would love so much to just eradicate that club. 

[Terraloon]

2 hours ago, Erikse said:

 

Yeah, they sold to Clearlake, but also the contract said that Chelsea would still get all the profits from the hotels. As it currently stands, and from a financial point of view, it was basically just a donation (from my understanding of it). But ofcourse, Clearlake owns them on paper. I have no idea what they are free to do with them.

 

 

 

That’s  incorrect.

 

Chelsea Football Club PLC was a holding company in that group were several others , including a company called  Hotels at Chelsea. In turn  CFC PLC was  a subsidiary company of Fordstam. That company had one shareholder namely RA.

 

When the sale took place CFC PLC became Chelsea Holdings it was that company that  was sold meaning its  assets were sold to  a newly formed company called BlueCo ( 60 ish % owned  by Clearlake  the remaining shares in the ownership of Bohley and his partners) . So whilst owned  BlueCo owns 100% of Chelsea Holdings the hotels are now directly under the control of BlueCo as opposed to under their control via another company.

 

That said things have moved on. BlueCo have just  entered into a partnership with a major group called Ascott who it seems will now take over the management and running of the hotels . Ascott are now a global partner of CFC . I know little to nothing of Ascott but it appears they are a major player in Asia.

 

The concept of Chelsea Village as a major tourist and entertainment hub under Ken Bates has all but been wound down . At some point if the stadium is rebuilt it will be a project undertaken by BlueCo they already are buying up properties are outside the confines of the ground

 

 

 

 

 

[Choppy Chop Chop]

They're still upset 

 

The thieves are still there, don't stop until they are gone 100% sale only. Make old Trafford empty or even half empty. No merchandise No letting down. No excuses

[Erikse]

29 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

That’s  incorrect.

 

Chelsea Football Club PLC was a holding company in that group were several others , including a company called  Hotels at Chelsea. In turn  CFC PLC was  a subsidiary company of Fordstam. That company had one shareholder namely RA.

 

When the sale took place CFC PLC became Chelsea Holdings it was that company that  was sold meaning its  assets were sold to  a newly formed company called BlueCo ( 60 ish % owned  by Clearlake  the remaining shares in the ownership of Bohley and his partners) . So whilst owned  BlueCo owns 100% of Chelsea Holdings the hotels are now directly under the control of BlueCo as opposed to under their control via another company.

 

That said things have moved on. BlueCo have just  entered into a partnership with a major group called Ascott who it seems will now take over the management and running of the hotels . Ascott are now a global partner of CFC . I know little to nothing of Ascott but it appears they are a major player in Asia.

 

The concept of Chelsea Village as a major tourist and entertainment hub under Ken Bates has all but been wound down . At some point if the stadium is rebuilt it will be a project undertaken by BlueCo they already are buying up properties are outside the confines of the ground

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wasn't aware of the details at all. But I know that the profit from the hotel still going to the club after the sale was a talking point when it happened. Is this not the case anymore?

 

 

Edited September 7 by Erikse

[Terraloon]

7 hours ago, RodneyCisse said:

Is this bad for Chelsea?

 As things stand save changes of note to the Articles of Association or the need for a special resolution ( which would require a 75% majority) Clearlake by virtue of their majority ownership basically can do what they want in terms of company decisions and in particular appointments at board level.

It actually isn’t that unusual for very very successful and rich businessmen not to be able to work together come to that a significant number of basic business partnership end acrimoniously. 
Clearlake it seems are quite happy to buy the other shareholding’s so whilst I wouldn’t scream out nothing to see here it’s not a million miles away from Amanda S selling her last remaining shares in Newcastle  indeed my guess would be at some point the majority owner in NUFC will be in a position, if not already, to take sole ownership 

 

 

 

Edited September 7 by Terraloon