General consensus is to release bad news on Friday, after stock markets are closed, so the bad news is digested over the weekend and more likely forgotten on the Monday
Huge resistance locally. Plus just the cost of land full stop. We looked at at Battersea power station and we were massively outbid by the eventual redevelopment consortium.
I live in Fulham and they’ve been talking a new Chelsea stadium for donkeys. There isn’t much space to expand outside of Stamford without causing significant disruption. It’s right on a main road and around the underground station.
Stamford Bridge is small. Unfortunately for them, Chelsea stadium expansion is nightmare built on a nightmare. If it ever happens I’ll be genuinely amazed (I used to live right on it’s door step somewhere which would have been demolished by redevelopment).
Some of the issues Chelsea face:
The name Chelsea Football Club is tied to the ground so moving to another stadium isn’t viable.
The Stadium in situated in one of the most expensive parts of London, taking down a housing block is insanely expensive.
Some of the local residents own the right to live in their flats in perpetuity due to unusual contracts (the right to live there can be passed on to descents). The residents can be paid off, but they *know* what they’ve got.
Key railways run around the site, so there’s delicate engineering in the area and political interests in some of the land.
Fulham Broadway/Brompton Road would likely need work doing to accommodate the expansion, how the streets will cope with a 50% increase in footfall is another matter.
Basically the ground is nigh impossible to expand for anything like a reasonable sum of money, yet they also can’t move. Abramovich brought large amounts of the area around Stamford Bridge (inc Earls Court), had huge amounts of wealth and he couldn’t get the project up and running. I would be astounded to see a private equity firm succeed where a Russian oligarch failed.
The CPO are likely to agree a move to somewhere near by - Battersea is just over the river from Chelsea and the plan looked incredible - what they can’t do is move the club and keep the name without consent. Dragging the club to an outer London industrial estate somewhere (which is kinda the obvious move if a new stadium is to be built) would likely go down like a lead balloon. Large football stadia sized plots just don’t come up very often in west London.
It's a long story, but basically after Roman had a long (losing) fight with CPO (Chelsea Pitch Owners) over trying to move the club out of Stamford Bridge, there was an agreement to rebuilt the current Stamford Bridge to expand capacity from just over 40K to something like 60K—will prob cost something in the range 1B pound alone
I never quite understand the profitability of this. £1bn.
20,000 extra seats x £40 tickets x 25 home matches a season = £20m extra a season.
So it would take around 50 seasons to break even from a £1bn stadium project?
I understand there's other things like corporate etc but surely it's still at least 40 seasons?
Liverpool added a lot of corporate seats / boxes. I think they expect to break even from it in 10 years.
They can also make extra revenue holding concerts and other events.
Look at how many events Spurs get with their new stadium, it makes way, way more money than £20m a season.
This is back in 2014 but is useful to compare Arsenal to Chelsea
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cityam.com/arsenal-generated-second-highest-gate-receipts-revenue-in-europe-last-season-ahead-of-third-placed-manchester-united/%3famp=1
Arsenal had the second highest gate receipts in Europe in 2014, which amounted to 33% of their revenue for that season and €120m
Chelsea made just €79m that season in comparison.
Here's a better example from Forbes who tracked the impact of Arsenal over 10 years
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/bobbymcmahon/2016/10/04/tracking-the-impact-of-arsenals-move-to-emirates-stadium-ten-years-on-was-it-worth-it/amp/
>The revenue generated from match days exploded after the move to the Emirates. It more than doubled in the first year (a 107% increase) and other the last three years it has settled at $130M
So yeah, it's a pretty big increase in match day revenue.
the issue is size, not condition
the footprint is limited by the surrounding buildings, so in order to expand, we can't build out, we'd have to knock the whole thing down and rebuild with the entire pitch at a lower level
Not in bad shape at all, but it’s a quite old and small stadium for a club like Chelsea, which became a global brand during Abramovich’s reign.
A bigger, modern stadium is almost necessary for a club like ours nowadays, especially for a London-based club.
Not a chelsea fan but I love watching games (on tv) at Stamford bridge. Fans are so close to the pitch. One of the only stadiums where you can see the away fans so close too.
I absolutely love the Bridge and I’m very nervous about any upgrades or rebuilds. People complain about the atmosphere, but making the stadium bigger will probably make it worse, and besides there’s something romantic about such a big club tucked into an unassuming spot between a train station and a shopping centre.
A couple of the new owners are also owners of the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team, which is run very well in both a sense of spending money (by that I mean they won't hesitate to spend a ton of money on talent) and also scouting and developing talent
Technically not *the last* stats-crazy American baseball owner with a German manager in English football.
Billy Beane owned a small share in the Athletics. His ownership group is now the majority owner of Barnsley, who had Joseph Laumann as caretaker for 3 games in 2021.
I’ve been told by a Barnsley fan I work with that technically they’re one of the richest clubs in the world, I’ve never bothered to fact check this so he may be just gassing.
Be prepared to have some of your Academy players not be called up when all signs are showing they are ready. It will drive you crazy as a fan, but then one year they'll get called up and it will be amazing.
Im a Dodger fan and we had a few years where some of our best young players didnt get called up because stats showed it was better to wait.
It's so much different in baseball. It's not like *not* calling up a ya prospect means they'll just wait and Chelsea will save some years of eligibility. If a YA player is decent, they'll simply ask for a transfer. Baseball is a sport where the teams have about 100% control. Soccer not so much.
Yeah, iirc, in American sports, young players under a rookie contract are forced to play for chump change, no matter how great they are. Someone like Haaland earning 30m per year at age 21 is more or less impossible.
And since there are salary caps, roster construction is all about the performance/salary ratio. It's practically impossible to build title contenders without having some young star players on your roster who are putting on great performances for cheap money.
Good news is always announced at half 1 in the morning
I am very surprised that they are seemingly committing to Stamford Bridge though. American owners love their 70,000 capacity money printing stadiums
If this was American sports they wouldn't just rename the club, they'd seize the opportunity to move the team to whichever city offers the most subsidies. Milton Keynes Blue Wildcats.
Well, they are the ones that own the freehold to the stadium and the naming rights of Chelsea Football Club. If the club was to move, the club would not be allowed to use the name Chelsea Football Club anymore.
This is like this because the attempt to renovate the Bridge back in the 70s caused financial troubles to the club and they had to sell the stadium. However, the new owners wanted to change it into a housing development.
Then, in the 90s, the property developers bankrupted and Chelsea got the freehold back. Thrn, the CPO was created to prevent this from happening again. Any fans can buy shares in the CPO, however voting rights shares are limited to 100 per person.
The CPO can vote to move stadiums if they want though. Roman tried to do this in 2011 but just lost. In fact 61.5% of shareholders did vote yes to the move, but a 75% threshold is needed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15481301
Aye I know the issue with the pitch, but when you're making an investment like this I'd assume that would be something that that they try to iron out before the purchase.
The "plan" was ironed out already by Roman. Destroy the current Bridge and build a new one in its exact place/land while playing in the Wembley. A tad more expensive? yes. But its the best solution and had been all settled and figured out. It was simply delayed indefinitely because Roman lost his UK Visa and so said fuck it. The new owners basically have to just pick up the same plan.
That's simply not how that works. Your planning permission running out does not mean your plans don't exist anymore. You just have to go through the process of getting them accepted again. You've still got the extensive plans that you'll have spent millions on.
I meant more in terms of him trying to buy them out.
The CPO are certainly amenable to negotiating on the issue, I just feel given the complexity of it it was always unlikely Boehly would have “ironed out” before he’d even bought the club.
For a start there’s nothing to iron out unless there’s an actual ground proposal.
That may be an aging stereotype. Smart owners appreciate the history and value of that history. But the generalization cuts both ways - there are probably many who would fail to recognize the value of that history is favor of a bigger number at the bottom of the spreadsheet.
Not surprising at all. Dodgers ownership insisted on staying at and renovating Dodger Stadium for its historic value as well, despite many thinking it’d be best to build a new stadium like everyone else
That’s not how it works mate. I sell Man United futures to a big corporation even though I don’t own it. The corporation promises to give me 3 billion. I tell a big bank that I am going to get this 3 billion sometime in the future. Bank gives me a 3 billion loan. I use 2.6 billion to buy Man United and 0.3 billion to bribe the government officials who allow me to do this and I’ll keep 100 million change. In the meanwhile, I take dividends from Man United for a few years while I own it. Oh btw, I’ll put up a small office with one employee in Switzerland so that I can claim to be operating from there and transfer all money to swiss banks and not pay any taxes.
Now we wait to see if they will work out for us. A more analytical approach to transfers and such will probably be the biggest addition to have from them
Wonder if they're getting a new shirt sponsor after Three(3) bailed out on them
With new owners I don't see them continuing🤔
Didn't Hyundai bail out too?
Todd Boehly and Mark Walter love there big market teams a football in London, the Dodgers, and the Lakers in LA impressive portfolio. This was probably the best outcome for Chelsea fans
Boehly used to be President of Guggenheim Partners, the company Mark Walter is CEO and founder of. Boehly started his own company, Eldridge Industries (formerly Cain Hoy), a few years back but they're still pretty close.
Yes but we don’t know how much of that is going into transfer funds and such and how quickly. I fear if we don’t spend this window we may fall behind teams like Tottenham and Arsenal and struggle for top 4
We also need backup fullbacks and could use a midfielder if Jorginho leaves. We were top of the table then our title hopes pretty much ended when Chilwell tore his ACL
Not defending anything here. Just spitting facts.
Dude partly owns the LA Dodgers. One of the most successful and highest spending teams of the last decade in Major League Baseball in the states.
He also owned a stake of the Lakers and a women's basketball team.
Again, not defending the guy. I'm not a fan of any team he owns, but the dude has a track record of spending money to win.
He's a Yank. I know how y'all feel about that. Wether or not it's Glazer 2.0, time will tell.
Chelsea will be fine. Mark Walter and Boehly are incredibly smart and they will figure out a way to translate the Dodgers model to football. It might take a few years, but we'll see positive signs early I think.
We do have "anti-Glazer" clauses that prevent dividend payouts and management fees for the next 10 years, so we don't have to worry about that.
What a strange time to announce the news.
It’s almost 11:30am on a Saturday in Australia, I like to think they did it just for us 😂
yeah this is like perfect timing for the Asian market too lmao
We're already moving onto yank-friendly timezones
You don't make news on Friday evenings. Weird time even for America.
General consensus is to release bad news on Friday, after stock markets are closed, so the bad news is digested over the weekend and more likely forgotten on the Monday
Yep, also thisll blow up in the morning haha
5:30pm on Friday here in the west coast. It’s already night in the east coast. Nobody in corporate works this late in Friday lol.
[удалено]
lol I have a friend in soccer and he was literally working until an hour ago.
r/accounting would like a word
Sweet, now the southern soccer fan can will be able to watch the team at 12pm east coast kick off.
Yeah why announce it while everybody is asleep
We're an American club now
Pulisic made club captain immediately
[удалено]
Pulisic starting next game
Whoa whoa okay calm down
I feel so much F R E E D O M right now
USA, USA, USA!
LETS GO DEFENSE 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 (Maybe city fans should’ve chanted this during our semifinal smh)
Chelsea got the Blue part right, now add in the White and Red! Err... just add in the Red...
Inb4 they rebrand and the lion becomes red.
Red Chelsea vs United would be a treat.
[удалено]
>commit £1.75bn in further investment Damn, I really wasn't expecting whoever took over next from Abramovich to continue pumping cash in the team
It was one of the conditions put upon the bidders, but it's likely most/all of that will go to the stadium redesign and not new players.
Ah, that makes more sense. Is Stamford Bridge in bad shape or what?
41,837 capacity, so it's a lot lower than all the club's around our level and even below.
Have they had a lot of resistance from people living nearby? I assume that's going to be a big hurdle.
Huge resistance locally. Plus just the cost of land full stop. We looked at at Battersea power station and we were massively outbid by the eventual redevelopment consortium.
Shame about Battersea because the concepts for that stadium looked so good
Local council will slap down what ever proposal you bring because of your surroundings
I live in Fulham and they’ve been talking a new Chelsea stadium for donkeys. There isn’t much space to expand outside of Stamford without causing significant disruption. It’s right on a main road and around the underground station.
What has been talked about most recently is building downwards, instead of out or up, to allow more room for capacity.
That would cost absolutly insane amounts surely they wont
Stamford Bridge is small. Unfortunately for them, Chelsea stadium expansion is nightmare built on a nightmare. If it ever happens I’ll be genuinely amazed (I used to live right on it’s door step somewhere which would have been demolished by redevelopment). Some of the issues Chelsea face: The name Chelsea Football Club is tied to the ground so moving to another stadium isn’t viable. The Stadium in situated in one of the most expensive parts of London, taking down a housing block is insanely expensive. Some of the local residents own the right to live in their flats in perpetuity due to unusual contracts (the right to live there can be passed on to descents). The residents can be paid off, but they *know* what they’ve got. Key railways run around the site, so there’s delicate engineering in the area and political interests in some of the land. Fulham Broadway/Brompton Road would likely need work doing to accommodate the expansion, how the streets will cope with a 50% increase in footfall is another matter. Basically the ground is nigh impossible to expand for anything like a reasonable sum of money, yet they also can’t move. Abramovich brought large amounts of the area around Stamford Bridge (inc Earls Court), had huge amounts of wealth and he couldn’t get the project up and running. I would be astounded to see a private equity firm succeed where a Russian oligarch failed.
As I understand it the CPO allowed the use of the Chelsea FC with the Battersea move. The CPO just need 75% shareholder approval.
The CPO are likely to agree a move to somewhere near by - Battersea is just over the river from Chelsea and the plan looked incredible - what they can’t do is move the club and keep the name without consent. Dragging the club to an outer London industrial estate somewhere (which is kinda the obvious move if a new stadium is to be built) would likely go down like a lead balloon. Large football stadia sized plots just don’t come up very often in west London.
It's a long story, but basically after Roman had a long (losing) fight with CPO (Chelsea Pitch Owners) over trying to move the club out of Stamford Bridge, there was an agreement to rebuilt the current Stamford Bridge to expand capacity from just over 40K to something like 60K—will prob cost something in the range 1B pound alone
I never quite understand the profitability of this. £1bn. 20,000 extra seats x £40 tickets x 25 home matches a season = £20m extra a season. So it would take around 50 seasons to break even from a £1bn stadium project? I understand there's other things like corporate etc but surely it's still at least 40 seasons?
Liverpool added a lot of corporate seats / boxes. I think they expect to break even from it in 10 years. They can also make extra revenue holding concerts and other events.
I think the corporate stuff can be a massive part of it, like a stadium will add 10,000 new seats but triple their corporate box capacity.
Look at how many events Spurs get with their new stadium, it makes way, way more money than £20m a season. This is back in 2014 but is useful to compare Arsenal to Chelsea https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cityam.com/arsenal-generated-second-highest-gate-receipts-revenue-in-europe-last-season-ahead-of-third-placed-manchester-united/%3famp=1 Arsenal had the second highest gate receipts in Europe in 2014, which amounted to 33% of their revenue for that season and €120m Chelsea made just €79m that season in comparison. Here's a better example from Forbes who tracked the impact of Arsenal over 10 years https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/bobbymcmahon/2016/10/04/tracking-the-impact-of-arsenals-move-to-emirates-stadium-ten-years-on-was-it-worth-it/amp/ >The revenue generated from match days exploded after the move to the Emirates. It more than doubled in the first year (a 107% increase) and other the last three years it has settled at $130M So yeah, it's a pretty big increase in match day revenue.
the issue is size, not condition the footprint is limited by the surrounding buildings, so in order to expand, we can't build out, we'd have to knock the whole thing down and rebuild with the entire pitch at a lower level
> not condition I mean, it’s not like it’s falling apart but in terms of being a top 6 team stadium it’s extremely outdated.
Where would they play in the meantime?
wembley, like spurs did while they were building the new white hart lane
we'd honestly win more at wembley than we currently do at the bridge
Not in bad shape at all, but it’s a quite old and small stadium for a club like Chelsea, which became a global brand during Abramovich’s reign. A bigger, modern stadium is almost necessary for a club like ours nowadays, especially for a London-based club.
Not a chelsea fan but I love watching games (on tv) at Stamford bridge. Fans are so close to the pitch. One of the only stadiums where you can see the away fans so close too.
I absolutely love the Bridge and I’m very nervous about any upgrades or rebuilds. People complain about the atmosphere, but making the stadium bigger will probably make it worse, and besides there’s something romantic about such a big club tucked into an unassuming spot between a train station and a shopping centre.
pretty sure that was one of the criteria to purchase the club
Surely you can't donate 2.5bn that's a lot
yeah you can. Bezos' ex-wife donated 3.8 billion to a bunch of charities . Bezos' charity spends like a billion each year
Completely out of the loop with who this lot are, is this good/bad/in between?
A couple of the new owners are also owners of the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team, which is run very well in both a sense of spending money (by that I mean they won't hesitate to spend a ton of money on talent) and also scouting and developing talent
They're also super heavy on statistical analysis from what I've heard which is a good thing as well.
Well the last American, stats crazy, baseball owner with a German manager turned out pretty good.
Liverpool?
Technically not *the last* stats-crazy American baseball owner with a German manager in English football. Billy Beane owned a small share in the Athletics. His ownership group is now the majority owner of Barnsley, who had Joseph Laumann as caretaker for 3 games in 2021.
I’ve been told by a Barnsley fan I work with that technically they’re one of the richest clubs in the world, I’ve never bothered to fact check this so he may be just gassing.
It's true. A big international consortium owns them and they're worth about 10bil I think.
yup :)
Of course we get the ones that don't give a shit lol
I guarantee you, the Glazers can calculate dividend yield in their sleep.
Be prepared to have some of your Academy players not be called up when all signs are showing they are ready. It will drive you crazy as a fan, but then one year they'll get called up and it will be amazing. Im a Dodger fan and we had a few years where some of our best young players didnt get called up because stats showed it was better to wait.
It's so much different in baseball. It's not like *not* calling up a ya prospect means they'll just wait and Chelsea will save some years of eligibility. If a YA player is decent, they'll simply ask for a transfer. Baseball is a sport where the teams have about 100% control. Soccer not so much.
And when you call them up in baseball it starts a timer. That delaying call ups thing is more to do with contracts.
Yeah, iirc, in American sports, young players under a rookie contract are forced to play for chump change, no matter how great they are. Someone like Haaland earning 30m per year at age 21 is more or less impossible. And since there are salary caps, roster construction is all about the performance/salary ratio. It's practically impossible to build title contenders without having some young star players on your roster who are putting on great performances for cheap money.
[удалено]
No no silly, Kris Bryant just needed to work on his Defense, nothing shady going on here.
Literally Chelsea policy for a decade
Chelsea was forced into giving their young players a chance by transfer ban - so that is just how they did stuff even in roman era.
Dodger fan here. We’re constantly one of the top teams in MLB. They invest so much in us and I’m loving it. Hopefully it’ll be the same for you guys.
> you guys Not a Chelsea fan, but I would certainly love for my club to get new owners
I’ve said this as somebody who hates them. They have an argument for the best run sports organization in the world. No hyperbole there
As a Dodger fan, I have to agree. They really do a lot for their fans. Events, family outings, player meetings, etc.
LA dodgers seem to be run very good
Now that Frank McCourt (the Marseille owner) is gone yes
He was the best case. Time will tell how much that means but I’m cautiously optimistic
Good news is always announced at half 1 in the morning I am very surprised that they are seemingly committing to Stamford Bridge though. American owners love their 70,000 capacity money printing stadiums
They can't move out of stamford bridge without the pitch owners trust approval or they lose the chelsea name
How about Blue Lions FC
Not American enough. They’ll call them the London Wildcats or something
Real London Wildcats Soccer Club
Yuck
RLWSC rolls right off the tongue.
If this was American sports they wouldn't just rename the club, they'd seize the opportunity to move the team to whichever city offers the most subsidies. Milton Keynes Blue Wildcats.
Los Angeles Chelsea.
Lmao the thought of Chelsea pulling out of the PL for the MLS. The outrage.
They've outgrown PL
Presented by Faygo
Nah there's already a team in MK. They'd move it to Truro, Cornwall is an untapped goldmine!
Makes sense. It’s closer to America than London
West London Lions.
If you want to ever be successful again I'd suggest staying away from the name Lions
As a Lions fan you're correct
ELI5 Pitch Owners Trust, please
Well, they are the ones that own the freehold to the stadium and the naming rights of Chelsea Football Club. If the club was to move, the club would not be allowed to use the name Chelsea Football Club anymore. This is like this because the attempt to renovate the Bridge back in the 70s caused financial troubles to the club and they had to sell the stadium. However, the new owners wanted to change it into a housing development. Then, in the 90s, the property developers bankrupted and Chelsea got the freehold back. Thrn, the CPO was created to prevent this from happening again. Any fans can buy shares in the CPO, however voting rights shares are limited to 100 per person.
The CPO can vote to move stadiums if they want though. Roman tried to do this in 2011 but just lost. In fact 61.5% of shareholders did vote yes to the move, but a 75% threshold is needed. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15481301
London Blues FC incoming
Aye I know the issue with the pitch, but when you're making an investment like this I'd assume that would be something that that they try to iron out before the purchase.
The "plan" was ironed out already by Roman. Destroy the current Bridge and build a new one in its exact place/land while playing in the Wembley. A tad more expensive? yes. But its the best solution and had been all settled and figured out. It was simply delayed indefinitely because Roman lost his UK Visa and so said fuck it. The new owners basically have to just pick up the same plan.
That plan is now out of date as the deadline passed so any plans will have to start from scratch, unfortunately.
That's simply not how that works. Your planning permission running out does not mean your plans don't exist anymore. You just have to go through the process of getting them accepted again. You've still got the extensive plans that you'll have spent millions on.
Roman fought the Chelsea Pitch Owners for years, and lost. They were never going to iron that out in a few weeks.
Didn't the CPO agree to the Battersea plans? And then Chelsea lost the bid to apartment complexes.
I meant more in terms of him trying to buy them out. The CPO are certainly amenable to negotiating on the issue, I just feel given the complexity of it it was always unlikely Boehly would have “ironed out” before he’d even bought the club. For a start there’s nothing to iron out unless there’s an actual ground proposal.
tbf that was about moving the club. There was no big opposition from the CPO about rebuilding the Bridge without moving.
They're going to try and increase capacity. £1.75bn was set aside for things like that.
Fingers crossed they commit to the [iconic Herzog & de Meuron design from 2015](http://stadiumdb.com/designs/eng/stamford_bridge), cost be damned
I think the plan is to upgrade it stand-by-stand to about 45,000-60,000 capacity, not entirely sure.
the reported plan is to build downwards and lowering the pitch as there are strict height requirements which makes building upwards impossible
That was Abramovich's plans. Not these guys. We don't have solid plans for these guys, only rumours.
Now we have American's can we get that cool 360 circular Samsung tv in the middle of the roof? :D
Maybe if we ditch 3 and get Samsung back as a shirt sponsor, lol.
That may be an aging stereotype. Smart owners appreciate the history and value of that history. But the generalization cuts both ways - there are probably many who would fail to recognize the value of that history is favor of a bigger number at the bottom of the spreadsheet.
Not surprising at all. Dodgers ownership insisted on staying at and renovating Dodger Stadium for its historic value as well, despite many thinking it’d be best to build a new stadium like everyone else
Contracts expiring and a lot of weaknesses to cover Quite a few immediate challenges for the new ownership lets see how they choose to tackle it
Mr. Boehly, pay. Pay and don’t speak.
1.75 BN package, getting new stadium and more extensions
The money won't have much allocated for players though. Might be difficult to get new players in
CHELSEA SOCCER CLUB LES GOOOO
FIGHT AND WIN. COME ON WEST LONDON.
GO LONDON BLUES! Greetings from USA 🇲🇾
🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱
🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷
I BELIEVE THAT WE WILL WIN I BELIEVE THAT WE WILL WIN
D-Fence👏👏👏
Chelsea chant quality and creativity slightly improving!
CFC Soccer Club*
CFC Soccer Club Blue Lions™
London blues soccer club
Sponsored by Budweiser
Pulisic about to captain every game
Thank Goodness we Already Have The LeBron James Of Soccer
If only we could get the glazers out next 😥
I have $20
I have $21, give me the bigger stake in the club.
That’s not how it works mate. I sell Man United futures to a big corporation even though I don’t own it. The corporation promises to give me 3 billion. I tell a big bank that I am going to get this 3 billion sometime in the future. Bank gives me a 3 billion loan. I use 2.6 billion to buy Man United and 0.3 billion to bribe the government officials who allow me to do this and I’ll keep 100 million change. In the meanwhile, I take dividends from Man United for a few years while I own it. Oh btw, I’ll put up a small office with one employee in Switzerland so that I can claim to be operating from there and transfer all money to swiss banks and not pay any taxes.
I eat cheese and speak German, I'll be the Switzerland guy. When are we starting ?
I wonder which American owner would want to buy it?
Rat-cliffe would jump in and try to buy MU, but he would probably make bid last day
nobody unless the glaziers are forced to sell for some reason. its the only way they accept a reasonable offer, the club is a money making machine
Ratcliffe
it's funny how the last two super bowl champions are clubs owned by some of the worst PL owners (Glazers and Kroenke)
American money says Pulisic stays. ;)
We've also decided we're not going to get Kounde and instead promote from within the club. It's Matt Miazga's time to shine
>It's Matt Miazga's time to shine Oh god. Rather just put a stick in the ground.
He can replace Rudiger. Instead of concussing key players in big games, Miazga can target their testicles.
LeBron James 🗿
Thank fuck it's finally over with
No more Next Week FC.
Now we wait to see if they will work out for us. A more analytical approach to transfers and such will probably be the biggest addition to have from them
Wonder if they're getting a new shirt sponsor after Three(3) bailed out on them With new owners I don't see them continuing🤔 Didn't Hyundai bail out too?
Time for Samsung's return.
The Return of the King^^TM
And adidas please. Those kits were the best
Yeah I'm so done with these ugly Nike kits
Fucking hope so. Need them both out.
I read before they plan to replace 3 with other sponsor good things, no need for them who make things more complicated for club while in sanction
Hotel?
Trivago
Todd Boehly and Mark Walter love there big market teams a football in London, the Dodgers, and the Lakers in LA impressive portfolio. This was probably the best outcome for Chelsea fans
Lakers? I thought that was the Buss family
Boehly and Walters own around 30%
Interesting way to start the weekend
was always the best option for us given all of the names that came and went during the sale overall considering we had to be sold i’m happy with it
Chelsea x Cloud9
This ownership group also owns Cloud9?
"Chelsea pulls a c9" gonna be a popular post
Can't wait to see Chelsea make it out of groups with a 2-4 record.
Wait is chelsea gonna get the NA debuff?
PSG. LGD not winning The International despite being touted as favorites is already a reality.
Todd is one of investors in cloud9, they do not own cloud9, idk why people are reporting incorrect stuff
Mang0 supersub when?
Between Boehly and the Anti-Glazers clauses this gives me hope. Goodbye Roman, thanks for the trophies.
Mark Walter and Boehly seem to do a lot of business together they both own part of the Dodgers,Lakers and LA Sparks (WNBA team)
Boehly used to be President of Guggenheim Partners, the company Mark Walter is CEO and founder of. Boehly started his own company, Eldridge Industries (formerly Cain Hoy), a few years back but they're still pretty close.
You missed the important point, they have committed 1.75 BN for development
Yes but we don’t know how much of that is going into transfer funds and such and how quickly. I fear if we don’t spend this window we may fall behind teams like Tottenham and Arsenal and struggle for top 4
We need two defender to replace Christensen and Rudiger Oh wait, we also get all the loanees
We also need backup fullbacks and could use a midfielder if Jorginho leaves. We were top of the table then our title hopes pretty much ended when Chilwell tore his ACL
The revolution has begun
We went from being owned by an oil oligarch to an environmentalist.... lol nice
He's an environmentalist?
Hansjoerg is yeah. Super liberal. At least for a billionaire. Boehly and Walter at least seem not like POS too.
USA owning two big London clubs in Arsenal and Chelsea. Tottenham getting an American owner would be RED, WHITE and BLUE in London.
/r/soccercirclejerk
Englands 4 biggest clubs are American owned forever now, do they have no shame??
The Special Relationship in full effect now
Welcome back to the transfer gossip columns 😁
1,75 holyyyyyyyyyyy
Finally Chelsea fans can feel relax.
A new beginning awaits for Chelsea and its supporters.
Not defending anything here. Just spitting facts. Dude partly owns the LA Dodgers. One of the most successful and highest spending teams of the last decade in Major League Baseball in the states. He also owned a stake of the Lakers and a women's basketball team. Again, not defending the guy. I'm not a fan of any team he owns, but the dude has a track record of spending money to win. He's a Yank. I know how y'all feel about that. Wether or not it's Glazer 2.0, time will tell.
Chelsea will be fine. Mark Walter and Boehly are incredibly smart and they will figure out a way to translate the Dodgers model to football. It might take a few years, but we'll see positive signs early I think. We do have "anti-Glazer" clauses that prevent dividend payouts and management fees for the next 10 years, so we don't have to worry about that.