Chelsea Thread - 2021/22

[Vienna_70]

Purely in terms of football ownership, ignoring all the poltical stuff, you'd be hard pressed to find better football owners out there.

Really?

As you’re on this forum, you don’t have to look very hard.

 

[Vialli98]

Really?

As you’re on this forum, you don’t have to look very hard.

Well put it this way, I wouldn't swap owners with City if the chance was offered to me at any point in the last 15 years.

 

[Asa's left peg]

I'm not sure how Chelsea will spend 200m in the transfer market (given their recent outlay) Surely they will have to at least pretend its come from 'income', unless that's just us.

 

[Vialli98]

I'm not sure how Chelsea will spend 200m in the transfer market (given their recent outlay) Surely they will have to at least pretend its come from 'income', unless that's just us.

There was a 1.75bn pledge as part of the sale to be spent on investing in the team and infrastructure. I suppose the plan eventually will be scale down spending from that pot as revenue grows. Also keep in mind that we will likely sell at least a player or two.

 

[waspish]

There was a 1.75bn pledge as part of the sale to be spent on investing in the team and infrastructure. I suppose the plan eventually will be scale down spending from that pot as revenue grows. Also keep in mind that we will likely sell at least a player or two.

Over ten years period wasn’t it?

 

[Vialli98]

Over ten years period wasn’t it?

Correct, and you'd imagine close to 1bn of that will be allocated to redeveloping the Bridge, but these guys have big dreams about growing revenue in Asia and America. At the moment we have the 8th highest revenue in Europe, there's absolutely room for growth.

 

[waspish]

Correct, and you'd imagine close to 1bn of that will be allocated to redeveloping the Bridge, but these guys have big dreams about growing revenue in Asia and America. At the moment we have the 8th highest revenue in Europe, there's absolutely room for growth.

So 750m over ten years works out as 75m a season or can chelsea spend say 200m this season and a lot less next few also they have sales to throw in the mix.

What will be interesting is will the new owners be taking there cut out the business like the glazers?

 

[Vialli98]

So 750m over ten years works out as 75m a season or can chelsea spend say 200m this season and a lot less next few also they have sales to throw in the mix.

What will be interesting is will the new owners be taking there cut out the business like the glazers?

Yeah but I don't think it's as black and white as that. The idea is that the revenue will continue to grow, and it isn't a must that we spend 100m every summer. If the team is in good shape that just need tweaking here and there, plus there will always be player sales. We have one of the lowest net spends out of all the big clubs in Europe because we're good at selling players. It'll definitely be interesting to follow. It's a completely different model than the splashing the cash of Abramovich.

As for the owners taking their cut, supposedly there is a clause in the agreement quite literally called the 'anti-Glazers clause' which prohibits them from taking dividends, loading the club with debt etc - a clause they have agreed to, and which was a big part of the reason the Rickett family were rejected, because their model was similar to what the Glazers were doing at United.

 

[Vialli98]

Should also say, the only debt free clubs in Europe is PSG, City, Leicester, and now Chelsea :)

 

[Asa's left peg]

Didn't understand how that injection can be classed as income in relation to ffp, but ffp is a joke anyway.