Is this Chelsea’s new owner?
1 Like
no, he has more money at his disposal than FSG…much more. and they spend frivolously if their history with the Dodger organization is any indication.
1 Like
Yet the Dodgers don’t have much to show for it. One Covid title.*
*and before anyone says it we ironically won our title with the Man Utd defeat of Man City before Covid stopped the season.
- To whom goes the money? Surely not to that twat Abramovic?
- Second question: Chelsea were heavily indebted to Abramovic. Surely this debt has to be taken into account? Otherwise, this is a clear distortion of FFP rules.
Edit: Oh, I see that the money will go to the Ukraine… yeah sure… 
and no word about the debt… 
2 Likes
He is a single part of a large ownership group at the Dodgers. It is not that ownership group that is buying Chelsea. It is him, backed by a private equity fund. Treating the spending of the Dodgers as being indicative of what Chelsea will do under his ownership is not realistic.
3 Likes
It seems like a substantial case of financial doping, but the argument that has been explained to me is the loans are old enough to be outside the FFP window. It superficially makes sense, but surely that cannot be true.
2 Likes
What do you think if she came to LFC?
Why?
She is good. But she was close to Roman.
1 Like
I am asking, why not?
1 Like
That rules her out then.
1 Like
I would think 1.) we’re not hiring, and 2.) Chelsea have pathologically over-spent for years, and she was their lead negotiator. There’s no evidence she possesses a skillet that would be useful at LFC. She’s only spoken about because Chelsea are a high profile club who have been successful. Plus, as mentioned, she is extremely close to Abramovich.
4 Likes
She’s Russian, so I’d say no, we shouldn’t employ her.
Yes, we can’t forget that pesky RFCON.
1 Like
Time will tell.
I think what you will see is a very FSG like model. Bohley is not Abramovic rich, and certainly not Sovereign Wealth Fund rich. The key is the money for this purchase is largely coming from a venture capital group (Clearlake Capital). That is relevant in terms of understanding this is not his money he is throwing around on a play thing, but also in terms of understanding that this is a business play. Money will only spent where they see it as producing a return on investment, and the key is Clearlake need their money to come back out of the club for their investment to pay off. FSG had a different approach to seeing a return on the investment that was far more patient than an external VC will be, and is partly based on how liverpool’s valuation increases the value of other investments under the FSG umbrella.
3 Likes
What’s the deal with Saúl Ñíguez? He was a regular for Atletico, loaned to Chelsea where he played as many mins as Ox. Still just 27.
2 Likes
No. She served as a personal assistant to roman for 10 years before his Chelsea take over. That makes her very very tainted.
1 Like
tainted… but apparently , brilliant at her job!
I would have thought the sensible solution is to make Chelsea pay this back to the charity that has been set up. Put a commerical interest rate on it so it can be fully paid back with interest over 20 years.
That would’ve been the fairest solution for me, rather than letting them be artifically injected with 1.6 billion.
4 Likes