The other perspective is we would have lost all leverage, had we done that.
So we stock the cupboard and then ask for the dough for Hendo and Fabinho from the (reliable) Saudis?
At which point they laugh in our faces, and say there will be no fee for Hendo, as it is all going on wages, and they will only pay a pittance for Fabinho. They are in control of the situation.
We are left with too many midfielders, too few minutes to go around, and paying way too much wages.
Instead, we have cleared the decks in midfield, brought in some useful cash, signed two crackers, look like we will sign at least one more, and we also have young players staking a claim.
It has been a bit too haphazard given the new Saudi variable entering the scene, but we will come out of this quite well and the midfield department will be better for it.
3 Likes
When they had the revenues we still got excuses.
1 Like
The last 5 incoming signings have cost 270 mil not exactly peanuts
We were though.
His name was Thuram then.
Changed to Kone for a bit as well.
And developing our stadium while theirs is falling apart
1 Like
I think presenting this as a way to funnel money into a club is probably wide of the mark because
-
as mentioned in the article the league now applies only a market valuation for FFP purposes to any deal a club makes
-
this is more likely the effect of Chelsea increasing the value of IA rather than using a new company to pump money into chelsea. This is exactly how a football club can increase the value of the overall umbrella of companies held by a parent without the club having to make money itself.
That was not about Klopp being fought over which was the right player though. It was about Klopp accepting defeat after the summer fuck up and Hogan convincing him that the club would make it right and spend whatever if that was genuinely who Klopp wanted.
Just to add to this though apparently the largest shareholder of clearlake is ā¦Saudi Arabia
Sorry they are shareholders in the largest stake owner (clearlake) of Chelsea
There is a meaning difference between an investor in a fund (the relationship between PIF and Clearlake) vs a shareholder in a company.
But regardless Iām not sure what point you are making.
1 Like
Does it not sound a bit dodgy to you like that man city sponsor that never existed ?
You quite clearly missed most actual analyses of our finances then, as opposed to Rando off YouTube/Twitter/whatever shitehole.
1 Like
It doesnāt make any sense at all, not even from the headline.
Clearlake are an asset management company, that runs funds that people can invest into, sort of like what happens with your pensions. PIF happen to have money invested with them.
What sort of shenanigans are you thinking of that Chelsea could benefit from here?
Well Iām sure you can read between the lines in regards to Saudi buying influence and the rumoured sportswashing.
Does the Saudi regime have an interest in doing that ? Yes
Could they use their influence to reach further into the sport ? Yes
Does this Ā£40 million sponsorship from a company that didnāt exist apparently a month ago seem iffy? To me it does
1 Like
But again, what dots are you connecting?
City is owned by a state owned investment fund that is used as an investment into the PR for the country. There is a financial loss they are baking in to their ownership of city to prop up city as a vehicle to do PR for the state.
Chelsea is owned by a Private Equity firm that exists to make money for its investors and has a fiduciary duty to those investors to make moves intended to do right by their money. That means any capital going to Chelsea now has to be done with a view to it seeing a return on their investment. With moves like this AI one you see a slightly more complex model where the football club may act as a loss leader but in doing so increases the value of every other asset under management of Clearlake such that the overall impact to the investors is positive.
1 Like
When you look at what their new sponsorās business seems to be, it makes complete sense. Premier League fans are probably a large target market for that.
As opposed to Etisalat, they donāt even operate in so many markets which have a massive Premier League fanbaseā¦
Clearlake is only part of the BlueCo group which owns Chelsea. and now Strasbourg.
Your post doesnāt deserve an educated response beyond
They are using the club to line their pockets. 300m to 4 billion, they done the stands but the club paid for them. We cant compete with even arsenal who have not been in the Champions league for years. Klopp said we would build a new team to challenge but the money is not there. We been farting about for weeks making silly bids for Lavia conning the fans and now this stupid Caicedo bull shit. Laughing stock.
I think the real laughing stock are the āfansā who think transfers are everything, who care only about winning the transfer window. Pisstake and if the word āembarrassmentā is to be thrown about, itās best used on them.
Iād rather judge on the outcomes of the season. We could spend nothing, have a good season, and end up 2nd only because of certain other teams cheating, and Iād still prefer that very much to all the wanking off over the flavour of the week, only just to be like Chelsea.
6 Likes
Whats funny is the desperation in some of the tools hoping the Caicedo news isnt true simply because they would have nowt to whinge about.
3 Likes