Chelsea owners and board

[Sciatika]

26 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

Learned last night - if correct, that Clearlake is the majority shareholder (I believe with 60%) and Boehly is a minority, despite being the face. So it's possible he and his plan gets the boot, but I don't know how behind it Clearlake still are.

Another point - these long contracts are an f'in problem for us. Not because of getting rid of players, but because of the lack of pressure put on our youngsters due to the fact that they know they can do anything and have their safety and security assured for the next seven or eight years. There is no pressure in the club to perform at the highest level - and it shows.

Clearlake is a private equity firm.  It maintains a series of private equity funds, each with a (potentially) large number of investors. Those investors probably don't know who each other is and almost certainly could not act as a cartel. Clearlake manages the investments within the fund. But it can't just pull out. It would have to sell its investment. I think that is VERY unlikely. It may be the case that Boehley is the single largest investor.

The problem of the long contracts is overstated. If we had brought in the players on more typical five-year contracts, the problem you raised would be the same. Over five years, the player will receive something like £10m irrespective of how they perform. How is that different?

Edited December 13, 2023 by Sciatika

[Max Fowler]

4 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

Clearlake is a private equity firm.  It maintains a series of private equity funds, each with a (potentially) large number of investors. Those investors probably don't know who each other is and almost certainly could not act as a cartel. Clearlake manages the investments within the fund. But it can't just pull out. It would have to sell its investment. I think that is VERY unlikely. It may be the case that Boehley is the single largest investor.

The problem of the long contracts is overstated. If we had brought in the players on more typical five-year contracts, the problem you raised would be the same. Over five years, the player will receive something like £10m irrespective of how they perform. How is that different?

I am not saying it will pull out - actually I am saying it's more likely Boehly gets sidelined as he is a minority shareholder.

There is a big difference between 8 or 9 years and 5 years. That's the difference between some players being 25 and nearly 30.

[xceleryx]

2 hours ago, Sciatika said:

The problem of the long contracts is overstated. If we had brought in the players on more typical five-year contracts, the problem you raised would be the same. Over five years, the player will receive something like £10m irrespective of how they perform. How is that different?

It's not, but panic and incompetence has to be incited somehow to generate clicks.

[Dwmh]

3 hours ago, Sciatika said:

Clearlake is a private equity firm.  It maintains a series of private equity funds, each with a (potentially) large number of investors. Those investors probably don't know who each other is and almost certainly could not act as a cartel. Clearlake manages the investments within the fund. But it can't just pull out. It would have to sell its investment. I think that is VERY unlikely. It may be the case that Boehley is the single largest investor.

yes and no.
There is a series of equity funds as you say.  The next fund will be launched marketed on the success of previous funds.  So poor performance at Chelsea has a direct impact on how easily Clearlake can raise money for further funds.
They also base their track records (and I imagine huge fees) one a roughly 30% pa track record.
You get 30% by doubling your money in 3 years, exiting and doing it again in  something else.  You do not get 30% by waiting for 10 years in the hope that your bad performance will turn itself around to make 13 times the original investment later on.
You also get 30% (average) by being very proactive when it goes wrong.  Getting out for half your money (a 50% haircut) is not uncommon.  If it is wrong then it will be better to re-invest half the money in a new project than hang on in the old one.

Those investors probably don't know who each other is and almost certainly could not act as a cartel.

They don't need to - the pressure is on Clearlake which has full control of the stake and is highly paid for being an active manager, not merely a custodian for end investors.

3 hours ago, Sciatika said:

The problem of the long contracts is overstated. If we had brought in the players on more typical five-year contracts, the problem you raised would be the same. Over five years, the player will receive something like £10m irrespective of how they perform. How is that different?

I' say the opposite.  The problem with young 19-21 players is giving them contracts at all.  Do you pay them 25k a week or 100k a week.2 years or 5 years.  This has always been a problem, underestimate the player and a star walks away on a Bosman at 25.  Over estimate 3 players and you are still paying them £100k a week till he is 26 (each).
Expand it to 7 years and the problem gets bigger.
The alternative - give them 2 year contracts means that you have to up they wages within 2 years to market rates if they are good.  You end up with little of the value of the player, and teh player gets to keep most of it for himself.

7 years just makes the whole thing worse

Step 1, make sure you can value players well

[jasonb]

There's no doubt it has gone well.

Though some things have gone well, signing Palmer and also I think Sanchez is an upgrade  on Kepa.

A number of other clubs wanted Caicedo and we got him, just now need to find a way to utilise him better, personally think Gallager will go and Caicedo will move there and another DM to sit will be found. This should release Enzo more though I don't think he will ever reach Fabregas levels.

[Max Fowler]

@My Blood Is Blue can we add some kind of poll on thoughts on the board?

Can't think of a good way to phrase it...

a) We need to start protesting for them to leave now
b) We need to start protesting for them to change strategy
c) We need to give them more time...
d)...

I am now 100% Clearlake OUT! The sooner we end this nightmare the better.

I have zero trust that they want what's best for this club any more or even care about on-field success.

(though it may take 10 years to get rid of them)

[Max Fowler]

 

 

[Michael Tucker]

4 hours ago, Max Fowler said:

 

a) We need to start protesting for them to leave now

Good luck with that.

 

4 hours ago, Max Fowler said:

I am now 100% Clearlake OUT! The sooner we end this nightmare the better.

The problem is nobody on here has any influence on what the club does. 

That's the way it's always been, and nothing has  changed as far as I can see.

 

[My Blood Is Blue]

POLL ADDED - HAVE YOUR VOTE

[Dwmh]

Option 6.  The damage is done already.  It will take 6 or 7 years to sort it out by when an ESL may have formed with us not in it.
It really doesn't make much difference if they exit now without learning their lessons or in 5 years time.

[Max Fowler]

Time to start protesting!

[Max Fowler]

8 hours ago, Michael Tucker said:

The problem is nobody on here has any influence on what the club does. 

That's the way it's always been, and nothing has  changed as far as I can see.

This should be the easiest myth to spot everyone, but if you disagree that's fine too. The fans clearly got Graham Potter sacked last season, online and offline. The court of public opinion shared by Chelsea fans wanted him out. That's what a forum is about - Chelsea fans talking to each other. Everything is connected. What we say and do on here may make a tiny even minuscule difference but it counts. What is being talked about feeds into the stands and last season contributed to the evaporation spell cast on Potter.

[Michael Tucker]

14 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

This should be the easiest myth to spot everyone, but if you disagree that's fine too.

Gee, thanks.

14 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

The fans clearly got Graham Potter sacked last season, online and offline.

If that's what you want to believe, then fine. But it was the owners who outed Potter, and I seriously doubt that they spend too much time on here.

14 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

That's what a forum is about - Chelsea fans talking to each other.

Yes, on a forum!

14 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

 What we say and do on here may make a tiny even minuscule difference but it counts.

Does it? Well, if it makes you happy to think that, then fine - enjoy your 'success',

[Max Fowler]

4 minutes ago, Michael Tucker said:

If that's what you want to believe, then fine. But it was the owners who outed Potter.

Potter would have never been fired (so quickly, perhaps at all) if it wasn't for fan pressure.

[Mark Kelly]

1 hour ago, Dwmh said:

Option 6.  The damage is done already.  It will take 6 or 7 years to sort it out by when an ESL may have formed with us not in it.
It really doesn't make much difference if they exit now without learning their lessons or in 5 years time.

When the new lot bought us , one of the stipulations laid down by Roman was that we wouldn't leave to join a European super-league 

I'd like to see what would happen if everyone else did. 

[Michael Tucker]

1 hour ago, Max Fowler said:

Potter would have never been fired (so quickly, perhaps at all) if it wasn't for fan pressure.

Sure. Whatever you say.  I'm done wasting my time here.

[xceleryx]

Much overlooked in all this is that Roman himself made a very strong stance that he'd only sell the club to who he felt was the best candidate long term (hence the 10 year non-sale clause). Ultimately, he chose Clearlake out of all the other proposals.

[Dwmh]

32 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

When the new lot bought us , one of the stipulations laid down by Roman was that we wouldn't leave to join a European super-league 

I'd like to see what would happen if everyone else did. 

Well they are certainly guaranteeing that the way it looks.
Again like the 10 year stay, if this is a stipulation set by Roman then he can remove it at a stroke of a pen.
It the FA got its act together (and frankly it has been far better run than any other FA or UEFA) then instead of an ESL there would be a Premier League project.

My guess is that this is a stipulation requested either by PR or the prem and RA was happy enough to put his name to it.  After all RA presumably backed Buck's attempt to join an ESL.

In other word hypothetical for us and wouldn't stand in practice anyway.

 

11 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

Much overlooked in all this is that Roman himself made a very strong stance that he'd only sell the club to who he felt was the best candidate long term (hence the 10 year non-sale clause). Ultimately, he chose Clearlake out of all the other proposals.

See above.  You are doing a Max Fowler.  It was said the Roman made a strong stance.  Did you hear him speak on the matter?
Lots of people wanted a 10 year non-sale clause and a non ESL clause.  PR, PL/FA, UK government intermediaries.  That the promise has been made to RA and not to FA or UK government tells you all you need to know - it is a meaningless promise to someone who I guess right now would love Clearlake and TB to exit and love Chelsea to be good enough to get in the ESL.

When people make statements, first question is always "why do they want us to believe this?"  Only afterwards can you ask whether it is true or what it might lead to.
Why did anyone involved want the world to think Clearlake had a 10 year stay clause at the time the deal was being announced?
Why did anyone want to see Clearlake being committed to non-ESL entry?

[boratsbrother]

1 hour ago, Mark Kelly said:

When the new lot bought us , one of the stipulations laid down by Roman was that we wouldn't leave to join a European super-league 

I'd like to see what would happen if everyone else did. 

Unlike the first time, If the ESL does happen then "everyone else" won't be invited.

State owned clubs won't be invited and we might we'll miss out because of present situation. Top three from England would obviously be Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool with Spurs and Villa being the clubs who'd be considered if more than three teams from one country were allowed.

Anyway. The Super League would soon stagnate with a handful of clubs with Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Bayern, Barca and Madrid being miles better than the rest. Would the likes of Spurs, second rate German, Dutch, Italian teams be content to just make up the numbers year after year? 

Histoy and local rivals gone forever. No domestic or European Cups. Without proper promotion and relegation the whole thing would collapse in next to no time. 

[Mark Kelly]

8 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

Unlike the first time, If the ESL does happen then "everyone else" won't be invited.

State owned clubs won't be invited and we might we'll miss out because of present situation. Top three from England would obviously be Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool with Spurs and Villa being the clubs who'd be considered if more than three teams from one country were allowed.

Anyway. The Super League would soon stagnate with a handful of clubs with Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Bayern, Barca and Madrid being miles better than the rest. Would the likes of Spurs, second rate German, Dutch, Italian teams be content to just make up the numbers year after year? 

Histoy and local rivals gone forever. No domestic or European Cups. Without proper promotion and relegation the whole thing would collapse in next to no time. 

Arsenal and Spurs have absolutely no European pedigree whatsoever , I don't want a European super league any more than you do but Arsenal and Spurs being asked to join before Chelsea is ludicrous.

[ROTG]

16 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

Unlike the first time, If the ESL does happen then "everyone else" won't be invited.

State owned clubs won't be invited and we might we'll miss out because of present situation. Top three from England would obviously be Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool with Spurs and Villa being the clubs who'd be considered if more than three teams from one country were allowed.

Anyway. The Super League would soon stagnate with a handful of clubs with Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Bayern, Barca and Madrid being miles better than the rest. Would the likes of Spurs, second rate German, Dutch, Italian teams be content to just make up the numbers year after year? 

Histoy and local rivals gone forever. No domestic or European Cups. Without proper promotion and relegation the whole thing would collapse in next to no time. 

It might be the case with ESL is backed by PIF then money to all teams will be substantial allowing all the teams to compete for the best players 

LIV golf was only going to last 12 months according to the PGA 😮

[Dwmh]

21 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

Arsenal and Spurs have absolutely no European pedigree whatsoever , I don't want a European super league any more than you do but Arsenal and Spurs being asked to join before Chelsea is ludicrous.

Not this year.  Certainly not next year.

[boratsbrother]

37 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

Arsenal and Spurs have absolutely no European pedigree whatsoever , I don't want a European super league any more than you do but Arsenal and Spurs being asked to join before Chelsea is ludicrous.

Of course Chelsea have  a far superior pedigree in Europe than those two, but we've got to take into account of where we currently are and will be for the foreseeable future on and off the field. That, along with possible severe sanctions are the reasons I think Arsenal and Spurs would be more likely to be invited than us 

[Sciatika]

Have you considered that Juventus, Bayern, the Madrids and the Milans might prefer Spurs and Arsenal? That's the problem with self-selected leagues.

[Chelsea_Matt]

On 14/12/2023 at 12:23, xceleryx said:

Much overlooked in all this is that Roman himself made a very strong stance that he'd only sell the club to who he felt was the best candidate long term (hence the 10 year non-sale clause). Ultimately, he chose Clearlake out of all the other proposals.

So? He didn’t know that Todd ‘n ‘ Eggy would fuck it all up like they have. As others have said, it’ll take a long time before we’re “back”. I think AT LEAST 5/10 years.