Chelsea owners and board

[east lower]

13 minutes ago, east lower said:

They already own a wonderful 140+ acre site in Surrey.

We could be the Stoke D'Abernon Stockbrokers - Go Brokers!

And the more I think about it, the more fun it will be.

There could be a Theme Park next to it, retail park, charge a fortune for all of it and only 20 or so minutes away for me. 

Poke the fun of London travel up TFL's backside. 

Where's the petition?

Was it "Go Brokers" or just Go Broke!

[Sciatika]

55 minutes ago, east lower said:

I don’t pretend to understand the intricacies of the way they may think and they are supposedly the experts in making money.

But from my very simplified way of thinking, who’s currently or has been making the sort of money from PL football that will give these people a return in the investment? 

They may be the smartest person in the room, but the investors could put their money in safe places and make 5%. 

I cannot see past a sale as being the only option as a means as ROI.

We see this all the time in the business world, investors come in acquiring a business - want to “double turnover” and restructure/re-focus and then sell it on within 5 years. They don’t say it but just do it.

And in my experience, even the smartest investors don’t always do their due diligence properly and get themselves in a place they didn’t think they’d be (worse).

I don't claim to be an expert, but I have heard quite a lot of stuff about this over the years, some of which makes me feel optimistic and some less so. 

I suspect they are working on the principle that they can generate the revenue to build a business with an ROI of about 10% pa, which would generate a company worth £10bn in 10 years. They intend to do so by maximising the customer base, building the business in terms of global reach and having more product lines by diversifying the business (which will, in the long term, make it more resilient). They certainly are early in the process. I think they got a bit stymied by the regulatory constraints of government and bodies like the PL and FA. For instance, TB indicated at one stage that they wanted to do stuff with gambling. They also struggled with the business side, such as not having sponsors ready, which, for instance, is more of a worry.

A sale would be a disaster for the investors because they have a lot of sunk capital in this project. They would not be able to get the amount they would need to avoid a huge loss.

Of course, what you say about due diligence is correct, but I think they did that and even built-in options to deal with problems that arose from the former owner. For instance, they reported problems under the previous administration rather than getting caught with their pants down.

Your other point about unscrupulous owners is true. Of course, investors do this, though not as often with consortia, who tend to protect each others' interests. If they restructured it to make it profitable, I doubt they would sell it. The worst case is asset stripping. But unlike most businesses, the assets are in players' contract values, which are hard to offload and rarely generate a profit, and the physical assets, i.e., Cobham and SB. Cobham would not make much (a few hundred million), and SB cannot be sold because they don't own the pitch. It makes me glad I bought a CPO share. It also seems unlikely that an asset stripper would spend millions on the Stoll site, given the timeframes involved.

I don't think the owners are seeking to sell the club, but I think they are really struggling. It is in our interests that they get it right and succeed.

Edited April 11 by Sciatika

[east lower]

2 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

I don't claim to be an expert, but I have heard quite a lot of stuff about this over the years, some of which makes me feel optimistic and some less so. 

I suspect they are working on the principle that they can generate the revenue to build a business with an ROI of about 10% pa, which would generate a company worth £10bn in 10 years. They intend to do so by maximising the customer base, building the business in terms of global reach and having more product lines by diversifying the business (which will, in the long term, make it more resilient). They certainly are early in the process. I think they got a bit stymied by the regulatory constraints of government and bodies like the PL and FA. For instance, TB indicated at one stage that they wanted to do stuff with gambling. They also struggled with the business side, such as not having sponsors ready, which, for instance, is more of a worry.

A sale would be a disaster for the investors because they have a lot of sunk capital in this project. They would not be able to get the amount they would need to avoid a huge loss.

Of course, what you say about due diligence is correct, but I think they did that and even built-in options to deal with problems that arose from the former owner. For instance, they reported problems under the previous administration rather than getting caught with their pants down.

Your other point about unscrupulous owners is true. Of course, investors do this, though not as often with consortia who tend to protect each others' interests but wealthy individuals who lack scruples. If they restructured it to make it profitable, I doubt they would sell it. The worst case is asset stripping. But unlike most businesses, the assets are in players' contract values, which are hard to offload and rarely generate a profit, and the physical assets, i.e., Cobham and SB. Cobham would not make much (a few hundred million), and SB cannot be sold because they don't own the pitch. Makes me glad I bought a CPO share. It also seems unlikely that an asset stripper would spend millions on the Stoll site, given the timeframes involved.

I don't think the owners are seeking to sell the club, but I think they are really struggling. It is in our interests that they get it right and succeed.

Thank you for your posts, they highlight other area's outside of my own knowledge and provide lots of information to mull around in the brain-box.

Personally, and whatever their rationale actually was behind their purchase or simply bad advice - I think that they're in the mire and by association so is the team, the fans and the club we know.

I'm a pessimist by nature (less nasty surprises and disappointment that way), but I think that disaster is just starting to appear on the horizon and unless there is dramatic change in the direction the club is heading we could be 'proper f****d'.

Teams a mess, no extra revenue coming in if that stays as it us. Fan base is nowhere near where they'll  need it to be,  especially globally where success is almost everything.  Interest will wane.

They've misread the room and I don't think thar they can get us out of it. Unless they can get the team successful again and the FFP rules get relaxed or changed. That gets them an exit route via a sale.

As fans we are already counting the cost of American ownership - Everything is going up in price, surveys for this, marketing boll***s coming at us from everywhere. Removal of travel subsidy (cost of that per season £260k !) for away fans, pay to stream age-group matches.

Season Ticket price rises will be next. Scouse lot are protesting tonight about a 2% rise next season, albeit that's on top of their American owners almost doubling the cost of their ST'S over recent years. I hope we can muster up the same level of ire, when our lot do far, far worse than the 2% stick a zero behind the two if rumours are to be believed. And just to rub it in, to watch the pile of crap being delivered  - it tries the patience of the most ardent fans.

There were hundreds if not thousands of seats on the ticket exchange yesterday for Monday's game - A sign of things to come?

[ROTG]

1 hour ago, RDCW said:

CPO owns the rights to the CFC name, so the club can't be transplanted anywhere else. It would cease to be Chelsea FC and would therefore cease to exist.

Good Point, however everything has a price or they become AFC Chelsea or Chelsea 1905, similar to Wimbledon coming back as AFC Wimbledon, because MK Dons owned Wimbledon FC

[ROTG]

1 hour ago, east lower said:

We could be the Stoke D'Abernon Stockbrokers - Go Brokers!

Stoke D'Abernon and Effingham Junction two station there was never any taxi's when I used to wake up or be woken up still inebriated on the last train from waterloo in the 80's. Calling the signal box and threatening to walk back down the line to Leatherhead used to work with them phoning a taxi for me. On a couple of occasions after a heated discussion with a jobs worth in the signal box, they would send a taxi with blue flashing lights 😀

For the teenagers no mobiles phones in those days 

Edited April 11 by ROTG

[Sciatika]

16 minutes ago, ROTG said:

Good Point, however everything has a price or they become AFC Chelsea or Chelsea 1905, similar to Wimbledon coming back as AFC Wimbledon, because MK Dons owned Wimbledon FC

But we also own the chief asset, the pitch, so the site cannot be sold without our approval, so moving the club elsewhere would not make any profit. CPOs are mostly Chelsea fans. 

Edited April 11 by Sciatika

[RDCW]

8 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

But we also own the chief asset, the pitch, so the site cannot be sold without our approval, so moving the club elsewhere would not make any profit. CPOs are mostly Chelsea fans. 

Exactly.

[Bert19]

2 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

But we also own the chief asset, the pitch, and so the site cannot be sold without our approval, so moving the club elsewhere would not realise any profit. CPOs are mostly Chelsea fans. 

But surely the CPO could have a vote amongst shareholders that would allow a move of location if the CPO structure stayed in place as the insurance policy against any misbehaviour? The Club can move, but all of the assets we currently own as CPO shareholders stay in place for the new site.  That way, we could guarantee the safety of the Club going forward as originally intended. 

The more I think about the redevelopment and the new stadium, the more I do wonder if a purchase of Earl's Court and the sale of the SB site could be the most economical and simple option? This is just my opinion and obviously I'd love Stamford Bridge to be our home forever, but as a piece of real estate footprint it must be incredibly valuable. Any sale of the site could just about pay for a new stadium.  Especially if the Club can negotiate a future % or something like that.  

Given the obvious difficulties in buying up land, increasing the footprint, getting planning permission, having a temporary home for 2/3/4 years, maybe a move is the most likely outcome in the end? We could play at SB until the new stadium is ready and move over a closed-season period too.  

[RDCW]

Just now, RDCW said:

Exactly.

And the structure means that no hostile entity is able to buy up shares with voting rights to overwhelm the other CPO shareholders : 1 vote per shareholders means that if the CPO fails to protect the club it's be cause the fans will have sold out, which isn't going to happen.

[RDCW]

1 minute ago, Bert19 said:

But surely the CPO could have a vote amongst shareholders that would allow a move of location if the CPO structure stayed in place as the insurance policy against any misbehaviour? The Club can move, but all of the assets we currently own as CPO shareholders stay in place for the new site.  That way, we could guarantee the safety of the Club going forward as originally intended. 

The more I think about the redevelopment and the new stadium, the more I do wonder if a purchase of Earl's Court and the sale of the SB site could be the most economical and simple option? This is just my opinion and obviously I'd love Stamford Bridge to be our home forever, but as a piece of real estate footprint it must be incredibly valuable. Any sale of the site could just about pay for a new stadium.  Especially if the Club can negotiate a future % or something like that.  

Given the obvious difficulties in buying up land, increasing the footprint, getting planning permission, having a temporary home for 2/3/4 years, maybe a move is the most likely outcome in the end? We could play at SB until the new stadium is ready and move over a closed-season period too.  

Yes to the first part. So if the move is deemed to be advantageous and the CPO has the same rights in the new location a move could happen. It would not be my preference, but I things it probably is what Clearlake have in mind.

[east lower]

21 minutes ago, ROTG said:

Stoke D'Abernon and Effingham Junction two station there was never any taxi's when I used to wake up or be woken up still inebriated on the last train from waterloo in the 80's. Calling the signal box and threatening to walk back down the line to Leatherhead used to work with them phoning a taxi for me. On a couple of occasions after a heated discussion with a jobs worth in the signal box, they would send a taxi with blue flashing lights 😀

For the teenagers no mobiles phones in those days 

🤣

Takes me back. We used to end up in the Lyceum Ballroom on a Friday night and get the last train out of Waterloo or if we had distractions, what used to known as the Milk Train (first one out). But generally the worse for wear.

I ended up in Portsmouth, Haslemere, got to Basingstoke one night which meant I'd changed trains somewhere. Only trying to get back to Guildford!

Edited April 11 by east lower

[east lower]

19 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

But we also own the chief asset, the pitch, so the site cannot be sold without our approval, so moving the club elsewhere would not make any profit. CPOs are mostly Chelsea fans. 

 

7 minutes ago, RDCW said:

And the structure means that no hostile entity is able to buy up shares with voting rights to overwhelm the other CPO shareholders : 1 vote per shareholders means that if the CPO fails to protect the club it's be cause the fans will have sold out, which isn't going to happen.

They're very rich people and very rich people have ways of making things happen that others don't. 

Legally protected land or not. 

Seen it happen multiple times over the years, in other business areas.

Just a couple of examples: Could the CPO afford a legal  battle, and if so for how long.

If each CPO shareholder was offered £1m for their share, would they sell? There may be some already very wealthy CPO's but most things have a price.

 

[RDCW]

2 minutes ago, east lower said:

 

They're very rich people and very rich people have ways of making things happen that others don't. 

Legally protected land or not. 

Seen it happen multiple times over the years, in other business areas.

Just a couple of examples: Could the CPO afford a legal  battle, and if so for how long.

If each CPO shareholder was offered £1m for their share, would they sell? There may be some already very wealthy CPO's but most things have a price.

 

The purchase of each shareholder's share would be no good to Clearlake. There is only 1 vote per shareholder.  Buying the votes would also not be feasible, as there are laws against that kind of thing!

[Ham]

45 minutes ago, ROTG said:

Good Point, however everything has a price or they become AFC Chelsea or Chelsea 1905, similar to Wimbledon coming back as AFC Wimbledon, because MK Dons owned Wimbledon FC

 

18 minutes ago, Bert19 said:

But surely the CPO could have a vote amongst shareholders that would allow a move of location if the CPO structure stayed in place as the insurance policy against any misbehaviour? The Club can move, but all of the assets we currently own as CPO shareholders stay in place for the new site.  That way, we could guarantee the safety of the Club going forward as originally intended. 

The more I think about the redevelopment and the new stadium, the more I do wonder if a purchase of Earl's Court and the sale of the SB site could be the most economical and simple option? This is just my opinion and obviously I'd love Stamford Bridge to be our home forever, but as a piece of real estate footprint it must be incredibly valuable. Any sale of the site could just about pay for a new stadium.  Especially if the Club can negotiate a future % or something like that.  

Given the obvious difficulties in buying up land, increasing the footprint, getting planning permission, having a temporary home for 2/3/4 years, maybe a move is the most likely outcome in the end? We could play at SB until the new stadium is ready and move over a closed-season period too.  

There's lot of discussion on this on the stadium rebuild thread and on a site called Skyscraper City. 

 

[Bert19]

5 minutes ago, RDCW said:

Yes to the first part. So if the move is deemed to be advantageous and the CPO has the same rights in the new location a move could happen. It would not be my preference, but I things it probably is what Clearlake have in mind.

It's a bit of a tricky one as one suspects there needs to be a level of trust between CPO shareholders and the ownership of the Club in order for any ideas on a move to be even considered (which there rightfully is not at the moment and IMO Clearlake are being pretty stupid by not engaging with the Supporters more directly and constructively). 

But at the same time, the CPO clearly only want to protect the Club and see it succeed, so potentially hindering the progress of an improved and increased home stadium would be a divisive issue among shareholders.  

I think it all really boils down to Boehly et al being a lot less arrogant and actually communicating properly with supporters about what their plans for the Club are.  This is an ownership group in dire need of some good PR and an improved relationship with us all.  They've got bugger all chance of selling any project to us until they realise that and begin to deal with it. 

[Ham]

5 minutes ago, Bert19 said:

It's a bit of a tricky one as one suspects there needs to be a level of trust between CPO shareholders and the ownership of the Club in order for any ideas on a move to be even considered (which there rightfully is not at the moment and IMO Clearlake are being pretty stupid by not engaging with the Supporters more directly and constructively). 

But at the same time, the CPO clearly only want to protect the Club and see it succeed, so potentially hindering the progress of an improved and increased home stadium would be a divisive issue among shareholders.  

I think it all really boils down to Boehly et al being a lot less arrogant and actually communicating properly with supporters about what their plans for the Club are.  This is an ownership group in dire need of some good PR and an improved relationship with us all.  They've got bugger all chance of selling any project to us until they realise that and begin to deal with it. 

I've said it before but nobody had any issues with Roman never ever communicating to us because the team was winning trophies. 

Now that we have the Stoll land, I expect traction on the stadium front. We either use the SB site or we have more leverage when selling the site in favour of Earls Court. 

 

[east lower]

16 minutes ago, RDCW said:

The purchase of each shareholder's share would be no good to Clearlake. There is only 1 vote per shareholder.  Buying the votes would also not be feasible, as there are laws against that kind of thing!

I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what they legally could do, but the principle is that very rich people 'find a way'.

I'd not be investing much on the CPO's being able to stop them doing what they want if it became a battle. 

 

[MickyDroy]

55 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

A sale would be a disaster for the investors because they have a lot of sunk capital in this project. They would not be able to get the amount they would need to avoid a huge loss.

Never underestimate private equities ability to make money. They are vultures and often win when they seemingly lose through tax write offs or deduction allowances for example. They will eventually also load the club up on debt while they keep the assets for themselves.

I think what they've just done with Stoll Mansions is what they'll continue to do for as long as they can. The property is now theirs (the owners) but they have used the club to finance it as the only asset of the holding company. I reckon they will continue to buy up as much London property as they can by leveraging as much debt against the club as they can while stringing the supporters along by communicating that the purchases are do with rebuilding the Bridge which in actuality won't be the case.

[Max Fowler]

1 hour ago, Sciatika said:

I don't think the owners are seeking to sell the club, but I think they are really struggling. It is in our interests that they get it right and succeed.

No Chelsea fan critical of Clearlake doesn't want them to succeed, as long as success means success for the club and not just them. They were my clear first choice for new owners. The problem is, they are clearly failing hard as you imply (although apparently already increasing some revenue streams).

"It is in our interests that they get it right and succeed."

You seem to be implying we should support them as much as possible in getting it right. Make as safe and welcoming environment as possible. 

Quite the opposite is true. With that much hubris only sustained fan protests will get through to these owners that they are getting it badly wrong - then they may be convinced to change at some point (see Glazers 15 years later) or at some point we can force them to sell.

This is a long game - although theoretically possible I think it's highly unlikely we get them out any time soon. It's time to start and continue a war of attrition against these lot.

[Max Fowler]

7 minutes ago, MickyDroy said:

I reckon they will continue to buy up as much London property as they can by leveraging as much debt against the club as they can while stringing the supporters along by communicating that the purchases are do with rebuilding the Bridge which in actuality won't be the case.

In fairness the one thing about our deal I believe is we do have some protections in place against the club being loaded with debt like Man United. Believe this was ensured by the government and not Clearlake

[Sciatika]

We did it last time. The main problem with CPOs these days is that some of us are getting old (me included), some have passed away, and their share(s) inherited, possibly by people who care less, and some have emigrated or otherwise moved on. I think there are about 13000 of us with about 23000 shares. We need ordinary fans to take up a share each to widen the ownership pool. The aim is not to repay the capital but to maximise the number of CPOs because that offers the best protection to the club.  But it's hard to get people to part with money they don't have. 

@Max Fowler Maybe I should rephrase. It is in our interests that Chelsea succeed. Clearlake will be the owners in the foreseeable future, in my opinion. YMMV

[Max Fowler]

3 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

@Max Fowler Maybe I should rephrase. It is in our interests that Chelsea succeed. Clearlake will be the owners in the foreseeable future, in my opinion. YMMV

Okay, but again I think you're implying that we should make a nice, supportive environment for the players because we're stuck with these owners.

Actually the majority of Chelsea fans feel that unless we change the on the pitch model to incorporate some common sense factors - leadership, characters, PL experience, supporting Cobham graduates, raising the average age, then we actually are about to enter the football wilderness for decades.

These owners think that by magically buying all the best young players that in the next 5-10 years we are gonna magically arrive and become the best team. 

They don't understand football. It doesn't work that way. There's a reason other teams don't do that.

[Max Fowler]

 

 

[Mark Kelly]

1 hour ago, east lower said:

I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what they legally could do, but the principle is that very rich people 'find a way'.

I'd not be investing much on the CPO's being able to stop them doing what they want if it became a battle. 

 

I would imagine all they have to do is change the name to London Chelsea FC get written agreement that the history of the club transfers to the new club as a new entity from the FA and Premier League and they can move the club where they like and build some lovely high end flats around a beatiful square of grass and Robert is indeed your father's brother. 

[east lower]

20 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

I would imagine all they have to do is change the name to London Chelsea FC get written agreement that the history of the club transfers to the new club as a new entity from the FA and Premier League and they can move the club where they like and build some lovely high end flats around a beatiful square of grass and Robert is indeed your father's brother. 

Rich businessman such as the ones we have at the helm of this club thanks to this wonderful country’s politicians,  have generally overcome far larger obstacles than the ones raised by the CPO’s. 
 

And that in no way is a critique of what the CPO’s have done and would do. All power to them, they’ve put their own money in to protect the club - Champions they are.