ROTG Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 13 hours ago, chara said: Might explain in a small part the difference in the basic approach of our Overlords ? You could also ask, how many time did the overlords going in front of the cameras when the team were not on such a good run this season. Going to be interesting to see if the overlords have any influence on how the marketing / sponsorship side of players like Cole Palmer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boratsbrother Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 47 minutes ago, ROTG said: The only thing creamcakes are fans of is making money, regardless how they try to package it. Would you prefer owners who want to see the club lose shedloads of money? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boratsbrother Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 (edited) 57 minutes ago, ROTG said: You could also ask, how many time did the overlords going in front of the cameras when the team were not on such a good run this season. I think his comments make it certain Poch will be here next season. He'd look a complete noob if he sacked him 3 ganes after praising the way the team is playing. Pressure will be on him bigtime next season though and rightly so I guess. Pretty sure 4th place will be expected with anything less resulting in him leaving. Will be interested to see what kind of contract he is offered if we do get 4th. A 2 year extension to try and win the title would be a fair one imho. Edited May 10 by boratsbrother 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 All going to plan, nothing to see here! No Europe, no sponsors and ignoring the stadium issue they promised updates on. All is well otherwise! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguelito07 Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 The board have to focus alot more on the medical department because if we have the same number of injuries next season then we are getting nowhere fast (again) 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thevelourfog Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 Hugely compromising us as a long-term asset to temporarily manage a short-term problem entirely of their making. I'm sure it's actually "genius", though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROTG Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 36 minutes ago, thevelourfog said: Hugely compromising us as a long-term asset to temporarily manage a short-term problem entirely of their making. I'm sure it's actually "genius", though. One hopes this is not true, all those years of Uncle Ken & Roman making sure the club owned everything gone with 24 months to compensate for mismanagement of transfer funds. Are these lot any better than the Glazers??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thevelourfog Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 40 minutes ago, ROTG said: One hopes this is not true, all those years of Uncle Ken & Roman making sure the club owned everything gone with 24 months to compensate for mismanagement of transfer funds. Are these lot any better than the Glazers??? It's true that the owners at least intend to sell Cobham from the club to BlueCo, the screenshots make that quite clear. We're being asset stripped and there isn't two ways about it. BlueCo owning our assets isn't clever accounting (not least because it doesn't seem clear it will actually fall within the profit and sustainability rules), it's Clearlake protecting itself and throwing the club to the wolves. It is something to be very, very worried about. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bones Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 Oh dear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bones Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 "Prima facie this does not sound like a good idea. It moves tangible assets of huge value out of direct club ownership into a separate entity that may be controlled by the ultimate owner but not controlled by the club itself (if it were, then it'd be consolidated and therefore not count). This means that if the ownership group were to divest from Chelsea (the club) they can bankrupt the club but make off with the tangible assets of the club itself. Not saying that's what will happen, but it could and that worrying. The same thing happened with the hotels if I remember correctly. Moving tangible assets out of the club's direct ownership exposes the club to significant risk during financial hardship as we're just left with intangibles, which can fluctuate significantly in valuation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarefreeMuratcan Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 Government should give us back the £2.5bn billion if we get asset tripped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
east lower Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 1 hour ago, ROTG said: One hopes this is not true, all those years of Uncle Ken & Roman making sure the club owned everything gone with 24 months to compensate for mismanagement of transfer funds. Are these lot any better than the Glazers??? Nope 51 minutes ago, thevelourfog said: It's true that the owners at least intend to sell Cobham from the club to BlueCo, the screenshots make that quite clear. We're being asset stripped and there isn't two ways about it. BlueCo owning our assets isn't clever accounting (not least because it doesn't seem clear it will actually fall within the profit and sustainability rules), it's Clearlake protecting itself and throwing the club to the wolves. It is something to be very, very worried about. This was entirely predictable and without immediate and almost unparalleled success on the pitch, was one of the only ways that their investment could be at least mitigated against loss. They're vultures (ala ruthless businessmen) and money is their god. 20 minutes ago, Bones said: Oh dear! Oh dear indeed. If things go south now in terms of us continuing to be just a mediocre on the pitch team and not be turned into a Man City type winning machine, then we have a worrying future. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original 21 Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 Just a note of caution that this story comes from a Man City fan with an agenda and this may not be what it looks like… 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thevelourfog Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 19 minutes ago, Original 21 said: Just a note of caution that this story comes from a Man City fan with an agenda and this may not be what it looks like… I am not going to pretend to be any kind of financial expert but I am curious to know what the "interpretation", and relatedly what alternative interpretations, could be. To the lay person, the screenshots show ownership of a club asset being moved outside of the club. That would be, in very literal terms, an asset being stripped. Anyone who isn't a lay person here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ham Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 1 hour ago, thevelourfog said: I am not going to pretend to be any kind of financial expert but I am curious to know what the "interpretation", and relatedly what alternative interpretations, could be. To the lay person, the screenshots show ownership of a club asset being moved outside of the club. That would be, in very literal terms, an asset being stripped. Anyone who isn't a lay person here? No difference to the stadium etc al being ring-fenced under Fordstam under Roman and let's not pretend that the hotels have a life-span beyond the next 2-3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 3 hours ago, thevelourfog said: It's true that the owners at least intend to sell Cobham from the club to BlueCo, the screenshots make that quite clear. We're being asset stripped and there isn't two ways about it. BlueCo owning our assets isn't clever accounting (not least because it doesn't seem clear it will actually fall within the profit and sustainability rules), it's Clearlake protecting itself and throwing the club to the wolves. It is something to be very, very worried about. Looks that way unfortunately. I was under the assumption that Roman got guarantees as part of the sale that something like this couldn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulw66 Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 BTW, has anyone heard any rumours about when we will hear about ST renewals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thevelourfog Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 32 minutes ago, Ham said: No difference to the stadium etc al being ring-fenced under Fordstam under Roman and let's not pretend that the hotels have a life-span beyond the next 2-3 years. First sentence, I genuinely am not following what you are saying. Did Fordstam own Chelsea assets separately from owning Chelsea? Not my understanding but again, not claiming expertise. I haven't mentioned the hotels, never mind "pretended" anything about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thevelourfog Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1898617/chelsea-womens-team-todd-boehly Reports now that the owners are seeking to divest a stake in the women's team. Could be 2+2 bollocks, but there is a pattern here and it is not a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ham Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 (edited) 3 hours ago, thevelourfog said: First sentence, I genuinely am not following what you are saying. Did Fordstam own Chelsea assets separately from owning Chelsea? Not my understanding but again, not claiming expertise. I haven't mentioned the hotels, never mind "pretended" anything about them. I was of the belief that there was a sub-company covering the property assets that had Fordstam in the name but maybe I'm wrong. On the second paragraph, wasn't saying that you were pretending anything. That was more an observation on the bona fides of any transfer of ownership of an asset that has no future if we're redeveloping. Edited May 13 by Ham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
east lower Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 5 hours ago, thevelourfog said: https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1898617/chelsea-womens-team-todd-boehly Reports now that the owners are seeking to divest a stake in the women's team. Could be 2+2 bollocks, but there is a pattern here and it is not a good one. Looks like they’d sell their grannies if it protected their investment. Unless of course it’s all those naughty media types just making s**t up, but they appear to be naming names - albeit the one company who want to be kept informed but hasn’t confirmed an interest. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Blood Is Blue Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kelly Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 8 minutes ago, Bison said: But stay up they did... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sciatika Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 I don't understand this. The Strasbourg squad's average age is 24.4, while Perrin is 25. Eight outfield players are older than Perrin, and there are only two under 20. Both are 19. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now