Chelsea owners and board

[Box of Tricks]

6 hours ago, paulw66 said:

Sky Sports reporting we don't need to sell players this month.

They changed their tune quickly, this is what they were running with yesterday.

 

Funny how quick alphabetical order goes out the window...

[Ham]

1 hour ago, Bob Singleton said:

That's the point I'm making above.

We don't need to sell this month as we'll be OK regarding the FA's PSR rules for the 3 year accounting period ending 30th June 2024. The next accounting period (2022-2025) starts 1st July and we'll possibly have to sell players we might not want to otherwise sell (Gallagher and Chalobah), depending on how much we spend.

The fact is that we want to at least sell players such as Lukaku, Marr, Kepa, etc., anyway, so we will be selling irrespective of PSR.  There will also be players (1st team squad, on loan and from the development squad) deemed not to have a future at Chelsea who will also likely be sold (Maatsen, Hall, etc). It was always thus.

However, where we are likely to find ourselves in trouble is with UEFA, but the accounting period they use is 1st Jan to 31st Dec so we have a full window to sort things out there.

With regard to the rest of the statement, my main point is that Chelsea are perhaps telling porkies.  

The hotel market value hasn't been signed off so I'm not sure we're actually safe yet. 

 

[Mark Kelly]

9 minutes ago, Ham said:

With regard to the rest of the statement, my main point is that Chelsea are perhaps telling porkies.  

The hotel market value hasn't been signed off so I'm not sure we're actually safe yet. 

 

But what can the Premier league do about it when two independent assessors says its worth what it's worth, surely whether it's demolished or not that is the remit of the club it's not been condemned has it? 

Not arguing just keen to know 

[Ham]

8 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

But what can the Premier league do about it when two independent assessors says its worth what it's worth, surely whether it's demolished or not that is the remit of the club it's not been condemned has it? 

Not arguing just keen to know 

The fact that we've sold the hotels to ourselves should be a red flag. Had a genuine third party bought them I'd have agreed with you but no genuine third party would have bought them as they have no future as buildings and therefore little value as buildings. 

Yes the independent valuations are no doubt accurate but that's only half of the story.  

 

[ROTG]

4 hours ago, Ham said:

The fact that we've sold the hotels to ourselves should be a red flag. Had a genuine third party bought them I'd have agreed with you but no genuine third party would have bought them as they have no future as buildings and therefore little value as buildings. 

Yes the independent valuations are no doubt accurate but that's only half of the story.  

 

Seems assets stripping by the parent company to protect there investment. Let's see if Cobham follows the same path. 

[Sciatika]

When the sale of the hotels was reported, It seemed odd to me because the sister companies to Chelsea FC are RC Strasbourg Alsace and AF Darou Salam in Senegal, and I could not see why they would buy these assets. However, it seems this has been misreported. The property was not sold to a "sister company" but to the parent. Although I have owned and run companies, I am no expert, but it seems to me that this is not asset stripping as I understand it. To asset strip, you sell assets to a third party and then record the return as income to artificially inflate the profit and benefit the shareholders in reduced losses or increased profits while lowering the overall asset value of the company. However, in this case, they sold to the parent company (the one registered as BlueCo 22 at Companies House). In other words, they sold it to themselves. The shareholders are the same because Chelsea FC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the parent company. I believe they are not allowed to divest themselves of Chelsea FC as a club, which is one of the commitments in the original agreement with RA. So, the owners took a hit on their return on the parent company to inflate the subsidiary's income. Yes, the asset value of Chelsea has been reduced, but I think that will have little overall effect in the long term. When it comes to a new stadium or a move, this makes only a minor technical difference in the event of a sale for redevelopment. In that case, you must bring together the owners (the parent, the club and CPO) to reintegrate the property.  Whether we rebuild a stadium at SB or sell the land for development, the hotels will be demolished because the value is in the land, not the buildings. My reading, at present, is that we will build a stadium at SB because of the purchase of the Stoll buildings and the commercial and practical benefits of building a fan zone.

This income is currently allowed by the premier league. I suspect it should not be and probably won't be in the future. I think the issue is that infrastructure, such as land, stadiums, training facilities, and so on, are exempted from FFP/PSR calculations because they want to encourage investment in these areas. I suspect they only intended that exemption where it's a cost, not where it results in income. I think they tried to close the loophole, and the clubs believed that the proposed change was too wide-ranging.

Edited June 8 by Sciatika

[Chelsea_Matt]

From this week’s Popbitch. Might explain a thing or two…✌️💀😬

>> Ball games << Tried and tested techniques Ever since Moneyball came out, professional sport has become increasingly dominated by data, stats and cold, hard logic. But not everyone has turned their back on the old ways of doing things. Chelsea co-owner Behdad Eghbali doesn't run the club using modern corporate norms. His favoured interview process for club exec hires is to get a CV he likes the look of, then invite them out for a night on the town. If it goes well (and they keep pace with his drinking, etc) he offers them a job. Which possibly helps explain why Chelsea currently has an industry rep as a bit of a basket case club.

[Ham]

15 minutes ago, Chelsea_Matt said:

From this week’s Popbitch. Might explain a thing or two…✌️💀😬

>> Ball games << Tried and tested techniques Ever since Moneyball came out, professional sport has become increasingly dominated by data, stats and cold, hard logic. But not everyone has turned their back on the old ways of doing things. Chelsea co-owner Behdad Eghbali doesn't run the club using modern corporate norms. His favoured interview process for club exec hires is to get a CV he likes the look of, then invite them out for a night on the town. If it goes well (and they keep pace with his drinking, etc) he offers them a job. Which possibly helps explain why Chelsea currently has an industry rep as a bit of a basket case club.

Yeah this sounds totally feasible. 

[Bones]

Just been to New York Yankees vs Los Angeles Dodgers games last Sunday. Yankees were slight favorites and proved to be a bit stronger with a 6-4 win.

First time ever watching a baseball game too. Had to learn the rules prior to the game 😂 it is quite a complex game. And soooooooooooo different from “soccer” 😂 I can totally see how data can be used to make better decisions in baseball - Moneyball movie style. HOWEVER! Football is such much a totally different sport. There are just infinite variables and it is so hard quantify things. For example you could have a striker performing so well on paper and stats. But then you realise thay most of his goals are headers from crosses provided by a RB. Put that striker i a team with a completely different setup and those stats become totally meaningless. I can see what they (our owners) are trying to do, however, data must be only a part of reasoning before making final decision. Yes we need best data out there. But we also need best football people managing our club. Come on Chelsea 💙

 

 

[Bob Singleton]

 

[paulw66]

11 hours ago, Bob Singleton said:

 

Am I missing something? Why are we to be left "speechless" as per the headline of the video?

The vast majority of the interview is about US Sport anyway

[RDCW]

13 hours ago, Bob Singleton said:

 

The takeaway for me is the last 30 seconds, where Boehly demonstrates that he now understands the value of jeopardy in creating an equitable and exciting sporting contest. He has begun to comprehend the benefits of the football pyramid.

[Chelsea_Matt]

4 hours ago, RDCW said:

The takeaway for me is the last 30 seconds, where Boehly demonstrates that he now understands the value of jeopardy in creating an equitable and exciting sporting contest. He has begun to comprehend the benefits of the football pyramid.

Just as well because he nearly took us to the bottom of it 🤣🤣✌️💀🤣🤣

[Bison]

Quote

Chelsea are considering signing another short-term front-of-shirt sponsor with the club wary of agreeing a multi-year deal while they are out of the Champions League.

...knowing they could negotiate a far more lucrative deal if and when they again qualify for Europe’s biggest competition.

'If' doing a lot heavy lifting in that sentence. 

The one thing I thought these guys would be good at above all else is commercial deals for the club but they are in fact worse than the previous regime. 

[Mark Kelly]

39 minutes ago, Bison said:

'If' doing a lot heavy lifting in that sentence. 

The one thing I thought these guys would be good at above all else is commercial deals for the club but they are in fact worse than the previous regime. 

I don't think you're alone in that thought 

[Ham]

I was clearly wrong about IA having renewed for another year. A Twitter type got ahead of himself and I bought it.  

 

[Sciatika]

I think IA is still a sponsor but not front of shirt. 

[Ham]

Just now, Sciatika said:

I think IA is still a sponsor but not front of shirt. 

Correct. 

[My Blood Is Blue]

3 hours ago, Bison said:

'If' doing a lot heavy lifting in that sentence. 

The one thing I thought these guys would be good at above all else is commercial deals for the club but they are in fact worse than the previous regime. 

Yeah, that’s exactly what I thought, in fact I believe that’s what they told us early on, but I may be misremembering. Two years in a row we’re leaving it late to sort out a sponsor, meaning the official kit launch is delayed… such a mess.

[Ham]

23 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

Yeah, that’s exactly what I thought, in fact I believe that’s what they told us early on, but I may be misremembering. Two years in a row we’re leaving it late to sort out a sponsor, meaning the official kit launch is delayed… such a mess.

Yep.  Whilst qualifying for the CL we always wore next season's kit with sponsor before the last game of the previous season. 

[xceleryx]

5 hours ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

Yeah, that’s exactly what I thought, in fact I believe that’s what they told us early on, but I may be misremembering. Two years in a row we’re leaving it late to sort out a sponsor, meaning the official kit launch is delayed… such a mess.

In fairness it's probably not as easy as it may seem trying to find a sponsor. 

We likely couldn't arrange the groundwork needed until we actually finished the season and knew where we stood for the competitions we were going to be playing in. Granted, it's not ideal to still be chasing a solution, getting the right sponsor for the present time is equally as important. We don't want to tie ourselves to a deal that could be massively improved upon should we qualify for the CL next season, or even do better league wise. 

[My Blood Is Blue]

2 hours ago, xceleryx said:

In fairness it's probably not as easy as it may seem trying to find a sponsor. 

We likely couldn't arrange the groundwork needed until we actually finished the season and knew where we stood for the competitions we were going to be playing in. Granted, it's not ideal to still be chasing a solution, getting the right sponsor for the present time is equally as important. We don't want to tie ourselves to a deal that could be massively improved upon should we qualify for the CL next season, or even do better league wise. 

It isn’t easy, but it’s surely being negotiated and worked on by people with a lot of experience in this kind of thing who are being paid a vast amount of money to do so.

Over simplifying it here, but surely they could come to an agreement with someone that says something like “year 1 will be £xx, year 2 will be £xx if we qualify for CL or £xx if we qualify for EL or Conf League.”.

[Mark Kelly]

The only issue I have is that increasing revenue into the club was supposed to be one of the Americans attributes they brought to the table and so far from an outside view that looks like it's not been delivered. 

I remember when West Ham had no shirt sponsor and they were roundly ridiculed for it and I thought typical small man talks big delivers small of their owners. 

When you ally yourself to the fact that the golden days of football ownership are behind us and try to convince yourself that this is just part one of a plan and eventually everything will come good if we're just patient from culling the playing staff and replacing them with kids to developing the ground into a modern stadium all will come good in the end, somethings like this makes you question them more and not believe in their vision of the club going forward. 

One can imagine in twenty years time thinking 

"Wow! They really were idiots after all" 

[east lower]

3 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

.........

One can imagine in twenty years time thinking 

"Wow! They really were idiots after all" 

Won't be that long! 😉

[xceleryx]

3 hours ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

It isn’t easy, but it’s surely being negotiated and worked on by people with a lot of experience in this kind of thing who are being paid a vast amount of money to do so.

Over simplifying it here, but surely they could come to an agreement with someone that says something like “year 1 will be £xx, year 2 will be £xx if we qualify for CL or £xx if we qualify for EL or Conf League.”.

Don't necessary disagree, but obviously it's not that easy as we both know and it's not us the club that have to give the okay, it's also gotta tick the PL boxes they require - as we found out last season being an issue. 

A short term deal maximises both flexibility and revenue, it also removes the risk of a sponsor pulling the pin if certain objectives aren't met - or they don't feel it's beneficial anymore.

For me it remains one of those aspects that's difficult to have proper commentary on to rule defensive judgement.

Either way, it does need to be sorted asap.