Todd Boehly, Bedad Eghbali and the (new) Chelsea Board

[Blue Orca]

12 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

People heard about us selling a hotel to BlueCo for 76 million to balance the books regarding making a loss / having to sell players this summer?
If so fair play and i was wrong to question them (assuming no unforeseen consequences)

Where was this, and if one of the SB hotels will it hinder our dev plans? 

[Mark Kelly]

17 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

People heard about us selling a hotel to BlueCo for 76 million to balance the books regarding making a loss / having to sell players this summer?
If so fair play and i was wrong to question them (assuming no unforeseen consequences)

I think they've hit on another way to bend the rules, from what I hear they can then resell the hotel back to the club and resell it again whenever the need arises. 

Quite hilarious to be honest. 

[Chelsea_Matt]

59 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

I think they've hit on another way to bend the rules, from what I hear they can then resell the hotel back to the club and resell it again whenever the need arises. 

Quite hilarious to be honest. 

Like a toxic game of pass the parcel. 

Meanwhile no punishment for Citeh of course.

[Ham]

1 hour ago, Max Fowler said:

People heard about us selling a hotel to BlueCo for 76 million to balance the books regarding making a loss / having to sell players this summer?
If so fair play and i was wrong to question them (assuming no unforeseen consequences)

There's a chance the PL won't allow that to count towards PSR.  Just P&L.

Also odd that anyone would believe that a hotel is worth £76m when it's due to be demolished in 2027 🤷🏻‍♂️

[ROTG]

21 minutes ago, Ham said:

There's a chance the PL won't allow that to count towards PSR.  Just P&L.

Also odd that anyone would believe that a hotel is worth £76m when it's due to be demolished in 2027 🤷🏻‍♂️

they can sell the hotel, but if memory serves me when uncle Ken built the hotel he also built flats within the development, which one would assume are freehold or have 999 year leases. Is that another unforeseen costs for BlueCo

[Max Fowler]

Fair play clown lake

 

 

[Mark Kelly]

2 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

Fair play clown lake

 

 

The old Man City, "not a related company" switcheroo. 

[east lower]

12 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

Fair play clown lake

 

 

Smacks a bit of ‘Selling the Family Silver’ to stay afloat - in this case to stay inside the rules. 

Eventually the cupboard is bare and there’s nowt left but the stale breadcrumbs - but I better not keep talking about the coach like that!

[blueboy1905]

Amazing isn't it. Anyone who watched 'This is Wrexham' on Netflix saw an American and a Canadian come in with virtually no clue how to run a football club. What did they do ? They hired people who knew the league, knew the culture and knew the history of the football club. The result is back to back promotions. Meanwhile we have two American fuckwits assisted by two useless mid table Sporting Directors and an assortment of amateurs from the commercial department to the medical department. Our club is now run by a committee of money grabbing leaches.

Edited April 13 by blueboy1905

[MickyDroy]

Ridiculous if that's actually allowed.

But talk about kicking the can down the road. You'd think selling off our most talented club lads was bad enough but NO, now we are also asset stripping the club to comply with the financial rules.

Thank God for the CPO, otherwise you just know The Bridge would be in their names soon enough if not for the CPO. Cobham may be next though unfortunately.

But make no mistake about what they are doing here. They are lending money against the club so they can purchase properties like the Stoll Mansions and the hotel for themselves which for them is insurance for the future while they club is likely going to be fucked.

 

Edited April 13 by MickyDroy

[chara]

5 minutes ago, blueboy1905 said:

 Our club is now run by a committee of money grabbing leaches.

They are not even that good!🦖🚽🐀🦨🪲

[Backbiter]

1 hour ago, Mark Kelly said:

The old Man City, "not a related company" switcheroo. 

Can Blueco now buy Lukaku for, say, £95m? And Kepa for, erm, £72m?

[Max Fowler]

Good info in this tweet

clown lake after all??

 

 

[Ham]

3 hours ago, MickyDroy said:

Ridiculous if that's actually allowed.

But talk about kicking the can down the road. You'd think selling off our most talented club lads was bad enough but NO, now we are also asset stripping the club to comply with the financial rules.

 

The hotels aren't an asset.They're on death row. They're just site clearance costs. 

If they get away with this, it's genius. 

 

[ROTG]

Chelsea face a battle to comply with the Premier League’s profit and sustainability rules (PSR) and could be forced to sell players before June 30 after their financial state was laid bare in a sobering set of accounts.

The club’s accounts for the year ending June 30, 2023 saw them post a pre-tax loss of £90.1million ($112m), while wages climbed from £340.2m (2022) to £404m in 2023.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Only Manchester City’s annual wage bill (£423m) is higher than Chelsea’s. Last season, City won the Premier League, Champions League and FA Cup. Chelsea men’s team finished 12th in the league, though the women’s side won the Women’s Super League and the women’s FA Cup.

Chelsea’s accounts also show that between July 1, 2022 and June 30, 2023, they spent a total of £745.2m on new players. Their accounts note that a further £454.1m has been spent on players since June 30, 2023. They raised £203m from player sales and made a net profit of £62.9m on player trading overall, thanks to the sales of Timo Werner to RB Leipzig, Kalidou Koulibaly to Al Hilal and Jorginho and Kai Havertz to Arsenal.

Chelsea's worrying numbers

	OPERATING PROFITS/LOSS £M
Chelsea	-249
Leicester	-152
A Villa	-139
Everton	-115
Leeds	-78
Newcastle	-66
N Forest	-61
Tottenham	-55
Wolves	-54
Arsenal	-39
Southampton	-37
Man City	-36
Fulham	-35
Man Utd	-31
Liverpool	-23
Bournemouth	-21
C Palace	-20
Brighton	-16
West Ham	-12
Brentford	4

Since a consortium led by Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital bought the club in May 2022, Chelsea have splurged a combined £1.2bn on new signings.

This has resulted in their amortisation — how transfers are accounted for in club’s financial reports, with the cost of acquiring players, including fee and salary, spread out over the length of their contracts — soaring to £205m, up from £162.5m in 2022.

Due to the £454.1m spent on players after June 30, 2023 — such as Moises Caicedo, Cole Palmer and Axel Disasi — Chelsea’s amortisation figure for the 2023-24 period will likely have increased further. The club’s £205m figure is already a Premier League high, with Manchester United in second on £152m. Manchester City’s stands at £145.4m.

GO DEEPER

Chelsea may have spent £1bn - but how much of that have they seen on the pitch?

Enzo Fernandez’s £105m arrival from Benfica in February 2023 counts towards this set of accounts (Darren Walsh/Chelsea FC via Getty Images)

What does this all mean for Chelsea’s PSR calculations?

Analysis from football finance expert Kieran Maguire

“Chelsea need to start selling again, but if you have got a £400m wage bill, then that means you have players on very big wages and there are a limited number of clubs willing to take those players off your hands, or a limited number of clubs a player would be willing to transfer to.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

“They are still good at selling players, and that is the one thing they have always had in their favour. Mason Mount will grab back £60million, but Chelsea are under more pressure now regarding June 30, especially as we have seen the PSR commissions say, with respect to Nottingham Forest, that if you sell later in the year, tough, you know what the rules are.

“My concern is more for the three-year reporting period ending in this season because they have not had the benefits of European football. We had all been told that the wage bill will go down under Clearlake Capital, but the fact it shot up has taken me back.

“It will drop this season because they will not be paying European bonuses, for example. The amortisation charge is completely out of control and that is with their eight-year contracts applied. It is £50million more than Manchester City. They are going to have to work extremely hard to keep within PSR by June 30.”

Chelsea's wages are high

	WAGES £M
Man City	423
Chelsea	404
Liverpool	373
Man Utd	331
Tottenham	251
Arsenal	235
Leicester	206
A Villa	194
Newcastle	187
Everton	159
Leeds	146
N Forest	145
Fulham	139
West Ham	137
Brighton	128
C Palace	124
Wolves	121
Southampton	113
Bournemouth	100
Brentford	99

When asked by The Athletic about their accounts, Chelsea maintained confidence that they will remain compliant with the Premier League’s PSR for the period ending in 2023-24 season. Chelsea added that they expect their wage bill to be different in the 2023-24 accounts after moving players out last summer.

How does it look going forward?

Analysis from football finance expert Kieran Maguire

“The main issue is that these accounts are worse than everyone expected. I can’t see any positives. They can’t grow matchday revenue this season because Stamford Bridge is full. TV income will be down around £70million because of not playing in Europe and unless they win every match until the end of the season, then finishing eighth or ninth is £3million per place, so they may get a little bit more.

“Qualifying for the Europa League and Conference League does not make money, it is only the Champions League that puts plusses on the bottom line. If you get to the final of the Europa League or the semi-final, then that is about OK, but you aren’t making much money before that.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

“There must be a lot of pressure on the club. The fact there was a £90million loss and that was after selling the hotel to themselves. Under EFL rules, you are not allowed to put that (hotel sale) into your PSR calculations.

“If they can’t do that for the Premier League, then it will make a bad situation even worse.”

GO DEEPER

Confused, drifting, a mess: What next for the Chelsea 'project'?

Chelsea face a battle to qualify for Europe this season (George Wood/Getty Images)

What else do the accounts tell us?

The accounts show that Chelsea borrowed £428.5m interest-free, although no information is given regarding who lent the money.

Chelsea also sold a hotel to BlueCo 22 Limited — a company which lists Boehly and other Chelsea board members as its directors  — for £76.3m, which would have gone towards reducing the £90.1m loss.

It is unclear whether the Premier League will allow for money generated from the hotel sale to another company associated with the club to be used towards the PSR numbers. Chelsea say this was done in line with Premier League rules and was run past the league.

The accounts also reveal that the club considers Blues Investment Holdings to be its ultimate parent company. Blues Investment Holdings is incorporated in the Cayman Islands, which is a British-owned territory that is best known for its status as a tax haven. Manchester United’s parent company is also registered there.

Chelsea’s overall revenue increased from £481.3m in 2022 to £512.5m in 2023, with the majority of this rise coming from their commercial department.
Their commercial income grew to £210.1m for the year ended June 30, 2023, having totalled £177.1m in the previous year.

These figures come off the back of it being revealed on Friday that Chelsea spent £75.1m on agent fees between February 1, 2023 and February 2, 2024. This was more than any other Premier League side, with Manchester City spending £60m during the same period.

(Clive Brunskill/Getty Images)

[Mark Kelly]

There appears to be a media led circle jerk with regards to not meeting the Premier league's version of FFP and yet the club unlike City and Everton haven't been charged with anything . Every article we read appears to be based on what the author wants to happen rather than what's happening . I've seen hundreds and barely anything on City and their 115 charges . How odd .

[Sciatika]

True. I will wait until early July and see whether any charges are brought. If not, I have bookmarked a whole load of "financial experts", web influencers and so on and, on one of my angry days, I will publically demand why they got it wrong when they were so certain of their claims. I think the world would be a better place if there were jeopardy when people make or promote claims with little or no evidence. I have extreme doubts any of them have been anywhere near the books.

[chara]

5 hours ago, Sciatika said:

True. I will wait until early July and see whether any charges are brought. If not, I have bookmarked a whole load of "financial experts", web influencers and so on and, on one of my angry days, I will publically demand why they got it wrong when they were so certain of their claims. I think the world would be a better place if there were jeopardy when people make or promote claims with little or no evidence. I have extreme doubts any of them have been anywhere near the books.

Wise words as ever Sciatica but the underlined section would mean the annihilation of the World Media as we know it..not necessarily a bad thing!

One of the many hard earned bits of life awareness I have is something like.."Save your powder" fight the battle when it arrives..prepare yes but don't waste energy and resources until actually needed,,the way to madness and an aid to one's opponents/aggressors.

[Max Fowler]

I have to be honest if they get away with this it kinda makes you warm to the owners haha

 

 

[Ham]

14 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

I have to be honest if they get away with this it kinda makes you warm to the owners haha

 

 

Todd Boehly - "I'm selling two hotels which are due to be demolished, hopefully, in 2027. I'd like £76.5m please". 

Behdad Eghbali - "Deal".

 

Edited April 19 by Ham

[chara]

I found the "responses" from other clubs "interesting" and reeking of sour grapes ..of course I am biased but selling of an asset ,,,a player...is ok (even a bit slyly giggled at if someone like Conor,) but bricks and mortar no?,,,,What about the venue name?... that's ok?...shirt sponsorship?... and so on...what if somewhere along the line a club manages to get a deal on naming a goal.? I mean the actual structure but as I write maybe taking cash to have a game goal named after you.?...the Chara goal of the day,,,on a seasonal or individual game basis..getting carried away but imagine the in fighting on here over this week as me, Mark, Skiatica Jane  Blue Moon Bob S. and Nobbly B squabble over the bragging rights for the best goal scored..(hmm which one would we have chosen/)..I digress as ever .,,but as a well established worshipper of The Cat when I win the lottery maybe I'd sponsor the Shed End goal as the Peter Bonetti Goal..or even the whole Goal Area..? Sponsors name printed across the area..or what about the penalty spot?...OK now spiralling off into OG Twilight Zone but somewhere in there is a point (I think!)

In mitigation..after a week with 70's F temps it;s now snowing..no wonder I may be "drifting" somewhat!

Edited April 19 by chara

[Sciatika]

To be honest, I'd take the ones that come off the backsides of opposition players. Entirely appropriately to my handle 😊

Edited April 19 by Sciatika

[Sciatika]

12 hours ago, Max Fowler said:

I have to be honest if they get away with this it kinda makes you warm to the owners haha

They almost certainly will because it is within the rules. They are not breaking the rules but sailing close to the wind. It's a bit like the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance; the former is illegal, and the latter is just sensible practice. Generally, when people get annoyed with the latter, it's because they didn't think of it first. They have used two different independent valuers, and the amount received is probably about right. Wait until they find out the £55m income from the Mount transfer is being booked against next year's accounts, along with the £35m for Lewis Hall and the £35m release clause on Ian Maatsen. That money could have been used instead of the hotels. The reporters and pundits have spent a season talking about the £1bn squad while our owners have focused on the bottom line (i.e. net spend) and apportioned their income accordingly.

Edited April 20 by Sciatika

[Ham]

1 hour ago, Sciatika said:

They almost certainly will because it is within the rules. They are not breaking the rules but sailing close to the wind. It's a bit like the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance; the former is illegal, and the latter is just sensible practice. Generally, when people get annoyed with the latter, it's because they didn't think of it first. They have used two different independent valuers, and the amount received is probably about right. Wait until they find out the £55m income from the Mount transfer is being booked against next year's accounts, along with the £35m for Lewis Hall and the £35m release clause on Ian Maatsen. That money could have been used instead of the hotels. The reporters and pundits have spent a season talking about the £1bn squad while our owners have focused on the bottom line (i.e. net spend) and apportioned their income accordingly.

Certainly I see no issue in principle with two independent valuers placing a value of £76m on two hotels in a prime location.  Nothing to see here.

What I cannot get my head around is the fact that they've valued two condemned buildings at £76m. 

 

[Blue Moon]

10 minutes ago, Ham said:

What I cannot get my head around is the fact that they've valued two condemned buildings at £76m. 

The land?