CFCnet Admin

Media / Press

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Ruudboy said:

No great fan of gambling or, for that matter, many of the shirt sponsors. It’s just a shame that the club doesn’t seek sponsorship from companies who represent club values - and I truly don’t believe that gambling, cars, fossil fuels, aeroplanes, drinks, tobacco and electronics (most of the current sponsors) fall into that category. Better we make a positive gesture by inviting sponsorship from companies whose products and services actually benefit society and promote health etc.

Unfortunately I don't think organic broccoli farmers sponsor football clubs.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
10 hours ago, Bob Singleton said:

As an actual veggie (almost vegan but not quite... I still eat eggs and some cheeses) I have no problem with people eating chicken vindaloo. I do, however, have a problem with companies knowingly profiting from the misery of others and indeed praying on their vulnerabilities and doing little to help.

 

2 hours ago, RDCW said:

The ridiculous preponderance of gambling advertising in this country is scandalous by the way (not to mention irritating). 

And all the while, the FA ban / punish players for gambling themselves, after taking squillions in gambling revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sciatika   

I see Chris Sutton gets £155K from the BBC. Nice to finally something he is any good at. Just joking. He is crap at that as well

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sciatika said:

I see Chris Sutton gets £155K from the BBC. Nice to finally something he is any good at. Just joking. He is crap at that as well

An oxygen thief and a useless striker, especially for us!  And to think we pay our licence money to listen to his drivel.  Talk about stealing a living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ruudboy   

From today's Private Eye (just arrived) .....

PLANET FOOTBALL Chelsea

THE private equity shape of things to come at Stamford Bridge is indicated by the complex post-Roman Abramovich corporate structure for the Premier League club now owned by American Todd Biehl and his US and Swiss partners led by Clearlake Capital, major funders of the £4.25bn deal.

The £2.5bn paid for Chelsea (another £1.75bn is pledged for future investment in the stadium, academy and players) went to a Treasury-controlled UK bank account intended to prevent the sanctioned Abramovich from benefiting from the sale. He has stated that the "net proceeds" will go to an as yet unidentified charity for unspecified "victims of the war in Ukraine".

On 30 May, the Abramovich-controlled company Fordstam ceased to be the owner of the club's immediate parent company, Chelsea FC, bought from Ken Bates and others in 2003 for £60.7m cash. It has been renamed Chelsea FC Holdings. However, four days before that change of control, the company issued 3,069,461 new shares for £61.4m cash. Who paid and why is as yet unclear.

A new company, Blueco 22, replaced Fordstam. On 1 June, Boehly and fellow American billionaire Behdad Eghbali, a co-founder of Clearlake, became directors of Chelsea FC Holdings and the club. Also on 1 June, 1,000 new shares in Chelsea FC Holdings were issued for £100m cash, presumably from Blueco 22. This UK company in turn is controlled by Blues Partners.

Between 6 May and 25 May, "significant control" of Blues Partners, which then had just two issued shares, was first held by Boehly, who was then joined by Blues Investment Midco. Midco is a style of company name resonant with leveraged private equity deals. These are the companies that often borrow the money that provides the gearing for the equity investors.

Boehly was then replaced by Blueco 22 Investor Holdings (controlled by Boehly), only for that stake of up to 50 per cent to return to Boehly. After that share shuffle, 150m new A and 94m B shares in Blues Partners were issued for just £20.

Blues Investment Midco lists Eghbali and his Clearlake co-founder Jose Feliciano as directors. Clearlake funds are reportedly providing 60 per cent of the money for the Chelsea deal. On 30 May, Midco issued 1,000 new shares for £1.5m — a sum which closely resembled the number of A shares issued that day by Blues Partners, representing around a 61 per cent share stake.

Eghbali signed on behalf of the sole Midco shareholder, Blues Partners GP LLC — limited liability company or corporation, depending in which US state or tax haven it is incorporated. GP is the general/managing partner of Blues Investment Holdings LP or limited partnership. Offshore general and limited partnerships are often used as vehicles by private equity fund investors.

A UK limited partnership, Blueco 22 Holdings LP, shares control of Blues Partners with Midco. The general partner is Boehly via non-UK Blueco 22 Holdings LLC. The limited partners are Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss pltfs Guggenheim Partners CEO Mark Walter, Boehly's partner in the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team. The likely vehicle for their Chelsea investment. Last week a new UK company joined the Chelsea team. Blueco 22 Midco, controlled by Blueco 22.

This dizzying corporate dance is part of the no doubt highly tax-efficient financial engineering behind the Chelsea takeover. The structure will subsequently reveal how that £4.25bn has been funded, who has invested and owns what, andirow big and costly a debt burden Chelsea will be carrying from next season. No more interest-free £1.5bn Abramovich loans; stand by for higher ticket prices.

The American private equity playbook is to look for a way out at a big profit after three to five years. Elliott Management recently exited after four years from most of its stake in Italian champions AC Milan to another investment manager, RedBird Capital.

'Slicker'
 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ruudboy Wonderful front cover!

As for 'Slicker', whilst he paints a picture of convoluted deals leading to who knows what regarding who owns what, he actually provides no evidence whatsoever that leads to the conclusion you've highlighted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Bob Singleton said:

@Ruudboy Wonderful front cover!

As for 'Slicker', whilst he paints a picture of convoluted deals leading to who knows what regarding who owns what, he actually provides no evidence whatsoever that leads to the conclusion you've highlighted.

Also, the idea that increasing ticket prices is going to substantially alter the value of the club is not even worth considering. Suppose you pro-rata the season ticket price and concessions and members sales out to a nominal £50 a ticket. If you increase that by 50% to £75, you might make an extra £1m per game (42k tickets). £30m per season. £120m over 4 years. Sorry to break it to you, sure it’s handy cash, but that doesn’t make any dent whatsoever in a £4.25b investment. Bear in mind that is based loosely on a FIFTY% increase, which virtually no-one would tolerate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ruudboy   
2 hours ago, Bob Singleton said:

@Ruudboy Wonderful front cover!

As for 'Slicker', whilst he paints a picture of convoluted deals leading to who knows what regarding who owns what, he actually provides no evidence whatsoever that leads to the conclusion you've highlighted.

 

1 hour ago, McCreadie said:

Also, the idea that increasing ticket prices is going to substantially alter the value of the club is not even worth considering. Suppose you pro-rata the season ticket price and concessions and members sales out to a nominal £50 a ticket. If you increase that by 50% to £75, you might make an extra £1m per game (42k tickets). £30m per season. £120m over 4 years. Sorry to break it to you, sure it’s handy cash, but that doesn’t make any dent whatsoever in a £4.25b investment. Bear in mind that is based loosely on a FIFTY% increase, which virtually no-one would tolerate.

Posted in a hurry before hosting a webinar, so no accompanying comment, but my sentiment was more one of "interesting conclusion" than that I agreed with it. However, the man (Slicker) is often on the money, so worth repeating. Front cover had me laughing like a drain ... for those who haven't seen it (apologies to the Admin ... feel free to censor ... only living up to my moniker) ...

IMG_7943.thumb.png.97a9ab94da0f38806a1ec85c1e1f6fd0.png

Edited by Ruudboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ruudboy said:

 

Posted in a hurry before hosting a webinar, so no accompanying comment, but my sentiment was more one of "interesting conclusion" than that I agreed with it. However, the man (Slicker) is often on the money, so worth repeating. Front cover had me laughing like a drain ... for those who haven't seen it (apologies to the Admin ... feel free to censor ... only living up to my moniker) ...

 

Ah, OK

Yes, 'Slicker' is often on the money, just this time I think he's come to a conclusion whilst providing no evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now