So Chelsea, City and Spurs officially against it.

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
So Chelsea, City and Spurs officially against it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


And I hope we all stick with it.

The super league will be comprised of Real Madrid and Barca. El Classico every Thursday night

comment by House (U17162)
posted 3 minutes ago
The super league will be comprised of Real Madrid and Barca. El Classico every Thursday night
----------------------------------------------------------------------
With a game against juventus every Sunday

United have now come out and said they’re against it

Well, ultimately the clubs , league will go where the money is best.

Importantly the super league concept may well undermine the EPL & the C/L.

Where Cfc will sit with that in the long run?

Im conflicted in as much , I do not like the control the UEFA/ FIFA governing bodies exercise over our clubs.

The American club owners will not be adverse to a closed/ less risk pyramid.

I wouldn't hang my hat on this. Out of all the PL clubs were the one's that would accept this idea out of mandate, not even greed.

We're owned by a hedge fund. The whole point of them is to increase the value of businesses & sell them on for profit.

comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 27 minutes ago
I wouldn't hang my hat on this. Out of all the PL clubs were the one's that would accept this idea out of mandate, not even greed.

We're owned by a hedge fund. The whole point of them is to increase the value of businesses & sell them on for profit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No profit can be taken from Chelsea for 8 years at least. There are no guarantees that a superheated would generate more revenue than existing competitions.

I believe the money generating spin offs like Sky,TNT, Amazon etc are getting to the point that further dilution of broadcasting rights is in danger of collapsing the whole lot. Its easier than ever to buy a fire stick and have pretty much everything covered. If that isn't addressed and those broadcasters do not recieve the revenues required to maintain their rights then what they can pay will reduce. Adding additional competition for broadcasting rights will turn further existing customers off or onto other media for watching games and threaten the revenues of the big players in the leagues making them less competitive financially.

The Super league will be a success only if enough of the big guns go for it. It will benefit none but themselves but there are risks to them and football on general that in my.opinion outweigh the benefits.

For me it's just a desperate measure by two clubs in particular to cling onto the financial stranglehold they have have for many years that gas recently been challenged by clubs in other countries, particularly Enhland because if the Premier league.

I say that knowing my club is in a privileged position (as much as it may not currently look like it) but also having the experience of very much being a have not team outside of the top flight.

I believe the money generating spin offs like Sky,TNT, Amazon etc are getting to the point that further dilution of broadcasting rights is in danger of collapsing the whole lot.
---
Your belief is misplaced. They just paid £6.7bn they for domestic TV rights. Anyone with any understanding of European football knows, a big chunk of that value comes from the existing football pyramid.

While Real and Barcelona stand to benefit from this, having ruined their own league by negotiating TV deals that ensure an unfair competition, that doesn't explain the motivations of the people funding the Super League. They want to displace UEFA and co, and take that money for themselves.

As a football fan, if they were genuinely offering a better end product, I would get behind it. I don't care about the organising bodies. But a weird 3 tier closed shop of hand-picked teams entirely separate from grassroots football can get straight in the bin.

don't understand what there is to be against?

comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 2 hours, 3 minutes ago
I believe the money generating spin offs like Sky,TNT, Amazon etc are getting to the point that further dilution of broadcasting rights is in danger of collapsing the whole lot.
---
Your belief is misplaced. They just paid £6.7bn they for domestic TV rights. Anyone with any understanding of European football knows, a big chunk of that value comes from the existing football pyramid.

While Real and Barcelona stand to benefit from this, having ruined their own league by negotiating TV deals that ensure an unfair competition, that doesn't explain the motivations of the people funding the Super League. They want to displace UEFA and co, and take that money for themselves.

As a football fan, if they were genuinely offering a better end product, I would get behind it. I don't care about the organising bodies. But a weird 3 tier closed shop of hand-picked teams entirely separate from grassroots football can get straight in the bin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The motivation is exactly that, they want money, they want to displace one organisation with another. You seriously don't see any risks there. It is not some noble crusade to improve the game and make it better.

Liverpool and Arsenal still interested then.

Jf, profit taken from CFc.

I believe that statement, is no more than an assurance, it has no obligation.

But these guys do not need profit to take money out of the club.

They have already loaded the club with over 1 bln pounds of debt, this will be repaid and interest will be charged to service the debt, they said that they actually would invest 1.75bln over the 2.5 bln paid.

The 1.75bln imo will all be debt loaded on the club and i assume servicing the debt will provide profits for the lenders.

Where/ who the finances come from will be the beneficiaries. ????

Bohley- Clearlake are venture capital- investment bankers, first.

The acquisition of our club is basically a vehicle for them to legally use finance to make returns.

Money can be made whether the club is successful or not , as it has a 500m p/ annum + turnover .

Ok successful more than likely will mean staying within a top 4/6 position, after that verying degrees of financial restriction relevant to the clubs league position.Will equate to unsuccessful, but as long as the debt is serviced, they will not be grief stricken.

Obliviously they will want the club to be in the top 4 as that is where the biggest returns are.

As far as the clubs response to the revamped Super League concept, I think that they will look & see how it pans out, i think that they would prefer to be perceived as being forced into a change of mind due to market forces.

Cfc are not riding high at the moment, that will not change for at least 3/4 seasons , particularly if they dont get their act together.

All their actions to date imo are geared up to player banking and trading players in conjunction with operating CFc as a functioning entity.

They paid 5.4 billion for the sale, 2.5 for the club, 2b to clear the money Roman owed himself, even though he will never get it but I'm sure it pleased the government and prevents people asking what about the debt? Which was always a stupid question. This left about a billion to invest, nit that we haven't got revenues coming in from sales, commercial activities, TV money etc that off set a good portion of this either. Your understanding of the club seems to be closer to one of those bitter rival fans always harping on about one aspect of the club, expenditure, whilst ignoring everything else at the moment. I know you are genuinely a Chelsea fan of course.

That aside noone knows the ins and outs to the degree required of their own clubs let alone all involved or those behind the initiative themselves to truly understand if this would work or not, the closest we have to a simillar situation is probably liv golf or 20/20 cricket. 20/20 seems to have helped the popularity of cricket but ar the expense, to a degree of test cricket. Golf I know even less about than cricket so I'm not sure of the impact there.

Personally I do not see the positives for football and at this point there isn't anything you or anyone else has said that has changed my mind in the slightest.

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 48 minutes ago
Liverpool and Arsenal still interested then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenal just released a statement saying no. About time.

Ok, rather a lot in those 3 paragraphs, to unpack.

Cutting to the chase, as i understand it they paid 2.5 bln for the club , with an assurance of a further 1.75 bln investment, & a further assurance that they would not take any profits out for 10b yrs

Your understanding of the club seems to be closer to one of those bitter rival fans always harping on about one aspect of the club, expenditure, whilst ignoring everything else at the moment. I know you are genuinely a Chelsea fan of course.

Well, you surprise me, but never the less, you rightly have your opinion and perception.

My view is first, I do not like the new ownership , as i have explained, I do love my club.

I personally believe that the clubs fortunes are tied into the management of the clubs finances, as the club today is owned by a consortium of Venture capitalist - investment bankers.

They are not in the mould of Roman Abramovich, loved the club, the game invested interest free loans. Continued to build the club that Bates/ Harding created all over 50 years.

My understanding of the club has been derived from following the club fo 50 + years, just because im bold enough to state that i feel the people who now own our club have made numerous poor decisions , which have currently taken the club back to 1995/96 of competitive ability, ( check the league table history ) due to clumsy , arrogant thinking , does not in all due respect make me a supporter with an understanding that of a bitter rival fan harping on about one aspect.

This is the last time i looked a football forum. i comment on all aspects of what is going on at Cfc, i am making a contribution, as and when i have time.

Flick my article list.

You are of course welcome to do the same.

But what Bohley - Clearlake are doing off the pitch is seismically effecting our club.

It is the biggest news coming out of CFc .

You can choose to ignore that, why not, i prefer to look at it & try to understand it, its the way im wired

So the new Big 4 is now Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus and Liverpool.

At least the draw will be quick.

Yeah the scoucers half in half out, what fckn new

Jf, The Super league thing, ?

I just think that all American owners would prefer a less / no risk tied in league system, it is what they are used to, its not rocket science.

I think venture capitalist- investment bankers will follow their noses to the money, its just what they do.

Of course they will not want to disturb the status quo if it is working, but the moment it doesnt, I woudn't bank on their love or loyalty for the current set up.

When youve billions invested, you I assume would tend to feel , you are the voice in the room.

Personally, the game is/ has changed, today our clubs are global footballing brands, owned by ruthless multi billionaires. That is the reality, not to say i like it, but it is what it is.

When we paying players 1 million plus a month, giving 100m a pop, this money comes from somewhere.

Ifarka we seem to have had a simillar similar length of time following the club. I took parts in the protests and pitch invasions to get rid of Mears which led him to sell to Bates for a pound, I never appreciated Bates initially, though I always enjoyed reading his comments in the home programs. I also had reservations about Roman when I first heard of the sale to him. I don't know if the current owners will be a success or not. I know when they first bought the dodgers they were not popular there but seemed to have improved the mage of the consortium their over time, a different consortium of course but he is a key player. I hope that given time he will prove himself and deliver on his vision. As a fan that is about as much as anyone can do as a fan. The team has never and will never be under our control or influence to any degree. It wasn't under any of the previous owners right back to the first consortium.

I still enjoy going to games and I love most aspects of going to games though I am getting a little fed up with some fans we have there now, win and everything is fixed, draw or lose and we ate relegation material. I've seen a few fights thos season where people have got overheated with their discussions. A Brentford mate of mine went to meet an old face after they beat us, Babs. He called me from the North end road to tell me it was kicking off all over the place, all Chelsea fighting Chelsea.

I'm not surprised, in my opinion we have been spoilt so it is harder for some to accept that we have no god given right to be as successful as they want us to be and that it doesn't happen just because we are Chelsea. This is not age dependant, our kids tend to think like us, most have been going g since pre Ronan, my son for example had a season ticket before he bought us, even grandkids. I also know people of my age can be impatient and are not shy of offering advice as to how the club should be run. We are all different but one thing I rely on is that we find a way, just like we did when we went skint building the east stand or fighting Cabra/Mahler estates to keep the ground etc.

BTW my bad, the 5.4b I mentioned was actually the dollar value, it was 4.25b in pounds.

Yeah, i appreciate your depth of feeling for the club we both love

Yeah, Babs, bless him

Merry Christmas mate

comment by ifarka, (B-C- out) (U8182)
posted 17 minutes ago
Yeah, i appreciate your depth of feeling for the club we both love

Yeah, Babs, bless him

Merry Christmas mate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And you UTC

One last point,

All i wish from the ownership, is that the club has a competent group of individuals running the footballing strategy and that it can compete at a level commensurate with the investment.

Top 4 / 6 imo should be where the club is at considering the resources the ownership has lavished on the club.

Im not bothered when this happens as long as the FFP compliance issues are managed properly and our progression is not inhibited due to FFP sanctions related to the new ownerships poor reading & decision making.

This season, agreed it is all about the learning process, but we should imo start to emerge with some form of consistency over inconsistency being the consistency.

The injury vulnerability issues imo should have been flagged and the squad should have had more of an experienced balance( plan B) opposed to they are all primarily young prospects.

The goal scoring issue, ?

Creativity from the midfield , again more accomplished experience, but Palmer is a real exciting prospect.

The goal scorers? well, going with Broja, ?

Not a great scoring record largely due to his injury vulnerability, fleeting glimpses not good enough.

Nkunku, unfortunate, but he will come through.

Jackson , great potential, not the finished article yet, give him time, i would have preferred that the club had gone with a reasonably effective player, who hits the net more often than not. ( Tammy Abraham level would have done)

Ifraka,what you wish for is what I like to think most Chelsea fans wish for.