The Board

[Vesper 31,054]

MY RESPONSE TO BEHDAD EGHBALI

 

🔑 Timestamps:
0:00 — Intro & why the timing matters
1:30 — Eghbali's key quotes broken down
5:00 — The Club World Cup moment they wasted
9:00 — On Maresca leaving & the "no mid-season changes" lie
13:00 — Is Liam Rosenior really the long-term answer?
17:00 — The "8-15 elite players" delusion
21:00 — Which Chelsea players are actually elite?
25:00 — Why words aren't enough anymore

 

24 hours before the biggest Chelsea fan protest in years, Clear Lake Capital's co-founder has told supporters that Blueco "care," are "committed," and are "reflecting on the plan." In today's video, I go line by line through Liam Tumi's piece on The Athletic and break down every single word — because at this stage, words are all we're getting.

Four seasons in. 1.7 billion spent. Two managers walked out the door. And now, the night before the Not A Project CFC march outside Stamford Bridge, Eghbali wants to talk about tweaking the model.
We cover everything — from the Club World Cup opportunity they wasted, to the Maresca bombshell, to why Liam Rosenior being backed "long term" is the most damning sentence in the entire interview. I also give my honest take on which Chelsea players I think are genuinely elite — and the number is nowhere near eight.

This is about more than one bad season. This is about the financial reality, the coaching environment, and whether this ownership can ever deliver what Chelsea fans deserve.

 

 

[Vesper 31,054]

Behdad Eghbali’s message to Chelsea fans: ‘We care … we’re committed’

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7203041/2026/04/16/Chelsea-fans-eghbali-message/

Behdad Eghbali has told Chelsea supporters that owners BlueCo are learning from their mistakes and are committed to bringing consistent success back to Stamford Bridge.

Disaffected fans will stage a protest march ahead of Chelsea’s clash with Manchester United at Stamford Bridge on Saturday, organised by NotAProjectCFC and incorporating supporter representatives of BlueCo sister club Strasbourg in an attempt to mobilise opposition to the consortium led by Clearlake Capital and Todd Boehly.

In the final stretch of the fourth season since they acquired the club from Roman Abramovich for £2.3billion in June 2022, Chelsea are sliding down the Premier League table under head coach Liam Rosenior and face the prospect of missing out on Champions League qualification with a youthful squad assembled at historically vast expense.

Speaking at CAA’s World Congress of Sports conference in Los Angeles on Thursday, Clearlake co-founder Eghbali admitted that BlueCo are still looking to improve their ownership strategy, but reiterated that they care about maintaining Chelsea’s modern standards of consistently competing for the biggest trophies.

“For the fans, we care,” he said. “We want the club to be successful. We’re focused on delivering that on-pitch performance. I think six months ago everyone was super-happy. Results have been mixed, disappointing more recently. There’s a full reflection on what we can do better, what we can improve on.

“There is a plan. We reflect on the plan. We try to improve the plan and tweak the plan if it’s not working. The message is we’re committed.

“Can this be successful without winning? The answer is no. We’ve got to win. And it doesn’t mean you’re going to win every game, it doesn’t mean you don’t make mistakes, that you don’t have downturns, but ultimately the objective, and especially the objective that a club like Chelsea is you’ve got to win, you’ve got to win trophies, and you’ve got to win consistently again.

“We were fortunate enough to do so last year. We’ve had a bit of an up and down year this year, but the objective hasn’t changed.”

What You Should Read Next

Chelsea supporters’ trust calls for ‘greater clarity and accountability’ under BlueCo

A letter from the group cited an 'erosion of trust' with BlueCo in charge

A huge reason for the downturn in Chelsea’s season was the abrupt departure of head coach Enzo Maresca on New Year’s Day. “Our policy has been no in-season changes,” Eghbali added.

“You certainly review and hold not only the manager, but the management team, the sporting team, accountable, but typically in the summers, not in season.

“It’s not a change we wanted to make. It’s a change that had a bit of a negative impact in the season, when you’re changing systems and personnel, and it’s one we’ve got to fight our way out of.

“We still have six matches in the Premier League, and an FA Cup semi final coming up. So hopefully the story of this season hasn’t been written yet, and you’ve got a lot to fight for. In my perspective, when you get punched in the face, you’ve got to fight back, you’ve got to stand up and fight. And it’s going to hopefully show a lot about the character of this squad.

“I think the perspective is stability, and frankly, getting that stability on the manager side is one of the things we haven’t done right yet, and it’s something we’re striving to improve on.”

Chelsea replaced Enzo Maresca with Liam Rosenior in JanuaryAdrian Dennis/AFP via Getty Images

Maresca’s replacement Rosenior has won just one of his last six matches across all competitions, but Eghbali confirmed the former Strasbourg boss retains the support of the board and sporting leadership.

“On Liam, we had the opportunity to work with him daily for 18 plus months, so we knew what we were getting,” Eghbali said. “We think he has every attribute to be successful here. He got off to a great start. We’ve had a tough past five, six matches, but I think we’re behind Liam. Of course, it’s a results business, but we think he can be successful long term.”

Chelsea’s recent struggles have also drawn more criticism to their heavily youth-oriented recruitment. Eghbali signalled that the club are ready to target players equipped to make an immediate impact in this summer’s transfer market.

“The view was to recruit and build elite players that can, frankly, be together and have that stability in the squad,” Eghbali said. “We’re still in the 40th, 50th minute of that process. But the view is to keep, sign and retain and compensate and extend some of the world’s best players, and ultimately the view was you need, eight, 10, 12, 15 elite players to win and win sustainably, year after year.“I think we’ve done a few things right, a lot of things right. We’ve got to be better on a few things, to add more ready-made players at this part of the project, to take (it ) to the next level, to be consistent over time.

“We recognise we need balance. We have world champions, we have Champions League winners, we have elite, elite young players. Experience has developed now. The team has been together for two or three years. The objective is to keep your best players, and we’ve done that, and there’s no intention to rebuild every three or four years. You tweak a model, you improve, you learn from mistakes.

“Our goal is to have elite, elite players on the pitch, elite characters off the pitch that our fans can bond with, that will be at the club, that will be club legends for the next 10 or 15 years and beyond. I think, generally, we’ve been fortunate, not in getting everything right, but we do have a core (of) good players, global players. Cole Palmer, Moises Caicedo, Enzo Fernandez, Levi Colwill, Estevao Willian, Reece James.

“The view is now that we’re here with a great core base, to add some of that experience, to take the team to the next level and have consistency. That fact is not lost on us, and we’re at a point where we can take that next step, hopefully in the next year and beyond.”

By Liam Twomey

Chelsea Correspondent

[Vesper 31,054]

Chelsea supporters’ trust calls for ‘greater clarity and accountability’ under BlueCo

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7201663/2026/04/16/Chelsea-supporters-trust-blueco-letter/

The Chelsea Supporters’ Trust (CST) board has called for greater clarity and accountability from the club with fans, citing an “erosion of trust”, before a separately organised protest against Chelsea’s owners on Saturday.

In an open letter addressed to Chelsea’s owners, board of directors, and senior leadership, the CST board outlined concerns about the strategy under ownership group BlueCo, engagement between the club and their supporters, ticketing and club finances.

“At the heart of supporter concern is a simple point: the current model has demanded a huge amount of faith from the fanbase, while giving too little clarity in return,” the letter reads.

Chelsea are sixth in the Premier League table, four points behind fifth-placed Liverpool, before the visit of third-placed Manchester United on Saturday.

Ahead of kick-off, the group ‘NotAProjectCFC’ is organising a joint protest, alongside fans of fellow BlueCo-owned, French club Strasbourg, against BlueCo’s ownership. CST’s letter says “the organisation and scale of such activity is a clear signal that frustration is deepening and becoming harder to ignore”.

What You Should Read Next

Chelsea handed another crushing reminder of how far they are off the elite

BlueCo-era Chelsea have consciously tried to mould themselves on Manchester City, but have overlooked the key ingredients

“Chelsea supporters have been asked to accept an unprecedented level of change in the name of a long-term vision that has never been clearly or consistently explained,” the letter reads. “Four years on, that vision has still not earned their trust.

“This is not a reaction to a single result or a run of form. It reflects a deeper and more sustained concern about the direction of Chelsea Football Club, and the growing lack of confidence among supporters in the leadership, structure, and strategy that underpin it.”

CST refers to the results of a survey it conducted in January, which found that more than 90 per cent of fans did not have confidence in “the ownership group’s football-related decision-making”, while more than 80 per cent were not confident the club are being run in a way that will deliver “sustained success over the next three to five years”.

The board’s letter says that, since those findings were presented to the club, “supporters have seen no meaningful change, nor a response that reflects the seriousness of the concerns raised”.

The letter said BlueCo’s vision had ‘never been clearly or consistently explained’Ryan Pierse/Getty Images

The letter goes on to raise concerns about the club’s ticketing system, which it describes as “broken and in urgent need of reform”, whether structures intended to ensure supporters’ voices are heard are working and the club’s financial results.

“Chelsea supporters have shown patience. They have absorbed upheaval. They have given the club time to make the case for this direction,” the letter adds. “That goodwill should not be treated as inexhaustible.

“For that reason, we expect a clear and substantive response from the club’s leadership on the following:

• Does the club accept that supporter confidence in its current leadership model and direction has fallen to an unacceptably low level?
• What specific changes will now be made to provide greater clarity and accountability in football leadership and decision-making?
• What will change in how supporters are engaged, so that engagement is timely, meaningful, and capable of influencing decisions rather than simply explaining them after the fact?
• How does the club intend to demonstrate that its current strategy can deliver sustained sporting success, financial stability, and a recognisable Chelsea identity in a way that rebuilds supporter trust?

“Chelsea supporters have shown patience through a sustained period of change. That patience has not been matched by the level of clarity or accountability the club owes its supporters,” a CST spokesperson said. “This is not about short-term results. It is about trust and at this moment in time, that trust has not been earned.”

By Cerys Jones

Football Writer

[Vesper 31,054]

Chelsea accounts: BlueCo funding exceeds £4bn, £32m player profits this season, Kingsmeadow sold

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7193024/2026/04/13/Chelsea-accounts-player-trading-profits/

Chelsea’s bumper summer of player sales translated to just £32million in profits for the current season, the club’s latest accounts show.

A reported £300m was earned from player sales in the summer 2025 transfer window, yet disclosures in Chelsea’s 2024-25 financial statements confirm only around one-tenth of that sum translated to bottom-line profit between July 1 and the closure of the transfer window on September 1.

That is a consequence of Chelsea’s high-volume player trading strategy, with players signed for large sums still carrying sizeable book values at the time of their Stamford Bridge departures. Yet Chelsea’s business model is reliant on generating profits from such player trading, as underlying operating losses are swingeing. The latest accounts show the club’s day-to-day deficit jumped a further £45million to £258m or, in layman’s terms, Chelsea lost £491 a minute, every single minute for a full year.

The figure would have been higher were it not for the exclusion of over £50million in ‘legal and regulatory costs’. Chelsea incurred a £26.5million fine from UEFA last summer for breaching financial rules, and booked a further £24m provision in relation to past unreported payments to players, unregistered agents and other third parties. The matter, self-reported by the club following the BlueCo takeover of May 2022, resulted in a £10.75m fine from the Premier League last month. A related investigation by the Football Association remains ongoing.

BlueCo’s model since acquiring the club four years ago has prioritised activity in the transfer market, and a further £305.5million went on new players in 2024-25. Player sales of £125.9m meant a net spend of £179.6m, the third highest in last season’s Premier League, only trailing the two Manchester clubs.

Those incoming fees took total player sales over three full seasons of BlueCo ownership beyond £500million, and reaped £57.9m in profit last season. £273.2m has been earned from player profits in those three years, again the third-highest in the Premier League, though Chelsea made £21m more from player trading in the final three seasons of Roman Abramovich’s ownership.

Of greater concern is that lowly player profits figure for the current 2025-26 season.

Chelsea will receive a marked revenue boost this year from both their FIFA Club World Cup success in the United States last summer and a return to Champions League football. Yet with operating losses so large they also need to keep being good sellers, and much was made of a summer in which they recorded the second-highest level of player sales ever recorded in a transfer window, only topped by Monaco in summer 2018.

 

These accounts don’t put a number to the gross sales amount but if the profit of £31.8million remains unchanged, this season will generate Chelsea’s second-lowest profit on player sales in 12 seasons. The June sales of Bashir Humphreys and Marcus Bettinelli to Burnley and Manchester City fell into the 2024-25 accounting year but, even with those included, Chelsea’s player profits from last summer likely didn’t hit £50m.

The £31.8million booked in 2025-26 is less than sister club Strasbourg generated from their own player sales last summer. Accounts for 22 Holdco Limited, the uppermost UK-registered company in the BlueCo group, disclose £66.8million in post-year-end player profits; Strasbourg’s player profit figure, by deduction, was £34.4m.

---

Kingsmeadow sold to women’s team

Under BlueCo’s ownership Chelsea have successfully skirted trouble with the Premier League’s profitability and sustainability rules (PSR), principally through the movement of assets within the club’s wider corporate structure. Such intra-group sales were noticeably lacking in 2024-25, leading to that record loss, though they weren’t entirely absent.

The accounts disclose the sale of Kingsmeadow, the home of Chelsea Women, to Chelsea Football Club Women Limited (CFCW), the company which generated £198.7million in June 2024 when it was internally ‘sold’ to another BlueCo company. The Kingsmeadow sale appears to have reaped £3.4m profit last season but other loss-making sales of undisclosed assets meant Chelsea made a small loss on fixed asset disposals in 2024-25 (£3m).

Chelsea women have played at Kingsmeadow since 2017Jasper Wax/Getty Images

Following the 2024 sale, income from Chelsea Women was not expected to feature in the accounts of Chelsea FC Holdings, which houses the men’s team, yet these accounts tell a different tale. Chelsea booked £22.6m in income from CFCW, while expending £11.3m in costs.

Sources with knowledge of the club’s dealings told The Athletic around half the sum comprises the proceeds from the Kingsmeadow sale to CFCW, while the rest reflects an inter-company agreement made between Chelsea FC Holdings and CFCW at the time of the intra-group sale. In essence, of Chelsea’s £490.9m revenue, around £11m came from CFCW (the Kingsmeadow sale proceeds are not recorded as revenue).

---

How Chelsea made record pre-tax loss

Chelsea’s English record pre-tax loss of £262.4million last season has already been well-documented, but the release of the club’s full financials lends greater detail to the story.

The £258million operating loss marks the fourth consecutive season Chelsea’s day-to-day deficit has topped £200m, albeit 2024-25 saw a new peak.  It is, unsurprisingly, the highest operating loss in English football history.

That loss includes £12.1million in player value impairments, a lower amount than might have been expected given recent suggestions the huge loss was driven by one-off costs. Even without those £50.2m in legal and regulatory costs, Chelsea’s pre-tax loss would still have been the largest ever made in English football.

Matchday and broadcast revenues each improved, the latter by £40million. TV money rose in three ways: from the early stages of the FIFA Club World Cup (roughly £20m in 2024-25, with a further £65m prize money recorded in 2025-26), a successful Europa Conference League campaign (£18.3million, versus no European football in 2023-24) and finishing two spots higher in the Premier League (£4.5m more in domestic prize money).

Those improvements were welcomed, especially as commercial income dropped markedly, down £24million to £200.9m. Chelsea put that drop down to ‘reduced sponsorship revenue’, and the club went most of last season without a front-of-shirt sponsor, before DAMAC signed a deal for the final month of the season. It meant Chelsea trailed their ‘Big Six’ rivals by a large margin on the commercial front; the next-lowest among that cohort was Arsenal’s £262.2m, 31 per cent higher than Chelsea.

Also worst among the ‘Big Six’ was Chelsea’s wages to revenue metric, which moved up a smidge to 73 per cent. The wage bill at Stamford Bridge hit £359.3million, likely the club’s highest ever once termination payments in the 2022-23 season are stripped. That seems to give the lie to the idea Chelsea have embarked on a strategy of paying notably lower, incentive-based wages — albeit non-football staff made their mark too. Administrative staff numbers jumped by 156 to 929, the highest in the Premier League.

BlueCo have spent heavily in their time in West London, and rising staffing numbers shows an uptick in operations. Naturally, costs came with that; Chelsea’s operating expenditure topped £150million for the first time, although, again, that was a low among the ‘Big Six’.

Not so low were player amortisation costs which are the byproduct of huge transfer spending. Those hit £212.2million in 2024-25, an English record and one which would be even higher if adjusted to reflect Premier League and UEFA rules limiting player amortisation periods to five years. No such limits apply to club accounts, yet Chelsea still racked up a bill which consumed over two-fifths of their revenue. A further £263.3million went on new players in the two months from 1 July onwards, taking gross transfer spending under BlueCo to £1.867billion overall.

---

BlueCo’s significant funding continues

Chelsea’s loss figure would have been even higher were it not for the fact the club has been funded interest-free throughout BlueCo’s tenure. The size of the commitment to the club continues to be substantial. Last season, Chelsea received a further £330million from their owners, taking the three-season tally beyond £1.1billion. In all, across both equity raises and borrowings further up the corporate chain, the first three seasons of the BlueCo project required over £4billion in funding.

That funding does not come cheap, as those 22 Holdco accounts detail. Debt in the group increased a further £225million last season, even as only £157m in new cash was obtained from lenders. Much of the difference arose from payment-in-kind (PIK) interest, whereby borrowings accrue interest at lofty rates — around 11 per cent currently — which is tacked onto the principal to be repaid when the loan terms in. The Athletic has previously estimated BlueCo’s PIK interest could total over £850m across the 10-year term of that particular loan, and that estimate will grow yet higher if the group continues to increase borrowings.

Even without the PIK interest, 22 Holdco paid out £58million cash to service loans last season. Across cash interest payments and transaction costs incurred on obtaining borrowings which now total £1.4billion, 22 Holdco has paid £177.7m in just three years.

Much of the borrowed money has been used to build a Chelsea squad which, at the end of June 2025, had cost £1.51billion to assemble, almost £200m more than the next most expensive team in the world (Manchester City).

Following Sunday’s 0-3 home defeat to City, Liam Rosenior’s team are sixth in the Premier League, four points away from a guaranteed Champions League place which looks essential if finances at Stamford Bridge are to improve.

The Athletic estimates Chelsea earned around £80million from this season’s competition but that figure will drop precipitously if they miss out again next season. That would not help a club who, while maintaining they are now compliant with football’s financial regulations, are subject to the terms of that UEFA settlement agreement until the end of the 2028-29 season.

By Chris Weatherspoon

Football Finance Writer

[Vytis33 1,376]

 

[Vesper 31,054]

Is the Chelsea project broken? | The Football Boardroom

It’s been anything but quiet on the West London front this season at Chelsea. Ill-discipline on the pitch, fallings out off it at both boardroom and dressing-room level, financial losses, a controversial fine, question marks around the head coach… And it promises to be a summer of discontent in SW6 should the club fail to qualify for the Champions League. What exactly is the owners’ strategy? And is it time for them to change course and devise a new plan? Christian and Henry drill into both accounts and accountability at the Bridge and assess what the men from California can do to rewrite the script and land a Hollywood ending.

[Mário César 1,480]

Like I’ve said multiple times, the signings of Gittsen, Garnacho and Delap show everything that’s wrong — three weak players who are only good at mid-table clubs, if even that. It represents everything that’s wrong with the club.

 

 

 

[Vytis33 1,376]

 

 

 

[OneMoSalah 9,093]

1 hour ago, Vytis33 said:

 

 

 

The consequences should be that he & the co sporting directors are sacked. 

[Special Juan 28,736]

If we haven't put a call into Iraola then we have a serious problem

[Vesper 31,054]

BLUE CO OUT.

George Benson Football Chelsea

After yet another Chelsea loss in the Premier League, Chelsea fans can hold their heads high after a great turnout for the Blue Co Out protest pre match. Chelsea travel to Brighton tomorrow in the Premier League...

This video explores the growing fan movement surrounding recent protests at Chelsea Football Club. It highlights the atmosphere among supporters and examines the current state of the organization while discussing the importance of collective action in light of the team's ongoing challenges.

[Vesper 31,054]

1,000 strong at protest against BlueCo, Chelsea lose to poor United side, Desperate attempts to cancel negative noise fails miserably, Fans fear heart & soul ripped out of club, Blues News Report.....

The Chelsea FC Newsletter: Monday 20th April 2026

https://siphillipstalkschelsea.substack.com/p/1000-strong-at-protest-against-blueco

Morning all,

Another start to the week, another Chelsea defeat, more pressure on the owners, more pressure on the manager. Both need to go.

Chelsea fell to their fourth defeat in a row in the Premier League, losing 1-0 against Manchester United at Stamford Bridge on Saturday night. United were awful and did a job, holding out for the narrow win. But the onus was on Chelsea to score, and we failed. Words here.

BlueCo’s PR machine is something else, and it is my opinion that I believe they did all they could to cancel the negative noise last week, but it failed miserably. Words here.

Football writer Henry Winter says Chelsea fans fear the heart and soul being ripped out of their club and replaced by a US-made cash register! He believes the owners should respond to the 1,000 strong fan protests against them on Saturday. Report here.

We also had some sourced news out on another midfielder who is on our shortlist. You can read all about Chelsea’s interest in Sunderland player Noah Sadiki here.

As always, I had the Blues News Report out on Sunday covering all your latest Chelsea news in general from across the last 24 hours here. Is Liam Rosenior in trouble? Find out in this one.

See you all on the next live blog from around 8.45am today on the home page. Oh and also today, we are recording a surprise Podcast! Hit up the Live Blog first thing to find out what it will be and who’s coming on with me! Nobody famous but it’s pretty cool, in my humble opinion!

[Vesper 31,054]

Madness!🤬

[Vesper 31,054]

Anyone thinks this is a smart way to recruit is beyond belief

[Vytis33 1,376]

Just look at the state of these Blueco managers 

 

 

[TheHulk 2,637]

32 minutes ago, Vytis33 said:

Just look at the state of these Blueco managers 

 

 

Least they are consistent in bringing garbage after garbage.

[Fulham Broadway 17,723]

They obviously plan to milk the brand on the back of Romans success, ala Glazers, then just as its seriously floundering, sell it off

[Vesper 31,054]

The Economics of Clearlake and Boehly Selling Chelsea Football Club

https://medium.com/@contcon30001/the-economics-of-clearlake-and-boehly-selling-Chelsea-football-club-1bde322bffea

I’ve worked in mergers & acquisitions and finance my entire career in the U.S, and with private equity firms some of which are much bigger than Clearlake Capital. This paper tries to simplify the economics around Clearlake Capital (“Clearlake”) and Todd Boehly (“Boehly Group”) selling the Chelsea Football Club (“Chelsea FC”, “CFC” or “Club”). I draw from publicly available information and tell you where I make assumptions. Importantly, this analysis is from a financial statement perspective of the companies within the organization of the Clearlake Capital and Boehly Group’s investment entities (collectively the “Buyer Group”). It does not attempt to address any Premier League PSR or SCR issues or constraints.

What did Clearlake Capital and Boehly Group Pay for Chelsea FC?

£ 2.50b Equity purchase by Clearlake and Boehly Group

£ 1.75b Future capital investment requirement

£ 4.25b Purchase price (at sale)

£ .45b Recapitalization 22 Holdco Limited (additional equity)

£ 4.70b Purchase price (adjusted)

Clearlake and Boehly Group effectively paid £4.70b for Chelsea FC. In finance and accounting purchase price is measured on an Enterprise Value basis, meaning the cost of purchasing the equity + any future capital commitments or debt assumed in a transaction.

To fund the future capital investment requirement and the working capital of CFC, the Buyer Group took out debt of ~ £1.35b.

Where is the Debt and What Does it Mean?

The Buyer Group organization chart of companies is widely available online, and at first glance appears complicated. But for our purposes we can simplify it to four of the companies.

Blues Investment Midco, LP (Clearlake owned) and Blueco 22 Holdings, LP (Boehly Group owned). These entities are the equity holders in CFC. Clearlake owns 61.54% and Boehly Group 38.46% of the equity. The two entities infused £2.50b at time of sale. As equity holders in LPs Clearlake and Boehly Group have no liability for debts of CFC. Said another way, the Buyer Group is not on the hook for any of the debt of CFC operating entities.

Blueco 22 Limited. Commonly referred to as intermediate Holdco., this entity rolls up all the operations of CFC and has ~£755m of debt through a senior revolving credit line with JP Morgan and Bank of America. Interest is payable monthly at Sonia +3.25% (~7%), or ~£5m a month or ~£60m a year. The credit line is fully drawn upon and is due July 2027. This debt is senior debt, which means it has first right to CFC’s assets in event of default.

22 Holdco Limited. Commonly referred to as a parent Holdco, this entity rolls up Blueco 22 Limited and has a 2nd debt infusion of £596m from Ares Management. It is important to note Ares Management is itself a private equity firm, and as such demands higher returns even when acting as a lender in leveraged buyout deals like the CFC transaction. Also, since the debt is subordinated, meaning in event of default it gets repaid only after the JP Morgan and BOA debt, it has higher interest rates and several unique features that make it more problematic to the long-term finances of CFC.

The 1st unique feature is that it is a PIK loan (paid in kind), which means the interest payments on the loan are accrued into the principal amount and payable at the end of the term which is August 2033. Said another way, the monthly interest gets added (compounded) to the principal and the loan continues to grow until the end of its term. The reason for a PIK is typically to avoid reducing operating cash flows during the loan period, although it is very risky as a financing instrument due to the compounding nature of the loan. The Ares loan has interest payable at Sonia +7.5% (~11%), which means the loan payoff in August 2033 will be ~$1.28b.

The 2nd unique feature highly likely to be in the Ares debt is a make-whole provision, which means that in the event the loan is paid off prior to August 2033, the full amount of the interest for the entire loan period is due. Example, if the Buyer Group wanted to pay off the Ares debt in December 2026, they would still owe all the compounded interest through August 2033. In practice the amount due in an early termination is typically the present value of the interest payments throughout the term. In Ares case a make- whole provision would guarantee a targeted yield and compensate them for the risk of the debt being subordinated. Since the Ares loan documents aren’t public, we assume make-whole provisions are in place. This provision is very common in leveraged buyout deals where the lender is a private equity firm and will be important when we analyze a value the Buyer Group would consider selling CFC.

The 3rd unique feature of the Ares debt is public disclosures appear to indicate existence of warrants, which are derivative financial instruments that act as equity options. Meaning the holder of a warrant can convert instrument into equity shares if conditions of the warrant are met. Again, not having the Ares loan document in the public realm we can only go by disclosures that are public and those appear to indicate the options are sweeteners designed to allow Ares to participate as an equity holder, albeit to a much lower extent than the Buyer Group.

Valuation of Chelsea Football Club, and is There Hope for Supporters?

We know several things.

1. Purchase price is Enterprise Value. Meaning debt + equity.

2. Buyer Group cash proceeds from a sale just to break even on their investment is £2.95b (£2.50b initial + £ .45b recap). This is somewhat simplified as they will likely look at break-even having a minimal imbedded return.

3. Ares debt features (namely make-whole provision and warrants) will make the cost of their debt higher than the £595m reported loan.

4. The most reliable indication of value is past investment sales of clubs. The 3 largest Premier League club valuations as determined by investment transactions are:

Manchester United FC £4.60b (2024; minority investment; with debt value likely £5.0b+)

Chelsea FC £4.25b (2022; excludes recap)

Liverpool FC £4.2b (2023; minority investment; maybe higher with debt)

What Drives Value in Top Table Premier League Clubs?

Broadcasting (TV revenues, competition bonuses for Europe & Domestic tournaments), Commercial (retail, sponsorships, venues — hotels, entertainment outside stadiums) and Matchday (tickets, stadium concessions) are the three main categories of revenue for Premier League clubs. Lets take a look at Chelsea and Arsenal’s revenues as % of total in each of the three categories for 2025.

Chelsea

~18% Matchday

~49% Broadcasting

~33% Commercial

Arsenal

~22% Matchday

~40% Broadcasting

~38% Commercial

Broadcasting and Commercial revenues are by far the biggest and most important for top tier clubs, comprising 78–82% of the revenues for the two clubs above. Broadcasting and Commercial revenues are largely dependent on a club’s success on the pitch, which determines Premier League table standings and qualification for European and Domestic tournaments, the most important of which is the Champions League (“UCL”). In 2025, the final four clubs in UCL averaged £100m in total revenues from the competition versus the final four clubs in Europa Cup averaging £27m. Gameday success is also a strong drive of Commercial success; winning clubs drive expansion of fan bases which drive retail sales and sponsorships. Most important for valuation is that winning drives sustainable future cash flow, which drives Enterprise Value. Simply put, winning trophies and competing for top 4 in the Premier League table consistently increases the financial value of a club.

A frequent criticism of Chelsea FC supporters against Clearlake and Boehly Group operating model is that it appears to emphasis a “player trading” strategy, meaning buying players at low transfer fees (or no if through academy programs) and selling them at higher transfer fees. The problem with this as a source of profit is that it is not sustainable cash flow. Some players you’ll sell higher than you paid for them, and some players you will not. Some years you will record a profit in net transfers, other years you will not. It is hit or miss. The strategy is more like that of a commodity trading firm. Brighton FC is often mentioned utilizing the player trading strategy, but as the table below shows their results are inconsistent in terms of profitability.

Brighton & Hove Albion (Net Transfer Fees)

2023 £121 million

2024 (£191 million)

2025 £70 million

The Brighton player trading model has resulted in zero net profits over the past three years. I’d argue it also distracts club leadership from the main drivers of revenue and profits for top tier Premier League clubs — namely on pitch winning which drives Broadcasting and Commercial revenues. Fielding mostly young players results in on-pitch mediocrity. It also causes the more seasoned players in the club wanting to compete for European and Domestic competitions to question staying.

Will Clearlake and Boehly Group Sell CFC?

The simple answer is they will sell if they believe the Enterprise Value is lower tomorrow than it is today. Conversely, they will not sell if they believe the Enterprise Value tomorrow is higher than it is today.

A rule of thumb in private equity is that investors are looking for cash on cash return of at least 2x to exit (or $5.9b to Buyer Group in case of CFC). Below are the purchase prices for CFC at Buyer Group breakeven and 2x cash return.

@ BREAKEVEN

Sale Price

£4,550.9M

Less: Senior Bank Debt

(£755.0M)

Less: Ares Principal

(£595.9M)

Less: Ares Make-Whole Penalty

(£250.0M)

Total Net for Owners

£2,950.0M

@ 2X CASH RETURN

Sale Price

£7,550.9M

Less: Senior Bank Debt

(£755.0M)

Less: Ares Principal

(£595.9M)

Less: Ares Make-Whole Penalty

(£250.0M)

Total Net for Owners

£5,900.0M

Note: Make-Whole penalty is estimated at present value in 2026 sale. We did not include effect of Ares warrants as we cannot estimate it; but it is likely at add £75m — £100m to sales prices.

As shown above, CFC would need to sell at £4.55b for the Buyer group to breakeven on their equity investment, and £7.50b to achieve a 2x cash return. Given the losses incurred by CFC since the Buyer Group took control in 2022, it would be difficult to argue they have increased the sustainable cash flow of the Club. It is equally unclear how their existing operating model of young player trading, limitations on Stanford Bridge expansion, and mid table Premier League standing will turn the situation around. After 4 years of Buyer Group ownership the value of Chelsea FC likely remains ~£4.2b, which is what they paid in 2022.

Is There Hope for Chelsea Supporters?

Short answer is yes. Supporter protests and voices will put pressure on the Buyer Group to change strategy and focus more on sustainable cash flow.

Debt Cliff #1 in 2027. The JP Morgan and Bank of America loan of £755m is due July 2027. If CFC does not have the cash to pay, then there are two options: banks will seize the collateral of CFC (effectively the equity shares) and force a sale; or the Club will refinance the debt. Refinancing is much more probable, and it is likely those discussions are happening now. Banks will do due diligence on the Club’s operating results and will inquire about the fan protests and negative press before agreeing to refinancing. It is therefore imperative for fans to continue to be heard. While the Buyer Group is likely to find banks willing to refinance, it will be at higher interest rates. Too high a rate may cause the Buyer Group to rethink its operating model or consider a sale, as higher financing costs reduce the cash flow that drives Enterprise Value.

Ares Management. Recall this debt is subordinated. If financial results remain poor and supporters continue to speak out, Ares will become increasingly concerned about the financial ability of the Club to payback its debt.

Clearlake Itself. My experience is private equity investors are smart. The priority is the value of their investment. If Clearlake is like other private equity firms, it consistently runs forecasts of cash flows to determine the Enterprise Value of CFC. Being smart people, at a certain point they will realize the existing operating model and leadership of the Club is not driving increases in sustainable cash flow and is driving Enterprise Value of CFC down. Rationally either their operating model will change, or they will decide the Buyer Group cannot increase Enterprise Value and consider a sale. Not qualifying for UCL competition, delay and complications of expanding Stamford Bridge Stadium, and potentially higher refinancing costs will put pressure on CFC’s cash flow forecasts. The private equity people I know course correct. Chelsea fans can only hope Clearlake Capital will too. As for Todd Boehly and his group (which were the primary source of CFC’s problems in my opinion) they are not the decision makers and will exit the investment when Clearlake decides to exit.