The Board

[Fulham Broadway 17,750]

22 minutes ago, DDA said:

That’s exactly what they are doing. How have The Prem allowed this to happen?

Anyone backing this project is an enemy of Chelsea FC as far as I’m concerned. 

Its what the Glazers did borrow millions on the asset they 'own' syphon the cash out -with them it was a million a week - then leave the club with the debt

[Vesper 31,108]

massive new amount of PIK loan debt shown below (it is Cayman Islands-based, and is called COP III, it is the new facilty shown below, and it dwarfs the other 2)

Around £400m a year (which will keep increasing on a year over year basis, btw) just in INTEREST COST, and likely even more as the interest shown (11.25 per cent) for COP III is likely too low per Booby Fairview. 

Just that interest cost, (especially if the interest rate paid on the COP III loan debt is around 14, 15 per cent per annum), could well surpass our ENTIRE gross revenue intake per annum by 2027 or so

PLUS that £1.5 billion that was supposed to go to the new stadium, womens side, youth development etc, has been spent on other things

No wonder Boehly was talking about no new stadium until possibly the late 2030s or more likely 2040 or later!!

and it gets worse, as we still have to pay to RUN THE CLUB each year, pay the salaries, transfers, staff, current stadium and other physical plant expenses (ie training grounds, for all levels, and multiple other things) etc etc etc

and all this truly affects the funds (like public pension funds)who invested in it all, and those giant funds will come head-hunting for BlueCo et al as those funds are bound by law to utilise fiduciary responsibility for their 'shareholders' (for but one example think of 10s (perhaps 100s) of thousands of school teachers and other public employees)

Boehly's share of the club, due to insane losses, has already be cut basically in half in a few short years

Ares Management and others, due to the way their PIK (PIK means Payment-in-Kind and refers to a financial instrument where interest or dividends are paid using additional securities (bonds/stock) instead of cash) loans (the 22 HoldCo facility for instance) are structured, can go directly after our current owners and seize all (or a huge amount) of the club

we are so so fucked I am starting to really fear 🥵

[Vesper 31,108]

we are pretty likely to soon be (if not already are) a 'Sell-to-Survive' club (not even a 'Sell-to-Buy' club)

[Vesper 31,108]

How Does Blueco Exit Chelsea FC? 🤔 | Explained

Streamed live 3 hours ago

Alex and Bobby Fairview discuss the potential options that Blueco have in terms of finding a way to exit Chelsea FC.

BlueCo would need to sell the club on the ten year anniversary of purchase (so sell on May 31, 2032) for almost £10 billion just to pay back the investors

here is a very rough calculation spreadsheet they did in the video

and all that assumes no more hidden debt is found

[Vesper 31,108]

 

[Vesper 31,108]

 

Todd Boehly’s insurer wins reprieve on rules to close capital arbitrage

Billionaire investor’s Security Benefit had been the heaviest user of a structure being targeted by US regulators

 

https://www.ft.com/content/c448bbee-cc81-46f3-a784-41a982dd9eb5?syn-25a6b1a6=1

 

https://archive.ph/JhK18

 

Todd Boehly’s insurer has won a temporary reprieve from new rules that would have hit its capital reserves, as regulators tussle with private capital-backed players over how groups invest retirees’ savings.

Security Benefit, a $60bn life insurer owned by the billionaire sports investor’s Eldridge Industries, has succeeded in delaying changes to capital rules despite a warning from one regulator that current regulations create a “capital arbitrage” that is being “actively exploited”.

At issue are collateral loans, an investment structure that allows insurers to back promises to policyholders with debt secured by underlying assets. These range from mortgages to intellectual property rights, future cash flows and the riskiest slices of collateral loan obligations.

Security Benefit has been by far the heaviest user of collateral loans in recent years.

As of 2024, the most recent data available, the Kansas-based insurer alone held 47 per cent of the entire US life insurance sector’s collateral loans. Security Benefit had $12.9bn — more than a quarter of its total invested assets — in collateral loans in 2024.

Todd Boehly owns 20% of the LA Dodgers, while his company Eldridge Industries separately holds a 7% stake © Shaun Brooks/CameraSport via Getty Images

Under current rules, insurers can incur a flat 6.8 per cent capital charge on these investments. If they were owned outright, they would typically incur higher capital charges.

“By simply papering the investment as a collateral loan”, Iowa’s insurance division warned in a recent note, insurers can cut the capital they are required to have against these investments by as much as two-thirds compared with holding the asset directly.

The Iowa regulator, which oversees more insurance assets than any other state, said that collateral loans are “the most easily exploited asset class for capital arbitrage”. This arbitrage was “being actively exploited”, it added.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which develops the rules used by US states to regulate insurers, has set out plans to make it more expensive to rely on collateral loans backed by riskier exposures, such as equity investments. 

NAIC officials including Philip Barlow, who chairs a working group tasked with overseeing changes, had pushed for rule changes — which the body has been developing for more than two years — to go into effect by the end of this year.

But after lobbying by Security Benefit, the rule change has been pushed back, handing a temporary reprieve to the insurer, which is seen as the primary target of the sector-wide rule changes.

At the NAIC’s spring meetings, the working group Barlow chairs agreed to delay closing the loophole until next year, people familiar with the talks told the FT.

Insurance regulatory officials from Kansas backed the insurer in its effort to delay changes, the people said.

Security Benefit is based in the Kansas state capital Topeka, pictured. Officials from the state backed the insurer in its effort to delay changes © Dreamstime

Unlike some other users of collateral loan structures, nearly all of Security Benefit’s collateral loans — about $12.8bn out of $12.9bn — were backed by affiliated assets.

Recent filings, for example, showed that Security Benefit had an affiliated $185mn collateral loan backed by an investment in the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team.

The next largest user of collateral loan structures, MetLife, had just 1 per cent or $2.8bn of its total invested assets in collateral loans, and most of these were unaffiliated.

Boehly owns a 20 per cent stake in the Dodgers directly, while his holding company Eldridge Industries separately holds a 7 per cent stake in the franchise, according to Sportico.

NAIC officials and senior industry analysts told the FT that they were concerned that asset managers could use collateral loans to stuff insurance subsidiaries with potentially risky investments.

“This is how insurance companies get in trouble — when assets that can’t be parked anywhere else are parked inside insurance companies,” one NAIC official told the FT.

Several singled out Security Benefit and said they were concerned that Boehly’s asset manager could be using policyholder funds to provide cheaper financing for assets he controlled, building up a potential future funding shortfall.

Under planned changes, NAIC would “look through” to the investments underlying the collateral loans, and would apply a 30 per cent capital charge when they are backed by equity stakes in companies or the equity tranches of structured investments such as collateralised loan obligations.

The capital that Security Benefit would be required to hold against the $185mn loan backed by the Dodgers investment, for example, could rise from about $13mn to as much as $56mn.

Two people said they expected Security Benefit to make significant changes to its investment portfolio in advance of the new rules being enacted.

However, if it made no changes to its allocations, Security Benefit’s risk-based capital — a measure of its buffer to meet obligations to policyholders — could fall by as much as half, based on its latest filings.

Some NAIC officials told the FT that the delay highlighted the body’s vulnerability to industry pressure.

“There was no reason to delay this other than industry pressure,” one NAIC official close to the proceedings said.

In a statement to the FT, Security Benefit said that since 2020 it had undergone three examinations by its regulator, the Kansas Department of Insurance, including one focused exclusively on collateral loans. These reports “reflect no material findings”, it said.

Asked why it invested so heavily in affiliated assets, it said: “Our collateral loans typically have robust protections including senior secured rights in the underlying collateral.”

In a letter to the NAIC, Security Benefit had urged officials to delay the rules taking effect until at least the end of 2028. The insurer argued that the data available did not suggest that there was an “an emergent solvency or policyholder protection concern that would justify emergency action”.

The Kansas Department of Insurance echoed the argument from Security Benefit, telling the FT in a statement that it had argued for “a reasonable timeline for the implementation of all changes”.

Eldridge Industries declined to comment.

[Vesper 31,108]

On 30/04/2026 at 00:41, Vesper said:

Ares could foreclose on BlueCo and up for sale we go

and possibly into administration if the loses are too high

eeeeek

it has been closing in on 3 years since I started talking about Ares

 

Ares has exploded (as I predicted) in AUM (assets under management) from when I started talking about them closing in on around 3 years ago

and now have a massive $644.3 billion AUM as of the end of Q1 2026, up from $341 billion AUM at the end of Q3 2022

so they almost doubled their AUM in just the last 3 and a half years

they are truly a monster financial firm, likely headed for over 1 trillion USD in AUM in the next several years

Clearlake has, as of the end of Q1 2026, around $185 billion in AUM, and that is double what it was until their recent Q1 2026 acquisition of Pathway Finanacial

so Ares is 3 and half times larger than Clearlake in terms of AUM, and were seven times larger (AUM-wise) pre Clearlake's Pathway acquisition

 

 

 

[Vesper 31,108]

1 hour ago, Vesper said:

BlueCo would need to sell the club on the ten year anniversary of purchase (so sell on May 31, 2032) for almost £10 billion just to pay back the investors

also

in terms of loss of revenue from now to that sell date almost exactly 6 years from now

we will be missing around £1 billion or so (these are all really rough back of hand calcualtions of course) total in 3 specific types of revenue IF 3 bad things happen (one will happen for sure, one surely HAS to be sorted, and one is only fixed if we get the CL most every year, plus do decently in domestic cups and EPL final tables, and do well in the 2029 FIFA Club World Cup)

1. the loss of revenue for a new stadium versus the current SB (that is happening no matter what)

2. the loss of revenue from having either no or some partial year bollocks front of shirt main sponsor (this HAS to be sorted)

3. the loss of revenue from not having CL (and it is even worse if we do not get any euro footie) doing shit in the EPL tables, doing shit in domestic cups, and doing shit in the 2029 FCWC

 

they are other losses of revenue that also come from having a shit side as well that I did not even get into (merch sales to name just one more, etc)

[Vesper 31,108]

sorry for the relentless Friday night doom postings on so many subjects (and none of these include our players in terms of buys and sales and quality of the squad, which of course is a HUGE part of us surviving and hopefully thriving, at least football-wise)

but here we are

these are all a very likely (the degrees of impact for each may vary of course) set of realities for us under the BlueCO cunt regime

[Fernando 6,726]

Wow this is glazer on steroids. 

Definitely these type of entities should not be allowed in sports. 

[Vesper 31,108]

14 minutes ago, Fernando said:

Wow this is glazer on steroids. 

Definitely these type of entities should not be allowed in sports. 

all it takes to truly see the danger we are in is a few days worth of deep dives via the videos and articles many of us have posted here in the past few months to years, and especially lately

also it helps to have basic financial knowledge in regards to these giant hedge fund hyenas, these global banksters, and these private equity vultures

especially the American types as that is who we are mostly dealing with

[Vesper 31,108]

Why Chelsea could fall out of the Big Six

Welcome to The Athletic FC's YouTube channel, where best-in-class journalism meets video.

Premier League, Champions League, Club World Cup... Chelsea have won them all in recent history and established themselves as part of the 'Big Six'. But now they're not even in the top 6 of the Premier League...

Are Chelsea about to surrender their status as a Big Six club?

Ayo Akinwolere is joined by Alex Barker, JJ Bull and Liam Twomey to find out.

This is The Athletic's Week In Football.

Timestamps:

00:00 Why Chelsea could fall out of the Big Six
00:22 What’s happening at Stamford Bridge?
02:27 What’s happening at the executive level?
04:13 The impact of missing out on the Champions League again
06:45 How will this affect Chelsea’s transfer strategy?
12:19 Muddled transfers, muddled tactics
18:30 Chelsea’s managerial search
19:56 Would Andoni Iraola make sense at Chelsea?
22:15 What kind of manager suits Chelsea?
28:56 Are Chelsea falling out of the Big Six?

Read The Athletic's feature on Liam Rosenior's 107-day tenure:

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7221654/2026/04/23/liam-rosenior-sack-Chelsea-why/