Oliver Skipp

[Finney Is Back]

Ahaha. Are you seriously suggesting Roman Abramovich has been clever investing to make money. That is the funniest thing yet. He has more money than he knows what to do with. Good business sense you say. Ok then!

No. RA has one ambition…. For his club to win trophies. He has been very, very good at achieving that ambition, umpteen times better than our owners in this respect.

However if we discount that and look at it in terms of pure finance (as some on here seem to think football is about having the best finances as opposed to winning the most trophies). RA has invested about £1b in Chelsea (in director loans) and if he decided to sell Chelsea today could probably achieve a price of £2b to £3b depending on whether he left the loan in place or wrote it off.

RA has probably made £2b in (paper) profit overall. Unlike our owners I don’t think RA cares about this but it isn’t right to say that he has done anything other than make (a paper) profit on his investment.

Our majority owner also has more money than he knows what to do with but the main aim in his life is to make even more money as opposed to achieving glory in football. That is his prerogative, billionaires can do whatever they please with their money.

 

[SpurMeUp]

No. RA has one ambition…. For his club to win trophies. He has been very, very good at achieving that ambition, umpteen times better than our owners in this respect.

However if we discount that and look at it in terms of pure finance (as some on here seem to think football is about having the best finances as opposed to winning the most trophies). RA has invested about £1b in Chelsea (in director loans) and if he decided to sell Chelsea today could probably achieve a price of £2b to £3b depending on whether he left the loan in place or wrote it off.

RA has probably made £2b in (paper) profit overall. Unlike our owners I don’t think RA cares about this but it isn’t right to say that he has done anything other than make (a paper) profit on his investment.

Our majority owner also has more money than he knows what to do with but the main aim in his life is to make even more money as opposed to achieving glory in football. That is his prerogative, billionaires can do whatever they please with their money.

Codswolop. I worry for your investments I really do! https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidd...-into-chelsea-despite-losing-love-for-london/ Chelsea have been for sale for some time. No one is buying because the club needs a cash injection (200-300m) every couple of seasons. The clubs been for sales for years now, no one is paying 2-3b. So all you are left with is well north of 1b invested. With no return as of yet. You'd invest your own money in this model though.

Of course, you can win trophies if you spend millions of petrodollars. There is maybe some fake glory in it, idk? However, that is the model you espouse for sport?

 

[Finney Is Back]

We could go down a rabbit whole here mate, but let me give you an example, you buy a player via cheque from "someone" vs the club in another country (that same cheque couldn't be deposited in a UK bank because the funds weren't traceable to a legitimate business), you put it in the books as owner investment, that player is then an asset on the books, and when they are sold, just like magic that money becomes "clean" (which would actually be worth taking a loss on)

How many times can we have this conversation, you cannot input £1B into a business, lose money for a decade, then build a model where you are fiscally viable in year but still have the debt of £1B (with no line of sight to paying it off) and call that a viable business model. I could buy any fudging business and if I didn't pay off the original investment make it appear like it's viable until the day the debt gets called.

Chelsea has not done what you usually advocate for, i.e. dilute the holding, RA still has effectively an IOU, so regardless of if the value of the club is £20 or £2B, whoever buys it need to pay him off.

Our interest rates aren't variable mate, so it would make brick all difference to us

Very clandestine, that is a big imagination you have there…. Amazing that Chelsea have managed to get away with that for so many years, buying players from so many clubs.… They must be incredibly good at covering their tracks…. Or maybe it just didn’t happen?…. I know which is more likely.

“you cannot input £1B into a business, lose money for a decade, then build a model where you are fiscally viable in year but still have the debt of £1B (with no line of sight to paying it off) and call that a viable business mode”

As we covered ages ago in another thread, you absolutely can operate a business that way, thousands of businesses around the world operate that way - owner/investor funding looking to build the value of the asset so that the asset value dwarfs the debt value. The only business decision RA has to make is whether he feels the asset value of Chelsea is increasing by more than the x% per annum he could get for investing that money elsewhere. So far he has got a very good rate of return.

I have only called on our owners to dilute their holding as they have shown they won’t invest. RA doesn’t need to dilute his holding as he is prepared to invest his own wealth into his asset. If he sells the club he either sells wiping the debt (and sells for a much higher price). Or leaves the debt there, sells for a lower price and starts to call in the debt…. Or even sells the club for (say) £2b and cancels his debt to retain a 33% stake. It is exactly the same as our owners selling up, the £1.2b of gross debt will be factored into the asset price. I don’t see how you fail to see that owner investment is a common and valid way of operating businesses?

You’re right our interest rates are fixed…. But we’re paying off the interest and not the capital. A hike in rates prior to the maturity of our bonds means borrowing the money again to pay off the bonds becomes far more expensive.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Codswolop. I worry for your investments I really do! https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidd...-into-chelsea-despite-losing-love-for-london/ Chelsea have been for sale for some time. No one is buying because the club needs a cash injection (200-300m) every couple of seasons. The clubs been for sales for years now, no one is paying 2-3b. So all you are left with is well north of 1b invested. With no return as of yet. You'd invest your own money in this model though.

Of course, you can win trophies if you spend millions of petrodollars. There is maybe some fake glory in it, idk? However, that is the model you espouse for sport?

“While last month the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. financier Todd Boehly, who reportedly co-owns the L.A. Dodgers baseball team, had a bid for Chelsea rejected by Abramovich.”

So he’s not actually trying very hard to sell it then?

 

[Bullet]

Chelsea are also sustainable. We’ve taken on external debt, Chelsea owner funding. Debt level of two assets similar, asset value similar, turnover similar…. And I would much prefer our debt to be to our owners like Chelsea’s is.

You're being very naughty. Sure if Jeff Bezos bought QPR and invested £15bn over 5 years and then ran it sustainably as London FC and won trophies, you would applaud that model and tip your hat to him.

 

[Lemonade Money]

Came here to read about Skipp being a starter ahead of Winks (no shock) and people singing his praises, yet find this is a Chelsea thread?

No its the anti Levy thread. Choose your agenda and be a dingdong about it.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

You’re right our interest rates are fixed…. But we’re paying off the interest and not the capital. A hike in rates prior to the maturity of our bonds means borrowing the money again to pay off the bonds becomes far more expensive.

In 2046 when we re-finance the bullet payments, even if our rate has doubled to say, 5%, it's never going to be a problem, for very OBVIOUS reasons.

 

[Raziel]

Very clandestine, that is a big imagination you have there…. Amazing that Chelsea have managed to get away with that for so many years, buying players from so many clubs.… They must be incredibly good at covering their tracks…. Or maybe it just didn’t happen?…. I know which is more likely.

Honestly mate, you always go this route. killing yourself to defend anyone but Spurs

RA & Chelsea (you want another 100 fudging links?)
Litvinenko investigating Abramovich money-laundering claims, court told | Alexander Litvinenko | The Guardian
Chelsea Owner Roman Abramovich Potentially Being Investigated for Money Laundering — This Is Soccer Talk
Abramovich was not ‘directed’ to buy Chelsea FC by Putin, court hears | Roman Abramovich | The Guardian
https://www.platform-investico.nl/a...uspicious-transactions-through-ing-amsterdam/
https://jewishbusinessnews.com/2015/03/17/roman-abramovich-investigated-for-money-laundering/
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1...ea-russia-crime-laundering-claim-swiss-police
https://airnewsonline.com/chelsea-o...y-laundering-and-crime-links-by-swiss-police/

The guy has been denied residency from at least two European countries because of same said allegations, but yep, I have an imagination

Knowing something and proving it in a case of law is two very different things, especially when the governing bodies of the businesses being accused of said practices are not interested and/or corrupt themselves.

 

[Raziel]

You're being very naughty. Sure if Jeff Bezos bought QPR and invested £15bn over 5 years and then ran it sustainably as London FC and won trophies, you would applaud that model and tip your hat to him.

Everybody but Spurs has a wonderful model mate, if somehow we could only learn from money launderers and oil state PR projects

 

[Bishop]

Or model is brilliant.

It doesn't allow us to buy the best players, pay the highest wages or win trophies.

Other teams should be copying us obviously.

 

[Bishop]

Or model is brilliant.

It doesn't allow us to buy the best players, pay the highest wages or win trophies.

Other teams should be copying us obviously.

 

[AdamB]

Or model is brilliant.

It doesn't allow us to buy the best players, pay the highest wages or win trophies.

Other teams should be copying us obviously.

I know you were being flippant but going forward we should be highly profitable. We'll make around £150m+ EBITDA each year, or £100m post tax and interest.

Question then is how much of that goes to reducing debt vs buying players vs investing in more infrastructure. I cant see why we wont be spending say £50m net each year going forward

 

[parklane1]

No its the anti Levy thread. Choose your agenda and be a dingdong about it.

Finney has to fill every thread with his anti Levy basis, i am surprised most get involved with it/him.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Finney has to fill every thread with his anti Levy basis, i am surprised most get involved with it/him.

I’m not sure there is anything in my posts in this thread that are ‘anti Levy’. Funny how certain people want to jump to Levy’s defence even when there is no attack on him?

My original post in this recent exchange was in response to Raziel saying that Chelsea didn’t care about developing youth players when the evidence shows that to be false.

Looking to learn from clubs who are more successful than us is something we should absolutely do. As I said only a few posts ago in this thread that bringing in Derby’s head of youth recruitment may indicate that we have realised there is a lot of value in Chelsea’s youth purchase tactic and start to take more advantage of this tactic ourselves.

 

[Bishop]

I’m not sure there is anything in my posts in this thread that are ‘anti Levy’. Funny how certain people want to jump to Levy’s defence even when there is no attack on him?

My original post in this recent exchange was in response to Raziel saying that Chelsea didn’t care about developing youth players when the evidence shows that to be false.

Looking to learn from clubs who are more successful than us is something we should absolutely do. As I said only a few posts ago in this thread that bringing in Derby’s head of youth recruitment may indicate that we have realised there is a lot of value in Chelsea’s youth purchase tactic and start to take more advantage of this tactic ourselves.

The Cult of Levy is all encompassing. If you aren't singing his praises you must be anti Levy and anti Spurs.

 

[DubSpur]

I’m not sure there is anything in my posts in this thread that are ‘anti Levy’. Funny how certain people want to jump to Levy’s defence even when there is no attack on him?

My original post in this recent exchange was in response to Raziel saying that Chelsea didn’t care about developing youth players when the evidence shows that to be false.

Looking to learn from clubs who are more successful than us is something we should absolutely do. As I said only a few posts ago in this thread that bringing in Derby’s head of youth recruitment may indicate that we have realised there is a lot of value in Chelsea’s youth purchase tactic and start to take more advantage of this tactic ourselves.

To follow that model we would need to buy a ton of youth players. When that happens there's going to be crying over there being no money to spend on the first team...

 

[Raziel]

The Cult of Levy is all encompassing. If you aren't singing his praises you must be anti Levy and anti Spurs.

Or vice versa, the absolute need to brick on anything Spurs (e.g. the Academy) regardless of blatantly good it actually is at the moment just to get a dig in at Levy/ENIC

So much legitimate to criticise Levy for, but the fudging Academy ain't one mate.

 

[parklane1]

I’m not sure there is anything in my posts in this thread that are ‘anti Levy’. Funny how certain people want to jump to Levy’s defence even when there is no attack on him?

My original post in this recent exchange was in response to Raziel saying that Chelsea didn’t care about developing youth players when the evidence shows that to be false.

Looking to learn from clubs who are more successful than us is something we should absolutely do. As I said only a few posts ago in this thread that bringing in Derby’s head of youth recruitment may indicate that we have realised there is a lot of value in Chelsea’s youth purchase tactic and start to take more advantage of this tactic ourselves.

" Anti Levy", "anti Lewis" " anti board" its all wrapped up in one and you make it pretty obvious in a lot of you posts, simple as that.

 

[Nigeyman]

Er…best of luck again today skippy you bush kangaroo.

Do the Spurs proud like last week.

 

[Bishop]

Or vice versa, the absolute need to brick on anything Spurs (e.g. the Academy) regardless of blatantly good it actually is at the moment just to get a dig in at Levy/ENIC

So much legitimate to criticise Levy for, but the fudging Academy ain't one mate.

Is the academy now doing well? Yes. Could it be doing better? Yes. Are there other teams out there from whom we could pick up tricks? Yes.

That's basically the just of what I saw @Finney Is Back saying. You seemed to rubbish that despite a lot of evidence to the contrary.

You are allowed to praise rival teams for the initiatives they do well at. You're not betraying your spurs fandom of you can see good work else wehere.