hatterson
Registered User
For a while, sure. But in the 90s until the cap they were routinely among the highest spending teams and never turned it into actual success.
Transfer: 2023 Summer Transfer Window - Open Window Edition
- Thread starter bluesfan94
- Start date
Savant
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2013
- 39,377
- 11,995
Savant
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2013
- 39,377
- 11,995
Tin foil hat or not, it’s not too hard to see what has happened here. Chelsea overspending makes a lot more sense if 5ey knew they could dump these contracts on Saudi League if it wasn’t going to work out; especially through Todd’s back channel.
Obviously there are no guarantees. The Flyers are a good example of that too, also the Rangers. But the Flyers were at least a perennial playoff team. Since the salary cap? Not so much. Seriously, this isn't really debatable. Having a competitive advantage doesn't guarantee success. But it is still a competitive advantage. And the salary cap for the most part removes that advantage. Whether that leads to a better product on the ice, court, diamond, field or pitch, that probably depends on one's point of view.
Peen
Rejoicing in a Benning-free world
- Oct 6, 2013
- 32,371
- 29,193
Chelsea overspent on Ziyech in 2019 because they knew they could dump him to the Saudis
Chelsea overspent on Kante in 2016 so they could dump him to the Saudis
Real top level thinking from you. Can’t believe I didn’t see Boehly’s decade long plan here
Duchene2MacKinnon
In the hands of Genius
- Aug 8, 2006
- 47,480
- 10,375
I mean different owners, plus my post wasn't meant to trigger conspiracies. I think people should be sceptical of the source to a degree at least. Hell it was merely to show how these billionaires have more similarities and their money is all recycled anyway.
KJS14
Registered User
- Jun 13, 2013
- 3,615
- 1,295
Chelsea fans acting like this isn't ridiculous or even somewhat shady despite one of them having the competence to write the below is hilarious.
Peen
Rejoicing in a Benning-free world
- Oct 6, 2013
- 32,371
- 29,193
Obviously it is fair to be skeptical. But what savant said was objectively stupid.
I feel like if this were totally what is being insinuated, we would have seen a one year extension for Kante and a sale two months later to the Saudis.
But these are big name muslim players who want to keep their wages and the club want them to move on. There simply aren’t a lot of players with the name/wages/etc who fit that target base.
You would pay more than that much for the pair? Huh?
KJS14
Registered User
- Jun 13, 2013
- 3,615
- 1,295
Yeah, of course. Given what you said is true and KK / Ziyech hold almost zero market value, and Chelsea would likely be willing to dump them for free (or close to free) just to clear the wages alone, why would the Saudis pay a significant fee? It makes sense that they need to overpay the players in wages to go there, but it makes no sense that they would overpay Chelsea unless there is some other motive.
Kind of similar to saying it's just a coincidence that PIF would have significant assets managed by Clearlake, when they could easily have those assets managed by a Vanguard, BlackRock, etc. for cheaper or a million other hedge funds at the same cost to them.
Peen
Rejoicing in a Benning-free world
- Oct 6, 2013
- 32,371
- 29,193
If we wanted to let them go for free/no cost, why did we decline Inter and Juve’s loan requests for Koulibaly and demand a permanent sale? And same for Lukaku?
Savant
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2013
- 39,377
- 11,995
This is a completely disingenuous way of looking at it.
Todd spent a shit load under his ownership, because he knew he could balance to books by sending these guys to Saudi league. Overspending in the past has no merit on what’s happening now. Getting bailed o7t of it by insider trading does. I hope this helps.
The suspiciously tanked Ziyech transfer? not negotiating with Inter for Lukaku and Koulinaly because they can SHOCKINGLY get more money from Saudi. That’s all happening right now
Savant
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2013
- 39,377
- 11,995
Easy - Because they knew they could get a transfer fee from the Saudi’s because Todd is pulling the strings.
KJS14
Registered User
- Jun 13, 2013
- 3,615
- 1,295
Lukaku might be a little different, but you yourself just made the argument that "their wages were horrific so any European club probably would have wanted them for close to free." Why would Chelsea turn down offers to offload the wages for free? Because they knew the Saudis were coming to pay fees above market value clearly.
You seem to have went from "yeah them giving us money for KK / Ziyech is weird" to "how is this strange / sketchy" in a matter of 3 posts...
Savant
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2013
- 39,377
- 11,995
They shouldn’t, but that isn’t asking the right question. The right question is ”Why is the Saudi League pool with links to Chelsea ownership offering transfer fees to Chelsea that they would not have gotten from any other team on the planet” at the minimum this is not ethical
Peen
Rejoicing in a Benning-free world
- Oct 6, 2013
- 32,371
- 29,193
I said it’s fair to be skeptical. That’s it. Skeptical of what exactly? I don’t know. But I do know the crying conspiracies are so cringe
KJS14
Registered User
- Jun 13, 2013
- 3,615
- 1,295
1) That tweet is pretty dumb. Boehly and his crew can be adept at making deals (buying/selling), but they have indeed been clueless about targeting players that don't all fit one single plan. Those aren't mutually exclusive things. We've also already seen him circumvent the spirit of FFP rules by handing out 8 year contracts, and they made the Enzo deal happen for a higher fee rather than waiting just so they could abuse that rule one last time before it got changed.
2) It's a lot more cringe to think "there's nothing odd going on here" while the Saudis are handing Chelsea significant fees for players no other club in the world would pay. Again, paying the players inflated wages makes sense to attract them, but paying Chelsea above market value makes zero sense.
KJS14
Registered User
- Jun 13, 2013
- 3,615
- 1,295
And then you posted a tweet that basically said the equivalent of "you can't peddle a narrative that Boehly is dumb about soccer transfers, but smart enough to run a massive hedge fund and work shady deals" as if those things have anything to do with each other.
Wee Baby Seamus
Yo, Goober, where's the meat?
the key point here is that “the giant Saudi sovereign wealth fund invests in the large private equity firm” is not evidence of backroom shadiness beyond the level of all backroom shadiness within capitalism in 2023.
The QIA likely also invests in Clearlake. No special deals are being cut. Hell, Inter and Chelsea are at loggerheads over a billion deals right now and I reckon Suning probably has some money in a Clearlake fund. Until I find more evidence than “giant sovereign wealth fund which also owns football teams invests in large private equity firm which also owns football team”, I’m not gonna think this is anything more than capitalism being bad, and nothing specific to this.
What’s even the logic to the conspiracy? PIF invests in Clearlake. Clearlake owns Chelsea, Chelsea’s success (and by extension, asset value) is inhibited by dead weight contracts, PIF takes them off hands, Chelsea becomes more successful and therefore asset value increases? Not gonna lie, doesn’t make sense.
There’s going to continue to be the appearance (and existence of) conflicts of interest so long as investment funds own football teams because other large companies own football teams and also invest in investment funds which own football teams.
As long as private equity firms hold football clubs as “assets”, this’ll continue. Get f***in used to it I guess (it’s unfortunately not going away), but I need a lot more evidence to suggest there’s anything uniquely shady occurring here. I welcome the evidence
The QIA likely also invests in Clearlake. No special deals are being cut. Hell, Inter and Chelsea are at loggerheads over a billion deals right now and I reckon Suning probably has some money in a Clearlake fund. Until I find more evidence than “giant sovereign wealth fund which also owns football teams invests in large private equity firm which also owns football team”, I’m not gonna think this is anything more than capitalism being bad, and nothing specific to this.
What’s even the logic to the conspiracy? PIF invests in Clearlake. Clearlake owns Chelsea, Chelsea’s success (and by extension, asset value) is inhibited by dead weight contracts, PIF takes them off hands, Chelsea becomes more successful and therefore asset value increases? Not gonna lie, doesn’t make sense.
There’s going to continue to be the appearance (and existence of) conflicts of interest so long as investment funds own football teams because other large companies own football teams and also invest in investment funds which own football teams.
As long as private equity firms hold football clubs as “assets”, this’ll continue. Get f***in used to it I guess (it’s unfortunately not going away), but I need a lot more evidence to suggest there’s anything uniquely shady occurring here. I welcome the evidence
JeffreyLFC
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2017
- 11,052
- 8,204
Wee Baby Seamus
Yo, Goober, where's the meat?
They likely do have assets managed by Vanguard and BlackRock, they’re just not f***ing idiots who put all their money in one single asset fund
cgf
FireBednarsSuccessor
Live in the Now
Registered User
There's no conspiracy going on here at all IMO. They want Muslim players so they're getting them. That's all that's going on here.
Kind of nice only being over a billion in debt and not having to deal with this drama.
Latest posts
-
F Ivan Demidov - SKA St. Petersburg, KHL (2024, 5th, MTL) Part 2- Latest: Pavel Buchnevich
-
