19 Aug 2026 12:37:23
Apparently the much-delayed project to build a new home is a key factor driving Boehly and majority shareholders Clearlake Capital towards a break-up of their BlueCo consortium.
I understand Clearlake, who own 61.85 per cent, and Boehly are not seeing eye to eye on the long-term future of the club and believe something finally has to give in their power struggle. A new home to replace the ageing Stamford Bridge and generate greater revenue is central to BlueCo's dreams of sustainable success, on and off the pitch.
Boehly and Behdad Eghbali, co-founder of Clearlake, agree the Blues almost certainly need to move to a purpose-built venue away from Stamford Bridge.
But their visions for that multi-use complex, whether at Earls Court or elsewhere, are different.
More significantly, neither side is willing to put up their share of the likely construction costs of £5billion while the other camp retains influence over the project and the overall direction of the club.
Boehly and Walter, friends and business partners for a number of years, each control 12.8 per cent of BlueCo through a shared holding company, with Swiss businessman Hansjorg Wyss having the same stake.
Eghbali has been the dominant figure at Chelsea on a day-to-day basis since early 2023.
Boehly's camp, like Clearlake, have a right of veto over major decisions, including transfers and longer-term projects like the stadium.
Boehly will retain that power even when his five-year term as chairman expires at the end of the season and Clearlake take control of the post.
The two sides have been in talks about buying each other out for two years and are said to have maintained a professional relationship.
But the US probe into Walter, in which he denies all wrongdoing, has helped bring things to a head. His likely exit from Chelsea would cause a shake-up on its own. Nevertheless, a deal will be hard to strike as both sides argue over what shares in BlueCo, owners of Chelsea and sister club Strasbourg, are now worth.
In addition to the £2.5billion cost of buying out Roman Abramovich in 2022, BlueCo pledged to spend a further £1.75billion on the team, infrastructure and the women's side.
Neither Boehly's group nor Clearlake appear willing to commit more money to major projects like a new stadium until they have full control over how it is spent.
19 Aug 2026 12:59:31
Thanks EbW.
19 Aug 2026 13:30:26
Cheers EbW
The SB project was always going to bring the ownership issues to a head.
Let's hope it's resolved quickly, with Clearlake coming out as the winners. Whether we are, as a club, remains to be seen.
19 Aug 2026 14:59:51
Club now valued at £5 billion as well. That is some return on their investment. They might not know football, but they do know their money.
19 Aug 2026 15:04:42
The value is not yet tested, K. It will be interesting to see how much Bohely and Walters obtain from the sale.
19 Aug 2026 16:45:31
Boehly and Walter each own 12.8% and are reported to value the club at £5bn, meaning they would each receive about £640m from a sale.
19 Aug 2026 16:54:04
It will have to be independently valued before any sale takes place to protect all parties concerned.
19 Aug 2026 22:29:12
That has already been done, Bill, club valued at a minimum of £5 billion, maybe more.
20 Aug 2026 00:25:45
Sorry, who has already independantly valued the club?
20 Aug 2026 00:34:10
I'm not sure if you're the son of someone attached to Chelsea, a overzealous teenager, or just here for a wind up, but you quite consistently praise the yanks, for things that have been written by favorable reporters and haven't actually come to fruition. You praised them for the 300m that would be made from finctional fees for Enzo, Gusto and Neto, when no formal bids have been made, let alone offers accepted. Dig deeper and you find other clubs are laughing at our valuations. Valuations placed by the morons you value so highly.
The club valuation is similar. A made up figure by charlatans. Maybe search the history of this money gods you praise. These new charges aren't the first our owners have faced by the American authorities. Boehly is a sneaky little donut and has been for years. The owners are crooks and have falsely valued many a business. No surprise they are trying it with our club. Maybe those who previously laughed at my money washing jibe a few months back might take things more seriously moving forward.
20 Aug 2026 09:21:35
Melbourne, I am not a massive fan of our owners, but to label them "crooks" seems wrong to me. They all seemed to be involved in financial companies, all of whom are heavily regulated. After many years of experience in the financial industry, I can honestly tell you that virtually every participant has received some sort of fine from several regulators around the world. I am not saying that fines are not justified, but I am saying that in major companies the CEOs will rely heavily on professional advice and structure. Sometimes, and for lots of reasons, these parts fail.
If the failure was deliberate, or under the instructions of the CEO, then he or she will be prosecuted and, if found guilty, probably go to prison.
I can find no information about our owners that says they have committed a "crime" or served time in prison for "any" offence. I believe one of the director's companies received a fine for regulatory reasons.
The fines were paid in full.
As far as the club's valuation is concerned, I understand an independent valuation of the club when the new owners purchased the club was £4.25bn. Since then, it would appear that Premier League club valuations have generally increased. So, it seems reasonable that some now value the club at over £5bn. In earlier posts on this subject I mentioned it would be interesting to see what the club's shares are now valued at. It could well be in Clearlake's interest for the club to receive a much higher valuation than £5bn, even if that means paying a premium for the 25% ish shares owned by the selling shareholders. For example, they may well want the club on their books at a higher valuation to give them credibility as good investor managers, but also it could help them in lots of ways with future investments.
20 Aug 2026 09:59:09
Can posters not have a different opinion to you, Melbourne?
I can leave the site if that is what you want?
20 Aug 2026 10:52:24
The purchase was 2.5b with a further 1.75b earmarked for spending. We can be creative and say that values the club at 4.25b, but it certainly wasn't the purchase price, nor what has been held in escrow by the crooks that forced Roman to sell.
If you've been involved with finances for a long time, then I'm sure you're not naive enough to think all these businesses are run above board, nor that these advisors are paid for being wholly legitimate. Finding creative loopholes to laws and accounting is how they reach the top. Whether their actions are deemed illegal and people face jail time has far more to do with connections than whether or not they were in the wrong.
And if Boehly is able to walk away with 600m (almost a 50% increase in his investment), I once again point to money washing as the most obvious answer. Not turning dirty money clean, but increasing an investment on the books where no substantial increase in value has been created. Not the first time fraud has been lobbied their way, nor would it be the first time it's stuck.
I don't mind whether you stay or leave, K, but if everyone is allowed an opinion, maybe don't threaten to leave when someone points out some issues with your takes. Feel free to have a crack back with reasoning.
20 Aug 2026 12:09:30
Melbourne, I can assure you that I was, and to a certain extent still am, involved in financial services at a very senior level. It is a service that not only has the law to answer to, but also regulatory bodies, who were mainly put there to protect the "individual" investors.
You are entitled to your opinion about our owners, but my opinion is they are not crooks. It is not "money washing" if people make a profit on their investment.
My personal dislike of funds as owners of football clubs isn't just about their desire to make money. I'm never envious of people making money. My issue is, and to a certain extent it is understandable, that they serve their investors first and the fans second.
My guess is it will serve all the shareholders if the independent valuation is as high as possible, and my personal view is it will be higher than £5bn.
The RA sale of Chelsea has lots of layers to it. Given the climate at the time and RA's apparent close association with Putin, I guess it was inevitable.
20 Aug 2026 12:34:07
Yeah, I don't doubt that you worked in finance, Tom. I appreciate your point of view from someone inside. Unfortunately, we have many cases of money management companies causing complete chaos on international markets, and very little in the way of those at the top ever being held accountable. There's typically one rule for those that work within the regulators' scope, and another for those that dine and holiday with those same regulators.
A valuation in football, as in business, is oftentimes based on potential and the ability to sell a story. I do not believe Chelsea will find any bidders anywhere near the 5b level on the open market. If it is the case that Clearlake pays out Boehly and the other bloke close to that valuation, it certainly serves their interests of having a book valuation much higher than anyone else would be willing to pay. It helps with debt servicing and a number of other accounting tricks.
Anyway, hopefully on the pitch we see something better this year, and I don't suffer between 10pm and 5am, kickoff time dependent, for another season.
20 Aug 2026 12:59:13
Melbourne, that is very much my point. In my opinion, Clearlake should want a high valuation for lots of reasons, and I believe it will be over £5bn.
I have also said several times, and despite its contract obligation, I do not believe Clearlake will remain as our owners.
As for business accountability, my observation is the financial industry is over-regulated, but under-prosecuted in law.
I repeat, I doubt very much that our current owners are crooks, and as much as I may worship RA as a Chelsea legend and be forever grateful for what he did for our club, I think it is far more likely that RA was a crook rather than our current owners.