The Naming Rights Thread

[Trix]

What, say they sell it on £5m a year for 5 years, but all the £25m paid upfront? Sure the saudi's have loads of companies they can funnel it through without been caught out.

Why do people keep going on about the Saudi investors in Clearlake wanting to pump money into Chelsea? What benefit do they gain by doing this?

 

[Trix]

Can they even sell naming rights with the CPO voting on it?

No idea. They don't own the ground do they, only the Chelsea FC name and the pitch? Stamford Bridge the bricks and mortar is not in the hands of the CPO as far as I'm aware.

 

[thebenjamin]

Why do people keep going on about the Saudi investors in Clearlake wanting to pump money into Chelsea? What benefit do they gain by doing this?

Protecting their investment

 

[Trix]

Protecting their investment

That's not how it works. Why would they pump money in over the other shareholders. What do they get out of it?

The Saudi's have incredible wealth but they don't do anything for nothing. If their name was up front and centre in all of this I'd understand it but it's not. These middle eastern Investors at City and PSG have pumped huge sums in and I'm sure they'd like to do the same at Newcastle but that is because they want to be seen doing it. Makes zero sense they'd be doing the same for Chelsea.

 

[superted4]

Protecting their investment

They (chelsea) quite easily got rid of 3 big earners this summer to Saudi teams, also wouldnt surprise if one or 2 others went there this summer

 

[superted4]

That's not how it works. Why would they pump money in over the other shareholders. What do they get out of it?

The Saudi's have incredible wealth but they don't do anything for nothing. If their name was up front and centre in all of this I'd understand it but it's not. These middle eastern Investors at City and PSG have pumped huge sums in and I'm sure they'd like to do the same at Newcastle but that is because they want to be seen doing it. Makes zero sense they'd be doing the same for Chelsea.

good point, well put

 

[Trix]

They (chelsea) quite easily got rid of 3 big earners this summer to Saudi teams, also wouldnt surprise if one or 2 others went there this summer

Wouldn't surprise me either, but it would surprise me if it were one of their HG options that would actually get them out of trouble.

 

[superted4]

Wouldn't surprise me either, but it would surprise me if it were one of their HG options that would actually get them out of trouble.

No i'm thinking more Kepa, Lukaku etc

 

[Trix]

No i'm thinking more Kepa, Lukaku etc

Maybe, not sure that solves their problems though tbh.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

That's not how it works. Why would they pump money in over the other shareholders. What do they get out of it?

The Saudi's have incredible wealth but they don't do anything for nothing. If their name was up front and centre in all of this I'd understand it but it's not. These middle eastern Investors at City and PSG have pumped huge sums in and I'm sure they'd like to do the same at Newcastle but that is because they want to be seen doing it. Makes zero sense they'd be doing the same for Chelsea.

Well, if the owners invest more - it will be Clearlake who does the investing - the Saudis are not the only investors in Clearlake.

And the reason Clearlake would invest £100m+ more pounds, is that it helps protect the value of a multi-billion pound investment - and that the expected return on the entire investment would not change significantly from the additional capital.

Now, a lot of that decision rests on the ability of Chelsea to mitigate the FFP losses - which is still an open question. But, if owner capital would cover the losses - then its a pretty easy decision for an ownership group worth many billions collectively - two of the individual owners are each worth multi-billions, before you even get to Clearlake, and their investors.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

What do they get out of it?

On this - just like when ENIC pumped in more money - whoever pumps in more money, ends up with a bigger share of the investment. There would be new stock share issued for the £100M

 

[Trix]

Well, if the owners invest more - it will be Clearlake who does the investing - the Saudis are not the only investors in Clearlake.

And the reason Clearlake would invest £100m+ more pounds, is that it helps protect the value of a multi-billion pound investment - and that the expected return on the entire investment would not change significantly from the additional capital.

Now, a lot of that decision rests on the ability of Chelsea to mitigate the FFP losses - which is still an open question. But, if owner capital would cover the losses - then its a pretty easy decision for an ownership group worth many billions collectively - two of the individual owners are each worth multi-billions, before you even get to Clearlake, and their investors.

It's irrelevant how much the owners have. The whole point of PSR is that the owners can't just keep throwing money at the problem. Saying well just £100mil more is an easy decision to take considering their investment all ready is pointless when they have already put in, and spent too much in the first place.

 

[Trix]

On this - just like when ENIC pumped in more money - whoever pumps in more money, ends up with a bigger share of the investment. There would be new stock share issued for the £100M

We were able to do that because we were well below the limits of what we could invest as far as PSR was concerned, Enic haven't put any money in for years. Chelsea are already way over it. As an owner you are only allowed to inject a certain amount per year Chelsea have blitzed that already. It doesn't matter if it's new investment or not.

 

[Trix]

It's irrelevant how much the owners have. The whole point of PSR is that the owners can't just keep throwing money at the problem. Saying well just £100mil more is an easy decision to take considering their investment all ready is pointless when they have already put in, and spent too much in the first place.

On a side note, I am now wondering if this is why we never took the extra £50mil from that £150mil share issue at the time that I kept moaning about?.................

It may well be that this is why it's still sat there waiting to be drawn against, for when we can spend it as far as PSR is concerned. Maybe my angst and frustration was misplaced and all wrong at the time. It certainly makes sense now that this could be the case.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

We were able to do that because we were well below the limits of what we could invest as far as PSR was concerned, Enic haven't put any money in for years. Chelsea are already way over it. As an owner you are only allowed to inject a certain amount per year Chelsea have blitzed that already. It doesn't matter if it's new investment or not.

Thats the question I asked earlier - whether they could even make the investment.

If it's available - it's a no-brainer. If its not, they have some work to do.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

I did not know if Boehly and company had put in any money, over and above, the purchase price. If they have already done that, then I agree they can't use that lever to help them now.

 

[superted4]

On a side note, I am now wondering if this is why we never took the extra £50mil from that £150mil share issue at the time that I kept moaning about?.................

It may well be that this is why it's still sat there waiting to be drawn against, for when we can spend it as far as PSR is concerned. Maybe my angst and frustration was misplaced and all wrong at the time. It certainly makes sense now that this could be the case.

Didnt I read if it had to be used within a certain time and becomes unavailable after that point?

Which I always found odd, because surely if it wasnt used at that point but needed in the future it, the terms could just be re-written

 

[kmk]

On a side note, I am now wondering if this is why we never took the extra £50mil from that £150mil share issue at the time that I kept moaning about?.................

It may well be that this is why it's still sat there waiting to be drawn against, for when we can spend it as far as PSR is concerned. Maybe my angst and frustration was misplaced and all wrong at the time. It certainly makes sense now that this could be the case.

What is the time limit for using up this £50 million injection?

 

[ukdy]

Regarding the chavs, what if the Saudi/USA long game isn't 100% the football side of things, but the multi billion pound real estate angle?

Sure the Chelsea Pitch Owners own the pitch (and maybe the CFC name) But... if they all vote for change, If the investors convince them with action... or failing low, that to be competitive they need to move/redevelop - that'll tug at the heart strings!!

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

On the stadium naming rights , are there now just too many names involved in Spurs for the stadium to have a sponsor.
For example F1 racing partners are Pirelli would they want F1 karting to be held at The Goodyear Stadium , or would Cinch want to be associated with The Cazoo Stadium ?
Have no idea about marketing but would brands take that into consideration when signing up for sponsorship