Chez

what's the equivalent modern day position called for inside forward? If its the skill players behind the striker, then I agree.

Very. In fact it is never happening. So who has linked us to him and why? Its either the agent working for the player, or the agent working for Blackburn, who will want to attract a fee rather lose him for nothing. Not sure the journalist, merely knowing we have signed a player from Blackburn recently, would create the link out of thin air.

the five year deal ensures they get a decent fee. It might not mean they actually intend to keep him. As you say, if they sign someone big next summer, then he slides back down the pecking order. It would unusual for Chelsea not to spend big on a striker in favour of allowing a kid to work his way into the first team. Only the transfer ban allowed Abraham a chance. Before then they spent money every summer. The more goals he scores for us, the less chance we can afford him/attract him to sign. We kind of need him to do well, but not too well! The Ings money allowed us to spend a few quid in the summer, but without that income, will there be any `proper' money to spend next summer? I'm not so sure - unless we fly up the league and earn a lot more in prize money - although perhaps staggered payments for Ings (should that exist) might help a bit. The success of Livramento and Broja might tempt us to go that route a lot more, and signing quality youngsters is a great move for a club of our size.

makes £1.5 billion profit? That sounds like a lot for a product that they need to buy from the Premier League first before selling on. Usually these guys own companies and shares that have a value, rather than him having cash in the bank, but I know nothing.

when I read the word `invest' I think owner gift or loan. Or do you mean, the club using its own money will buy young players.

not being leveraged is certainly a great start. Not sure is buy this great plan as yet, but hope it pans out I also trust the current folks (Semmens) and their track record, although don't believe they turned down a credible `higher' bid, as the shareholder will just want to maximise his return. Actual football people involved can be a good thing. is he a billionaire like Gao? Yep, like the top of a pyramid thing.

please tell me one reason why Gao sells to someone offering less money (assuming they both actually have the money and can complete the deal)? Semmens and anyone else can spin it how they want, but its all bollocks. Gao sold to the highest credible/real/actual bidder.

1. Not if they simply turned down offers that were too low. I dont buy this `right' buyer. Right price more like. 2. was the football guy instrumental in finding and signing the players that came good? If so, thats a big plus. 3. if we can take the best of our feeder clubs, that is big win. Long way to go before this is a reality though.

is the strategy one that gives the fans what they want or gives the shareholders what they want? Maybe thats the same thing.

can't do any harm. Hope they can see ways of making the money go further. In the end, that's what its all about. Buying the right players within the available budget. Doing that hasn't got any easier though.

have to say, what does a previous owner care who the next owner is? They just want the maximum amount of return. Feels strange when they talk about finding the right buyer. Funding the biggest offer more likely.

14-16 that was just a perfect storm. So many top players all wanted, but without CL to keep them. However, I guess the real problem is when you don't have any that are sellable.

can you explain why you feel that way? I mean, it's an incredibly low bar - but even so, what do you think will change for the good?

I had zero issue with us selling Ings when he refused to sing a new deal and said at he time that it was a no brainer decision. A self sustaining club MUST not let talent leave for nothing. Financial suicide.

is there any `self sustaining' club (in the Prem) that doesn't need to sell a player to balance the books? Unless the wage bill goes down somehow, we'll need to sell to buy going forward.

keep Shaw (the rest would have stayed) and we'd of been a CL side...maybe...possibly...

if we `continue as we are', that would be selling Ings to fund our summer transfers, wouldn't it?

Agreed. I'd like to see the debt paid off, as it is going to increase to over £100m before we MUST start paying it back, and that £8m+ interest accrued could be better spent on wages etc.

I explained my thoughts in a few earlier posts. Basically, why spend £70m clearing the debt when you don't have to? The club own that debt not the owners and it can pay that off out of earnings. That £70m expenditure (basically a shareholders loan) would earn zero back. Better to invest that on something else (another club for example). I might be wrong. Others will know better.

you don't ever see a situation where the women's game has parity with the mens, or do you think esports will wipe the physical game off the map before that has chance to happen? 😉

I hope so too, but I doubt it. However, if they haven't spent £70m+ paying off the loan, then they are £70+ richer for not having done so - so that money might be available. Doubt it will be provided though. It will be a self sustaining business model, and with £100m+ income, no reason why it shouldn't be too.

better position because an outgoing boss wanted to spend zero as he wont see the benefits of that investment, while the new owners will see the benefits, however, they don't intend on gifting the club any money, so it's the self sustaining model. Which is fine by me, unless self sustaining means £70m bank loans every few years!

what makes you think 99% of our debt is shareholder debt? Isn't the £70m loan (the lions share of our debt) taken out by the company (SFC) from MSD capital?

but as an investor that just means he has £70m tied up making hi zero money. He may as well allow the club to retain the debt and then stick his £70m to good use - maybe as anther loan to the club or indeed to buy something else. Can't see him clearing the debt, but perhaps the finances peeps on here will be able to provide some input. I know jack.

is there any reason the new owner would do that (pay the debt off, I mean) unless he had to? Id of thought he prefer to keep the £70m in his own pocket and let the club manage the repayments. I guess he could reduce the outgoings of the club, but that doesn't make him money for his extra £70m investment, which he could invest elsewhere.