re: Up the Blues 2025/26 Chelsea FC Season Long Thread - The MAN-ager Era Is Over after 4mnths

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

quote:

---

Liam reminded me of some smug guy entering a chess tournament with glasses and a scarf and losing in 4 moves to his first opponent

---

quote:

---

The results serve as Chelsea's health report. They measure ownership performance more effectively than results on the pitch and gives us an indication on what the next few years will look like for the club.

TLDR: it's bad, we already knew it was bad, this confirms it's bad.

P&L

The group reported a loss before tax of £701m, up from £473m the prior year. The headline here is partly inflated by acquisition accounting comprising £105m of goodwill amortisation and £26m of brand amortisation. These are non-cash artifacts of the 2022 purchase that tell you little about how the football club is operating. Strip those out and the underlying loss is still north of £550m. Three lines tell us a lot.

Commercial revenue down 10%. If you could judge ownership performance on a single metric it would probably be this one. Broadcasting revenue is largely formulaic, league position plus match selections. Matchday revenue is capped by the Bridge's 40k capacity, ticket prices aren't infinitely elastic. Commercial is the only revenue lever management fully controls. It's also the one the ownership group specifically said they'd transform (American sports marketing expertise, multi-club synergies). It went backwards.

Wage-to-revenue ratio at 81%. Doesn't say anything explicitly but it's a useful indicator of health and the generally accepted sustainable threshold is 60-65%. Ours is made worse by the fact a majority are long term contracted obligations, the 7-8 year player contracts that were supposed to be a clever accounting strategy. Added to by a huge increase in back of house headcount (831 to 1,039) without a visible corresponding increase in revenue. Suggests organisational bloat.

Amortisation up to £284m. This is the other side of the long-contract strategy. We are spending £284m a year on players already signed. Yes this is obvious, it's amortisation but it's worth pausing on because the figure is frankly staggering and the long contracts mean the only way it will drop is sales. For comparison, matchday revenue was £98m meaning Chelsea are spending almost 3x what they make through matchdays on players already signed.

These three explain most of the losses. The losses need funding.

Equity

Clearlake injected £450m this year via share premium, taking total investment to £2.9bn. This wasn't a discretionary investment for growth but a capital call to keep the business solvent. This is made explicit in the going concern note: in both the base case and downside scenarios, the club requires additional funding from the ownership group to meet its liabilities. From Clearlake's perspective, the £450m probably kills any chance of strong returns on the investment. Mid-hold equity injections are brutal on the metric they care about, internal rate of return.

Debt

Chelsea carries £1.4bn in group debt across two facilities. The senior debt, provided by HSBC and JP Morgan sits at the operating level. £794m at 3.25% + SONIA, maturing July 2027. It's a solid piece of debt, fairly priced, relationship lenders, conventional terms. The one to watch has always been the Ares preferred facility at the holdco level. Currently £596m, PIK at 7.5% + SONIA, secured against the equity in the club holdings and a floating charge over all assets.

PIK means payment in kind which means the interest doesn't actually need to be paid but anything unpaid goes to the loan balance which in turn commands higher interest. The facility grew this year by £186m, from a combination of PIK accruals and fresh drawdowns. This is shown in the accounts where interest payments are up 45% in one year. Now at 1.6x matchday revenue.

The debt maturities tell you what Clearlake's strategy was. The senior expires in July 2027, the pref in 2033. The plan would have been to boost operating and footballing performance, refinance the senior at improved terms off a higher valuation, and use the headroom to manage down the pref. That hasn't happened.

This kind of capital structure and strategy isn't unusual for PE and the same rules apply, supercharges the potential upside, supercharges the potential downside.

Conclusion

The terms Clearlake secure at refinance next year will effectively mark the investment to market. If the valuation new lenders underwrite comes in below what Clearlake has put in, the gap between investment and value becomes visible for the first time.

Beyond the refinance, the destination is binary. Either the investment works, Clearlake hold for their 5-7 years, sell at a profit, the pref gets paid off. Or it doesn't, the pref compounds to a point where Ares enforce on their security, and Chelsea becomes the worst investment in Clearlake's history.

Ares' security is over the equity in the holding structure, but enforcement would mean inheriting a club that still owes £794m to HSBC and JPM or more likely whoever provides the refinance. And Ares are credit investors, not owners. Their incentive would be recovering principal, not building for the future. That means selling players, cutting costs, extracting cash.

All this is also a long way of saying why fan protests won't do anything. They should still happen, I was there for the Super League protest but that was over a footballing decision. Clearlake would take fan protests every day for the next five years if it meant their investment turns out half decent. Giving in and selling would guarantee that never happens and the capital structure makes it almost impossible at this point.

---