With January transfer window less than a month away, Chelsea have the opportunity to capitalise on real momentum on the pitch for the first time in the post-Roman Abramovich era.
After Sunday’s 3-0 win over Aston Villa, Chelsea are now only behind 2nd-place Arsenal, with whom they have an identical record, because of quirk of the Premier League’s ranking rules.
After points, goal difference, goals scored, and head-to-head record, Enzo Maresca’s side only trail Mikel Arteta’s because they scored fewer away goals in head-to-head meetings.
That is hardly surprising given that Chelsea won’t play at the Emirates Stadium until March.
In any case, the Blues have defied expectations for a season that, once again, started with a summer transfer window that appeared turbulent from the outside.
Chelsea actually had one of the more modest net spends in the division, with a balance of around negative £35m.
Here is the table with a blank row added below the header:
Club Deals In Deals Out Income (GBP) Expenditure (GBP) Net (GBP)
Manchester City 7 9 £112.66m £19.98m £92.68m
Wolverhampton Wanderers 19 13 £89.89m £59.45m £30.44m
Everton FC 9 10 £66.84m £40.11m £26.73m
Crystal Palace 15 15 £80.46m £62.08m £18.38m
Newcastle United 10 12 £60.88m £54.49m £6.39m
Liverpool FC 12 12 £37.55m £33.56m £4.0m
Nottingham Forest 21 27 £69.27m £84.29m £-15.02m
Fulham FC 10 11 £54.97m £73.15m £-18.18m
Brentford FC 11 13 £59.53m £78.22m £-18.7m
Arsenal FC 10 13 £66.95m £87.01m £-20.06m
Aston Villa 18 18 £115.86m £140.78m £-24.93m
AFC Bournemouth 13 20 £52.81m £83.39m £-30.59m
Chelsea FC 31 25 £158.2m £190.56m £-32.36m
Leicester City 14 10 £28.28m £68.75m £-40.47m
Southampton FC 27 13 £33.23m £93.6m £-60.37m
Tottenham Hotspur 16 16 £44.18m £118.93m £-74.75m
West Ham United 14 14 £35.76m £115.38m £-79.62m
Manchester United 12 14 £82.3m £171.39m £-89.09m
Ipswich Town 16 15 £1.32m £101.07m £-99.75m
Brighton & Hove Albion 22 21 £38.58m £184.73m £-146.15m
Figures taken from Transfermrkt – Exchange rate (€ – £) as of 02/12/24
MORE CHELSEA STORIES
However, the infamous ‘bomb squad’ treatment of the likes of Raheem Sterling, begrudging departure of Cobham graduate Conor Gallagher, and the sheer number of ins and outs gave a chaotic impression.
There is clearly at least a degree of method in the madness that has characterised the reign of the owners, Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital.
Player trading has always been a focus area, and the current regime think the more than £1bn they have spent to date will pay dividends in the future.
And even with Boehly and Eghbali at loggerheads in the boardroom, it seems like their financial commitment to the club is as solid as it has ever been.
Clearlake Capital and Todd Boehly issue £80m shares
While Boehly has been the public face of the new ownership since May 2022, his personal stake is in fact only a modest 13 per cent.
Diagram illustrating the ownership of Chelsea, split between factions led by Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali
Granted, his faction in the boardroom also includes allies Hansjorg Wyss and Mark Walter, but the Clearlake group still represent the most powerful voice behind the scenes.
However, whatever their differences, it seems that the two groups are not changing things in terms of their capital commitments.
Paperwork filed with Companies House at the end of last week shows that they have pumped another £80m into the club – or, more accurately, parent company 22 HoldCo – via a share issue.
Chelsea share issue from Clearlake Capital and Todd Boehly
Share issues are typically used to fund day-to-day operation costs such as paying wages and staggered transfer instalments.
Given that the Premier League have now made soft loans (interest-free loans from shareholders) subject to fair market value constraints, expect to see more of this funding model going forward.
Incidentally, it is the second such share issue that Boehly and Clearlake have filed in the last few months, with Chelsea also receiving a £190m injection in October.
PSR constraints: Can Chelsea spend this January?
The £80m capital injection could theoretically free up more funds to spend in January, but can Chelsea afford to push the envelope with PSR margins seemingly razor thin?
An infographic explaining how PSR (Profit and Sustainability Rules) work in the Premier League and UEFA
On face value, Chelsea are miles over the Premier League’s allowable loss limit of £105m over a rolling three-year period.
However, the intra-company sales of the women’s team and two hotels at Stamford Bridge have given them more breathing space.
If reported figures are correct, those deals alone may have offset Chelsea financial losses in recent years by £250m – although that depends on which financial year they are registered.
Those sales are recognised by the Premier League but not by UEFA, who have their own spending rules in place.
But given that European football’s governing body appear to be handing out only token fines for breaching the rules, Chelsea can expect to avoid major punishment in that regard.
Related Posts