In the immediate future, Chelsea are laser-focused on the Europa Conference League and the final-day Champions League shootout with Nottingham Forest, but issues with the ownership lurk in private.
Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali have been easily the most prominent members of the consortium that bought Chelsea for £2.5bn in May 2022, despite the fact that it consists of dozens of investors.
Boehly, who founded the private equity firm Eldridge Industries and co-owns Major League Baseball’s Los Angeles Dodgers and the NBA’s Los Angeles Lakers, has been Chelsea chairman since the takeover.
But despite his position, some in the press and on social media have been quick to cast him as a spent force at Stamford Bridge in light of his chairmanship expiring in 2027 and his ongoing feud with Eghbali.
How powerful really is Todd Boehly at Chelsea and what does he want to do with Stamford Bridge?
In terms of their power as shareholders, Eghbali’s Clearlake Capital ostensibly have the upper hand. They own over 60 per cent of Chelsea compared to Boehly’s 13 per cent.
Diagram illustrating the ownership of Chelsea, split between factions led by Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali's Clearlake Capital
Chelsea ownership diagram Credit: Adam Williams/GRV Media/The Chelsea Chronicle
The coalition that Boehly built alongside co-investors Hansjorg Wyss and Mark Walter owns less than 40 per cent of the club’s total equity meanwhile but refuse to back down over the future of Stamford Bridge.
Boehly himself – who appeared in the directors’ box alongside Eghbali partner in last Friday’s 1-0 win over Manchester United – has minimised the differences, which he says has been overblown in the British press.
Perhaps that was one of the motives behind his bid to buy UK media National World, which he has now abandoned, and his ongoing quest to take over The Telegraph newspaper, which he has not.
MORE CHELSEA STORIES
Those business dealings give a sense of how much clout Boehly has and why Clearlake will have a job on his hands if they want to oust him.
Photo by Crystal Pix/MB Media/Getty Images
Photo by Crystal Pix/MB Media/Getty Images
Despite how he is sometimes portrayed in the media, the 51-year-old is revered in sports industry circles, even if that hasn’t quite translated to the Premier League yet.
Clearly, Boehly does not plan on going anywhere. He has planted his flag deeper in British soil with his part-takeover of the Hundred cricket franchise Trent Rockets and his regular appearances in financial media – in contrast to the more private Eghbali – suggest he’s not shying away from the PR cold war.
And if the saga ends with one party buying the other out, it is going to be a complex and expensive deal.
Chelsea valued at 2.7bn as Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali still at loggerheads
In 2003, Roman Abramovich paid £140m to take over Chelsea.
Fast forward 19 years and the Boehly-Eghbali takeover of the Blues was billed as a £4.25bn deal by many of the nation’s major outlets.
In reality, the actual purchase price – which, incidentally, remains frozen in a UK bank account – was £2.5bn, with a further £1.75bn committed by investors in the BlueCo consortium for infrastructure projects, such as the redevelopment of Stamford Bridge.
That was still a world-record deal for a football club and, three years on, the club has seemingly appreciated in value despite a lack of real success on the pitch under Enzo Maresca or previous coaches.
The latest research from industry experts Sportico has Chelsea’s enterprise value at £2.7bn, which makes them the 10th-most valuable football club in the world.
Rank Club Value Revenue (23-24)
1 Real Madrid $6.53 billion $1.13 billion
2 Manchester United $6.09 billion $834 million
3 FC Barcelona $5.71 billion $802 million
4 Liverpool $5.59 billion $773 million
5 Bayern Munich $5.21 billion $827 million
6 Manchester City $5.16 billion $901 million
7 Arsenal $4.49 billion $773 million
8 Paris Saint-Germain $4.26 billion $873 million
9 Tottenham Hotspur $3.68 billion $652 million
10 Chelsea $3.57 billion $590 million
That is broadly in line with appraisals from other respected sources, though the uptick in value is likely down to wider industry factors rather than how the spend-happy owners have run Chelsea so far.
BlueCo, however, are in it for the long run.
They believe that there will either be a huge new revenue panacea that will justify a sale of the club for far more than £2.7bn further down the line or structural changes within domestic and European football that will allow them to generate regular, chunky profits from which they can skim regular, chunky dividends.
Twickenham Stadium move could see Chelsea pay ‘termination fee’, says Kieran Maguire
The main bone of contention between Eghbali and Boehly? The former wants to stay at an expanded Stamford Bridge, while the latter prefers the option to move to Earl’s Court.
As it stands, remaining at Stamford Bridge and boosting capacity seems the more likely option given Clearlake’s superiority in the club’s capital structure and the influence of the Chelsea Pitch Owners, who could block any move from the Bridge or force the club to change its name if it left.
Chart showing Chelsea's matchday income compared to an average of the so-called Big Six
Chelsea matchday income compared to ‘Big Six’ average Credit: Adam Williams/The Chelsea Chronicle/GRV Media
If that is the case, Chelsea will likely need a temporary home to play in while work is carried out in SW16.
Twickenham Stadium has been offered to Chelsea by England Rugby Football Union (RFU) for up to seven years.
The Chelsea Chronicle spoke exclusively to University of Liverpool football finance lecturer Kieran Maguire to find out how much such an arrangement might cost the club.
“The RFU will be looking to recoup an eight-figure deal,” said the Price of Football author and podcast host.
“It’s interesting that it’s been spoken about as a seven-year deal, so I’d imagine there might be some flexibility on both sides.
“There might be a broad commitment towards seven years but you pay a termination fee if the changes to Chelsea’s stadium are completed faster than anticipated.
Photo by Jacques Feeney/Offside/Offside via Getty Images
Photo by Jacques Feeney/Offside/Offside via Getty Images
“That said, it’s unusual for a major construction project to finish before time. If Chelsea try to replicate Spurs in the sense that you build the outer stadium first, that might have less of an impact on the timeline.
“Twickenham is geared towards the hospitality sector. As far as premium-price experiences are concerned, Chelsea will be able to monetise those.
“They should be able to fill that stadium given the popularity of football with tourists.
“The problem is that Twickenham is in one of the more genteel areas of London, so you could see opposition from the local council and residents. That will be one of the main issues.”