To outsiders, life at Chelsea under BlueCo may not appear too different to the Roman Abramovich era.
There is the same revolving door managerial policy, the same churn of academy talent, the same mind-bending spending in the transfer market. There have been trophies, too, albeit not the game’s top honours. BlueCo are even struggling with how to proceed with Stamford Bridge, just as Abramovich did.
However, under the bonnet, Chelsea are run wildly differently by their new private equity overlords, who are laser-focused on professionalisation and monetisation rather than glory on the pitch, which they see as a means to an end rather than an end in itself.
The appointment and the stories surrounding the dismissal of Enzo Maresca, whose replacement in Liam Rosenior got off to a winning start against Charlton in the FA Cup on Sunday, illustrate this.
What are YOUR thoughts on Liam Rosenior’s first week? 👀
👇 Join the debate; share your insight. Use the comment button on the bottom left to have your say
It has been reported by several outlets that one of the reasons for the breakdown in BlueCo and the Italian coach’s relationship was his fielding of players against the advice of the medical department, who the owners want to act independently of whoever is leading Chelsea from the touchlines.
That division of powers is emblematic of the private equity-style approach imbued by Behdad Eghbali and Todd Boehly at the Bridge, as is their approach to recruitment, retention and rotation.
Another detail reported in the long reads that followed Maresca’s exit is that the Club World Cup-winning coach says he was told to rotate players specifically in order to maintain their transfer value.
Former Chelsea manager Enzo Maresca
Photo by Dan Istitene/Getty Images
That kind of input from owners – who have more power than anyone at a club while simultaneously knowing the least about football – is rarely received well by head coaches.
The riposte from BlueCo, however, would likely be that Maresca knew what he was signing up for.
But what does this clinical, business-first approach say about where BlueCo are taking Chelsea?
BlueCo’s strategy is difficult for fans to understand, let alone support – Kieran Maguire
As an industry, private equity speaks in language which is virtually incomprehensible to laypeople.
When Boehly, for example, has spoken to media over the last 12 months, he has been full of takes on intellectual property, stakeholder alignment, international scalability, capital appreciation and EBITDA.
Terrace chat, it is not.
And while most fans understand the interplay between the commercial department and what happens on the pitch, the difference at Chelsea is that BlueCo treat players as assets, first and foremost.
“It’s a dehumanising policy,” says University of Liverpool football finance lecturer Kieran Maguire, speaking exclusively to The Chelsea Chronicle.
BlueCo have lost over £1bn since Chelsea takeover
Is this sustainable? What's Clearlake's masterplan to claw back these losses?
👇 Join the debate; share your insight. Use the comment button on the bottom left to have your say
“It’s treating people as if they are commodities. It’s a bit like F1. When you change the tyres, the driver has to follow team orders. That is inconsistent with the way we traditionally view football.
“Acclimatising to the churn of players is going to be difficult for fans because all they want is to see Chelsea win. Long-term strategy, asset management, maintenance of value – fans didn’t fall in love with Chelsea for that.
“Their long-term plan is difficult to understand the people behind the machine. There is a puppet master in BlueCo that seems to know what the grand vision is, but no one else does.”
When might BlueCo exit Chelsea – and on what terms?
When BlueCo bought Chelsea, they committed £4.25bn in total.
That was made up of a combination of the fee paid to Abramovich (which, despite being pledged to the victims of the war in Ukraine, remains frozen in a British bank account) and future funding commitments.
In order to make a profit, therefore, Boehly, Eghbali and their partners in the consortium need to either sell Chelsea for more than £4.25bn or get the club generating consistent profits big enough to draw substantial dividends from.
Given that the club is running at an annual operating loss of around £200m currently, it seems much more likely that BlueCo will make their money upon exit.
Todd Boehly, Paul Winstanley and Behdad Eghbali converse at Stamford Bridge
Photo by Robin Jones/Getty Images
But for the venture to have been worthwhile to Clearlake’s limited partners and everyone else in the group who fronted funds for the takeover, the sale price will need to be far in excess of £4.25bn.
To justify a £10bn-plus valuation, Chelsea need to supersize their revenues and get a grip on their costs.
For that to happen, stricter financial fair play regulations are virtually a necessity.
That may seem paradoxical given BlueCo’s cavalier approach to the Premier League and UEFA’s spending controls so far, but many experts believe that the owners have simply spent while they still can and feathered their nest for when, in a few years’ time, a new financial system is introduced.
Join Our Newsletter
Receive a digest of our best Chelsea content each week direct to your mailbox