I honestly can't help how they *come across*, mate. I've stated my position and stuck to it - how people interpret that position is not something that is in my power to control unless I completely change my views, because that's what people will be satiated by. Nothing short of that - nuance is disregarded, caveats are glossed over and the fact that I actually maintain that Levy's done a good job (for example) is ignored in favor of the amusingly dim, trite method of mischaracterizing my views to fit an image I apparently have. Even by you, sometimes.
If you want me to say it *yet again* (although I suspect it won't change your mind) - Levy has done *well*. But that does not factor into whether or not Lewis is a good owner, or that he has been good for us by treating us as a mute asset that appreciates in value and is sold on when it hits its peak.
I appreciate that you're probably not angry, mate, and I apologize if I came across as accusing you of incoherently raging or anything. I meant nothing of the sort. But I *do* see that you're tending towards the same sort of stuff that I get from some other quarters (i.e, 'the way you are talking'), and there's literally nothing I can do about that except shrug and move on.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this, because in my mind you absolutely can control how your views come across. But you're right in that your views have been misrepresented sometimes, but certainly not by me!!!
The holding company's loans will be part of the purchase price Abramovich (or his estate) will negotiate with the buyer when the time comes to sell Chelsea. But legally, they are fairly distinct entities, and I suspect Abramovich intended it that way. We'll disagree on this, of course, but I think he's going to stick it out and recoup his loans on the sale price, as opposed to extracting money from the club itself.
I'm sorry but this is not true. If that were the purpose of hiving up the loans into a holding company, he would have just switched it to equity for both companies. What I mean is, if it was just to come down to purchase price, it would not matter if it were debt or equity. He has done this because he wanted to take the debt away from Chelsea in order for it to meet FFP rules. Now, the benevolent owner would have just converted it into equity and be done with it. But, instead he has ladened the holding company with this debt. Why debt and not equity and specifically debt that can be recalled at any time? Because he needs a more certain method of extracting the money that he is owed. Debt is paid before equity.
The entities are distinct insofar as they are separate legal entities. But one owns 100% of the other.
Abramovich has made Chelsea, no doubt about that. But he has not done it in such a benevolent manner. He has secured his investment in a manner which allows quick withdrawal as and when he chooses.
It is a good thing, the best of things, when it comes as part of a package of fan ownership or at least a sense that it is a conscious choice on the part of the club as a whole. That's what would bring moral fulfillment, in my mind. When it is the cheap method of appreciating the value of an asset so you can sell it on for a 1000% profit with minimal involvement on your part...that doesn't seem like anything particularly morally superior to being a billionaire's plaything. We aren't a plaything, we are an investment built on the premise of minimal cost for maximum reward, at least in so far as input from Lewis is concerned (not saying Levy takes the cheap way out when running us on our own finances, although he does do so in the market a *wee* bit more than I would like
). To me, there is little difference in the two from a moral standpoint, is all. Either we're a plaything or a mute asset - might as well be the plaything, because we won't go trophyless that way.
I just find this so contradictory. It's the best thing to be self-funded if only owned by the fans. Without the fan ownership it is not, and that's when the next best option is to bankroll. I don't get it. The former actually allows fan ownership to even be a remote possibility. The latter stops any talk of it whatsoever.
As for it being a cheap way to appreciate an asset; I again disagree
If the approach were minimal cost for maximum reward, then we wouldn't have one of the best training facilities, we would have average ones. We wouldn't have one of the best stadiums in the world being built, we would have an average one. Being a binary choice between mute asset or plaything is just simply not the case. There is another option. Levy has said it in his own words, he is a custodian of this club, not an owner. Therein lies the difference. He is not willing to mortgage the family silver in the hope of future success. That is far more benevolent in my mind, than being a plaything. This is wise. Put another way, if you are Lewis, are you going to shove all of his hard earned money into a club when there are clubs with far deeper pockets than him? (Emirates Marketing Project, Chelsea, Man United, Liverpool). No point in competing on who has the most money, if you know you don't have the most money.
We are 400m in debt to a banking consortium to fund the new stadium - Lewis has little problem allowing that because our position is strong enough to make that debt minimally risky. I don't think he cares about us going into significant debt, or a significant deficit, or a significant profit - he (imo) only cares that we don't bother him or depreciate in value as an asset before he sells us.
To me, that is completely compatible with the phrase 'disinterested'. Your interpretation may differ, of course.
It certainly does buddy!!!
So I think we have done this to death. Thank you for taking the time to reply to my points and sorry for opening up the debate on this. I haven't been on as much and so when I saw this, it was one of the few posts that I felt needed a reply.
You know my standpoint. The club is in a vastly superior position to when ENIC bought it. Lewis and Levy deserve credit for it. Lewis for putting his money where his mouth was and allowing Levy to get on with it, and Levy for achieving something that no other club with the same relative resources to its competitors has been able to do. Put simply, he has taken a club that was at best mid-table (worst relegation fears) and taken it to a club that has for two years competed for the title. In addition, he has improved the physical infrastructure of the club to a point where it will literally be unrecognisable. For all their respective faults, there are only maybe a handful of clubs that have been able to do that and hundreds that have tried.
They both deserve credit.
