Relief at Stamford Bridge when new owner Todd Bolly met an exhausted crowd at Chelsea was palpable.

The interregnum has been nervous, undermining and destructive since the freezing of former owner Raman Abramovich’s assets on March 22. Results on the field have suffered, key players like Antonio Rudiger are allowed to leave.

Supporters were perplexed by how preventing the sale of £ 3 programs could stop Vladimir Putin on his way.

Secret: new owner of Chelsea football club – billionaire Todd Boli (pictured), owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team, is a private investor supported by private capital

It is noteworthy that the sales process makes the football club “Chelsea” the most expensive sports franchise on the planet.

The selling price of £ 4.3 billion (it has fallen as the pound has weakened in recent weeks) is more than double the £ 1.9 billion paid for the American football team Carolina Panthers – the highest price ever achieved.

But the interest of private equities in sports and billionaires is rapidly raising the bar. The battle to take over the Denver Broncos American football franchise involving the heirs of the Walmart estate and a consortium involving basketball legend Magic Johnson has already reached $ 5 billion (£ 4.3 billion).

The only sports venture that exceeded those estimates was the purchase of Liberty Media Formula One car racing in a deal with the value of the venture (including debt) five years ago.

Chelsea has demonstrated that it can become a trophy car owned by Abramovich. Owners of other clubs such as Liverpool with its historical records, and Manchester City will probably drool over potential profits if they ever decide to make money.

The big difference in Chelsea’s rating is that the club is located on one of the most expensive properties in west London, one of the most expensive cities in the world.

The unusual structure of the club, where the owners of the field “Chelsea” have the right to speak, raises questions about whether, unlike “Arsenal” on the old Highbury field, “Stamford Bridge” is vaccinated from becoming a real estate opportunity.

Because Chelsea is not a public company, and Boelli, owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team, is a private investor backed by secret private investment financing, much of the deal is shrouded in mystery.

Protected: in an unusual structure, a group of field owners in Chelsea can comment on any proposals for the Chelsea site at Stamford Bridge (pictured)

Protected: in an unusual structure, a group of field owners in Chelsea can comment on any proposals for the Chelsea site at Stamford Bridge (pictured)

There are many disclosure requirements in transactions involving state shareholders, and documents can take hundreds of pages.

Funding details are spelled out along with the rewards and stakes in key executives, the tax status of those involved, and the consultants ’fees.

Such documents are red meat for financial journalism. The capture of Chelsea is further complicated by the role of the Ministry of Finance and its determination not to get a penny in the pocket of the oligarch Abramovich.

The Treasury and the Bank of England are experienced hands when it comes to confiscating the financial assets of sovereign governments such as Iran, Libya or Russia.

However, as for sports companies, they are fans, as evidenced by the ban on the sale of new tickets and valuable shirts through the megastore “Stamford Bridge”.

There would be no financial genius to recognize that this income could be limited and contribute to working capital in the sales process.

Much is unknown about the deal. The investment bank that managed the sales process, The Raine Group, is a relative newcomer to the sports world, and its website announces that it is a specialist in technology, media and telecommunications.

Boehly was represented by a much more prominent Goldman Sachs entity. As an investment bank, Goldman rarely gets better when it comes to mergers and acquisitions.

Among the questions that remain unanswered: what will be the net profit from sales?

Stay in place: Marina Granovskaya (pictured) is expected to remain director

Stay in place: Marina Granovskaya (pictured) is expected to remain director

And how do the authorities, the Ministry of Finance and the Premier League (not known for its close attention, as shown by the capture of Saudi Arabia’s Newcastle) ensure that the money goes to Ukraine, as promised?

Moreover, there is no clarity as to what is happening with the club’s £ 1.6 billion loan provided by Camberley Investments, which is allegedly under the control of interests related to the former owner.

It is expected that the long-serving chairman of Chelsea Bruce Buck will remain as the nominal head, and Marina Granovskaya will remain the director. But, logically, can their long-term relationship with Abramovich disqualify them?

Structuring the deal, when about 60 percent of the funding comes from California-based private equity giant Clearlake Capital, means Chelsea are changing one relatively benevolent owner of Abramovich’s “debt” to another.

Private equity owners are counting on debt because of the favorable tax regime and the power of leverage (we all know this by owning a home), allowing financial opportunities far beyond the risk of capital.

Money does not come for free. Private equity holders tend to have a short period of time and offer their own investors high returns.

New strong private capital interest in sports, from six-nation rugby to Liverpool football club owners, suggests they see undervalued assets.

They are very interested in success on the field because it also means that scores, even “higher” ones like that at Chelsea, can be improved.

Unlike billionaires who love sports, such as Jim Ratcliffe of Ineos, interested in trophy assets, private capital is driven by profits.

This often means cutting costs and reducing estimated extra costs such as football academies.

Boelli, based on his experience in the Los Angeles Dodgers, clearly understands the value of this most intangible asset – a large jug or beater.

Whether the same applies to his Clearlake partners, who took most of the money, will be a big test.

It will take a powerful, sophisticated, knowledgeable and knowledgeable group of independent directors in the city to keep California financiers under control – not just a board of ornaments.

Some of the links in this article may be affiliate. If you click on them, we can earn a small commission. It helps us fund This Is Money and keep them free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to affect our editorial independence.

Previous articleRIP, macOS server | Computer world
Next articleGisele recalls her ‘most traumatizing’ career experience