3 ms·
Nonetheless, if you remove the sugardaddy, their model hasn't ever been a sustainable business. Chelsea clearly improved as a club after Roman bought the team (
by arrosenberg 5y ago
Nonetheless, if you remove the sugardaddy, their model hasn't ever been a sustainable business. Chelsea clearly improved as a club after Roman bought the team (unlike United or Arsenal), so I'm not discounting that, but basically all major league sports teams in the (global) west have increased massively in value the last 10-15 years - how much of that is real value and how much is speculative is still up in the air.
- RC_ITR 5y agoThings can be valued as assets based on the present value of their future cash flows (like companies) or by their desirability and rarity (like a Lambo). The argument you are making is equivalent to 'now that he won't pay for the gas, who will buy the Lambo?'
- arrosenberg 5y agoI'm definitely arguing that the Lambo is less valuable without gas, and that the number of people with a comparable amount of gas to pour on a soccer club is a very limited group. It's unclear what the actual value is, since some major portion of the value is based on it's desirability/rarity, which is a speculative quality - as a business, Chelsea doesn't seem to have the finances of a top 4 club.
- RC_ITR 5y agoSure. A Lamborghini would be worth more if gas was free and there aren’t that many people who can afford gas for a lambo, but you’re way overestimating global inequality. Plenty of people could afford Chelsea.
- bidirectional 5y agoThat doesn't matter, someone will pay it. They won't struggly to find a buyer. Owning one of the greatest teams in the world in the most fashionable part of one of the world's major city is basically just worth it as a vanity asset to a certain kind of billionaire.