If there is one thing the figures at the heart of the battle for Chelsea’s soul can agree on it is that they do not like each other. A little over two years since they put together the takeover that ended the Roman Abramovich era, neither Clearlake Capital nor Todd Boehly is pretending there is a way to salvage their relationship.
Too many grievances have spilled into the open over the past week. There is talk of cultural differences, of conflicting views over how to run a football club, and a rapprochement is unlikely given that Clearlake, the US private equity firm that owns a majority shareholding, and Boehly are looking for ways to buy each other out.
There are differing views on which way it will go. A neutral financial source is sceptical that Boehly has investors ready to provide him with the £2.5bn required to buy Clearlake’s 61.5% stake. Clearlake, owned by Behdad Eghbali and José E Feliciano, is also dismissive about the American billionaire’s backing and thinks he is trying to save face before selling.
Boehly rejects that characterisation. A 38.5% stake is shared between him, Mark Walter and Hansjörg Wyss, using personal money. Clearlake, confident it does not need outside investment to increase its stake, could pressure Boehly by reaching out to Walter and Wyss. At Boehly’s end, though, there is unshakeable confidence. “It’s always dangerous in life to underestimate your partner,” a source says. “Clearlake will see the funding when a bid is made.”
The gloves are off. The message from those around Boehly, the initial face of the takeover, is that his great mistake was making space for Eghbali to assume control of the day-to-day at Chelsea over the past 18 months. They pose questions about the level of Eghbali’s football knowledge. One says Clearlake’s co-founder knew nothing about the sport two years ago but is now “drunk on this industry and will not step back”.
Boehly’s side allege that Eghbali made a bad impression on Thomas Tuchel after suggesting a 4-4-3 formation to the former Chelsea manager. Clearlake sources shrug that off, saying Eghbali does not choose signings or tell head coaches how to play. They note that Boehly has made dressing-room speeches.
It is claim and counterclaim. A source scoffs at talk of Boehly gaining experience of sports ownership through minority investments in the LA Dodgers. They say he talked a big game, convincing Clearlake to let him step up as Chelsea’s interim sporting director in the summer of 2022 after Abramovich’s exit.
Clearlake is said to have developed misgivings after watching Boehly work. There is regret at how that first window unfolded, at agents arguably taking advantage of Boehly. There is a claim about one signing essentially being allowed to decide his wage.
The view is that Boehly should take more responsibility for that window. Clearlake feels its changes have put Chelsea, who have begun a second consecutive season without a shirt sponsor, on the path to Champions League qualification. It looks back with dismay at costly buys such as Raheem Sterling, who joined Arsenal on loan last month, and Kalidou Koulibaly. It was supportive of the decision to sack Tuchel but it is claimed that Boehly pushed for the appointment of Graham Potter, who was fired after less than seven months.
Boehly’s position is that he never intended be so involved. His aim was to put a sporting structure in place and leave the experts in peace. But while Chelsea have built a new recruitment team and given power to the co-sporting directors, Laurence Stewart and Paul Winstanley, Eghbali has become increasingly influential on the football side.
Stewart and Winstanley have embraced Chelsea’s vision of buying talented young players on long, incentivised contracts. Eghbali, though, has been present in a number of eye-catching deals. The positive take is that his financial acumen can help the sporting directors in negotiations over signings; Boehly sees it as evidence of more micromanaging. Last summer one agent is said to have found it exhausting talking about his client to Eghbali after an initial conversation with one of the sporting directors. Chelsea could not make a decision on the player.
In May Boehly was speaking about the importance of patience. Chelsea, who have spent more than £1bn in the past two years, were moving in the right direction under Mauricio Pochettino. As the end of the season approached, Boehly was pushing for Pochettino to stay. “Common sense will prevail,” a source said then, adding that all decisions needed to be signed off by Boehly, Eghbali and Feliciano.
Eghbali had never been keen on Pochettino. Here came a key moment in the split. The Argentinian going for dinner with Boehly before Chelsea beat Bournemouth in their final game of a topsy-turvy campaign made no difference. Stewart and Winstanley had already put together an 18-page report detailing why a managerial change was required before an end-of-season review overseen by Eghbali. Boehly was not present for a meeting that culminated in Pochettino leaving by mutual consent.
Yet the narrative about Boehly supporting Pochettino is challenged. Insiders say he wanted an immediate change after Chelsea lost 5-0 to Arsenal in April, only for Clearlake to argue for patience. A source claims the shift in mood came because Boehly wanted to challenge Stewart and Winstanley – and, by extension, Eghbali.
Clearlake is fully behind the new manager, Enzo Maresca, and the changes behind the scenes. It does not want more disruption. It resents being portrayed as a group of clueless Americans by Boehly’s camp. Representatives of Boehly declined to comment.
Clearlake, which has no plans to sell, can argue its changes have Chelsea on the right track. It believes the resolution should be between Boehly selling up or agreeing a deal that would strip him of his power and mean him stepping down as chair. Boehly’s side cannot believe that idea is even being proposed. “They want to bully us out of town,” a source says. Boehly is standing firm. He is frustrated about the lack of progress on a new stadium, which could mean redeveloping Stamford Bridge or moving to Earl’s Court.
The upheaval is not helpful. Chris Jurasek has left as chief executive – an insider says he was not given the freedom to do his job – and the installation of a new management committee has meant Jason Gannon taking the lead on stadium plans.
Keen to seize the initiative, Gannon has spoken to Transport for London and Delancey, a real estate firm, about the Earl’s Court site. Plans have been drawn up. The question is whether Chelsea are capable of moving quickly enough, particularly as the Earls Court Development Committee will try in the coming week to accelerate plans that have no space for a football stadium.
A resolution is required sooner rather than later. Until one arrives, though, this is the story that will trump everything else at Chelsea. They have a promising young team and can lift the mood with a win at Bournemouth on Saturday night, but the reality is that the focus will not stay on the pitch for long.
The bickering money men have become the main show in town and they have zero intention of sharing the stage any more.
Source: theguardian.com
