I planned to post something different today, but recently read the news that the Chelsea ownership are weighing ownership options, and had to scrap that since the timing of my last post was a little to coincidental. Clearlake and Boehly are independently assessing buying each other out, and I think the lead investor strategy would work a bit better than the current co-investor one.
The incoming players and overall management of the squad have been mixed at best. Clearly the VC strategy of investing in younger players, hoping that their valuations would be driven up, and selling them may not have necessarily worked. This is especially true when comparing to Roman Abramovic, whose on pitch success was a lot more than Clearlake/Boehly. I personally think the motive of the ownership was the primary reason the investment didn't quite work. Each of the two current investors have their own profits and LPs to justify. Roman came in with no one else to answer to, so burning some dry powder wasn't that big a deal. But pressure starts building when after two years, the American ownership consortium still have no profitability, pretty much the same valuation, no proven track record, and no signs of improvement either.
One silver lining is this ownership will now be a cautionary tale for 1) clubs looking to sell and assessing VC strategies, and 2) owners looking to take this kind of an approach. Loopholes are great, but it's clearly come at the cost of fan connection, on pitch success, and player development.
Imo the best path forward for Chelsea would be a Boehly complete ownership, going back to the basics of a sole investor.