Why The Chelsea Conspiracy Theory Is Wrong
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 07. 2023
- Try The Athletic for FREE for 30 days: theathletic.com/tifofootball
📗 Tifo's new book, "How to Watch Football" is now available internationally: linktr.ee/tifobook
When the summer transfer window opened in 2023, all eyes focused on Chelsea and their player sales to Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) is an investor with Chelsea’s majority owners, Clearlake Capital. The PIF also own a number of clubs in the Saudi Pro League.
It’s highly convenient that these same Saudi Pro League clubs are buying Chelsea players. And to some it’s football’s latest conspiracy theory, but is there really a case to answer?
Matt Slater explains. Marco Bevilacqua illustrates.
Follow Tifo Football:
Twitter: / tifofootball_
Facebook: / tifofootball
Instagram: / tifofootball_
Listen to the Tifo Football podcast:
The Athletic UK: bit.ly/TifoPodChannel
Apple Podcasts: bit.ly/TifoFootPod
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/06QIGhq...
Watch more Tifo Football: Tactics Explained: • Tactics Explained | Ti...
Finances & Laws: • Finances & Laws | Tifo...
Tifo Football Podcast: • Tifo Football Podcast
Most Recent Videos: • Most Recent Videos | T...
1 Popular Videos: • Popular Videos | Tifo ...
About Tifo Football:
Tifo loves football. We create In-depth tactical, historical and geopolitical breakdowns of the beautiful game.
We know there’s an appetite for thoughtful, intelligent content. For stuff that makes the complicated simple.
We provide analysis on the Premier League, Champions League, La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga, World Cup and more.
Our podcasts interview some of the game’s leading figures. And our editorial covers football with depth and insight.
Founded in 2017 and became a part of The Athletic in 2020. For business inquiries, reach out to tifo@theathletic.com.
Music sourced from epidemicsound.com
Additional footage sourced from freestockfootagearchive.com
#Chelsea #SaudiArabia #SaudiProLeague - Sport
As a Chelsea fan, im glad to see that Todd has invested in the Athletic/Tifo as well 😜
Good one! Forgot Matt Law?
@@Wiintbjust a joke not that deep. Matt Law is more concerned with Villa than Chels
😂😂
😂😂😂
Good joke!
Surprised there’s been no mention of the fact that most of the players purchased by the Saudi league from Chelsea are Muslim, giving the Saudi clubs an extra cultural advantage to choosing these specific names. Obviously, the league is welcoming people from all different faiths, but there must be an extra appeal to seeing someone who your fans can identify with.
I was surprised Tifo didn’t mention the fact that both the Saudis and Bhoely own significant shares in the The New York Times Company, which owns the The New York Times. Have a guess who owns the Athletic? Maybe it’s not that surprising after all.
@@GuinessOriginalthe athletic is owned by New York Times but Todd boley and Saudi don’t have any shares in the New York times u can just google it the main shareholder are Vanguard Group inc
@@GuinessOriginalif the athletic didn’t want people thinking nothing is suspicious I doubt they would use Tifo out of all brands they have under the athletic 🤣🤣
@@Festus034 Vanguard own roughly 20% of the NYT.
@@GuinessOriginal citation needed
I’m a Chelsea fan but frankly the Premier leagues vetting process goes money talks. A lot.
Chelsea were literally owned by the UK government between the takeover. If Clearlake needed a tool to do this they would have just used Newcastle, or done something much fishier with fees being exchanged under the table for these players
Absolutely. Let’s just say that the FA staff now all be driving Rolls Royces after approving the Newcastle PIF takeover.
I think you're confusing the Premier league with the FA. The Prem is a very rich league and why would they be convinced to permit illegal sales to a league which is trying to compete with their domination in the middle east?
@@joshbrown2217 guess why it’s called the FA premier league ?
@@AIAvionics Bruv, I beg you, please, do a simple google before replying. Otherwise you are just going to look like an absolute mug.
This sounds as believable as London's financial institutions saying they were never laundering Russian money...
Exactly. What Tifo didn’t say is that both the Saudis and Bhoely both own significant shares in the The New York Times Company, which owns the The New York Times. Have a guess who owns the Athletic?
Ha ha ha, yeah exactly. Tifo have embarrassed themselves here by exposing how much they’ve sold out. Compare this to their coverage of Qatar and their football clubs. It’s insulting they think were this stupid. How the mighty fall, all it takes is a little bit of money. Sad.
Not really it’s a sovereign wealth fund; whole idea is vast diversification by investing in all sorts. Their investment is into the wider fund & Clearlake has final say on all matters and legally can’t favour certain investors within the fund
@@d.b.cooper1 have you any idea how private equity works? Are you aware how board members are appointed? His do you suppose board decisions are reached? Do you know what GPS do?
@@GuinessOriginal Yes I do. Not even a Chelsea fan but I like to call out bs like you copy and pasting that bs comment into every comment which is factually untirre and not even remotely true. NYT is publicly owned by the usual global investment funds from America, if there was even slightest Saudi influence the world would know, heck Jeff bezos owns Washington post, Murdoch fox empire & lots more that cause outrage. Fair enough if you don’t like Saudis, but you can criticise without blatant lies.
My Man Todd Boehly playing real life Football Manager
With in game editor ON!
@@abhijitbhadra9220 of course ! The only way to cheat
And he is terrible...
I have NEVER been able to shift dead wood that well on FM.
Still loosing unlike FM😂😂
EPL very clearly vetted the club & owners like they did with Roman, the man city owners and Newcastle lol
and Glazers. Somehow all American and West European owners are saints aye?
Yeah, they clearly vetted the brutal Ila mob extremist dictatorship that practices sharia law, beheads journalists and sponsors terrorism
@@dutchmilk Literally no-one has ever said this
@@dutchmilk yes
What do you expect to happen when your owner was stripped of owning the club due to political b.s. It's easy to see decline when it wasn't your club that was hijacked by the British government. We'll bounce back. We always do.
This does feel awfully different to Tifo’s coverage of Qatar...
Exactly. It could be a coincidence, but something they failed to mention is that the Saudis and Bhoely both own significant shares in the The New York Times Company, which owns the The New York Times. Have a guess who owns the Athletic?
@@GuinessOriginal How many times have you posted this? I've seen you make this exact same statement about 30 times, and it's not even true. The NYT is owned by a bunch of different investment funds like Vanguard and Blackrock, with no shareholder owning more than 10% of the company and most owning much less than that
I thought the same thing
@@GuinessOriginalYou’re literally copy & pasting a blatant lie into all comments, a simple Google search disproves this. It’s literally publicly owned with biggest shareholders being the usual American investment funds with no 1 shareholder having majority.
Yeah well I just hacked your IP address and you’re posting from Todd boehly’s house so nice try but we ain’t falling for it todd
"Thank you to the new sponsors of Tifo and the Athletic, the PIF!"
Correct! Very astute. A lot of Pele are seeing right through this. Tifo neglected to mention that both the Saudis and Bhoely both own significant shares in the The New York Times Company, which owns the The New York Times. Have a guess who owns the Athletic?
@@GuinessOriginal🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
@@GuinessOriginal you really think a multi billionaire cares about what tifo football podcast is saying? think he has bigger fish to fry mate
@@sponish0 weird you think that, all media moguls like Murdoch are billionaires and they absolutely care what the media says. The Saudis wouldn’t be doing so much sports washing if they didn’t care what was said in the media, and Tifo’s coverage of Saudi Arabia since the athletic took of over has been considerably more favourable and far less critical than it was previously.
@@GuinessOriginal I'm not saying you're lying do you have any links to support PIF and New York Times investment? I wanted to look for myself. Thanks
Newcastle United does not have the amount of unwanted high profile players that Chelsea does. Also, the vetting process of Public Investment Fund before buying Newcastle let a country own a football club. What a joke.
A country ruled by a brutal fundamentalist Islamic extremist government that practices sharia law, beheads and dismembers foreign journalists, has killed 400 000 civilians in a brutal war in Yemen that makes Ukraine look like a picnic and sponsors terrorism.
People really do forget that Abramovich did the same for Chelsea when he first arrived.
You can't read anything about Chelsea without the content or comment section mentioning it actually.
@@L.Drizzlefunny how chelsea get away with ffp every time
@@GuinessOriginal the entire Joke that is the Premier League does. You think they gonna punish City?
Most people in football social media were born after Abram bought Chelsea
No he didn't lol. He spent a lot on players, but weren't selling players at high value. In fact we probably sold players for undervalue.
There's a reason we owed him 2 bil lol
It's very convenient for Chelsea, but the "market value" issue proves that there's nothing really dodgy to it. The alleged fees for Mendy and Ziyech in particular, plus Kanté leaving for free and Pulisic potentially going for less than £20m, is well below market value across the board
Be that as it may, Chelsea have raised around £125mill in two players sales to EPL sides and an extra £25mill from Kovacic to City, and these amounts constitutes the larger share of what Chelsea have made in player sales, I think they are just good at this or lucky enough to have players that other clubs just want to have in their own ranks.
It's run in their vein, Chelsea always manage to get profit on players sale even if they are flop
@@fakhrianuar9264 like when we made a 6m profit on djilobji 😂
What’s even luckier is that both the Saudis and Bhoely both own significant shares in the The New York Times Company, which owns the The New York Times. Have a guess who owns the Athletic? It’s even more lucky that Tifo neglected to mention it.
@@GuinessOriginal give it a rest, pal
@@chifumujmanda7643 yeah nothing to see here. The plastic oil Cokeney doesn’t like facts. it’s on the SEC’s website. Institutional investors with more than $100 million in assets have to file a Form 13F with the SEC. This form lists all 680 institutional investors’ owners and shareholders holdings in The New York Times Company, which amounts to a total of 166,740,586 shares, 91.82% of the total float. Among them are ClearBridge Investments LLC, who are owned by ClearLake. PIF also owns shares in a number of the other investors owners companies.
How much do clearlake or the PIF own of the Athletic? Just curious.
Nice theory 🤝
None of it
are you saying athletic is that profitable that people who are smart with their money would invest in it? Geez get your brain checked
@@NUFCOfficialwrong you plastic Geordie. It’s amusing that they neglected to mention that both the Saudis and Bhoely both own significant shares in the The New York Times Company, which owns the The New York Times. Have a guess who owns the Athletic?
Absolutely stinks that they would put this up without mentioning
Missed a part in the video: "This video was sponsored by Clearlake"
Both the Saudis and Bhoely own significant shares in the The New York Times Company, which owns the The New York Times. Have a guess who owns the Athletic? They missed that part out too.
Tifo taking Saudi money now too? 😂
They neglected to mention that both the Saudis and Bhoely both own significant shares in the The New York Times Company, which owns the The New York Times. Have a guess who owns the Athletic?
@@GuinessOriginal Oh for real? That's even shadier than I thought
This is sooooo The Athletic. It looks likes journalism, but it really isn't. "We asked a couple of guys and they said 'nah, looks alright to me', so it is actually all alright everyone don't worry".
I work in Private Equity and everything they said is true, the whole thing has been blown way out of proportion, there is no link there
@@DWxGhoSt no you don’t at all. Private equity firms don’t get involved in the day-to-day operations of the companies they invest in, so why would you have any knowledge of the links and dealings between companies?
I however, know a thing or two about researching companies. t’s a convenient coincidence Tifo neglected to mention that both the Saudis and Bhoely both own significant shares in the The New York Times Company, which owns the The New York Times. Have a guess who owns the Athletic?
@@DWxGhoSt Oh thank god. I was worried for a moment. What a relief.
@@dandane3819 Watch some of Tifo’s reporting on Qatar, Saudi Arabia’s big regional rival, who they almost went to war with, and you will see a completely different tone. The level of bias is palpable.
@@dandane3819it’s a good job we’ve got someone in private equity we can trust to tell us the truth and keep us informed 😂
The Athletic is a sports media company that was acquired by Boehly's investment firm, Eldridge Industries, in 2020.
The New York Times is a news media company that Boehly has invested in since 2019.
Tifo Football is a football CZcams channel that is owned by The Athletic.
PIF is a sovereign wealth fund from Saudi Arabia that is led by Boehly's partner, Nasser Al-Khelaifi.
Idk why I thought this was gonna be about the Number 9 shirt curse.
Chelsea deserve a curse for that with the way they treates Bamford and Sturridge
"Why the Chelsea Conspiracy Theory is Wrong" seems like someone part of the conspiracy would say :D
Its crazy how Chelsea went from champions of Europe for the second time in their history to not even competing in the conference league next season in the span of just two years. That's insane
todd boehly
Acting like it's the downfall of chelsea yes todd make huge mistakes but don't underestimate chelsea in the future
@@Austination316chelsea was declining way before todd's takover, they were miserable at the end of 21-22
@@duyanhng8430 sacking Tuchel was officially Chelsea's passing.
@@duyanhng8430 Sanction really ruined Chelsea and should be noted that the sections actually works.
Now all we need to figure out how much did Clearlake Capital invest in The Athletic,
Funny you should mention that. Tifo neglected to tell us that both the Saudis and Bhoely both own significant shares in the The New York Times Company, which owns the The New York Times. Have a guess who owns the Athletic?
the SEC’s website lists all 680 institutional investors’ owners and shareholders holdings in The New York Times Company, which amounts to a total of 166,740,586 shares, 91.82% of the total float. Among them are ClearBridge Investments LLC, who are owned by ClearLake. PIF also owns shares in a large number of the other institutional investors owners companies
rival fans when Chelsea buy players: 😡😡😭😭😡😡
rival fans when Chelsea sell players: 😡😡😭😭😡😡
Because it’s going so well for them aye… Chelsea ruined the market 20 years ago, and in the words of AFTV Voldemort, they’ve done it again
@@celtic69 How did chelsea ruin the market?
@@warisiqbal9405 Romans arrival and willingness to spend £20m+ on any and every player in 2004 completely ruined the market, and now Todd is following his lead.
@@warisiqbal9405because they spent Russian oil blood money but ffp doesn’t apply to chelski
@@GuinessOriginal you're literally a man city fan
4:30 no it is too close to use newcastle. Wow Tifo are on the chelsea pay roll too! Shocking journalism
Exactly! It’s a just a coincidence Tifo neglected to mention that both the Saudis and Bhoely both own significant shares in the The New York Times Company, which owns the The New York Times. Have a guess who owns the Athletic?
You've been spamming this response to every comment, clearly you have an obsession
@@zamokuhlemolefe8443 you must be mixing me up with someone else. I have only said it on this video.
This video feels like a lawyer's defense of Chelsea/saudi transfers, rather than an honest assessment of the situation.
nonsense
stop keeping your tinfoil hats on, there is nothing wrong with Chelsea selling players to Saudi
it's a supply and demand market like with the rest of the Saudi purchases
Yeah I'm not buying this at all
@@purolanpastoriyeah because you’re salty about it. Get over it
Seems like you felt that way as soon as the video didn't go the way you wanted it to.
The argument presented here seems to be, “that’s not how investment funds work” the trouble is how do we know that’s not how this particular fund works? We just take their word for it?
What’s amusing is that they neglected to mention that both the Saudis and Bhoely both own significant shares in the The New York Times Company, which owns the The New York Times. Have a guess who owns the Athletic?
The NYT company 😂😂
@@glenvance6737correct. But apparently according to chelsea fans in the comments, there’s nothing to see here.
Watch some of Tifo’s reporting on Qatar, Saudi Arabia’s big regional rival, who they amongst went to war with, and you will see a completely different tone. The level of bias is palpable.
The burden of proof is not on them based on speculation made out of thin air
@jacobweddell now that seems like a "you" problem that you don't understand basics of finance and investment fundamentals. I am sure you don't understand how the earth is a globe either? 🤡
Gary Neville’s tears could solve Africa’s water issues 😭
Edit: I’m African as well it’s just a home chill out guys
😂
I know it's a joke but there is water in Africa, could have said something around desert
We have water here, I don't know what you're talking about 😒
😂😂😂
Stop watching those American UNICEF Commercials that be on some feed an African for $1 a day . Africans have plenty of water😂
I was waiting for the punchline that never came. Chelsea actually sold all of these players for losses. It kept being mentioned that Saudi are buying players for way more than they are worth which is completely not true. Kante left for free, Koulibaly left for 20m - he was bought for 33m just 12 months ago, Ziyech was linked to a 8m move - nothing to shout about, Mendy moved for 18m - 12 months after he was rated as one of the best GKs in the world football - he was also bought 3 years ago for 25m. These are penny's on the dollar if you had to look to Nottingham Forest who spent crazy amounts on average players just last season. I was actually waiting for a massive transfer, for say Aubameyang, but most likely we'd see a free transfer if he had to go. Plus, no one has addressed the elephant in the room, Ruben Neves has just made the move to Saudi for 55m - why weren't they mentioned in this video. Thats a huge fee for one of europes top talent. Brilliant vid guys.
As it stands, the Saudi Pro League has paid Chelsea for 2 players. Koulibaly and Mendy. For a whopping £38m combined. Chelsea received more from United for Mason Mount with 1 year left on his contract. The fact that anything has been made of this at all shows how crazy the agenda is against Chelsea in England.
Come on, all of these players are aging players, of course they would be sold for losses. Do you expect any team in Europe paying more than 30m for Koulibaly, a 32 yo CB, after his dreadful season? Given the number of players being sold and the price tag added up, that's when things get suspicious.
@@joubeid8311 The "agenda" is far less about Chelsea than it is about non-Western influence on the Premier League. A 4 year investigation into City and still can't yield a solid case, the farcical attempts to block Newcastle's takeover, the 12 week vetting process the Qatari's would have to deal with if their United bid is accepted. The FSG and the FIP are, for all intents and purposes, the same thing. And only one of them people seem to take umbrage with.
@@joubeid8311 there’s a poor understanding of the situation. You’re not seeing the bigger picture. The Saudis have totally pushed the prices up to help chelsea out. When FFP were circling Man U and Arsenal put in realistic bids of 25 and 30m, because they knew Chelsea were desperate to sell. Suddenly the Saudis appear with a rescue package and snap up a load of Chelsea players. With the FFP of their back, and the Saudis threatening to buy mount and havertz, Man U and Arsenal have to dramatically increase their bids. No other clubs other than the Saudis were bidding for them, and because of the Saudi rescue package Chelsea weren’t desperate to sell anymore. Without the Saudis chelsea don’t get that money from Man U and Arsenal
@@gustavocespedes5663 if there was a Saudi ffp conspiracy then yes you would expect that
Tifo doing its research. As an admittedly bias Chelsea fan, it really feels like everything Chelsea does it made retrospectively against the rules.
Chelsea weren't the worst player traders and arguably the players they traded had their profiles raised far more then Italian clubs with 100 players on the book, but Chelsea got the ire for it.
Then they tried to amortise contracts over a long period of time and this was immediately shut down.
Now, somehow people are trying to contrive the idea that selling players at a loss to a buyer who is flashing the cash is somehow unfair?
Chelsea could field a team of academy graduates and if they won the league, someone would still try to complain they were acting improperly in a way basically every other club seems to avoid.
What's weird is this isn't the first time they flogged their players nobody would touch to Asia. Back in 2016 they sold both Ramires and Oscar for a combined fee of 100m€
@@mesicek7 you mean the champions league winning Ramires and Oscar?
@@mesicek7 Ramires was a quality player in his prime. He would have had buyers in Europe
Oscar moved for the money and Chelsea got an outrageous bid for him so they let him go but he likely would have had suitors in Europe if Chelsea had actually wanted to sell.
@@granth1238 They won the champions league in 2012. By 2015 they were both done.
@@mesicek7 they weren't the best in Europe but they certainly weren't done, both still very solid players, and had lots of interest, just not as big of bids.
That league was developing and throwing money around, so they were buying the players image and naming rights as much as their on pitch attributes, maybe more.
Also worth mentioning the Chelsea stars who moved to Saudi are Muslim. Mecca is in Saudi, there is a certain appeal that they would have to Saudi that likely other footballers wouldn't
Apparently Ronaldo isn't a Muslim
@@OnnumMuttaiyum talking about the Chelsea transfers. Read before you comment for goodness sake.
Also worth mentioning that both the Saudis and Bhoely both own significant shares in the The New York Times Company, which owns the The New York Times. Have a guess who owns the Athletic?
@@fritzguldenpfennig2486 I mean... Ziyech is gonna be a turmoil anytime soon. He's not fully confirmed and they targeted the oldies alone... Those who are comfortable in SA where their religion should be respected as well...But forget that. There were reports of Lukaku, Aubameyang and Callum Hudson Odoi whose names were offered as well. They players didn't accept that. So Muslims only saga is just a coincidence
Boehly just found a loophole and suddenly he’s a cheat it’s not even against the rules
It would make sense that Saudi Arabia would much rather create a good relationship with Chelsea by accepting their higher transfer prices than trying to haggle for every pound
Saudi Arabian clubs will likely be looking to sign Chelsea players in the future (not just this season) and that would become more difficult if the initial negotiations were more intense and uncompromising, creating tension between the two parties
And the Saudi league definitely must have wanted to create a good relationship with Wolves and Celtic too.
Just a coincidence that one Saudi owned business is funding another, nothing to see here. Just a coincidence that both the Saudis and Bhoely own significant shares in the The New York Times Company, which owns the The New York Times. Have a guess who owns the Athletic? Just a coincidence that Tifo neglected to mention that
@@GuinessOriginalsource?
@@GuinessOriginalGo and cry about it copy and paste merchant 🤣🤣.
@@johnwhalley8270I’ll try and tell you but my comments keep getting deleted
So genuine question, why aren't they buying from other English clubs who are desperate to get rid of players like Man Utd and Liverpool
Exactly
I think they mostly want Muslim players (all the players they bought from Chelsea are Muslim), and Chelsea happens to have the most Muslim players
@@abdullahbashir5297valid point, I think mainly only Muslims would want to play there, hence the mahrez links as well
Wolves only sold them Neves for 55 million, more than Koulibally Ziyech and Mendy put together 😂
@@samwood8394 because Neves is a highly saught after midfielder in the peak of his career
It still sounds fishy to me
Still not proven guilty so no issue for me
Smells about as fishy as guts in a fish house sewer.
One thing is also important though. The fact that most of those players who went to Saudi from Chelsea are African/Muslim superstars. So, it does make sense why Saudi, being the country who ruled over two holiest sites in Islam, want those players.
Please somebody shows Neville this video. He's been crying non stop about Chelsea.
The video literally proves they are connected
Guess what media company the Saudis and Bhoely also own shares in. Just wait until Newcastle start getting players on loan from Saudi clubs, they’ll do another video saying there’s nothing to see here. It’s blatantly a way to get around ffp.
@@GuinessOriginalgive it a rest pal
PIF in Europe: "We have absolutely nothing to do with Saudi Arabia"
PIF during discovery against the PGA in the US: "We are entitled to sovreign immunity"
The Premier League:😎
That’s a joke and Tifo are cool with it. Guess why?
@@GuinessOriginal🤡🤡🤡🤡
@@BushidoCodee give it a rest pal, you comment this all over Tifo
@@AIAvionics just for that clown guiness
@@BushidoCodee why? I see it everywhere
Real question people should be asking is how United and Arsenal were willing to pay what they’ve done for Mount and Havertz! Combined 120m for those 2 is ludicrous 😂
they are both young players with their prime years ahead of them, ones an England international, both have demonstrated they they can perform, well, at the highest level and both have extremely good statistics despite Chelsea's obvious problems. clearly we must be talking about 2 different players here.
The revisionism as soon as they leave chelsea is hilarious. For years utd/arsenal fans have called them terrible, but now their tone has changed 😂
@@MaxPower162there are many Arsenal fans that are doubtful about Havertz. Obviously the coaching staff see something we don’t and they have their jobs on the line when making these decisions. So because we love the club and like this coaching setup, we have to hope he does his best and we need to show him support.
Chelsea fans have called them terrible. We’ve not been looking at Chelsea players. Everyone at Chelsea has been terrible. Messi would be terrible at Chelsea.
They are not that bad plus one of them is homegrown player
MBS straight up killed a journalist for saying the wrong thing, tifo/ athletic not risking that happening to them by doing any journalism.
Exactly, they didn’t mention that did they? It’s even worse. Something else they neglected to mention is that both the Saudis and Bhoely own significant shares in the The New York Times Company, which owns the The New York Times. Have a guess who owns the Athletic?
The journalist was killed by mistake and the regulations were changed so that this mistake would not be repeated, but I wonder who killed Princess Diana
Ah yes, the trusty anonymous employee of an unnamed equity fund source 😂
Isn't it against youtube policy to not list your sponsor for this video?
Somebody needs to send this to Gary Neville.
Neville: I'm gonna pretend I didn't see that.
So when there's an American involved who kicked out a "political ally of the enemy", it's a-ok? It's also a willing seller, willing buyer situation, but when "players in their prime" like Neves goes there but that's not a willing seller of his services to a willing buyer?
Its genuinely funny how The Atheltic rushes to defend a premier league club like Chelsea by making a 7 minute video, but literally said nothing when Juventus were deducted points based on a lie and barcelona were accussed of buying referees. Shocking Tifo, shocking
What rules have Chelsea broken??? Juve’s been punished before
If The NYT really has ties to both Boehly and the Saudis... Then this video should never have seen the light of day, without a clear warning of possible conflict of interest notice, preferrably at the start of the video.
This is generally the norm to do when wishing to be transparent and having nothing to hide.
I'd say especially important when presenting such a controversial issue as this.
Didn’t Juventus get involved in something very similar over inflated transfer fees, there’s precedent
No, they lied on their books about how much money they received for transfers
Haha "Don't worry, they said trust us. They won't show us any numbers, but they promise there's nothing malicious going on. " Super great investigative journalism guys.
New owners were carefully vetted 😅😂😅
Of course this became an issue because it involves Chelsea but Man City boasting about making 700m per season while barely able to fill their stadium with their own fans and spending 900m without selling players for big money the media are blind.
You must be a bit simple. City have just won the treble and won 300m in prize money alone, never mind CL and FA cup TV and crowd revenues and sponsorships. They have the 4th highest average attendance in the prem, and have sold loads of players. You need to post attention to reality a bit more son instead of living in a fantasy land
The amount of manufacturing consent in this video is off the charts. “Its a nothing-burger” “people are reading way too much into this” “why wouldn’t Newcastle just buy Mendy and pay Koulibally those monster wages..”
I cant believe how stupid they take their audience for, a channel like this targets viewers that are generally analytical and can see past this facade. Not even a ‘why you MIGHT be wrong about chelsea’ just: why you’re wrong
@@chiggsytube 😂😂 thats just the optimist in me i guess
See i am not saying its all a coincidence, it is just very convenient for the saudi league , since they want to make their league famous by getting big name superstars , and chelsea had around 15+ big name players they wanted to offload so it was a perfect match . Also it is not as if saudi is giving astronomical amounts for them , many players are literally being sold for like 1/3 or half the price they were brought for .Chelsea made the main funds by selling mount and havertz for a total of 120mil , and no one speaks about that .
They’re also conveniently muslim which isn’t a requirement by any means but Kouli and Mendy (and Ziyech and Kante) are all muslims which certainly helps with their appeal in Saudi
It’s also a very convenient coincidence that Tifo neglected to mention that both the Saudis and Bhoely both own significant shares in the The New York Times Company, which owns the The New York Times. Have a guess who owns the Athletic?
@@GuinessOriginalSource?
@@johnwhalley8270 it’s on the SEC’s website.
I think that Boehly just used his contacts from his Clearlake Capital - PIF bond to get rid of the players. It is like he just knows people.
The transfer fees are low & not inflated but the wages are on par of what Chelsea was paying or even more to the players.
Now Chelsea does not have control on the wages that are to be offered to the players but they definitely knew that Saudi clubs would be the correct option to dump the players.
The only fishy thing according to me that can happen is :
1) Chelsea sells deadwood players for astronomical fees. This transaction happens between PIF - Chelsea but can be seen as another round of investment from PIF into Clearlake Capital indirectly.
2) Chelsea can sell players to Saudi league for astronomical fees to generate capital which can be termed as Money Laundering.
That is the possible way that money can be laundered according to me.
What say?
The PIF purchases from Chelsea have happened for a number of reasons. The players sold have been looking to leave Chelsea to be closer to family, earn a big payout before retirement or simply play somewhere where they can be the star player in a squad rather than having to battle it out in a demanding league such as the PL.
One thing that I feel does need more attention is the fees being paid by PIF clubs to PL teams that have a visible connection. This isn't just visible in the Saudi league but also in the PL and does need further investigation.
I'm an Arsenal fan and it was clear for some time Usmanov was desperate to invest heavily in Arsenal to improve the squad. When it was clear he wasn't going to be able to gain control of a majority stake in Arsenal his interest moved to Everton where he then paid £70m to Arsenal for Iwobi and Walcott. Now, this could have been because both players were looking to leave Arsenal as they weren't part of the long term first team vision. However, it's difficult to look past the fact that both of these players had underperformed for some time and we're unlikely to be valued at that price by any other clubs. Similar, potentially more sellable players at Arsenal had been released to join other clubs during this period, not earning a penny in transfer fees.
Now, Liverpool have managed to offload Henderson for a reported fee far higher than it's reasonable to expect any other interested party would be willing to pay. This may of course be linked to the fact that he is more willing than others and also keen to work with Gerrard but it begs the question of why the rumoured transfer fee is above what could be considered market value.
To Chelsea, the players sold to Saudi clubs have demanded huge transfer fees despite Chelsea being in a weak position, needing to sell in order to rebuild. It seems that the PIF is, in one way or another, using it's funds to influence the ability of premier league clubs to spend and rebuild their squads. For this I feel the spending by the PIF should be monitored closely when viewing it in the context of pre existing relationships with clubs, sponsors, managers and owners.
it's legalised bribery.
they do off the books nonfootball related business deals and then pay the bribes through football transfers.
It's how saudis were able to buy Newcastle without an objection from the other 19 clubs owners.
Whether its legal or not, the fact Chelsea are able to do this at all is a damning indictment of the state of global football
Mate...Red Bull model had been replicated by ManCity too..Todd is just following the golden path...
@@myownlilbubbleYes, you’re right, but @DavidBee101’s damning point remains nonetheless. Just b/c the process is legal does not make it ethical-or good for football. In fact, it’s ultimately destructive and destabilizing for the beautiful game.
Do what? Sell players? They haven't made a profit on any that they've sold...
@@Grerty22 If it were only about selling players…
So are we going to be having a go at Wolves for selling Neves for £50 mill just as it was to the Saudi Pro League? The Saudis are paying far below market value for Chelsea’s players, it’s just smart business and good timing on their part imo. Does it benefit Chelsea, yes of course but not unfairly so - but it also benefits the Saudis. Final words of the vid, willing seller and willing buyer.
Chelsea is that one guy everyone talks about even when he's just existing 😂
Downsides of being the Pride of London, we suffering from success 😂
I don’t care what these private equity firm investors quotes are. The fact is there is a clear mutual interest with PIF and Clearlake. PIF want Clearlake’s investment in Chelsea to be a good one and they’ve overpaid for deadwood to help the club progress
This whole video sounds like it was written by the head of PR of Clearlake. Great job.
The crazy thing is chelsea have sold alot of these players at a loss. Alot of them have gone for low transfers simply because we needed a clear out and we found a buyer that wants them.
And once you get them you weren’t desperate to sell Mount and Havertz any more and could wait and demand higher fees
@@AIAvionics there is no way chelsea waits mounts contract run out. They wont have another Christensen or pogba. Havertz value might rise but it could also fall. Just like dele ali or nicloas pepe. Its better to sell when there is a demand
@@AjoeC they didn’t need to wait long, not once the Saudi rescue package saved them from ffp and meant they weren’t desperate to sell, and especially with the threat of Saudi buying them, Man U and Arsenal soon doubled their bids 😭
@@AIAvionics saudi deals are just cleaning out the expensive wage bills for incoming future players. The actual sales did not make much profit in books. The fee revenue is from havertz and mount,players whom no longer wishes to stay or little room for improvement thats why Todd Bohenly is getting the praise.
@@AIAvionics Who wouldn’t want higher fees for premier league proven young players?
How many degrees of separation are there between TIFO and the PIF?
0 bias whatsoever in this video. Expected more from the athletic
What do you expect? Did you think that they would mention that both the Saudis and Bhoely both own significant shares in the The New York Times Company, which owns the The New York Times. Have a guess who owns the Athletic?
You guys are really digging yourself into a hole here! Keep going!
I really like Tifo, but this feels like an odd conclusion to me. It feels like they're saying there's nothing to see here because all of the parties involved say there's nothing wrong. Additionally, transfer fees are hardly the point here. Getting wages off the bill for Chelsea is absolutely key, they were in danger of ending up like Barcelona with players preferring to wait out lucrative contracts rather than get game time. The fact that PIF owned clubs have facilitated those moves, whilst being invested in Clearlake, is surely where the stench of suspicion comes from?
We’ve literally made 3 times as much money selling to direct rivals than we have selling players to Saudi this summer
Exactly
@@HairSystemDIY pull the other one
Yep
@@HairSystemDIYwah wah
Disappointed in Tifo (the athletic) not mentioning at all their links to these companies and institutions they're trying to clear of blame. Their whole argument is essentially "it's just a coincidence, PIF are really really rich this isn't important enough to care about". It's just a coincidence PIF->Clearlake->Chelsea->PIF's Pro League the same way i'm sure it's also just a coincidence that PIF -> Clearlake -> New York Times -> Atheltic writing a fluff piece.
You do understand that PiF owns 5% of the economic assets that are managed by a financial firm that owns 60% of chelsea. So even if PiF somehow owned chelsea, it would be a 3% stake.
There’s just nothing here besides chelsea having many marketable Muslim players and a need to get rid of all of them at once, regardless of the fees.
If you know the first thing about finance you’ll know the saudis have zero power at chelsea and all they bought was a relationship with Boehly and co.
@@EKNYR That 3% stake figure is if you take verbatim what the shady figures/regimes involved are telling you. You dont think any important Saudis outside of the PIF also have their money with Bohly somehow? This is a royal family/regime that is conducting extraordinarily shady business in many different industries and execute the Journalists that speak out against it - i don't think they'd have many qualms about misquoting accounting figures.
Chelsea has and will always be the villain of football. Started the war in ukraine, breaching FPP every year and a lot more. Glad we're back on the right track, people keep hating, we keep winning.
Ruining football since 2003 💙
chelsea the football club started a war? what drugs are you on
Adding on to this, the players Chelsea sold to Saudi Arabia were actually sold for modest prices.
We are so lucky that league came along. KK and Kante wages are over £600000 combined.
That's only half the story though... Wages.
On the books, there’s plenty of backhanders and off the books payments going on
Dodgy Chelsea
@@kb4903 Kanté was out of contract as of June 2023.
It annoys me how everyone goes on koulibaly for £20m, as if he hasn't been one of the best CBs in the world (bar last season) for the last 5 years. Mendy, Koulibaly these are big names, with actual footballing talent, pretty much paying cut prices because of Chelsea struggling as a club as whole I general. Otherwise we should investigate the likes of Man United for paying £80m for Harry Maguire, because that's clearly a £90m overpayment
United just like a challenge 😅
It's a "willing seller, willing buyer" excuse only if it fits the narrative.
It’s so they can be loaned out and sold to Newcastle for cheap from Saudi, you watch. Chelsea but players, ship them to Saudi at a loss, probably posting some of their wages, Saudi loan then sell them to Newcastle at similar or slightly less price, paying part of their wages.
@@GuinessOriginalcan't wait for all the mongies in the comment sections who think they're incredibly smart to admit they were wrong when it doesn't happen.
@@sususegar Saudi have pushed the prices up to totally help chelsea out. Notice that when ffp were circling Man U and Arsenal put in bids far south of that, because they knew Chelsea were desperate and could smell blood. Then steps in the Saudis and snaps up a load of Chelsea players, easing their worries. Now ffp sent an issue, and the Saudis are threatening to buy mount and havertz, so Man U and Arsenal have to dramatically increase their bids. To imagine that Saudi, the richest dictatorship in the world, owns 2 premier league clubs and 4 in Saudi, isn’t going to use them to their advantage, and when multiple players start flirting between them at opportune timescale for opportune amounts, the timing is amazingly coincidental, and then media that Saudi own shares in and have appointed board members to and have their GPS working with, report “there’s a to are here”, well forgive new if I don’t believe it. City are apparently four and they’ve done far less shenanigans
Tifo in the front line to defend clearlakecapitroll, become their public relations company
I was very skeptical when this new owners arrived and rightfully so but, I am glad as to how they are conducting club business at the moment
By buying 600m worth of players and selling them for a 3rd of the price? Aye good business 👍
@@glenvance6737 Who are you talking about? We've sold Koulibaly for a loss but it could be argued we've made good money on Mount and Havertz. Mendy is probably fair and Ziyech seems low but not sure there was much else option.
@@louiscrompton8850it could be argued 😂
@@GuinessOriginalgive it a rest pal
Appreciate Tifo actually being even handed towards Chelsea, it's been tiring watching the club become the root of all evil in the imaginations of hipster middle class football journalists (who largely just discharge their resentment).
I think other clubs have taken a kicking too, with NUFC being owned by PIF and MUFC being potentially bought by Qatar. Chelsea fans don't like it because their club is regularly mixed up with curious entities. From a Russian Oligarch to now potentially Clearlake. I'm not saying that Chelsea do everything wrong, but they are one of a number of clubs who are acting with questionable morals.
@@jmmypaddywe can't change who are owners are, ppl are overreacting here, our owners aren't even bad
@@jmmypaddybesides we aren't linked with PIF, our owners just did business with them ppl are acting like they own part of the club
@jmmypaddy "...curious entities" - translation: I have nothing substantive on Chelsea, but they give me a bad feeling, and vibes are more important than facts.
I don't want to be disrespectful, but yes, Chelsea fans are annoyed - compare the coverage and hostility towards Newcastle and City, who have either real connections to or overwhelming evidence of direct responsibility for wrongdoing. There should be no comparison, yet they are mentioned in the same breath, and I'd argue Chelsea have been vilified to a greater extent, an empty signifier for rival fans and lazy journalists for everything wrong in football (and the world, apparently).
I and many Chelsea fans would much prefer the club to be fan owned (and all clubs for that matter) but that's not currently an option.
After the previous video Tifo put out regarding Chelsea's dealings this is effectively a corrector, and massive props for them for going against the congregation with this video.
@wizardaka spot on and I have collected proof of this media bias from bbc sport etc. most real take I’ve seen. Other clubs don’t understand the basic bias against us despite the fact EVERY club has done something dodgy at one point or another
The dumbest aspect of this whole "bailing Chelsea out" is the fact that we lost money on practically every player we've let go to Saudi. All the money we've made selling players has come from Arsenal and United
Look at the players associated with Italy by comparison. Struggling to sell Lukaku, milan are lowballing for pulisic, RLC wasn't that much. There's no money there. Barca and real just pick up our players for free. German clubs don't spend much. So the choice is selling to potential rivals in England, as we have or find a different market with money.
Meanwhile saudi clubs can target our players as they're readily available for sale. There isn't any lingering hopes for most of them that they want to stay and fight for a place, meanwhile united or Liverpool have smaller squads, so their players think they could still stay and get some game time. The Chelsea players going there are older, so looking for one last paycheck, and Chelsea aren't exactly getting the best price for them. In a vacuum where Chelsea don't have to sell, have any sales been at market value? Possibly only mount due to the contract situation, but otherwise he's worth 80+. If rice and caicedo are the benchmark, 100m for youngish defensive midfielders who have never played in the champions League, attacking players of similar age, similar international experience and have scored and assisted in the champions League final to win it should be worth more 🤷🏻♂️
Tbh I think they just want to get rid of all the players around before January, as those January signings have pay deductions for not making the champions League and they want all the players to have this kind of contract so it doesn't seem unfair to those that do.
'Why didn't they use Newcastle? Because Newcastle weren't on the verge of being in breach of FFP. 'If players are sold way above they're market value it could be blocked by the FA' When has this ever happend? Players are routinely sold for way above their market value
I see what you did there Tifo.. before watching this I thought it was just a bit dodgy/convenient, now i'm convinced it's a conspiracy!
Watch some of Tifo’s reporting on Qatar, Saudi Arabia’s big regional rival, who they amongst went to war with, and you will see a completely different tone. The level of bias is palpable.
It’s a curious coincidence Tifo neglected to mention that both the Saudis and Bhoely both own significant shares in the The New York Times Company, which owns the The New York Times. Have a guess who owns the Athletic?
@@GuinessOriginal🤡🤡🤡🤡
Chelsea doesn't have bad players. Just because we had a bad season doesn't mean our players are bad. Other clubs know this and that is why they pay good price for our so called deadwood. I remember HITC made a fuss about our sale of Koulibaly. Kouli is a realy good player who had a bad season. His age, experience, reputation and religion make him the exact type of player desired by the Saudi clubs.
Name a good chelshit player
Your mother @davidchopin6583
@@davidchopin6583well, man city, arsenal, and manu bought chelsea's player,, maybe they will suffer next season
Why are you implying PIF is a maximum 5% private investor? Lots of equity funds will have investments from subsidiaries of parents companies that will change as the requirements (often for capital) change. The incestuous nature of these markets is one of the big things that came out from the Gamestop debacle, and it would take years to unravel the true origin of some of these funds.
People are really freaking out about Chelsea losing Kante for free, Koulibaly for almost half his transfer fee a year ago, and Mendy for a fair transfer fee. It seems to me that the uproar is more due to sensationalist reporting of bigger fees and possible transfers than the meager 2 transfers themselves.
You have proven without any doubt that there is no way Saudi's has offered a service to Chelsea (which potentially could have meant Chelsea would be in its books). Well done. Please cover as well the other nothing-sandwiches links between Gas reserves in Domas and an invation of Russia, and also this other laughable one about FIFA and Qatar.
They’ve done nothing of the sort
This must be sarcastic. It’s a convenient coincidence Tifo neglected to mention that both the Saudis and Bhoely both own significant shares in the The New York Times Company, which owns the The New York Times. Have a guess who owns the Athletic?
Kante was a free transfer, Mendy and kouibalys fee's are undisclosed
Given the value of some transfers (not necessary those referenced here) I can't believe that the vetting process is anything particularly stringent, especially as "market value" is something of a fallacy.
Haven't seen a video in a while but I very much prefer the 'Vox' style graphics that have been implemented. Great journalism regardless 👏👏
I don’t. It’s not great journalism at all. They neglected to mention that both the Saudis and Bhoely both own significant shares in the The New York Times Company, which owns the The New York Times. Have a guess who owns the Athletic?
@@GuinessOriginal Bias and influence aside it's good story telling. That's it. Subject or interest doesn't take away from how the qualitative properties have improved due to the alteration of Tifo's design aesthetic.
Is there any conspiracy for teams buying Havertz, Mount, and Kovacic?
it's £145M + 10M potential add ons. Lol. Great business
As long as both sides are willing, nothing wrong with that
@@johannng6767 it's great business until they start scoring against you
The fact that chelsea and Saudi have cornered the market on players and pushed prices through the roof
@@johannng6767Chelsea have turned into Dortmund, just interested in doing business and making money. Mid table is fine
Chelsea have still taken losses on every single sale that they've made to a Saudi team this pre season. Koulibaly went for 17, Chelsea spent 32mil this time past year. Ziyech was rumoured to go for 8mil before his injury, it's still a desperate act of business in my eyes to raise needed funds.
And?
It's business non the less
Question is, would Koulibaly be worth even 10 based on his season and age?
Same for Mendy.
I was gonna say... its not like Chelsea is getting over paid for these players. Good value for few, but overall they would have made about the same selling them in Europe, it just would have been harder/taken longer.
You do know that those players were on high wages and thus those high wages are off the books
Tifo would also like to thank Chelsea as their sponsor
Until I see actual evidence, I'm going to go with the conspiracy. Follow the money.
Boehly now buying CZcams channels
Funny you should say that. They neglected to mention that both the Saudis and Bhoely both own significant shares in the The New York Times Company, which owns the The New York Times. Have a guess who owns the Athletic?
I love that this flimsy Chelsea conspiracy is getting so much more media attention than the actual reality that Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar own Newcastoe, City, and PSG who have ruined our sport. I barely watch the EPL anymore because of the damage City has done.
WE AINT BUYING IT. Athletic have LOST CREDIBILITY
5:50 who determines "market value"?
I am wondering how much they've donated to Athletic for this BS.
Bingo. It’s a curious coincidence Tifo neglected to mention that both the Saudis and Bhoely both own significant shares in the The New York Times Company, which owns the The New York Times. Have a guess who owns the Athletic?
@@GuinessOriginal Who?
Really poor argument in my opinion. A key distinction between using Newcastle and Chelsea for Saudi deals is that Chelsea deadwood of Kante and Ziyech is a lot more attractive to fans that Newcastle's of Laschelles and Longstaff...
The market value point is meaningless in a league where Ngolo Kante cost 4.6 million in 2015, and Enzo Fernandez is £100m in 2022. There just isn't a meaningful benchmark value that can be applied across a whole league.
This video was co sponsored by oil money.
They forgot to put their advertisement.
If Barcelona or Man United sold their unwanted players to Saudi Arabia, they’d be called geniuses yet because it’s Chelsea, people automatically say it’s foul play 🤔
Didnt know about the clearlake funding side. I'm more curious about Newcastle avoiding ffp by loaning players from the PIF saudi league for favourable terms while the saudi league buys the players
Has that happened?
Exactly
Both the Saudis and Bhoely own significant shares in the The New York Times Company, which owns the The New York Times. Have a guess who owns the Athletic?
@@WS12658 not yet. City have done similar with signing frank lampard on loan from their US club
The sweet sweet sound of Joe Devine’s voice 😍
not an expert, but aren't the other investors with a maximum 5% likely investing somebody else's money? By extension can a single fund collect a bigger stake by these means?
You’re correct, this is exactly what happens. For example, there are 680 institutional investors’ owners and shareholders holdings in The New York Times Company, which amounts to a total of 166,740,586 shares, 91.82% of the total float. Among them are ClearBridge Investments LLC, who are owned by ClearLake. PIF also owns shares in a large number of the other institutional investors owners companies, giving them a substantial portion of the shares in the NYT company and considerable sway on board appointments and a direct line to them.
It’s a curious and convenient coincidence Tifo forgot to mention that both the Saudis and Bhoely both own significant shares in the The New York Times Company, which owns the The New York Times. Have a guess who owns the Athletic?
@@GuinessOriginal seems kind of obvious
Damn, they've even paid off the Athletic 💀
As of 07 July 23 only three Chelsea players have moved to the Saudi League. Koulibaly, Mendy, and Kante.
Koulibaly and Mendy were sold at a loss for a total of around €40M including addons (loss of around €20M).
Kanté was out of contract in June 2023 and left on a free transfer.
In the meantime, Rúben Neves has been sold by Wolves to Al-Hilal of the Saudi League for a fee of over €50M, which is more than the combined fees paid for the two Chelsea players.
It would have been useful if Tifo had actually put some actual facts and figures in this video instead of 7 minutes of vagueness.
They weren’t sold for a loss, they were sold for less than they were bought for
Hakim ziyech also
the more important part is that we got 3 high earners off the wage bill. that is more important than the fees
@@ajmalabdulla2147 Hakim Ziyech is still at Chelsea.
@@zigzacpaddywhack4212 If they were sold for more than what was paid, it would be a profit... As they were still under contract, Chelsea didn't recoup what they paid... it's a loss. Koulibaly was only signed on a 4 year contract in summer 2022 from Napoli for a fee of over €35M, and sold this summer for a fee less than €25M... definitely a loss.
This conspiracy was born out of jealousy by rivals, nothing else. Already waiting for the next conspiracy theory of Chelsea x AC Milan.
It’s a curious coincidence Tifo neglected to mention that both the Saudis and Bhoely both own significant shares in the The New York Times Company, which owns the The New York Times. Have a guess who owns the Athletic?
@@GuinessOriginal Ah what a surprise, world businesses are connected.
PIF literally own a club in England in the Premier League. This is nothing new in football. UAE owns City, United might be soon be by Qatar. If we just go by connections.
General partner and limited partner linking up is supposed to be beneficial for both. Just business as usual.
Not especially convinced by this. You lay out all the information clearly, but I don't feel especially convinced as to why it wouldn't be advantageous for Clearlake to use that inside connection to PIF (and vice versa) to their benefit.
I feel like the crux of the argument in this video is that they aren't a significant shareholder or investor, so it's not such a smoking gun. Regardless of PIF's contributions to Clearlake's reserves, I don't see why that would mean there's *no* incentive or cause for both parties to support each other's interests.
You’re spot on. It’s a curious and convenient coincidence Tifo neglected to mention that both the Saudis and Bhoely both own significant shares in the The New York Times Company, which owns the The New York Times. Have a guess who owns the Athletic?
If you watch some of Tifo’s reporting on Qatar, Saudi Arabia’s big regional rival, who they almost went to war with, you will see a completely different tone. The level of bias is palpable.
Worst Tifo Football video ever... or is it "sponsored" by Chelsea? 😅