Roman Abramovich Thread

[kiwi1691 255]

Quote

Roman Abramovich has been looking to sell Chelsea for a few months because of financial problems. Pini Zahavi has the sales mandate of the club. In early September, a meeting with Paul Allen owner of the Portland Blazers NBA franchise was held in New York.

 

Paul Allen has a net worth of 20.5 billion USD

https://www.forbes.com/profile/paul-allen/#4bf2854f4417

He already owns the Portland Trail Blazers, Seattle Seahawks, Seattle Sounders FC. Apparently he is considered a good owner. 

[Unionjack 7,531]

18 minutes ago, kiwi1691 said:

 

Paul Allen has a net worth of 20.5 billion USD

https://www.forbes.com/profile/paul-allen/#4bf2854f4417

He already owns the Portland Trail Blazers, Seattle Seahawks, Seattle Sounders FC. Apparently he is considered a good owner. 

Well hes got more money than Jim and twice as much as Roman.

[quickpassnmove 924]

On 9/17/2018 at 10:52 AM, Vesper said:

LOLOLOL

funny thing how empiric war mongers get called patriots, and anti-war pols get call called traitors

as for being a 'stupid' leftist, I suppose I am, as at my income level I should be a full stop Austrian schooler, or a Tory rentier income leach

damn shame I had the greed gene bred out of me

my politics are far too diverse to fit into a simplistic left/right paradigm anyway

 

Someone has surely written a good essay on the unique brand of antagonistic, cynical, and frequently anti-solidarity culture of the English and the Americans (as opposed to unity, solidarity, fraternity, acceptance, true eclecticism, etc.).

Maybe the only things that create solidarity among those on the right (because they would also kill one another within their own right wing tribe) are hate, fascism, xenophobia,  machismo (toxic masculinity, chauvinism), and defense of patriarchal society on the verge of loss and powerlessness (esp. among white men).

[the wes 7,212]

Who is Paul Allen? Billionaire Seattle Seahawks owner emerging as candidate to buy Chelsea from Roman Abramovich

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/who-paul-allen-seattle-seahawks-13323782

[Vybzkartel 284]

2 hours ago, the wes said:

Who is Paul Allen? Billionaire Seattle Seahawks owner emerging as candidate to buy Chelsea from Roman Abramovich

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/who-paul-allen-seattle-seahawks-13323782

American owners are the worst kind of owners just look at United, Liverpool and Roma. We would never win another title if he bought the club. 

[Vesper 28,768]

36 minutes ago, Vybzkartel said:

We would never win another title if he bought the club. 

LOLO

Simply because of the owner's nationality??

Purest logical fallacy (uses both Petitio principii and post hoc ergo propter in this case) I have seen in ages

 

 

[the wes 7,212]

A second meeting was held between Abramovich and Allen's lawyer in Cyprus a few days ago

[Vybzkartel 284]

On 9/28/2018 at 2:47 PM, Vesper said:

LOLO

Simply because of the owner's nationality??

Purest logical fallacy (uses both Petitio principii and post hoc ergo propter in this case) I have seen in ages

 

 

Yes, their business objectives are diffrent to other owners like Sheik Mansour, Roman Ambramovich and Qatar royal prince. All of them do not mind losing money because its more a vanity project than investment portfolio. Like I said look at Aston Villa, Sunderland, Roma, Liverpool and United those are good case studies of what happens with American owners

[Vesper 28,768]

39 minutes ago, Vybzkartel said:

Yes, their business objectives are diffrent to other owners like Sheik Mansour, Roman Ambramovich and Qatar royal prince. All of them do not mind losing money because its more a vanity project than investment portfolio. Like I said look at Aston Villa, Sunderland, Roma, Liverpool and United those are good case studies of what happens with American owners

That's literally the logical fallacy I mean, petitio principii (begging the question), where you assume the conclusion, plus (and even more to the point) post hoc ergo propter ,where you falsely assume that because some yanks have been cheap in the past, that makes ALL yanks cheap. 

It a false equivalency-based broad generalisation.

 

There are plenty of cheap Arab owners, Asian owners (ask my Baggie friend about those!, lol), etc, to show that just because a person from that background spends freely (like Shitty ownership) does not mean all will. Same for yanks being cheap (AC Milan new owners are an American hedge fund, and they have opened up the pocket book) Paul Allen owns multiple sports teams,and has never shown a tight purse.

 

Also, other than the first 2 years (2003-2005) Roman has NOT been a big net spender.

here is our net spending under Roman

Transfer spending under Abramovich (net)

2003-04: £151.4m
2004-05: £146.8m

NO MORE BIG SPENDING

2005-06: £51.7m
2006-07: £32.2m
2007-08: £13.8m

2008-09: £12.7m PROFIT
2009-10: £23.6m
2010-11: £94.5m

here is the last 8 years

2011-12: £57.7m
2012-13: £75.8m

2013-14  £47.6m

2014-15  £6.4m PROFIT

2015-16  £2.7m

2016-17  £21.9m

2017-18 £54.1m

2018-19 £75.1m 

total

£328.5 for the last 8 years (365.8m euros)

that's almost a BILLION LESS than the article https://www.talkchelsea.net/news/chelseas-spending-since-2010-has-been-revealed-and-its-ridiculous/ states, the article is tosh clickbait

£41.1m per year net spend on average the last 8 years

 

total £829.8 m over 16 year time frame that Abramovich has owned us 

works out to around £51.9m NET per year

36% of ALL money net spent was in the first 2 years

take away those first  2 years

the average net spend over last 14 seasons (per year) is £37.8m 

[Vybzkartel 284]

6 hours ago, Vesper said:

That's literally the logical fallacy I mean, petitio principii (begging the question), where you assume the conclusion, plus (and even more to the point) post hoc ergo propter ,where you falsely assume that because some yanks have been cheap in the past, that makes ALL yanks cheap. 

It a false equivalency-based broad generalisation.

 

There are plenty of cheap Arab owners, Asian owners (ask my Baggie friend about those!, lol), etc, to show that just because a person from that background spends freely (like Shitty ownership) does not mean all will. Same for yanks being cheap (AC Milan new owners are an American hedge fund, and they have opened up the pocket book) Paul Allen owns multiple sports teams,and has never shown a tight purse.

 

Also, other than the first 2 years (2003-2005) Roman has NOT been a big net spender.

here is our net spending under Roman

Transfer spending under Abramovich (net)

2003-04: £151.4m
2004-05: £146.8m

NO MORE BIG SPENDING

2005-06: £51.7m
2006-07: £32.2m
2007-08: £13.8m

2008-09: £12.7m PROFIT
2009-10: £23.6m
2010-11: £94.5m

here is the last 8 years

2011-12: £57.7m
2012-13: £75.8m

2013-14  £47.6m

2014-15  £6.4m PROFIT

2015-16  £2.7m

2016-17  £21.9m

2017-18 £54.1m

2018-19 £75.1m 

total

£328.5 for the last 8 years (365.8m euros)

that's almost a BILLION LESS than the article https://www.talkchelsea.net/news/chelseas-spending-since-2010-has-been-revealed-and-its-ridiculous/ states, the article is tosh clickbait

£41.1m per year net spend on average the last 8 years

 

total £829.8 m over 16 year time frame that Abramovich has owned us 

works out to around £51.9m NET per year

36% of ALL money net spent was in the first 2 years

take away those first  2 years

the average net spend over last 14 seasons (per year) is £37.8m 

This is not true, Roman puts in money each year into the club, since 2003 we have made a profit once. We have consitently run one of the highest wage bills in England and are always top 3 net spend. No American owner would rn that kind of business. Anyway just look at the Seattle Seahawks (a team Paul Allen owns), they have refused to pay their top talents like Earl Thomas because the owner is profit motivated, Even his other team the Portland Trail Blazers has been average over the years and refuses to pay big for free agents in basketball. Roman is a football fan's dream many fans would bit to have a owner like him. 

[Vesper 28,768]

57 minutes ago, Vybzkartel said:

This is not true, Roman puts in money each year into the club, since 2003 we have made a profit once. We have consitently run one of the highest wage bills in England and are always top 3 net spend. No American owner would rn that kind of business. Anyway just look at the Seattle Seahawks (a team Paul Allen owns), they have refused to pay their top talents like Earl Thomas because the owner is profit motivated, Even his other team the Portland Trail Blazers has been average over the years and refuses to pay big for free agents in basketball. Roman is a football fan's dream many fans would bit to have a owner like him. 

Show me a link with all inflows and outflows that shows where we are top 3 net spend in the world overall since Roman bought us. We do have a very high wage bill but have tremendous inflows from sponsorships, the EPL itself including massive television revenues), CL and EL payouts in the years we are in those competitions, as well as our huge loan army. In terms of the stadium, now that he pulled the plug on a new one, that is another huge expense he will not incur, granted countered by a huge loss of speculative revenue that SB doesn't generate due to its smaller size and lack of luxury boxes to a modern level.

Also, I must add, I am not that big a fan of Paul Allen buying us. Would much rather Jim Ratcliffe or another billionaire whose main passion is football. Or, my fantasy owner, Mr 170 billion usd net worth Bezos, lolol.

I am hugely pissed that Roman is being fucked about by the UK and US governments due to his massive Russian/Putin connections. He HAS been a dream of an owner for sure. But they seem bound and determined to ruin his British interests, unfortunately including CFC.

[blues.bridge 343]

10 hours ago, Vesper said:

Show me a link with all inflows and outflows that shows where we are top 3 net spend in the world overall since Roman bought us. We do have a very high wage bill but have tremendous inflows from sponsorships, the EPL itself including massive television revenues), CL and EL payouts in the years we are in those competitions, as well as our huge loan army. In terms of the stadium, now that he pulled the plug on a new one, that is another huge expense he will not incur, granted countered by a huge loss of speculative revenue that SB doesn't generate due to its smaller size and lack of luxury boxes to a modern level.

Also, I must add, I am not that big a fan of Paul Allen buying us. Would much rather Jim Ratcliffe or another billionaire whose main passion is football. Or, my fantasy owner, Mr 170 billion usd net worth Bezos, lolol.

I am hugely pissed that Roman is being fucked about by the UK and US governments due to his massive Russian/Putin connections. He HAS been a dream of an owner for sure. But they seem bound and determined to ruin his British interests, unfortunately including CFC.

Besoz? Hhahahaha  
Jim Ratcliffe looks great!  If Roman doesn't ask so much money, £3B is really too expansive and out of any market.
One right price would be around 1.5B and Ratcliffe has already offer 2.3B, Abramovich should have acepted!

[Fulham Broadway 16,831]

The new Cold War with Russia hotting up today..Netherlands, UK and US accusing them of all sorts of cyber hacking, with doubtless more sanctions.

Abramovich will probably be ''advised'' to ditch the UK assets

 

[quickpassnmove 924]

Don't know what to think of Paul Allen as an owner, but American sports club/team owners aren't all bad; the problem would probably be his lack of football history even though he's invested in the Seattle Sounders. However, the right kind of relationship with a rich owner is always just around the corner regardless of who it is; he could fall in love with Chelsea for a while and help with the new stadium project.

I think a new owner will mean continued investment in the club but also maybe a re-design of the new stadium(?). 

The big question is whether or not there is a shared vision for the future between owner(s) and the functioning organization even in the case of a dispassionate owner.

[It's too big 625]

30 minutes ago, quickpassnmove said:

Don't know what to think of Paul Allen as an owner, but American sports club/team owners aren't all bad; the problem would probably be his lack of football history even though he's invested in the Seattle Sounders. However, the right kind of relationship with a rich owner is always just around the corner regardless of who it is; he could fall in love with Chelsea for a while and help with the new stadium project.

I think a new owner will mean continued investment in the club but also maybe a re-design of the new stadium(?). 

The big question is whether or not there is a shared vision for the future between owner(s) and the functioning organization even in the case of a dispassionate owner.

Well Bruce Buck works at the club and most of the other staff will probably stay. Maybe Marina will leave, we don't know. These multi-Billionaires aren't idiots, they would bring in the experts. 

[Vesper 28,768]

Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen dead at 65

https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/15/17980912/paul-allen-microsoft-cofounder-dies-65

 

CROSS HIM OFF THE LIST OF POTENTIAL BUYERS

So strange he was trying to buy the team knowing he would soon be dead.

[11Drogba 2,000]

9 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen dead at 65

https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/15/17980912/paul-allen-microsoft-cofounder-dies-65

 

CROSS HIM OFF THE LIST OF POTENTIAL BUYERS

So strange he was trying to buy the team knowing he would soon be dead.

He had cancer but he beat it before and a few weeks ago he said that he was going beat it again. Sad that he couldn't.

[Vesper 28,768]

Just now, 11Drogba said:

He had cancer but he beat it before and a few weeks ago he said that he was going beat it again. Sad that he couldn't.

I still want Jim Ratcliffe to buy us.