Jump to content

Roman Abramovich Thread


 Share

Recommended Posts

He does this with his twitter account when something big is for sale. It should be a clue that he would say the Turkish flag will be flying over London soon. What owner wants to alienate the fan base before he even buys the team? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/MailSport/status/1501339505806102529

EXCL: British tycoon Nick Candy to submit a £2.5billion bid to buy Chelsea by the end of THIS WEEK | @MattHughesDM https://t.co/oCIDC37i6s

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10591763/British-property-developer-Nick-Candy-working-2-5bn-bid-takeover-Chelsea.html

 

 

 

Edited by KEVINAA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ZAPHOD2319 said:

He does this with his twitter account when something big is for sale. It should be a clue that he would say the Turkish flag will be flying over London soon. What owner wants to alienate the fan base before he even buys the team? 

He is a Turkish nationalist, they suck big time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dream of course is to get the second coming of Roman and keep the last 20 years going as normal.

In reality though with a lot of the 'leaks' of people interested it does look more likely it'll be a consortium situation.

The Nick Candy one is interesting. As he's a huge Chelsea fan, there would be potential question marks over rational thinking compared to an emotional decision when you're that passionate and invested into something but he has a track record of being a hugely successful businessman so I wouldn't be too worried about this. 

His net worth isn't too high so not sure what his position of influence would be within a consortium, but if he was going to be given the reigns as the chief decision maker for the club then I would be intrigued how this would work and would be more inclined to prefer this to one of the American bidders, purely based on their track record with other Premier League clubs.

Without Roman, the long term future of the club keeping revenues at a level to match other top teams means the stadium has to be a priority and a decision has to be made on it sooner rather than later. The fact that this bid seems to suggest that it includes a longer term plan in place for the stadium, etc also intrigues me as whilst I'm sure all suitors will have considerations and plans for the stadium, this is the first one suggested where there might actually already be some strategy planned for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Superblue_1986 said:

The dream of course is to get the second coming of Roman and keep the last 20 years going as normal.

In reality though with a lot of the 'leaks' of people interested it does look more likely it'll be a consortium situation.

The Nick Candy one is interesting. As he's a huge Chelsea fan, there would be potential question marks over rational thinking compared to an emotional decision when you're that passionate and invested into something but he has a track record of being a hugely successful businessman so I wouldn't be too worried about this. 

His net worth isn't too high so not sure what his position of influence would be within a consortium, but if he was going to be given the reigns as the chief decision maker for the club then I would be intrigued how this would work and would be more inclined to prefer this to one of the American bidders, purely based on their track record with other Premier League clubs.

Without Roman, the long term future of the club keeping revenues at a level to match other top teams means the stadium has to be a priority and a decision has to be made on it sooner rather than later. The fact that this bid seems to suggest that it includes a longer term plan in place for the stadium, etc also intrigues me as whilst I'm sure all suitors will have considerations and plans for the stadium, this is the first one suggested where there might actually already be some strategy planned for it.

Are the gate receipts so high that we need a new stadium to accomodate all ?
I don't know. Back in the early sixties when there was a derby match I used to hear things like "30,000 spectators in - 200,000 out" or "if we had the Maracana it would still be 200,000 locked out".
But nowadays teams settle for new stadiums of barely 30,000 capacity and they also think very highly of those new 30,000 stadiums. We do of course have television and internet now.
Why do you think a big stadium with 80,000-100,000 seats is needed ?

Edited by cosmicway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

Are the gate receipts so high that we need a new stadium to accomodate all ?
I don't know. Back in the early sixties when there was a derby match I used to hear things like "30,000 spectators in - 200,000 out" or "if we had the Maracana it would still be 200,000 locked out".
But nowadays teams settle for new stadiums of barely 30,000 capacity and they also think very highly of those new 30,000 stadiums. We do of course have television and internet now.
Why do you think a big stadium with 80,000-100,000 seats is needed ?

Because the matchday revenue figure is where we fall behind and without Roman to cover shortfall, we need it to drive revenues.

From what I've read in a non-covid situation, our matchday revenue falls between £65-75m depending on number of games, etc. United pretty much double us, and Spurs are expecting to be somewhere around £130-150m a year, particularly as they are looking to partner and push their stadium as a venue for other big events. No big clubs will settle for a 30k seater stadium. You might get a Championship side or very low end Prem side looking at such a capacity because it fits into their profile given their support size and the costs will be much lower to deal with. Our capacity is too small, plain and simple.

Long term for us to be able to compete without Roman, the stadium feels an essential requirement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following on from my above point, I hate to give them any form of credit but Spurs are currently finding opportunities to really drive stadium revenues from other ventures away from their football club. 

I know the London area is saturated when you also have the likes of Wembley, Emirates, London Stadium) but let's all be honest if we can get the stadium right, especially given the location, it should be THE stadium sought out across the UK as a venue for events. 

I have no issues 'prostituting' the stadium so long as it doesn't (1) impact on the football pitch, and (2) helps pay off any stadium debts quicker and drive revenues for the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • 0 members are here!

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

talk chelse forums

We get it, advertisements are annoying!
Talk Chelsea relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online because over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this website and help us by switching your ad blocker off.

KTBFFH
Thank You