Roman Abramovich Thread

[Blues Forever 1,232]

Just now, MoroccanBlue said:

Did Boehly Wyss state they will reinstate Rudiger's contract, buy Haaland, Build new stadium, etc, etc?

Didn't Law leaked Boehly intend the club to be more self sustaining and has a plan for a new stadium. Wyss also leaked he doesn't really care about football and dislike Roman. 

[OhForAGreavsie 5,898]

1 hour ago, cosmicway said:

When communism was toppled the major Soviet industries were denationalized, a la Thatcher between 1979-1990.

As is commonly known.

 

1 hour ago, cosmicway said:

So Abramovitch and others who had some money bought them but at a highly reduced price than what would be normal.

In fact the bulk of the money Roman used to fund his purchase came from a $100m bank loan comfortably secured on the shares he would be purchasing.

1 hour ago, cosmicway said:

I don't know why Yeltsin accepted this but he did it.

Yeltsin wanted to transition Russia's economy away from the planned soviet model towards a market driven capitalist system. This required: -

1. Moving ownership of the means of production out of public hands into private ones.
2. Creating wealthy individuals 'overnight' with money to invest and kick start the new market economy.
3. Ensure, as far as possible, that these newly created capitalists knew to whom they should be grateful and that they would use their wealth to back him.   

1 hour ago, cosmicway said:

Among them there are I suppose all sorts of different opinions: Proinvasion, neutral and against.
Abramovitch looks like neutral.

When Putin ousted Yeltsin, Roman had the good sense to switch his allegiance. Those that did not found themselves being stripped of their wealth. Some tried to take Putin on, some tried to run and hide but, whether he served as President or Prime minister, Putin had gathered the leavers of power into his hands and taking him on was not a successful strategy. Roman just went with the flow.

 

1 hour ago, cosmicway said:

The Italian Gazzeta dello Sport  says that teams targeted by the sanctions besides Chelsea are Monaco, the Dutch Vitesse and PAOK Salonika is a question mark according to them. Also Bournemouth's Maxim Denim appears to be outside the scope of the sanctions.

Vitesse because of the links with Roman/CFC perhaps. I'm not sure of the status of that relationship now or if it still exists at all. I vaguely remember that a few years back uefa tightened the regulations and that the ties had to be rowed back as a result.

 

1 hour ago, cosmicway said:

I don't know if we had German oligarchs operating in UK-USA at the start of world war II and what happened then.

At the start of the war the UK government took a pretty bizarre view of things. They refused to bomb privately owned factories because they were not organs of the German state. That didn't last but it wasn't entirely without some thinking behind it. The hope was to divorce the German people, a majority of whom always voted against the Nazis after all*, from the regime. They aimed to send the message, "We're against Hitler, not against you." In hindsight it was a naïve policy but there was some method in the madness. 

More generally, there was some internment of German nationals but this was not limited to wealthy or connected individuals only. If you were German you were liable to detention and that was perhaps understandable. The nations were at war after all. 

Edited March 12, 2022 by OhForAGreavsie

[ZAPHOD2319 4,517]

1 hour ago, MoroccanBlue said:

What successful consortiums have there been?

The one that owns Liverpool.

[Pizy 18,417]

Would be pretty hilarious from a narrative POV if after all the doom and gloom about us being liquidated or entering administration a Saudi group that’s even wealthier than Roman swoops in and buys us. But the government can’t suddenly say no to this group mere months after approving of Newcastle, surely?

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[OhForAGreavsie 5,898]

35 minutes ago, Blue Armour said:

Them...Carragher...Rio...

Fuck. I hate that whole Pool/United ex player posse that rules football media in England.

On the other hand, I'm also glad that none of our big guns became a pundit. 

Imagine having your ex player and legend talking shit about their former clubs performances. 

Emma Hayes won pundit of the year a week/ten days ago.

Edited March 12, 2022 by OhForAGreavsie

[OhForAGreavsie 5,898]

1 hour ago, milka said:

bought Chelsea for £140m spent billions sold for free and left us as the kings of the world debt free. Proper Chels.

Whoever created that cartoon needs to gen up on their history. 🙂

[Blues Forever 1,232]

6 minutes ago, Pizy said:

Would be pretty hilarious from a narrative POV if after all the doom and gloom about us being liquidated or entering administration a Saudi group that’s even wealthier than Roman swoops in and buys us. But the government can’t suddenly say no to this group mere months after approving of Newcastle, surely?

The Saudi Media are less wealthy than Roman.

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[Laylabelle 9,381]

6 minutes ago, Blues Forever said:

 

Expected....have Nike said anything yet offical cause there's been a lot of conflicting reports.. do wonder if he hadn't been sanctioned if sponsors still would've taken action.

Hopefully this mess soon be a distant memory..before becomes more of a mess

Edited March 12, 2022 by Laylabelle

[xPetrCechx 13,563]

7 minutes ago, Blues Forever said:

 

🤮

[xPetrCechx 13,563]

5 minutes ago, Laylabelle said:

Expected....have Nike said anything yet cause know before they were silent.. 

 

[Pizy 18,417]

It seems so shortsighted and plain dumb for companies to “suspend” their sponsorships when the process of finding a new owner will maybe take a couple of weeks. What’s the point? Chelsea FC, the actual football club, haven’t done anything to bring these companies’ reputation down. So other than a phony publicity stunt I don’t see what it accomplishes.

Any and all sponsors that jump ship during this period should never be allowed to come groveling back once things are sorted.

[cosmicway 1,333]

1 minute ago, Pizy said:

It seems so shortsighted and plain dumb for companies to “suspend” their sponsorships when the process of finding a new owner will maybe take a couple of weeks. What’s the point? Chelsea FC, the actual football club, haven’t done anything to bring these companies’ reputation down. So other than a phony publicity stunt I don’t see what it accomplishes.

Any and all sponsors that jump ship during this period should never be allowed to come groveling back once things are sorted.

Maybe they believe we hide some weapons.

[MoroccanBlue 5,318]

5 minutes ago, Pizy said:

It seems so shortsighted and plain dumb for companies to “suspend” their sponsorships when the process of finding a new owner will maybe take a couple of weeks. What’s the point? Chelsea FC, the actual football club, haven’t done anything to bring these companies’ reputation down. So other than a phony publicity stunt I don’t see what it accomplishes.

Any and all sponsors that jump ship during this period should never be allowed to come groveling back once things are sorted.

Very reactionary. They are risking future business by doing so. 
 

Hope we fuck Three right off once this is sorted. 

[Superblue 6,372]

19 minutes ago, Blues Forever said:

 

The same Hyundai which were one of FIFA's main sponsors for the world cup in Russia and are currently again one of the main and proud FIFA sponsors for the Qatar world cup.

It's hypocrisy more than anything. I don't think anyone will complain about the likes of Trivago and Nike remaining committed on the basis that clearly the club will be changing ownership very soon, so will just keep monitoring developments for now. 

Will be interesting to know what the position of Chelsea is or can be once everything is sorted. Can the club veto out of these deals with Three and Hyundai and arrange new sponsorships?

[MoroccanBlue 5,318]

7 minutes ago, Superblue_1986 said:

The same Hyundai which were one of FIFA's main sponsors for the world cup in Russia and are currently again one of the main and proud FIFA sponsors for the Qatar world cup.

It's hypocrisy more than anything. I don't think anyone will complain about the likes of Trivago and Nike remaining committed on the basis that clearly the club will be changing ownership very soon, so will just keep monitoring developments for now. 

Will be interesting to know what the position of Chelsea is or can be once everything is sorted. Can the club veto out of these deals with Three and Hyundai and arrange new sponsorships?

 

9 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

Very reactionary. They are risking future business by doing so. 
 

Hope we fuck Three right off once this is sorted. 

Add Hyundai. 

[Superblue 6,372]

I see Hyundai are going the same way as Three on Trust Pilot