Roman Abramovich Thread

[Vesper 29,019]

49 minutes ago, Alabama said:

How about Caglar Soyuncu...

Alexandria Bastoni is my preferred option but difficult a deal to pull...

 Soyuncu has been shambolic all year, he himself admits he has been very poor

and yes, Bastoni is great, but no chance, he said no way he wants to leave Inter and Italy in general

great Italian CB's are insanely hard to prise away from good Italian teams

[Vesper 29,019]

Bank to cut down shortlist of preferred Chelsea bidders to three from field of more than 100

At least one Chelsea bid ‘matches Abramovich’s valuation of £3bn’

https://archive.ph/EN26M#selection-765.0-769.65

The field for the race to buy Chelsea will be reduced to no more than three preferred bidders by early next week, according to sources close to the process.

 

The New York bank appointed by Roman Abramovich to find a new owner set a deadline of Friday for bids, with more than 100 parties said to be interested in acquiring the European and Club World Cup champions.

 

The government is understood to have advised Chelsea that the quickest way of achieving a sale is for Abramovich to agree that the proceeds of the sale will be put into a frozen third-party or escrow account before it is distributed to good causes. That would help accelerate approval for a special sale licence once it has been submitted by the club. Abramovich had previously committed to donating the proceeds to help the victims of the war in Ukraine but as a result of his sanctioning he would not be able to have any influence over the destination of the money.

 

Several consortiums have been enlisting high-profile Chelsea fans to back their bids.

 

It was confirmed that Michael Klein, a prominent American investment banker, and Creative Artists Agency, the US talent management agency, are behind a bid being fronted by Lord Coe and Sir Martin Broughton, the former chairman of British Airways who was briefly the chairman of Liverpool before brokering the Fenway takeover at Anfield in 2010.

 

The Ricketts family, who own the Chicago Cubs baseball team, are also considered serious contenders given the wealth of their bid partner, Kenneth Griffin. The American fund manager has a personal fortune of more than £20 billion.

 

But some insiders still believe that the consortium comprising the LA Dodgers co-owner Todd Boehly, the London property tycoon Jonathan Goldstein and the Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss remains a leading bid.

 

They have had their ownership proposal in place for some time, having expressed an interest in buying Chelsea in the past and have already tabled a bid approaching £2.5 billion.

 

Sources claim at least one bidder has matched Abramovich’s valuation of £3 billion, but the Boehly group believe that their stewardship of the Dodgers and their expertise in property development — given the need to rebuild Stamford Bridge — makes them an attractive proposition.

 

On Thursday they added a former UK government adviser and a celebrity PR executive to their consortium, with Danny Finkelstein and Barbara Charone to become non-executive board directors if they are successful.

 

Finkelstein, a lifelong Chelsea fan, is a columnist at The Times who was part of the working group that advised Tracey Crouch MP on her fan-led review of English football. In the past he has also provided advice to Conservative prime ministers John Major, David Cameron and Theresa May.

 

Charone is a legendary figure in the field of music PR, having worked with Madonna, Keith Richards, Rod Stewart and Depeche Mode. American-born, she moved to London in the 1970s and has supported Chelsea “religiously” since 1979.

 

In a statement Finkelstein said: “I am delighted to be part of the Todd Boehly consortium seeking to buy Chelsea FC. These are smart guys, who don’t just have the money to invest, they get how to use it. They understand about data and they understand about fans. I’m really excited about the plans for fan involvement, which I believe in strongly. I want Chelsea to be pioneers.

 

“I’m passionate about Chelsea to the point of eccentricity. I want owners who will invest but are also insightful and use modern methods to keep our club on top of the world.

 

“This is a bid from fervent sports fans, really successful backers of champions. Just look at the LA Dodgers: what they have invested and what they have won.”

 

Another potential bidder for Chelsea emerged with Aethel Partners, a London-based investment firm, claiming it has registered a bid of more than £2 billion. It said its blueprint for the club would be to keep the management in place and to commit £50 million in short-term financing to keep the club solvent.

 

A spokesman said Aethel Partners would build a new stadium on the Stamford Bridge site and is committed to improving the women’s team and the club’s community links. It is unclear what the source of the funding would be as Aethel Partners’ most recent accounts stated it had assets of £193,000, but the spokesman said it owned the rights to an iron ore mine in Portugal.

 

Meanwhile, the Arsenal Supporters’ Trust (AST) has backed the Chelsea fans’ trust in calling for supporters to be given shares in the club.

 

Tim Payton of the AST said: “The football world will be watching how the government proceeds. It can send an important statement of intent to fans of every club, and how it will proceed with implementing the fan-led review of football governance, by demonstrating that football really is the people’s game.

 

“Football clubs are far too important to be owned by any one person or entity, be it a nation state, oligarch or profit-seeking investor.”

[Superblue 6,372]

6 hours ago, Vesper said:

and now these motherfuckers!

Premier League clubs question Chelsea's unfair advantage if Roman Abramovich writes off debt

Premier League rivals have raised concerns that Chelsea could benefit from having their £1.5billion debt to Roman Abramovich written off if the club finds new owners

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/premier-league-Chelsea-abramovich-debt-26476121

Premier League clubs have questioned whether Chelsea would receive an 'unfair advantage' if owner Roman Abramovich writes off his £1.5billion debt in a potential takeover.

I don't understand how this is even a topic of conversation?

One of the bigger reasons for Chelsea's high valuation will be the position of zero debt. Put the £1.5bn debt back into play and the club would probably be valued then at £800 - 1bn instead because of that.

The fact that the club will be bought for a much higher price than Roman's loans makes this completely pointless. Either Roman could convert the loan to equity, before the purchase or the purchase could be structured as £1.5bn is to pay off the loans and the remainder for the club. It's no different to a small UK company having an owner with directors loans and then selling their business. Part of the sale will likely form part of those directors loans.

The club has been compliant with FFP requirements since their introduction too so it's not like Roman's loans have created an advantage with regards to FFP requirements.

It's such a nonsense assumption within the purchase.

[Vesper 29,019]

10 minutes ago, Superblue_1986 said:

I don't understand how this is even a topic of conversation?

One of the bigger reasons for Chelsea's high valuation will be the position of zero debt. Put the £1.5bn debt back into play and the club would probably be valued then at £800 - 1bn instead because of that.

The fact that the club will be bought for a much higher price than Roman's loans makes this completely pointless. Either Roman could convert the loan to equity, before the purchase or the purchase could be structured as £1.5bn is to pay off the loans and the remainder for the club. It's no different to a small UK company having an owner with directors loans and then selling their business. Part of the sale will likely form part of those directors loans.

The club has been compliant with FFP requirements since their introduction too so it's not like Roman's loans have created an advantage with regards to FFP requirements.

It's such a nonsense assumption within the purchase.

it is why I started raging as soon as I saw it

it is utter bollocks, but I guarantee the crusaders will go on the attack

saw a bunch of interviews with fans at multiple games

I would say 60, 70% of the non Chels fans want us relegated down to League 1 and banned from topflight for 5 years

the worst were Arsenal, over half said just wind us down, straight into liquidation after this season

Brighton were bad too, they were along the same lines

Edited March 18, 2022 by Vesper

[MoroccanBlue 5,318]

Screaming similarities to the transfer ban. 

Neutrals were laughing and mocking at our expense, to being outraged we will ultimately benefit from our "expense". 

Mugs. 

[Superblue 6,372]

11 minutes ago, Vesper said:

it is why I started raging as soon as I saw it

it is utter bollocks, but I guarantee the crusaders will go on the attack

saw a bunch of interviews with fans at multiple games

I would say 60, 70% of the non Chels fans want us relegated down to League 1 and banned from topflight for 5 years

the worst were Arsenal, over half said just wind us down, straight into liquidation after this season

Brighton were bad too, they were along the same lines

The irony of Arsenal fans who were begging Usmanov to buy the club from Kroenke a few years back.

It's just proof that no matter how righteous you think you're football club is in arguments such as this, everything boils down to wanting to see your club be as successful as possible.

[Vesper 29,019]

it is MADNESS to think that the bids for the club (as we have a 2 billion quid stadium expense immediately coming up) would be in the 4 to 4.5 billion quid range IF there was no debt against the club

no one is going to pay close to £6 to 6.5 billion for Chelsea ( £2.5 billon to £3 billion for the club, THEN pay £1.5 billion back for the loans PLUS £2 billion on the stadium

the way inflation is rocketing that is between 8 and 9 BILLION USD

that is MADNESS to think yanks are going to drop that kind of dosh, unless you are talking Musk or Gates or Bezos level wealth

[Superblue 6,372]

11 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

Screaming similarities to the transfer ban. 

Neutrals were laughing and mocking at our expense, to being outraged we will ultimately benefit from our "expense". 

Mugs. 

I would be surprised to see any of these potential new owners coming in and being as ruthless as Roman was with regards to managers. I would imagine they'd want a bit more stability and possibly be willing to give more time and patience.

The ironic thing with this if it were to happen is we probably are in the best position that we've ever been during Roman's tenure to thrive on such stability with Tuchel and a large contingent of young talent and academy players coming through into the squad.

[milka 3,353]

The takeover of Chelsea will be the most expensive in the history of the sport

[Vesper 29,019]

22 minutes ago, milka said:

The takeover of Chelsea will be the most expensive in the history of the sport

[Fernando 6,484]

58 minutes ago, Vesper said:

it is MADNESS to think that the bids for the club (as we have a 2 billion quid stadium expense immediately coming up) would be in the 4 to 4.5 billion quid range IF there was no debt against the club

no one is going to pay close to £6 to 6.5 billion for Chelsea ( £2.5 billon to £3 billion for the club, THEN pay £1.5 billion back for the loans PLUS £2 billion on the stadium

the way inflation is rocketing that is between 8 and 9 BILLION USD

that is MADNESS to think yanks are going to drop that kind of dosh, unless you are talking Musk or Gates or Bezos level wealth

But the problem I have is that some might want to do the same as the Glazrers. Want to get profit to get their money back. 

But we are not yet a money making machine like United. Our Stadium is going to cost us. So why are those consortiums bidding. Unless they don't know the full account details of the club? 

[Vesper 29,019]

3 minutes ago, Fernando said:

But the problem I have is that some might want to do the same as the Glazrers. Want to get profit to get their money back. 

But we are not yet a money making machine like United. Our Stadium is going to cost us. So why are those consortiums bidding. Unless they don't know the full account details of the club? 

they are bidding what they are willing to pay

IF there was no drama and  we had THIS

£4.5 to £5 easy

[Fernando 6,484]

2 minutes ago, Vesper said:

they are bidding what they are willing to pay

IF there was no drama and  we had THIS

£4.5 to £5 easy

I think with the new owner it can still be done that stadium, but weather it's at the same place where we at is a whole different thing. 

We will have to see what happens in the future. 

[MoroccanBlue 5,318]

13 minutes ago, Fernando said:

But the problem I have is that some might want to do the same as the Glazrers. Want to get profit to get their money back. 

But we are not yet a money making machine like United. Our Stadium is going to cost us. So why are those consortiums bidding. Unless they don't know the full account details of the club? 

They know in order to do that, a new stadium is a must. They were given financial outlines and portfolios before submitting a bid. 

Personally think its between Boehly Wyss/Saudi Media Group. The latter want us to dominate football and the former, although American, Boehly does have the understanding of how to build a successful team. 

[Fernando 6,484]

Just now, MoroccanBlue said:

They know in order to do that, a new stadium is a must. They were given financial outlines and portfolios before submitting a bid. 

Personally think its between Boehly Wyss/Saudi Media Group. The latter want us to dominate football and the former, although American, Boehly does have the understanding of how to build a successful team. 

I'm curious with this Saudi Group. They state that they are not link to the Saudi government. 

Where the money from that group is coming? 

If they are richer then Roman then I'm all for it. 

[Vesper 29,019]

Just now, Fernando said:

I think with the new owner it can still be done that stadium, but weather it's at the same place where we at is a whole different thing. 

We will have to see what happens in the future. 

it will be at the same location

as the CPO will never let the club leave

we would have to change the name, make a brand new company

[Fernando 6,484]

Just now, Vesper said:

it will be at the same location

as the CPO will never let the club leave

we would have to change the name, make a brand new company

CPO yes I remember was a pain. But in reality the place where Chelsea is at is one of the best area. 

So if want to keep Chelsea at the same prestigious place then it will cost. 

Thus in reality that CPO stubbornness has been good for us and any future buyers in keeping the club at a key area. Just that will cost more as to in other place, but that is the sacrifice that must be done. 

[MoroccanBlue 5,318]

2 minutes ago, Fernando said:

I'm curious with this Saudi Group. They state that they are not link to the Saudi government. 

Where the money from that group is coming? 

If they are richer then Roman then I'm all for it. 

There at the very least have to be some indirect ties to the state. 

They are a consortium as well, with other private investors/organizations included in the bid.