Roman Abramovich Thread

[Pizy 18,928]

Mystery bidder is Bezos. 🤣

[ZAPHOD2319 4,819]

Obnoxiously wealthy people try to avoid the limelight. 

[Vesper 30,202]

theme song for waiting

 

[chelsea_4_eva 1,182]

Its Musk and our sponsor next season will be Tesla, fck 3 lol

[Blues Forever 1,232]

2 minutes ago, chelsea_4_eva said:

Its Musk and our sponsor next season will be Tesla, fck 3 lol

Or Space X🙃

[Superblue 6,372]

9 minutes ago, ZAPHOD2319 said:

You beat me by a minute! 
 

ooooo la la, the plot thickens.

There was talk at the end of last week, I think from a report in the Athletic, that somebody had made an offer who had access to one of the largest wealth reserves available so it would back that up.

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[Pizy 18,928]

Ricketts must have been mighty convincing in their sales pitch, sadly. Probably because of their experience with stadium renovation. 

Having the atmosphere and feeling around the club in a toxic state from day 1 under a new owner would just be depressing. Really hope these people choosing realize this.

[Magic Lamps 11,692]

If Musk was in it you bet he would  have told everyone and their dog a year ago

[Laylabelle 9,535]

17 minutes ago, Pizy said:

Ricketts must have been mighty convincing in their sales pitch, sadly. Probably because of their experience with stadium renovation. 

Having the atmosphere and feeling around the club in a toxic state from day 1 under a new owner would just be depressing. Really hope these people choosing realize this.

And rival fans are like muhahaha...

This better not happen but can easily see it heading that way! 

 

[Pizy 18,928]

So the fourth “mystery bidder” is Steven Pagliuca who co-owns the Boston Celtics and is chairman at Bain Capital. I don’t know much about him but I am a little familiar with Bain who are a colossal investment firm. And of course, another with a connection to right wing politicians here in America… 😒

 

[milka 3,393]

So the final 4 is set : 

- Boehly/Wyss

- Harris/Blitzer

- Pagliuca/Hain

- Ricketts/Griffin 

 

[Vesper 30,202]

5 minutes ago, Pizy said:

So the fourth “mystery bidder” is Steven Pagliuca who co-owns the Boston Celtics and is chairman at Bain Capital. I don’t know much about him but I am a little familiar with Bain who are a colossal investment firm. And of course, another with a connection to right wing politicians here in America… 😒

 

but Pagliuca has been talked about for days, so how much of 'mystery' can it be??

 

lol

these RW cunts are just coming out of the woodwork like the termites they are

Bain is a NOTORIOUS 'strip and sell' acid bath private equity firm

they are hated AF by anyone who cares about labour/unions/workers rights

In his 2009 book The Buyout of America: How Private Equity Is Destroying Jobs and Killing the American Economy, Josh Kosman described Bain Capital as "notorious for its failure to plough profits back into its businesses," being the first large private-equity firm to derive a large fraction of its revenues from corporate dividends and other distributions. The revenue potential of this strategy, which may "starve" a company of capital.

 

PLUS he is a major shareholder in Atalanta

On 19 February 2022, Pagliuca, together with a number of other investors, acquired a 55% stake of Italian Serie A association football club Atalanta. Under the new agreement, Pagliuca was named co-chairman of the club.

 

https://www.danielgeey.com/post/multiple-football-club-ownership-disparities-between-rules/

European club ownership: ENIC and beyond

Ownership issues have arisen when one company has had a shareholding in more than one European football club competing in the same UEFA competition. The seminal example is the CAS decision in the ENIC case[1]. ENIC at the time had a minority shareholding in AEK Athens FC (42.8%) and a majority shareholding in Slavia Prague (96.7%), and both clubs qualified for the UEFA Cup competition in the same season.

The CAS decision signalled the intention of the football authorities to take measures to ensure that conflicts of interest do not occur between commonly owned clubs. The rule which was subsequently brought into effect by UEFA (‘the UEFA Rule’) effectively prohibited clubs in which ENIC had an ownership stake from competing in the same UEFA competition. However, as the UEFA Rule had only been added after the clubs had already qualified for the following season’s European club competitions (the 1999/2000 season), it only became effective for the 2000/1 season[2].

The ENIC decision stated that a company or a person has an ‘Interest’ in a club when it has:

1. the majority of the shareholders’ voting rights in another club in the same UEFA club competition;
2. the right to appoint or remove a majority of the directors in another club in the same UEFA club competition; or
3. the majority of the shareholders’ voting rights (through a Shareholders’ Agreement) in another club in the same UEFA club competition.

The decision prohibited two clubs in which a person or company had an Interest from being admitted into the same UEFA club competition. The CAS stressed the need for transparency and legitimacy in all UEFA competitions. The supporters’ perception of a particular game could be damaged by the differing business aims of two clubs in the same competition in which the same person or company had an Interest.

The CAS ruled that, for these purposes, a shareholding of 50.1% or more in two clubs competing in the same UEFA club competition would potentially breach Article 2 of the UEFA Rules on Integrity of Competition[3] (‘the UEFA Integrity Rules’) under the first bullet point, above.

Additionally, after the CAS cleared the UEFA Rule in time for the 2000/1 season, a further stipulation was added to the UEFA Integrity Rules. It is now prohibited for a company or person to have an Interest in a club when it has the ability to exercise a ‘decisive influence’ in the decision-making of another club in the same UEFA club competition.

In analysing the ENIC decision, it could be suggested that one person or company having an Interest in two clubs could face two significant conflicts, which UEFA was keen to nullify. One interesting situation could arise if a person or company had a 100% ownership stake in a non-PL European club (Team A) competing in the Champions League and had a 49% shareholding (but not an Interest) in a PL club (Team B). That person or company would have a significant shareholding, as defined under the PL Rules (as it is greater than 30%), and would be required to pass the PL FPPT, but the 49% shareholding would not breach the UEFA Integrity Rules. Both teams would be allowed to play in the same competition. The contrast that such a situation presents to the transparent and fair competition rationale espoused in the ENIC decision is a matter of degree.

Such questions relating to the integrity of the competition would be heightened, for example, if Team A needed to win a match against Team B to qualify for the next round, whilst Team B was not in a position to qualify for the next stage. Accusations of match fixing and footballing impropriety would almost certainly follow if Team B fielded a weakened team.

Definition of ‘control’: the PL v UEFA disparity

An anomaly exists between the PL Rules and UEFA Integrity Rules. The PL Rules define control as having a shareholding of 30% or greater. Indeed, PL Rule D.2.2 stipulates that no Individual can have a 10% stake in more than one PL club.

Conversely, the UEFA Integrity Rules would suggest that one person or company could have a 100% shareholding in one club and a ‘non-decisive influence’ shareholding in another club competing in the same competition, without breaching the UEFA Integrity Rules. Interestingly, when the CAS upheld the legality of the UEFA Rule in time for the 2000/1 season, the stipulation concerning ‘decisive influence’ was not part of the original UEFA Rule. The ‘decisive influence’ stipulation was added after the decision by UEFA to ensure there was a catch all provision to prevent common ownership under the 50.1% threshold. To some extent, this partially alleviates the fear that a company or person can have a 100% and a 49% shareholding in two clubs in the same UEFA competition. This is still not as prescriptive as the relevant Spanish or PL regulations.

In Spain, for example, the shareholding threshold is 5% under Article 17 paragraph (2) of the Royal Decree on Sport Corporations[4]. The rule is even more stringent than the PL 10% stake obligation, but the scope of the Statute only includes the Spanish first and second divisions.

It is clear that both the PL and Spanish Rules are stricter than UEFA’s Rules. The PL has put additional mechanisms in place to protect the interests of fair play and competition. The PL should be commended for going above and beyond what UEFA deem necessary to ensure transparency and accountability in order to actively regulate ownership issues. The PL are seemingly taking the lead on this front. It may therefore be an appropriate time to champion a scheme to promote transparency, accountability and fair play in the field of player ownership (described in Part 1 of this two part article) by confronting any sporting conflicts that may arise.

 

[Vesper 30,202]

If François-Henri Pinault (£50 billion net worth) and CEO/chairman of Kering

owner of 

Gucci    
Yves Saint Laurent    
Boucheron   
Bottega Veneta   
Balenciaga  
Alexander McQueen   
Brioni    
Girard-Perregaux 
Ulysse Nardin 

bought us

then............

Gucci kits!

🤣

[Vesper 30,202]

24 minutes ago, milka said:

So the final 4 is set : 

- Boehly/Wyss

- Harris/Blitzer

- Pagliuca/Hain

- Ricketts/Griffin 

 

SO fucked up

this is a septic inside job

almost all the major backing money is US

as is the firm handling the sale

WTF

[Superblue 6,372]

2 minutes ago, Vesper said:

SO fucked up

this is a septic inside job

almost all the major backing money is US

as is the firm handling the sale

WTF

And the Chelsea chairman.

I've never liked or trusted Buck and I know he's rubbed the CST and CPO the wrong way in the past. 

I wouldnt put it past him to push for whoever is willing to keep him in his role at the club.

And in my opinion he does have the front to push for the Ricketts bid if he sees fit.

[Vesper 30,202]

3 minutes ago, Superblue_1986 said:

And the Chelsea chairman.

I've never liked or trusted Buck and I know he's rubbed the CST and CPO the wrong way in the past. 

I wouldnt put it past him to push for whoever is willing to keep him in his role at the club.

And in my opinion he does have the front to push for the Ricketts bid if he sees fit.

Buck was also the cunt who tried to ram us into the Super League, and I am pretty sure was the one who issued that bloody tone deaf request for no fans allowed at BORO

[Laylabelle 9,535]

Considering how contervisal its gone with Roman you'd hope they'd try and avoid it again. We don't need sodding racist and prattish owners who fans already saying no to before it's offical. Hopefully they see sense and listen! Unfortunately probably not and all be a mess...

[Vesper 30,202]

so

it looks like it is down to pure highest bid

which makes the Ricketts more likely, as they have Griffin's huge pot to call upon (although FT says they are out, which I cannot confirm)

Chelsea to be sold “auction style” with preferred bidders confirmed

https://www.Chelsea-news.co/2022/03/Chelsea-to-be-sold-auction-style-with-preferred-bidders-confirmed/

The news around the sale of Chelsea is coming thick and fast, as you’d expect, and we’re now pretty much sure who the “preferred bidders” chosen by Raine Group are.

The Todd Boehly bid is a very strong one, perhaps the favourite as things stand, and they have made next stage. Seemingly certain to join them are the unpopular Ricketts family bid, and one from a third American sports team owner – Stephen Pagliuca.

What we do know, thanks to Ben Jacobs, is that all those groups chosen as preferred bidders will then compete “auction style” for ownership, with the highest bidder taking all.

It’s not nice – and most Chelsea fans won’t like the idea that the Ricketts family (for example) can take control if they just put the most money down, but that’s business.

All we can do is hope that the Chelsea board have shortlisted a good group to choose from.

 

[Vesper 30,202]

Josh Harris and David Blitzer's Chelsea ambition leaves Crystal Palace's hard-won progress in peril

Shareholders Blitzer and Harris are the named money behind Sir Martin Broughton’s consortium to buy Chelsea, which could prove problematic

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/03/25/josh-harris-david-blitzers-Chelsea-ambition-leaves-crystal-palaces/

 

Every Friday at 11am, and wherever in the world they find themselves, the four men who control the destiny of Crystal Palace join a call to discuss the challenges, and the rewards, of keeping a venerable, much-loved, once chaotic, club prospering in the Premier League.

They are convened by Steve Parish, a native South Londoner who has run Palace since 2010, overseeing arguably the club’s greatest era, in this their longest-ever run in the top flight - which will surely be 10 seasons come May. He is joined by the new single largest shareholder, on 40 per cent, John Textor, a 56-year-old former pro skateboarder from Florida who went into investment and became an early digital industry entrepreneur. With around 38 per cent of Palace between them, the real money is with David Blitzer and Josh Harris – US private equity overlords and bonafide billionaires.

Blitzer and Harris bought into Palace in December 2015, after Parish and his then British business partners had overseen promotion to the Premier League and later a 10th-place finish the previous season – still the highest since the glory days of 1990-1991. The £50 million investment from Blitzer and Harris who own NBA franchise the Philadelphia 76ers helped the club to stabilise. Parish himself learned quickly, appointing managers who could keep the team in the league and trading players ever more adroitly.

By the time Textor bought in last August, Parish was established as one of the most vocal and influential Premier League executives, both in private shareholders meetings and publicly. Indeed, he was one of the only members of the secretive 20-strong elite of ownerships who was prepared to state the case through the tumult of Project Restart, and then the Big Six conflagrations of Project Big Picture and the European Super League. One might say that Palace have never been in better shape by the time the Chelsea crisis hit English football.

Their manager Patrick Vieira, appointed by Parish as others dithered, is having a startling Premier League rookie season. Palace have developed, acquired, or loaned some of the best young English, or English-based, talent. They are in a FA Cup semi-final for the second time in the Parish era, against Chelsea – and yet the future of their ownership is imperilled by their opposition on April 17. Blitzer and Harris are the named money behind Sir Martin Broughton’s consortium to buy Chelsea. No-one from their joint venture Harris-Blitzer Sports and Entertainment is confirming it, although neither are they denying it. Where, the question is, does that leave Palace?

“In the case of Josh and David, ‘Oh my god, what sort of history they have in investing across countries and businesses,” Textor said in an interview with the Athletic football podcast last year. “I want the Crystal Palace fans to know, these guys love this team. They are incredibly engaged every single week – they don’t miss it”.

He was talking about the weekly Friday morning call, hosted by Parish. All four have equal voting rights as Palace directors and although it is Parish who is running the club on a day-to-day basis, they work towards unanimous votes on all big decisions. There are around 20 shareholders who have some stake in Palace, large or small, with Parish owning around 11 per cent. Textor, who has stakes in Belgian and Brazilian clubs, said that he could have demanded greater power for his money at other clubs but at Palace it was clear. The £87million that he paid for his stake late last year came with a single vote in the tight-knit board of four.

That has been the success behind Palace, whether it has been investing in a new Category One academy to take advantage of the rich seam of South London football talent or selling one of those graduates – Aaron Wan-Bissaka – for an outrageous £55million three years ago. That is the delicate equilibrium that has been at the heart of the Palace model – with a deep trust in Parish to make the right calls on the big issues. They have boxed clever, even in the difficult days of Covid.

Their last financial results for the 13 months ending July 31, 2020, to take in the extended season, saw losses of around £58million. An interest-free loan from the parent company, and Blitzer and Harris, saw the club through. Palace’s revenue is highly dependent on its Premier League broadcast incomes, £124million in the last pre-pandemic season, which dwarfs the £30million or so combined from commercial and matchday revenue. Although the changing profile of their squad means they do now have young talented sale assets in the event of the relegation apocalypse.

Textor’s investment came subsequent to the loan that saw Palace through Covid, which will have released the dependency on Blitzer and Harris’ money. Since then the academy has opened and Marc Guehi and Tyrick Mitchell have reached the England squad. Palace are nothing like the European power Chelsea have become but when they meet in three weeks they will do so as a fellow London club with a distinct identity and as a desirable location for young players seeking to reach the next level. It is a status that Blitzer and Harris know, as well as any, that has taken years of hard work and shrewd choices to attain.