Roman Abramovich Thread

[Fulham Broadway 16,917]

22 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

although with relocating I believe this is solely down to the pitch owner's decision. 

Not solely down to us, but we have a big say.

Btw out to everyone here you can still, as far as i know buy shares in CPO -on the club website 👍

[Pizy 18,415]

Seems to have gone very quiet after the initial couple of days after the announcement.

[Superblue 6,372]

2 minutes ago, Pizy said:

Seems to have gone very quiet after the initial couple of days after the announcement.

Which should be a good thing, hopefully there's a number of professional people dealing discreetly and confidentially with Roman rather than a circus.

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[robsblubot 3,529]

10 hours ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Everyone acknowledges that in his role as owner of Chelsea Roman's performance has been exemplary. I won't bore everyone with a list of examples because I think everyone knows them. On the other hand, even when speaking with the cast iron protection of Parliamentary Privilege, the best that MP Chris Bryant can say against Roman is that he [Bryant] has seen a mention in an unpublished report that Roman has been involved with illicit activities. If this is so then throw the book at him but is it so. The report does not contain fresh information. If its supposed claims can be substantiated then action against Romain is warranted and indicated. Yet, nothing.

Roman knowingly paid $100,000,000 for an asset worth $billions. This was a crime against the Russian people but that crime was committed by Yeltsin not Abramovich. It maybe that I have been too complacent to look into Roman's dealings so I genuinely want to know what it is he has done to make him worthy of the toxicity you describe?

Well, that's why I said it was likely not the place.

You are talking about specific things, while I think his mere existence should be illicit.

Just to be abundantly clear, I think these people don't pay *nearly* the fair share to people who made, and make, their fortunes. Like I said, the power that comes with obscene wealth allows them to choose how and when they want to contribute to society. Folks look a their "donations" and "civic" investments and get all mushy, but if you look at percentages, it's really cheap change for them, and usually with strings attached (tax breaks at the very minimum).

Going back to football, I too appreciate what he did for the club. It still does not change the fact that perception is reality when it comes to advertising. That's why I think it will become unsustainable for the club to have him as the owner.

Edited March 7, 2022 by robsblubot

[Fernando 6,484]

Why are Premier League side Chelsea such an attractive club to buy?

Q. What is the appeal of Chelsea to a prospective new owner?

 

A. Chelsea are already a globally recognised sporting brand. Their success in the Premier League and Europe -- two Champions Leagues, two Europa Leagues -- over the past 20 years means they are synonymous with winning and being at the forefront of the game. But they are also a Premier League team, and that is a huge attraction.

 

The Premier League's global media deal between 2022 and 2025 is worth £5.3bn and it will continue to grow, so that has obvious appeal to any investor. Within that, there is the opportunity for Chelsea grow their commercial strategy in the way that Manchester United have done under the Glazer family.

 

Despite their successes on the pitch, Chelsea remain a long way behind United commercially (Chelsea generated £153.6 million in commercial revenue in 2021 compared to United's £232m), and any new owner could grow that income significantly. Chelsea could also be transformed into a global platform, similar to the Red Bull Group or City Football Group, which now amounts to 10 teams across the world, and develop a Chelsea Football Group to boost revenue and visibility.

 

And while the stadium at Stamford Bridge requires modernisation and enlargement, doing that presents an opportunity as much as a challenge because of potential naming rights and the ability to become a finance-generating multi-event venue.

 

Q. Does Chelsea's London location make them more attractive to a new owner?

 

A. Aside from the potential opportunities mentioned previously, do not underestimate the value of being able to leverage Chelsea's status as a club based in London for everything from recruitment to attracting sponsors. There are more billionaires on the planet than ever before; life is short for them, so they want to enjoy the business opportunity and a chance to live in one of the world's best cities. London is a huge appeal.

 

London is a financial hub with transport links to every corner of the globe, and Chelsea also have the additional advantage of being located in one of the most prestigious areas of the city. Owning real estate in London is a smart investment.

 

Under Abramovich, Chelsea have exploited the appeal of London to attract star players -- Eden Hazard rejected Manchester United and Manchester City to sign from Lille in 2012 -- and any new owner would be able to do this when recruiting players and managers.

Q. Tottenham, Arsenal and West Ham all have substantially larger and more modern stadiums in London than Chelsea. United, City and Liverpool all play at bigger grounds than Stamford Bridge, which holds fewer than 42,000 fans. Plans to build a new stadium were scrapped last year, and the estimate in 2018 was that it would cost £1bn. It will cost even more now, so is the grounds issue likely to discourage bidders?

A. The stadium rebuild is a necessity, but it should be seen as an opportunity.

Interest rates remain low on the global market, so any new owner would be able to access cheap debt to raise funds for the stadium project. And there really is a chance for Chelsea to build a stadium that would be regarded as a destination venue for world sport in a similar fashion to Madison Square Garden in New York.

Tottenham have built a stadium that has already hosted NFL games and world title boxing events since opening in 2019, and Chelsea would have similar opportunities with a new multi-purpose stadium.

Q. What are the challenges for making Chelsea succeed? They would be competing with state-owned clubs, such as Man City and Paris Saint-Germain, and there is no salary cap to keep costs down.

A. Sustaining on-pitch success while running a disciplined revenue/costs business is the primary challenge. To do that, the new owners would have to focus on revenue growth and brand expansion, feeding the need to continue to invest in players.

They should also focus on a clear club identity beyond just winning, i.e., young players from the academy. Over the past two or three years, we have seen the fruits of Chelsea's academy emerge in the first team with the likes of Mason Mount, Reece James and Callum Hudson-Odoi. This model of emerging talent and smart recruitment helped Chelsea win the Champions League last season.

Q. What will the Chelsea sale do for football ownership in terms of setting a bar? How will Man United/Liverpool/Tottenham, etc., now be valued?

A. It will certainly "mark the asset" of a lot of other teams in the Premier League, but they are all different.

Chelsea have their winning recent history and the appeal of London, tempered with the necessity of a new stadium, while Tottenham have the new stadium, but none of the winning pedigree of Chelsea and a less prestigious location in the north of London.

Manchester United have the history, the commercial power and an incredibly strong global brand, but they have a stadium and a team which both need investment. Liverpool are similar to United and are winning right now, but they have to sustain it.

• Soccer
• News
• Scores
• Schedule
• Transfers
• USMNT
• USWNT
• Teams
• Leagues & Cups
• Tables
• Subscribe to ESPN+
• Soccer Playoff Pick 'Em
•  PickCenter
• Tickets

 

 

Why are Premier League side Chelsea such an attractive club to buy?

 

play

Will Abramovich's decision to sell Chelsea impact their performances? (0:57)

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Facebook Messenger
•  
• Email

10:00 AM ET

• 
  Mark OgdenSenior Writer, ESPN FC

Chelsea are up for sale, with owner Roman Abramovich, the Russian oligarch, enlisting the Raine Group, a New York investment bank, to find a buyer willing to meet his asking price of £3 billion for the reigning Champions League holders and FIFA Club World Cup champions.

EDITOR'S PICKS

• 

  Explainer: What next for Chelsea as Abramovich puts the club up for sale?

  2dJames Olley
• 

  Sources: Dodgers part-owner set for Chelsea bid

  3dJames Olley
• 

  Tuchel: Chelsea sale won't affect my future

  3dJames Olley

For the super-wealthy individuals and private equity investment companies interested in buying a sporting franchise, the opportunity to own A-list football clubs as globally renowned as Chelsea rarely comes around. Sources have told ESPN that Raine Group have already received at least 300 expressions of interest from potential buyers. And although the vast majority of those will quickly be discounted as lacking the funds or business plan to buy the club -- one of the Premier League's most successful teams -- sources have said that at least 10 are regarded as credible, with more expected to emerge before the March 15 deadline for first indications of a bid.

But with a £3bn valuation, which would make Chelsea the most expensive football club in history, and a stadium at Stamford Bridge that is significantly smaller and less modern than those of their domestic and European rivals, are Chelsea as appealing as they first appear?

 

ADVERTISEMENT

ESPN has spoken to Mike Forde, a former Chelsea director from 2007 to 2013 and now executive chairman of Sportsology, the New York-based company that has advised U.S. ownership groups buying major sporting assets in Europe and America, to discuss the race to buy to Chelsea and why there is so much interest in acquiring the club.

- Sources: Chelsea sale attracting rival U.S. bidders
- Marcotti: What FIFA's Russia ban means, how it works
- Explained: What Abramovich's moves mean for Chelsea

Q. What is the appeal of Chelsea to a prospective new owner?

A. Chelsea are already a globally recognised sporting brand. Their success in the Premier League and Europe -- two Champions Leagues, two Europa Leagues -- over the past 20 years means they are synonymous with winning and being at the forefront of the game. But they are also a Premier League team, and that is a huge attraction.

The Premier League's global media deal between 2022 and 2025 is worth £5.3bn and it will continue to grow, so that has obvious appeal to any investor. Within that, there is the opportunity for Chelsea grow their commercial strategy in the way that Manchester United have done under the Glazer family.

Despite their successes on the pitch, Chelsea remain a long way behind United commercially (Chelsea generated £153.6 million in commercial revenue in 2021 compared to United's £232m), and any new owner could grow that income significantly. Chelsea could also be transformed into a global platform, similar to the Red Bull Group or City Football Group, which now amounts to 10 teams across the world, and develop a Chelsea Football Group to boost revenue and visibility.

And while the stadium at Stamford Bridge requires modernisation and enlargement, doing that presents an opportunity as much as a challenge because of potential naming rights and the ability to become a finance-generating multi-event venue.

Q. Does Chelsea's London location make them more attractive to a new owner?

A. Aside from the potential opportunities mentioned previously, do not underestimate the value of being able to leverage Chelsea's status as a club based in London for everything from recruitment to attracting sponsors. There are more billionaires on the planet than ever before; life is short for them, so they want to enjoy the business opportunity and a chance to live in one of the world's best cities. London is a huge appeal.

London is a financial hub with transport links to every corner of the globe, and Chelsea also have the additional advantage of being located in one of the most prestigious areas of the city. Owning real estate in London is a smart investment.

Under Abramovich, Chelsea have exploited the appeal of London to attract star players -- Eden Hazard rejected Manchester United and Manchester City to sign from Lille in 2012 -- and any new owner would be able to do this when recruiting players and managers.

 

play

2:27

What's next for Chelsea after Abramovich puts club up for sale?

Gab Marcotti reacts to Roman Abramovich's decision to sell the Chelsea Football Club and details who might be the next owner.

Q. Tottenham, Arsenal and West Ham all have substantially larger and more modern stadiums in London than Chelsea. United, City and Liverpool all play at bigger grounds than Stamford Bridge, which holds fewer than 42,000 fans. Plans to build a new stadium were scrapped last year, and the estimate in 2018 was that it would cost £1bn. It will cost even more now, so is the grounds issue likely to discourage bidders?

A. The stadium rebuild is a necessity, but it should be seen as an opportunity.

Interest rates remain low on the global market, so any new owner would be able to access cheap debt to raise funds for the stadium project. And there really is a chance for Chelsea to build a stadium that would be regarded as a destination venue for world sport in a similar fashion to Madison Square Garden in New York.

Tottenham have built a stadium that has already hosted NFL games and world title boxing events since opening in 2019, and Chelsea would have similar opportunities with a new multi-purpose stadium.

Q. What are the challenges for making Chelsea succeed? They would be competing with state-owned clubs, such as Man City and Paris Saint-Germain, and there is no salary cap to keep costs down.

A. Sustaining on-pitch success while running a disciplined revenue/costs business is the primary challenge. To do that, the new owners would have to focus on revenue growth and brand expansion, feeding the need to continue to invest in players.

They should also focus on a clear club identity beyond just winning, i.e., young players from the academy. Over the past two or three years, we have seen the fruits of Chelsea's academy emerge in the first team with the likes of Mason Mount, Reece James and Callum Hudson-Odoi. This model of emerging talent and smart recruitment helped Chelsea win the Champions League last season.

 

Chelsea are the reigning European champions and are seen as a Premier League superpower. Alexander Hassenstein - UEFA/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Q. What will the Chelsea sale do for football ownership in terms of setting a bar? How will Man United/Liverpool/Tottenham, etc., now be valued?

A. It will certainly "mark the asset" of a lot of other teams in the Premier League, but they are all different.

Chelsea have their winning recent history and the appeal of London, tempered with the necessity of a new stadium, while Tottenham have the new stadium, but none of the winning pedigree of Chelsea and a less prestigious location in the north of London.

Manchester United have the history, the commercial power and an incredibly strong global brand, but they have a stadium and a team which both need investment. Liverpool are similar to United and are winning right now, but they have to sustain it.

But, yes, whatever the final figure that Chelsea are sold for, it will give an indication as to what the other clubs may be worth.

Q. Are they any other global sporting brands on the market that could tempt buyers elsewhere?

A. The Denver Broncos are searching for a new owner and, historically, they are a top-six NFL franchise, so they are an appealing investment. The Broncos and Chelsea are similar, but they have their differences. The NFL is a safer bet for investors because there are fewer potential losses and a huge U.S. broadcasting deal. The flip side is that there is very little capacity to grow the Broncos brand globally.

Football, however, is the No. 1 global sport, and the Premier League is the top world league. Chelsea is the club of London, and London is one of the top five cities in the world to own an asset. The Broncos is all about safety and a domestic (albeit huge) audience; Chelsea is about growth and global opportunity.

https://www.espn.com/soccer/Chelsea-engchelsea/story/4611480/why-are-premier-league-side-Chelsea-such-an-attractive-club-to-buy

[KEVINAA 106]

https://twitter.com/NizaarKinsella/status/1500897662727512067

 

https://twitter.com/NizaarKinsella/status/1500897662727512067

 

Exclusive: Saudi Media, a private consortium, have made contact with Raine Group about buying Chelsea from Roman Abramovich. At least 10 bids in now and more are still coming: https://t.co/I4EbiciVwL #CFC

[ZAPHOD2319 4,516]

Here are the 10 bids, but some don't look like they could be legit.

 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11668/12559081/Chelsea-for-sale-up-to-10-parties-interested-with-most-of-interest-set-to-come-from-usa

[MoroccanBlue 5,318]

30 minutes ago, Hermione said:

Hope these arabs buy us.

Depends which Arabs. 

[Fulham Broadway 16,917]

31 minutes ago, ZAPHOD2319 said:

Here are the 10 bids, but some don't look like they could be legit.

 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11668/12559081/Chelsea-for-sale-up-to-10-parties-interested-with-most-of-interest-set-to-come-from-usa

The Talk Chelsea bid will gazump them all....

[cosmicway 1,333]

The Onassis girl ?
Any chance ?

[Fulham Broadway 16,917]

51 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

The Onassis girl ?
Any chance ?

Heard she puts it about a bit

[milka 3,349]

 

[OhForAGreavsie 5,898]

Has anyone read any comment on CFC's situation from 3, Hyundai, Trivago, or other club sponsors?

[Pizy 18,415]

Seeing reports now that Woody Johnson is interested. 

For the love of God, PLEASE no. He’s a huge Trumper, was given a cushy ambassadorship by Trump when he was President, is a big time funder of far right wing shitheads here in the States, and is just generally seen as an asshole.

And to make matters even worse, the NFL team he owns is one of the 2-3 worst run franchises in the league and one that every NFL fan base (including their own) clowns on for being laughably incompetent. They’re the kind of club that’s been a laughing stock for decades.

This would be the worst case scenario for us so I hope it never happens.

[Fulham Broadway 16,917]

14 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Has anyone read any comment on CFC's situation from 3, Hyundai, Trivago, or other club sponsors?

 They are probably waiting to see what happens but would have signed contracts for set periods ?

This might spur them into action - ''Roman Abramovich now faces being sanctioned by UK government BEFORE ‘£3bn’ sale of Chelsea FC''

-and he might change his mind on writing off the loan

[Superblue 6,372]

9 minutes ago, Pizy said:

Seeing reports now that Woody Johnson is interested. 

For the love of God, PLEASE no. He’s a huge Trumper, was given a cushy ambassadorship by Trump when he was President, is a big time funder of far right wing shitheads here in the States, and is just generally seen as an asshole.

And to make matters even worse, the NFL team he owns is one of the 2-3 worst run franchises in the league and one that every NFL fan base (including their own) clowns on for being laughably incompetent. They’re the kind of club that’s been a laughing stock for decades.

This would be the worst case scenario for us so I hope it never happens.

Me and a few mates do a bet every year for a few quid, bit of a sweepstake in a draft style picking teams out to win the Superbowl.

The last pick is ALWAYS the Jets.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,898]

5 hours ago, Fernando said:

Owning real estate in London is a smart investment.

Only if you can realise it. I remain strongly in favour of a new build away from SB if a location can be found: -

• Cheaper since at least some of the cost can be offset by development of the SB site.
• A larger site, with fewer restrictions e.g. line of sight issues, allows more freedom of design as well as an opportunity to benefit from improved transport links.
• As implied in the post I'm quoting. potential stadium sponsors prefer new build over legacy venues which resist adoption of the rights name. 

5 hours ago, Fernando said:

Chelsea have their winning recent history and the appeal of London, tempered with the necessity of a new stadium, while Tottenham have the new stadium, but none of the winning pedigree of Chelsea and a less prestigious location in the north of London.

Chelsea also have no debt or at least won't have if this sale goes through on the terms Roman advertised.

 

Edited March 7, 2022 by OhForAGreavsie