Roman Abramovich Thread

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[cosmicway 1,260]

Another famous consortium I remembered was Nottingham Forest 1977.
Two European championships but then it broke up.
It's not the more the merrier in football.

[NikkiCFC 7,589]

Waiting for Donald Trump rumours. 

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

Edited March 9, 2022 by Blues Forever

[Superblue 6,331]

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.

[cosmicway 1,260]

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 March 9, 2022 by cosmicway

[Superblue 6,331]

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.

[Superblue 6,331]

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.

[milka 3,308]

 

[whats happening 1,440]

23 hours ago, VivekSUCKS said:

I had to sign up just to tell you how horrible this guy is.  He is HATED here in Northern California.  He has totally destroyed a fanbase that has supported a losing squad since they got to Sacramento,CA in 1985.  He is a micromanager even though he knows Jack S*** about basketball.  And you are right, the Sacramento Kings are considered one of the worst, if not the worst, franchise in all of sports in North America.  This morning, kings fans are hoping that this rumor is true because it would mean he would probably have to sell his stake in the Kings.  You want no part of this guy.  He is TOXIC AND he doesn't have the money to run a proper professional sports franchise.  

 

lmfao the username.

and yeah, hes not only one of the worst owners in the nba, he actively engages in basketball decisions, which always end up disastrous, the worst possible combo.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,776]

Wenger does talk sense some of the time, and here is such an example. What Wenger says may allow some readers to get an exaggerated impression of how much Roman invested in team building at the beginning, and he glosses over the numerous transfer mistakes which were made during Roman's tenure, but his general point is correct I believe.

Arsene Wenger warns potential Chelsea owners with Roman Abramovich "respect" comments (msn.com)

Arsene Wenger has given his thoughts on how Chelsea will fare without Roman Abramovich as owner and provided some advice for whoever succeeds the Russian oligarch.

The billionaire announced that he was putting the Blues up for sale last week as the scrutiny surrounding his relationship with Russian president Vladimir Putin intensifies in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine.

It is thought that Abramovich has set his asking price for the club at £3billion, though Wenger has admitted he feels that is slightly above market value.

Speaking to beIN Sports, Wenger was surprisingly full of praise for Abramovich despite the fact there is an argument his arrival in English football led to Arsenal eventually being left behind in the race for league titles. "I would say he was the first big investor [before] the Glazers to come in, at a golden period for a guy that was a billionaire. There was no Financial Fair Play, you could put as much money in as you wanted,’ the Frenchman explained.

"Today, with the FFP, I would not necessarily advise somebody to come in to fight against Manchester City, Chelsea, Liverpool, who are lightyears ahead of them, to build a good team – because you cannot invest the money you want to invest. "So it is much more difficult today. But he came in at the golden period and I give him credit. "He understood quickly what to do, put competent people in charge who managed the club very well and put him to a level that is absolutely outstanding. I have a lot of respect for what he did."

Wenger admitted he doubts that whoever succeeds the Russian will be able to match his spending power. "You cannot. Today you cannot put that money in, privately, that is impossible. "It is limited to, I think, £200m over three years. At that time you could put a billion in. "I always advised people who wanted to buy football clubs, instead of putting £100m in every year, put £500m in in the first year and buy the right players, then you have a team. "He could do that and he did very well and today I think the club is managed very well and is at a top level."

The former Arsenal manager did issue a warning that the next owner will have to have a number of attributes if the Blues are to continue on their current trajectory of success. "It is still sustainable as a football club today because they are at a good level. But after that when you come in it is down to money and good decisions. Sometimes people have good decisions but no money, sometimes they have money but they make bad decisions. So you have to put the two together." 

[Fulham Broadway 16,408]

On 08/03/2022 at 17:07, VivekSUCKS said:

I had to sign up just to tell you how horrible this guy is.  He is HATED here in Northern California.  He has totally destroyed a fanbase that has supported a losing squad since they got to Sacramento,CA in 1985.  He is a micromanager even though he knows Jack S*** about basketball.  And you are right, the Sacramento Kings are considered one of the worst, if not the worst, franchise in all of sports in North America.  This morning, kings fans are hoping that this rumor is true because it would mean he would probably have to sell his stake in the Kings.  You want no part of this guy.  He is TOXIC AND he doesn't have the money to run a proper professional sports franchise.  

Thanks for the info. Hopefully wont happen

[Strike 6,965]

 

 

[Laylabelle 9,300]

The Government are putting in place a license to ensure the club can fulfil its fixtures, staff and players can be paid, and as a significant cultural asset that it can continue.

This is about Roman Abramovich not being able to make any money or benefit from Chelsea FC.

Season ticket holders can still attend games they gave tickets for but club can not now sell any more tickets that haven’t been sold already

The merchandise shop will be closed.

It's also been added about no player sales or new contracts

Edited March 10, 2022 by Laylabelle

[We Hate Scouse 10,261]

Fuck. 

[Fulham Broadway 16,408]

Sanctioned by the Culture Secretary scouse Liverpool supporter tory Minister Nadine Dorries. 

[Superblue 6,331]

If we're being restricted to earn revenues through the club then how exactly are the players supposed to be paid?

Taxpayers money?

[Strike 6,965]

I can start a lemonade stand to raise funds