Jump to content
Join Talk Chelsea and join in with the discussions! Click Here

Roman Abramovich Thread


 Share
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

The Cubs success was primarily due to Theo Epstein, he also played a huge role with the Red Sox before. He is one of the most respected guys in baseball.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Im going to go on a bit of an out of character rant here because tbh i am sickened by some of the stuff i have read about Roman these past 48 hours. Now do i agree with his decision to sack Roberto Di

The three last games show how much wrong was the decision to sack our manager, how much wrong was the choice of personel, and especially how much the timing was wrong. Roberto Di Matteo was sacked whe

We needed world class manager in 2004 - we got him. We didn't need world class manager in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. We could use one, of course, but the core of the team in Terry, Lampard, Cole, Essien,

Posted Images

 

Chelsea fan  MAH/MATISSE ARMANI content creator on YouTube and Twitch.tv - setting the Saturday ricketts protests.

Read and keep up to date with Chelsea protests.

https://twitter.com/matissearmani

https://twitter.com/matissearmani/status/1509455544884596736

‘We can no longer just STAND AROUND we must now STAND TOGETHER!’ 

 

A moment in time that could alter the way your club operates for the rest of your lifetime. You’ve spoken online now speak outside. Bring your banners and signs. Keep the peace, to protect the point. 12pm. 2/4/22 https://t.co/CaRnfqurFC

Edited by KEVINAA
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with the Ricketts arranging to meet Canoville. In fact I think it's a very proactive move given the negativity surrounding their bid at present.

I don't like the idea though that Bruce Buck was present at the meeting. Facilitate it on request for them, but why does he need to be involved?

It does feel at present like Buck and Raine want the Ricketts bid to succeed. Things do appear quite shady at present and I'm quite dubious to believe that its a complete level playing field at the moment. It does seem like some are trying to smooth things over for the Ricketts bid.

The most worrying thing for me is the reports of how much power the likes of Buck, Marina and Lawrence have over the final decision of the new owners. They may be highly respected within the Chelsea hierarchy but they're not the owners and they're not neutral or an outside party in this matter. Potentially their own futures are linked and possibly dependent on new owners (especially if any of them are determined to remain in their roles at the club). Who's to say that they wouldn't prefer an owner who still see's a role for them over a bid that is better for the overall future of the club.

I've mentioned a few times I've never liked or trusted Bruce Buck. The general acceptance is that he was the one within the club pushing for the Super League and I think it speaks volumes that Steve Gibson specifically named him when issuing his statement criticising Chelsea over requested a behind closed doors match against Boro. He comes across as extremely arrogant, but seems more than happy for someone else to front up when difficult questions are asked. I find it a disgrace he made little attempts to deal with media frenzy over the Super League and now under the sanctions leaving Tuchel to deal with it all.

I've absolutely no trust whatsoever that he would make a decision that benefits the club over his own personal feelings or benefits and that is the biggest worry currently under all of this.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep saying Todd clicks all the boxes. 

Will be a travesty if he don't get it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, milka said:

 

This is the first unimpressive thing I'm aware of him saying. It's unimpressive to the point of silliness.

I've said many times, in a different context, that the only way for a 17 year-old Lionel Messi to emerge from a youth academy is for a younger Lionel Messi to have entered it some years earlier. There are many things a footballer can be taught but talent is not one of them, and talent is the vital ingredient for top level players. It is sound to hope for a regular supply of Champions League capable youngsters but it is unsound to expect it. Very unsound.

All that a club can do is make youngsters the honest promise that it will help them become the best player they possibly can. For most youngsters however the best they can be will not be good enough for Chelsea. I'l be surprised if, within a decade, we see another group of kids like the crop who graduated in the last few years. The odd one here and there but a whole stream of them would amaze me.

Edited by OhForAGreavsie
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

This is the first unimpressive thing I'm aware of him saying. It's unimpressive to the point of silliness.

I've said many times, in a different context, that the only way for a 17 year-old Lionel Messi to emerge from a youth academy is for a younger Lionel Messi to have entered it some years earlier. There are many things a footballer can be taught but talent is not one of them, and talent is the vital ingredient for top level players. It is sound to hope for a regular supply of Champions League capable youngsters but it is unsound to expect it. Very unsound.

All that a club can do is make youngsters the honest promise that it will help them become the best player they possibly can. For most youngsters however the best they can be will not be good enough for Chelsea. I'l be surprised if, within a decade, we see another group of kids like the crop who graduated in the last few years. The odd one here and there but a whole stream of them would amaze me.

Agreed, first thing I thought when I saw the post was we turning Arsenal or something, no problem with promoting the highest rated youngster here or there but good luck winning anything by promoting a bunch of them and hope it sticks and by the time it may stick many of them will want to leave like it happened at Arsenal. The future of us continuing to be close to the top of the food chain will soon end at this policy and without investment.

Edited by Hermione
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/03/2022 at 14:52, Superblue_1986 said:

Who's to say that they wouldn't prefer an owner who still see's a role for them over a bid that is better for the overall future of the club.

I think you are right. It would be only natural for them to be most impressed with the bidders who are most impressed with them. Unless they have all decided to leave the club once the bidding process is over, they should really recuse themselves from the decision about which bid to accept.

On 31/03/2022 at 14:52, Superblue_1986 said:

I've mentioned a few times I've never liked or trusted Bruce Buck. The general acceptance is that he was the one within the club pushing for the Super League and I think it speaks volumes that Steve Gibson specifically named him when issuing his statement criticising Chelsea over requested a behind closed doors match against Boro. He comes across as extremely arrogant, but seems more than happy for someone else to front up when difficult questions are asked

I've met Bruce Buck, at a Chelsea Foundation event, and I must say that on that occasion he did not come across as arrogant. Quite the opposite really. When you brought him up I thought that you might mention the incident with CPO vote on whether a move away from Stamford Bridge would be acceptable. That was when a 'bribe' was offered to those who voted in favour, and only those who voted in favour, that they would have their names inscribed, forever, on seats in any new stadium. That offer was a disgrace and had to be walked back fast. I don't know if it was dreamt up by Bruce, Roman or someone else but it was a bad mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

I think you are right. It would be only natural for them to be most impressed with the bidders who are most impressed with them. Unless they have all decided to leave the club once the bidding process is over, they should really recuse themselves from the decision about which bid to accept.

I've met Bruce Buck, at a Chelsea Foundation event, and I must say that on that occasion he did not come across as arrogant. Quite the opposite really. When you brought him up I thought that you might mention the incident with CPO vote on whether a move away from Stamford Bridge would be acceptable. That was when a 'bribe' was offered to those who voted in favour, and only those who voted in favour, that they would have their names inscribed, forever, on seats in any new stadium. That offer was a disgrace and had to be walked back fast. I don't know if it was dreamt up by Bruce, Roman or someone else but it was a bad mistake.

I have never met Bruce Buck so can only trust your judgement on him face to face. The few times I have heard him talk, he just doesn't portray someone who I can fully trust.

I could be completely wrong but he's the Chelsea chairman and whilst Roman is the owner, he isn't involved in the day to day running of the club. For me, as the chairman, Bruce Buck should shoulder more responsibility for poor decision making than I feel he does. There have been numerous times where the club has shot itself in the foot from a PR perspective and he has to take much of the responsibility for that. Some of the decisions such as the Super League, the Boro game, CPO, etc scream to me complete arrogance and also a lack of respect and consideration for the fans. This is what worries me most about him having potentially a big say in this club's future, I don't think any consideration will be taken for the opposition to the Ricketts bid.

None of the bids will be perfect, and likely all of them will result in a change of philosophy from Roman's tenure, but there are 4 bids available and one has staunch and fierce opposition to it. Unless it was absolutely miles clear from the rest as a bid (and if it was then I think it should be presented as such to the fans to see if they'd be willing to reconsider the current stance) then for the harmony and atmosphere around the club, one of the other 3 should be selected instead. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ricketts family bid for Chelsea entirely funded by cash

Four consortiums are vying to buy the Premier League club from Roman Abramovich.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/roman-abramovich-chicago-cubs-martin-broughton-stamford-bridge-premier-league-b2049201.html

 

The Ricketts family’s bid to buy Chelsea is entirely funded by cash, the PA news agency understands.

The Chicago Cubs-owning Ricketts are among the final four bidders looking to buy Chelsea from Roman Abramovich.

The Ricketts, for whom siblings Tom and Laura are fronting the family’s candidacy, have been adding advisory partners in fine-tuning their bid ahead of the April 11 deadline for improved offers, but were understood to have no need of extra investment.

US hedge fund supremo Ken Griffin has added his significant personal financial clout behind the Ricketts’ bid.

Griffin

1d02ee1312465f0159effd0d7115a800.png(£23.63 billion)

that means he just now passed, (for the first time, bad omen!) Roman's all time highest net worth (pre global crisis) in 2008 (inflation adjusted total in 2022 quid of £23.61 billion (by literally a cunt hair, £20m)

Disclaimer I do fully admit this is all absolutely NOT accurate down to the pound, regardless of the exact figures shown by the websites, but the point is, the fucker is LOADED (and he has gained almost $10 billion YTD)

2 days ago:

8061af560c8165a78c046bba7899417e.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oki, I am feeling a BIT better:

Quote

 

Tom and Laura Ricketts have worked hard to build links with Chicago’s Muslim community after Joe’s comments from 2019.

Brother Pete Ricketts has been linked to anti-LGBTQ sentiment, but is not involved in either the Chelsea bid or the Cubs.

Laura Ricketts in contrast is the first openly gay owner of a major American sports franchise in her co-chair role at the Cubs.

A major campaigner for LGBTQ rights, Laura Ricketts is a member of the Barack Obama Foundation’s Inclusion Council and has received long-standing backing from the former US President.

 

 

I want to see official confirmation that that cunt Gov Pete has ZERO role with us, zero equity in Chelsea

Link to post
Share on other sites

Griffin is the main reason the Ricketts group is at the top of list I think

at the rate he is going, he will be worth over £30 billion fairly soon I predict, and he sounds like he is dumping in a tonne of cash

I just hope if the Ricketts and Griffin DO buy us, that all the extreme RW parts (like I said, I fully admit that Tory/Rethug friendly money is involved with all the bids, even the Boehly group, as Jonathan Goldstein, besides being a diehard Spuds fanboi (arfff) is also a major Tory backer and a massive Corbyn hater who helped lead the dodgy anti-Semitic charges against Corbyn) of the fam are 100% cut out, and that they build a PROPER new stadium, not some cookie cutter POS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Former Labour Cabinet Minister Lord Hain Calls for Stephen Pagliuca's Chelsea Bid to Be Barred

https://www.si.com/soccer/Chelsea/news/former-labour-cabinet-minister-lord-peter-hain-calls-for-stephen-pagliucas-Chelsea-bid-to-be-barred

Former Labour cabinet minister and Chelsea fan Lord Peter Hain has called for the UK Government to bar the bid of Stephen Pagliuca after Raine Group named the Boston Celtics owner in the final four shortlist of preferred bidders.

The final shortlist includes Pagliuca's offer alongside proposals from the Ricketts family, Todd Boehly and Sir Martin Broughton, the former two both consortium bids.

Speaking in parliament, as quoted by the Evening Standard, Lord Hain has called for the Pagliuca bid to be disqualified due to Bain Capital's involvement in the bid.

He stated:

 "Will ministers also bar the Pagliuca consortium bid headed by the chair of Bain Capital which remains highly entwined with Bain & Company recently indicted by South African Judicial Commission for acting ‘unlawfully’ & referred for prosecution.

"Bain cynically and ruthlessly disabled the country’s tax collecting agency by conspiring with the corrupt former president Zuma for an £8 million fee.

"Chelsea and the Premier League must not be contaminated with such despicably corrupt business practice.""

The politician has been a Chelsea fan for 57 years, he said, but has concerns over Pagliuca's bid due to his involvement with Bain Capital and the controversy surrounding the company.

This comes after Chelsea fans started a social media campaign to show their displeasure with the Ricketts family bid also, with the #NoToRicketts hashtag trending on Twitter.

Furthermore, a petition against the Ricketts bid has also reached 16,000 signatures as Blues fans are doing all they can to show their displeasure with the bid.

This leaves Boehly and Broughton's bids as the only two without controversy surrounding them, as of yet.

Edited by Vesper
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Griffin is the main reason the Ricketts group is at the top of list I think

at the rate he is going, he will be worth over £30 billion fairly soon I predict, and he sounds like he is dumping in a tonne of cash

I just hope if the Ricketts and Griffin DO buy us, that all the extreme RW parts (like I said, I fully admit that Tory/Rethug friendly money is involved with all the bids, even the Boehly group, as Jonathan Goldstein, besides being a diehard Spuds fanboi (arfff) is also a major Tory backer and a massive Corbyn hater who helped lead the dodgy anti-Semitic charges against Corbyn) of the fam are 100% cut out, and that they build a PROPER new stadium, not some cookie cutter POS

Dumping a tone of cash in the club if they buy us you mean? That's good if so.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

'If they want the Ricketts family to buy it, just tell us now!': Rival £3bn Chelsea bidders are left 'angry' at 'preferential treatment' for Chicago Cubs owners, after Blues chairman Bruce Buck organised a meeting to help them quell fan opposition

  • Paul Canoville called for the Ricketts bid to be rejected due to past controversy
  • Joe Ricketts, the head of the family, called Muslims 'my enemy' in leaked emails 
  • Chelsea's Bruce Buck facilitated a meeting between Tom Ricketts and Canoville 
  • But the meeting has sparked concern from rival groups of preferential treatment
  • According to The Times, one group says process' rules may have been breached 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10668629/Rival-3bn-Chelsea-bidders-left-angry-preferential-treatment-Ricketts-family.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/04/2022 at 16:44, Superblue_1986 said:

I have never met Bruce Buck so can only trust your judgement on him face to face.

I didn't mean to suggest that I think my opinion is any more valid than yours. All I can say is that in that five minute conversation he came across differently to how you portrayed him. Of course in that kind of event he could be expected to be an his 'best' behaviour.

Edited by OhForAGreavsie
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ZAPHOD2319 said:

Feck!!

Ricketts bid just got infinitely stronger.

 

I'm starting to like them if all these billionaires invest in us properly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ZAPHOD2319 said:

Feck!!

Ricketts bid just got infinitely stronger.

 

Gilbert is worth £17.7 billion, or around £6 billion less than Griffin

so, yes its a big deal, but it is not like Ellison or Gates or Musk, etc etc 125 to 250 billion came flowing in

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...