Roman Abramovich Thread

[cosmicway 1,252]

Candy-Gove, Abramovitch-Putin. What the heck ?

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[Mário César 811]

46 minutes ago, Blues Forever said:

 

they are good owners?

[ZAPHOD2319 3,873]

17 minutes ago, Mário César said:

they are good owners?

The Kings had a real run at the title in 2002. Vivek bought the team in 2013 and they have had losing seasons every year he has owned the team.

[Pizy 17,860]

27 minutes ago, Mário César said:

they are good owners?

He’s easily the worst owner in all of American sports. His involvement in any significant way at Chelsea would be disastrous.

[laura90 556]

We are not in danger of having owners who will turn us in the business a la Glazers or Kroenke.  I shall explain. We had Hazard, player our fanbase beloved. Have we ever managed to sell more shirts of him than LFC sold Salah's or Man Utd sold Ronaldo's, Sanchez's, Cavani's?  Not even close I suppose.

Glazers sign commercial players they essentially  don't need and make profit on shirt sales and merchandise. WE can't.  We maybe tried with Sheva, Torres, Falcao, Lukaku but failed.  Commercial signings never got us commercial profit.

Glazers, Kroenke, FSG have enormous match day revenue.  We don't.

Arsenal plays kids, pays them like a kids, maintains in the middle of the table and makes profit thanks to commercial and matchday revenue. WE can't. 

In fact we are so left behind when it comes to commercial and matchday revenue compared to Man Utd, Man City, Liverpool even Arsenal.

There is no way we can be profitable midtable. No freaking chance. WE need CL and tv revenue to survive. And those who are interested in us know it.

As for being run as a business. Marina was brought for that purposes. She came to maximize profit of every transfer. Whether by selling currently signed players/flops for big money (Costa, David Luiz, Morata, Oscar, Matic, Hazard ) or signing cheaper players. If cheaper option works, great, if don't loan him and sell for profit. (Barkley, Zappa, Bats, Bakayoko, Kepa and more) .  Sell before buy. That is not business? We had Hazard and duds around him. We were run as a business. 

Change happened because of Lampard. He got generous transfer kitty and spend it much wiser than previous years. It resulted in us winning CL.

We were selling in order to spend and we were spending on expensive flops. Our transfer strategy lately. I dread of horor transfer window this summer.

 Our defenders are leaving for free. How would we raise funds to replace them? Who would we sell? To whom? Lukaku? Werner?  if not, Broja? Conor? 

Would we even buy new defenders or would we rely on Sarr and Chalobah?

Roman was good, loved us, but never was able to find right people to run this club and was guilty for many inappropriate but 'new toy' signings. 

WE don't lose much losing this board. AS long as new owners are interested in football club, we will be fine. 

But some of those investors have stripping assets all over their bids. WE must trust in Roman to differ good from bad.

 

 

 

Edited March 20, 2022 by laura90

[cosmicway 1,252]

24 minutes ago, laura90 said:

We are not in danger of having owners who will turn us in the business a la Glazers or Kroenke.  I shall explain. We had Hazard, player our fanbase beloved. Have we ever managed to sell more shirts of him than LFC sold Salah's or Man Utd sold Ronaldo's, Sanchez's, Cavani's?  Not even close I suppose.

Glazers sign commercial players they essentially  don't need and make profit on shirt sales and merchandise. WE can't.  We maybe tried with Sheva, Torres, Falcao, Lukaku but failed.  Commercial signings never got us commercial profit.

Glazers, Kroenke, FSG have enormous match day revenue.  We don't.

Arsenal plays kids, pays them like a kids, maintains in the middle of the table and makes profit thanks to commercial and matchday revenue. WE can't. 

In fact we are so left behind when it comes to commercial and matchday revenue compared to Man Utd, Man City, Liverpool even Arsenal.

There is no way we can be profitable midtable. No freaking chance. WE need CL and tv revenue to survive. And those who are interested in us know it.

As for being run as a business. Marina was brought for that purposes. She came to maximize profit of every transfer. Whether by selling currently signed players/flops for big money (Costa, David Luiz, Morata, Oscar, Matic, Hazard ) or signing cheaper players. If cheaper option works, great, if don't loan him and sell for profit. (Barkley, Zappa, Bats, Bakayoko, Kepa and more) .  Sell before buy. That is not business? We had Hazard and duds around him. We were run as a business. 

Change happened because of Lampard. He got generous transfer kitty and spend it much wiser than previous years. It resulted in us winning CL.

We were selling in order to spend and we were spending on expensive flops. Our transfer strategy lately. I dread of horor transfer window this summer.

 Our defenders are leaving for free. How would we raise funds to replace them? Who would we sell? To whom? Lukaku? Werner?  if not, Broja? Conor? 

Would we even buy new defenders or would we rely on Sarr and Chalobah?

Roman was good, loved us, but never was able to find right people to run this club and was guilty for many inappropriate but 'new toy' signings. 

WE don't lose much losing this board. AS long as new owners are interested in football club, we will be fine. 

But some of those investors have stripping assets all over their bids. WE must trust in Roman to differ good from bad.

 

 

 

Why don't the department stores have shirts ?
I can't find in Attica or Notos Gallery - only internet.

[Fulham Broadway 16,392]

18 hours ago, laura90 said:

That's my biggest fear regarding to this forced sale now after my thoughts have sorted out.

 I really don't want to rain on anybody's parade, even though I've been doing that since the beginning of the season.

Some weird sense of sadness related to this club followed me through entire season. Roman is gone, but who is coming? I don't buy, for the second, thought of us getting another Glazers or Kroenke. We can't. We are not Arsenal or Man UTD or LFC. . We don't have large fanbase that has been here trough thick and thin for generations. In England and abroad. Majority of our fanbase is relatively young. And spoiled. They are used to success. If we slip down the table they will switch to lighter blue shirts.

As a club, the only, I mean the only way to have us operating without loss is:

- getting the right football experts on the board who will buy excellent players for decent prices, preferable younger ones, incoming stars.

 - using our academy properly

- making sure we go far in every competition.

- getting a bigger stadium with bigger matchday revenue, but only if we accomplish previous points. If not, effect will be dissatisfactory.

Roman failed to do the first point right after 2010. Lots of money wasted with little results in the League papered with two magical CL nights. When would we win the league again? I'm not so sure, even with Tuchel. The man got Lump,  as his only reinforcement, and when he really needed to be backed (wingback injury crises), he wasn't. We are losing defenders. At least Rudiger could have been wrapped up long before, but having Lukaku and Werner on big salaries was bigger priority for this board. I'm not sure we were going places at all. We have become cup team for the seventh season in the row. And we would stay that way at best.

New owners, investors will analyze our incomings and outcomings. They will see that top four and CL are essential.  They are not buying Chelsea fc to make us midtable team. It is called losing money. Losing investment. We can't survive midtable . City can't either. Nufc can. Lfc could. Mutd can. Arsenal can. Chelsea fc can not. If new owners are interested in Chelsea football club we have every chance to be even better off.

However, if these investors are interested in land under Stamford Bridge, we are screwed.

All very true - basically its beyond our control, some one is buying a business to make a profit. It depends if that desire for profit supercedes success for the club. Some billionaires - ala Bristol City are quite happy to have the club ticking over and just make money. eg Mike Ashley. We wont get another Roman, so yes some of the recent fans will suddenly support Man City, Liverpool - who want to bathe in glory, we'll support Chelsea through thick and thin - and i have a feeling theres a substantial lot of fans that will let the new owners know if they're taking us for a ride. It'll give the press more ammunition to bash Chelsea.

[Laylabelle 9,296]

Just hope we have someone who genuinely cares about the club and aren't buying it just because it's see as the thing to do or a status thing or look at me thing!

[cosmicway 1,252]

1 minute ago, Fulham Broadway said:

All very true - basically its beyond our control, some one is buying a business to make a profit. It depends if that desire for profit supercedes success for the club. Some billionaires - ala Bristol City are quite happy to have the club ticking over and just make money. eg Mike Ashley. We wont get another Roman, so yes some of the recent fans will suddenly support Man City, Liverpool - who want to bathe in glory, we'll support Chelsea through thick and thin - and i have a feeling theres a substantial lot of fans that will let the new owners know if they're taking us for a ride. It'll give the press more ammunition to bash Chelsea.

Ha'.
If he wants to make a profit then it's worse than public ownership.
In such cases we see teams making a spectacular trajectory and then slide backwards for years.

[Superblue 6,331]

1 hour ago, Fulham Broadway said:

All very true - basically its beyond our control, some one is buying a business to make a profit. It depends if that desire for profit supercedes success for the club. Some billionaires - ala Bristol City are quite happy to have the club ticking over and just make money. eg Mike Ashley. We wont get another Roman, so yes some of the recent fans will suddenly support Man City, Liverpool - who want to bathe in glory, we'll support Chelsea through thick and thin - and i have a feeling theres a substantial lot of fans that will let the new owners know if they're taking us for a ride. It'll give the press more ammunition to bash Chelsea.

If you were getting a football club on the cheap then maybe but we're set to sell as the most expensive sports team in history. I struggle to believe that anyone prepared to purchase us for such a price will be happy to just have us ticking over.

I think certainly for the Americans looking to buy us, we'll be viewed as a long term purchase. The stadium is a must for being able to drive revenue's in the future but I also believe the American's still see huge market opportunities with the Premier League, especially its exposure and marketability in the US. Who is to say that buying a Premier League club now is still 'early days' as an investment opportunity for more growth. We don't know how far the Premier League as a brand can continue to grow but so far it still continues to do so.

I think anyone who comes in to buy the club should and would be given some time by fans. I think there will be a natural appeasement initially just by someone coming in and releasing us of these sanctions, especially if they can get this purchase done quickly and get match-going fans back into our matches.

I think there are a few things which can be done pretty swiftly to get some good PR. Making sure Tuchel is secure in his post, tying down Rudiger (I'd also get Azpi signed up at this point too for now), arranging some positive discussions with the CST and CPO (relieving the CPO loan would be a nice gesture), public confirmation of continued support and investment in the academy and women's team.

Some decent momentum can be built up by anyone coming in before the summer transfer window.

[Fernando 6,376]

Report: Premier League Clubs Want to See Chelsea & Roman Abramovich Investigation Over Debt Clearing

Under current Premier League rules, the owners are only allowed to put in £90m over three years and anything in excess of that is treated as a debt.

 

"So, if Chelsea’s owner had written off the £1.5bn debt it would likely then become a £1.5bn debt for Profit and Sustainability accounting purposes.

 

"Things are made more complicated by the government sanctions, which are likely to mean Roman Abramovich can neither write off the debt or be paid it.

 

"Unless the government relaxes the sanctions, anyone who buys Chelsea isn’t allowed to pay back the debt to Roman Abramovich. 

 

"But if that means that Chelsea gets an unfair advantage under the Profit and Sustainability rules because of government sanctions, it’s still an unfair advantage."

https://www.si.com/soccer/Chelsea/news/report-premier-league-clubs-want-to-see-Chelsea-roman-abramovich-investigation-over-debt-clearing

 

 

 

[cosmicway 1,252]

1 hour ago, Superblue_1986 said:

If you were getting a football club on the cheap then maybe but we're set to sell as the most expensive sports team in history. I struggle to believe that anyone prepared to purchase us for such a price will be happy to just have us ticking over.

I think certainly for the Americans looking to buy us, we'll be viewed as a long term purchase. The stadium is a must for being able to drive revenue's in the future but I also believe the American's still see huge market opportunities with the Premier League, especially its exposure and marketability in the US. Who is to say that buying a Premier League club now is still 'early days' as an investment opportunity for more growth. We don't know how far the Premier League as a brand can continue to grow but so far it still continues to do so.

I think anyone who comes in to buy the club should and would be given some time by fans. I think there will be a natural appeasement initially just by someone coming in and releasing us of these sanctions, especially if they can get this purchase done quickly and get match-going fans back into our matches.

I think there are a few things which can be done pretty swiftly to get some good PR. Making sure Tuchel is secure in his post, tying down Rudiger (I'd also get Azpi signed up at this point too for now), arranging some positive discussions with the CST and CPO (relieving the CPO loan would be a nice gesture), public confirmation of continued support and investment in the academy and women's team.

Some decent momentum can be built up by anyone coming in before the summer transfer window.

So we owe it and have to pay back in 2199 (if Abramovitch plays ball that is).

[MoroccanBlue 5,197]

9 minutes ago, Fernando said:

Report: Premier League Clubs Want to See Chelsea & Roman Abramovich Investigation Over Debt Clearing

Under current Premier League rules, the owners are only allowed to put in £90m over three years and anything in excess of that is treated as a debt.

 

"So, if Chelsea’s owner had written off the £1.5bn debt it would likely then become a £1.5bn debt for Profit and Sustainability accounting purposes.

 

"Things are made more complicated by the government sanctions, which are likely to mean Roman Abramovich can neither write off the debt or be paid it.

 

"Unless the government relaxes the sanctions, anyone who buys Chelsea isn’t allowed to pay back the debt to Roman Abramovich. 

 

"But if that means that Chelsea gets an unfair advantage under the Profit and Sustainability rules because of government sanctions, it’s still an unfair advantage."

https://www.si.com/soccer/Chelsea/news/report-premier-league-clubs-want-to-see-Chelsea-roman-abramovich-investigation-over-debt-clearing

 

 

 

Worlds smallest violin please. 

[Superblue 6,331]

7 minutes ago, Fernando said:

Report: Premier League Clubs Want to See Chelsea & Roman Abramovich Investigation Over Debt Clearing

Under current Premier League rules, the owners are only allowed to put in £90m over three years and anything in excess of that is treated as a debt.

 

"So, if Chelsea’s owner had written off the £1.5bn debt it would likely then become a £1.5bn debt for Profit and Sustainability accounting purposes.

 

"Things are made more complicated by the government sanctions, which are likely to mean Roman Abramovich can neither write off the debt or be paid it.

 

"Unless the government relaxes the sanctions, anyone who buys Chelsea isn’t allowed to pay back the debt to Roman Abramovich. 

 

"But if that means that Chelsea gets an unfair advantage under the Profit and Sustainability rules because of government sanctions, it’s still an unfair advantage."

https://www.si.com/soccer/Chelsea/news/report-premier-league-clubs-want-to-see-Chelsea-roman-abramovich-investigation-over-debt-clearing

 

Just to put some context on this, I haven't seen any complaints over City's owners converting so far around £1.4bn of debts into equity to keep their balance sheets looking healthy and 'sustainable'.

There should be no reason why either (a) Roman can't do this himself prior to the sale, or (b) the £1.5bn of debt is included as part of the sale agreement (so £1bn for the club and £1.5bn to cover the debt). As mentioned a few times there's no way the club is worth £2.5-3bn and still hold a £1.5bn debt. If the debt were to remain, then the club should be sold for around £1bn and then the debt is paid off once sanctions on Roman are lifted.

I don't understand these arguments, they make no sense whatsoever. 

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[Superblue 6,331]

Whilst I think the Broughton and Candy bids mean well, they very much seem like heart ruling head and both seem to be a bit of a scramble in terms of putting together the finance for a bid. 

Something as rushed as this - is it suitable for a circa £2.5bn bid for a football club?

I still feel at the moment, the Ricketts and Boehly bids are the most solid and almost certainly well thought and mapped out as both have bid before and therefore must have done significant due diligence before.