Roman Abramovich Thread

[Vesper 27,345]

Dan Gilbert earned his fortune as the founder and CEO of Quicken Loans (originally called Rock Financial). The company's name was changed after it was purchased by Intuit Inc., the company that also created QuickBooks and TurboTax. Quicken Loans now operates under the umbrella firm of Rocket Companies. In the first half of 2020 alone, Rocket generated $124 billion in new mortgages. 

[Vesper 27,345]

btw, Celebrity Net Worth is utter trash

always massively off

[ZAPHOD2319 3,881]

1 hour ago, Hermione said:

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

The problem is these kind of people want some from you, they don’t like spending just to win.

[ZAPHOD2319 3,881]

2 hours ago, Hermione said:

Must be easier ways to make money than sucking dry a club who isn't really self sustaining, also for someone with a net worth of 30 billions it's hard to believe Griffin is in this for the money.. I read a report this morning that they the Ricketts aren't the ones controlling the stakes if they win but someone else not named possibly Griffin himself.

 

It could be one of them has reached a point that they want a world champion and are willing to spend without hope of a return. 

[Blue Armour 4,168]

18 hours ago, ZAPHOD2319 said:

Feck!!

Ricketts bid just got infinitely stronger.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but has there ever been a consortium of this size and wealth involved in a European football club before?

Surely the fact that so many are looking to get a piece of the pie would imply that the investments they put into the club could be proportional, especially if they intend to get any sort of meaningful return 

Edited April 3, 2022 by Blue Armour

[whats happening 1,440]

dan gilbert was willing to spend tons of money while james was playing in cleveland. 

[Superblue 6,331]

19 hours ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

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.

I know you didn't, if it came across as such I apologise.

[Vesper 27,345]

1 hour ago, Blue Armour said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but has there ever been a consortium of this size and wealth involved in a European football club before?

Surely the fact that so many are looking to get a piece of the pie would imply that the investments they put into the club could be proportional, especially if they intend to get any sort of meaningful return 

Private owners?

Not sure.

State backed, sure.

NUFC, Citeh, PSG all dwarf anything private

I was really hoping, by far, for the Kuwaiti royal fam to finally buy a major football team with us.

The the 2nd richest on the planet (after the Saudis)

closing in on £400 billion or so, and (by Gulf standards) they are not crazy human rights abusers

[Magic Lamps 11,452]

1 hour ago, Blue Armour said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but has there ever been a consortium of this size and wealth involved in a European football club before?

Surely the fact the so many are looking to get a piece of the pie would imply that the investments they put into the club could be proportional, especially if they intend to get any sort of meaningful return 

Apart from the sheik wealth funds (which in a sense are organised consortiums as well when they take over a football club), I don't think there will be a bigger consortium. The one with which Usmanov took over Arsenal was huge as well.

However, it remains to be seen how powerful this consortium will be in terms of spending power. If the new owners indeed are willing to support us financially to their maximum capabilites, we will be able to compete at the very top in terms of transfer fees and wages. But I doubt that. An approach similar to that of Liverpool or even ManUre is more probable, unfortuantely. Americans have are good at capitalism. And the main driver of capitalism is debt. They will probably re-finance most of their investments into the club with cheap loans. This is not necessarily problematic tho. Instead it will depend on their long term vision for the club. If they want us to be profitable over a long period of time and are willing to invest accordingly, we can continue to be successful. If they view us as a cash cow like the Glazers do (while still burning tons of money in the process cos they are dumb) it will be curtains for us. In contrast, if they are willing to built a sustainable business model, enhancing our brand in the process, while allowing us to expand with a reasonable amount of losses and debt in the first few years we could end up becoming a much bigger club.

Roman was a generous owner, yet he still would have sold us at some point for profit even without the sanctions. he bought us dirt cheap for like 100m pounds or so, poured in like 2bn transformed us into a European powerhouse and would have sold us for over 3bn. Quite a nice profit if you ask me, only winners in this deal. Sporting-wise we could have hardly asked for more during that period. But economically I think we could have done even better. Being owned by  a Russian made us even less popular in the UK. Moreover, we also never really made enough out of our popularity in Asia and the US. I never saw a cohesive strategy in terms of international brand marketing. While being run as a solid business for the last few years, we could have easily invested a bit more in brand expansion. Think about it, with Captain America we have one of the most popular footballers ever and the US still has not seen him playing for us on their side of the Atlantic. Having TT, Rüdiger and Kai has tripled media attention in Germany, a huge football market as well, yet the accessability of our merch here has even regressed. It is mind-boggling. I genuinely believe, we as a club have the potential to be just as big a brand as Real or ManUtd. From the beautiful royal blue to the awesome location, the majestic Stamford Bridge, a history of respectable, heroic leaders on and off the pitch, the club radiates flair and elegance. As opposed to the sketchy proletarian clubs of the north which have long betrayed the values they were founded upon, our club has always stayed true to its heritage. Made from and for a cultured gobal middle class. Everything about us just has a touch of class, which is way more than the rest can claim. Listen to our songs and compare them to the primitive monotony of YNWA or GGMU and it is immediately audible. Walk along the King's road, visit the fashionalbe yet cozy bars and little restaurants around the bridge as opposed to the faceless shacks in Manchester liverpool or northern London. As a little kid, when I was at my first ever football game at the gruelling old WHL of all places, the spurs fan would ask why I don't go home and watch football there if I can not even understand their chants yet. In contrast, the Chels were really appreciative and interested how we came all the way from Germany to attend fierce London derby. It became quite tangible which kind of ppl are attracted by the respective culture and values the respective clubs emanate.

While it all happens under terrible circumstances and with a very sad inducement the timing of this change of ownership could not be more intriguing. We have been a title winning machine again, maybe now is the time to become the global brand we ahve the potential to be. As world champions are at a peak as a club, so the quality of bids should be as well. That being said, there is a huge chance it will blow up in our faces. The Ricketts have not really instilled any confidence. I do not know much about them, their connections to racist groups, statements, the deluded yank alt-right scum etc. are alarming. Also their latest attempt to chum up to the fans, rambling about diversity and inclusion etc were misguided and pathetic. The worst was however that they did not even mention anything about having a strategy how to stay competetive on the sporting side and expand our brand as elucidated above.

[Superblue 6,331]

Ricketts have released a list of promises today within their bid:

List of the Ricketts' promises to Chelsea fans

• 1. Make no change to the club’s name, badge and crest, or Chelsea blue, without the consent of supporters.
• 2. Never participate in a European Super League and always protect the integrity and heritage of Chelsea F.C.
• 3. Commit the resources necessary across all levels of the club to continue winning trophies, including investing in the first team, experienced football leadership and the Academy.
• 4. Put diversity and inclusion at the heart of the club and fight against any form of discrimination or inequality.
• 5. Create an Advisory Committee with diverse representation to ensure our decisions are informed by: a former men’s and women’s first team player, members of the CST and Chelsea Pitch Owners, and influential community leaders.
• 6. Explore every option to redevelop Stamford Bridge and do everything in our power to keep playing in this historic stadium.
• 7. Match the current commitment to Chelsea F.C. Women and increase the number of women’s matches played at Stamford Bridge.
• 8. Continue the vital charitable work of the Chelsea Foundation, seeking to use the power of football and sport to motivate, educate and inspire

 

[Superblue 6,331]

23 minutes ago, Superblue_1986 said:

Ricketts have released a list of promises today within their bid:

List of the Ricketts' promises to Chelsea fans

• 1. Make no change to the club’s name, badge and crest, or Chelsea blue, without the consent of supporters.
• 2. Never participate in a European Super League and always protect the integrity and heritage of Chelsea F.C.
• 3. Commit the resources necessary across all levels of the club to continue winning trophies, including investing in the first team, experienced football leadership and the Academy.
• 4. Put diversity and inclusion at the heart of the club and fight against any form of discrimination or inequality.
• 5. Create an Advisory Committee with diverse representation to ensure our decisions are informed by: a former men’s and women’s first team player, members of the CST and Chelsea Pitch Owners, and influential community leaders.
• 6. Explore every option to redevelop Stamford Bridge and do everything in our power to keep playing in this historic stadium.
• 7. Match the current commitment to Chelsea F.C. Women and increase the number of women’s matches played at Stamford Bridge.
• 8. Continue the vital charitable work of the Chelsea Foundation, seeking to use the power of football and sport to motivate, educate and inspire

 

Some of them are pretty basic statements which you'd expect to be minimum requirements and point 3 could pretty much be anything at their discretion although I'm glad the academy has been referenced, but I'm glad at the very least they've released something to try and quell some fears should they take over. As has been noted on paper, financially, they are probably the strongest bid but we've been needing to know more about their plans for the club.

I would have liked there to also be a commitment to retaining and supporting the current management within the different playing areas of the squad - i.e. Tuchel, Hayes and Bath.

I would still like all the four remaining parties to lay out both a short term plan and longer term plan for the club if they were to take over. At present the limited information afforded to the supporters (who's opinions were apparently going to be considered and taken into account during this process) has been really quite poor.

[Superblue 6,331]

The issues around diversity, politics, etc aren't so much of a worry for me. As things have progressed, the Ricketts bid seems to be either prominently or even entirely based on Tom and Laura.

Tom appears to be the least politically active and controversial amongst the males in the family and Laura is a democrat and openly gay (and also a big supporter of the LGBTQ community). I do believe that if the bid centres around these two within the Ricketts part, they will look to ensure the club is distanced from anything the rest of the family may say or be involved in.

I'm actually far more concerned with how the Chicago Cubs have been run by them and I know that Tom in particular is viewed as the 'face' within that. The Cubs have been poor in recent years which doesn't help them, but it just seems that they have such a disconnect with the community of Chicago. The day experience is on average the most expensive for fans within the MLB, and they have made a number of decisions in the past which have been unpopular but they've gone ahead anyway.

They have to be prepared to buy into the club, the community, the culture and in general the league and the sport. Their past experience with the Cubs does make me worry regarding this.

[Vesper 27,345]

12 minutes ago, Superblue_1986 said:

The issues around diversity, politics, etc aren't so much of a worry for me. As things have progressed, the Ricketts bid seems to be either prominently or even entirely based on Tom and Laura.

Tom appears to be the least politically active and controversial amongst the males in the family and Laura is a democrat and openly gay (and also a big supporter of the LGBTQ community). I do believe that if the bid centres around these two within the Ricketts part, they will look to ensure the club is distanced from anything the rest of the family may say or be involved in.

I'm actually far more concerned with how the Chicago Cubs have been run by them and I know that Tom in particular is viewed as the 'face' within that. The Cubs have been poor in recent years which doesn't help them, but it just seems that they have such a disconnect with the community of Chicago. The day experience is on average the most expensive for fans within the MLB, and they have made a number of decisions in the past which have been unpopular but they've gone ahead anyway.

They have to be prepared to buy into the club, the community, the culture and in general the league and the sport. Their past experience with the Cubs does make me worry regarding this.

yes, I was freaking out as many of the early reports said Gov Pete would be involved and have equity

Pete is the worst one, after the father, and arguably worse than him as he has a shedload of actual power

Laura is great

[Vesper 27,345]

17 minutes ago, Superblue_1986 said:

I'm actually far more concerned with how the Chicago Cubs have been run by them and I know that Tom in particular is viewed as the 'face' within that. The Cubs have been poor in recent years which doesn't help them, but it just seems that they have such a disconnect with the community of Chicago. The day experience is on average the most expensive for fans within the MLB, and they have made a number of decisions in the past which have been unpopular but they've gone ahead anyway.

hopefully Griffin and Gilbert do NOT let that happen (if they win the bidding process)

[Clockwork 1,764]

10 hours ago, whats happening said:

dan gilbert was willing to spend tons of money while james was playing in cleveland. 

Dan Gilbert is a mega donor to Michigan State University athletic department, the guy is extremely passionate about sport.  

[Blues Forever 1,232]

Somehow i feel the Ricketts will win because they have strong backer like Griffin and Gilbert. Boehly seems to have the best project but financially not as strong as the Ricketts, shame he didn't recruit Steve Ballmer. 

Edited April 4, 2022 by Blues Forever

[whats happening 1,440]

12 hours ago, Clockwork said:

Dan Gilbert is a mega donor to Michigan State University athletic department, the guy is extremely passionate about sport.  

he also had a stroke two years ago and since is less involved in the cavs...

[ZAPHOD2319 3,881]