Roman Abramovich Thread

[VivekSUCKS 1]

6 hours ago, Pizy said:

Another absolutely HORRENDOUS owner here in America.

This guy is probably the worst owner in any American sport. 

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.  

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[milka 3,393]

 

[cosmicway 1,333]

2 minutes ago, milka said:

 

Erdoganesque.

[Mário César 1,283]

1 minute ago, cosmicway said:

Erdoganesque.

???

[cosmicway 1,333]

Putin out, Erdogan in. Next Ayattolah Khomeini. Next Kim.

[milka 3,393]

This Turk mostly speaks, but I do not believe that there is a drop of truth in his words.

[cosmicway 1,333]

6 minutes ago, Mário César said:

???

He says he 's going to fly the flag.
Have you ever seen a Russian flag at the bridge during all of the Roman years ?

[ZAPHOD2319 4,819]

He does this with his twitter account when something big is for sale. It should be a clue that he would say the Turkish flag will be flying over London soon. What owner wants to alienate the fan base before he even buys the team? 

[KEVINAA 129]

https://twitter.com/MailSport/status/1501339505806102529

EXCL: British tycoon Nick Candy to submit a £2.5billion bid to buy Chelsea by the end of THIS WEEK | @MattHughesDM https://t.co/oCIDC37i6s

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10591763/British-property-developer-Nick-Candy-working-2-5bn-bid-takeover-Chelsea.html

 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2022 by KEVINAA

[Clockwork 1,794]

8 hours ago, ZAPHOD2319 said:

He does this with his twitter account when something big is for sale. It should be a clue that he would say the Turkish flag will be flying over London soon. What owner wants to alienate the fan base before he even buys the team? 

He is a Turkish nationalist, they suck big time.

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[cosmicway 1,333]

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 8,334]

Waiting for Donald Trump rumours. 

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

Edited March 9, 2022 by Blues Forever

[Superblue 6,372]

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 1,333]

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 6,372]

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.