Praying a US tycoon (preferably owner of an NFL club) completes a leveraged buyout against their assets, paying £0 of there own money. It's a great idea.
Roman Abramovich plans to sell Chelsea | SOLD for £4.25BN
- Thread starter Ali Dia
- Start date
That would be a joke, Britain's richest man and apparently a big Utd fan buys Chelsea at the drop of a hat after years of us hoping he might buy us.
Apart from being Russian and super rich, why should he be sanctioned too? Because of his reportedly close tie with Putin or Russian government?
Why ask the question if you already know the answer?
Probably. Not sure. I know he was interested in Chelsea a few years ago but decided against it for some reason, can't remember if it was Roman's valuation or the stadium issue. In any case, the club wasn't for sale back then. The situation is different now.
A lot of pressure to run oligarchs out of developed countries and seize assets etc, also to remove reliance on their money and resources. They have power and so pressure/sanctions on them could impose pressure on Putin.
I mean I am a big United fan but if I have the money and the opportunity to buy Chelsea in a discounted price like this I would have jumped on the boat. You wont get any other chance like this.
It's still hardly an bargain, over 2.2bn.. remember Abramovich only paid £150m in 2005. Newcastle went for £300m, that's in the good value range.
It may not look like it with some of my Chelsea posts on here but I really don’t want to see clubs suffer under shit owners, it just seems harde to shift shit owners when they’re based in Tampa etc and can just turn the tv off.
Im reading stuff like Roman will not collect in the 1.5b but I bet you that 1.5b feels a lot more to him now that it did this time last year. Say that’s true anyway and 1.5b can be written off then why sell Chelsea for 600m odd more? Wasn’t that entire keep the loan thing based off of Roman not selling and disappearing?
what would worry me is the cut price new owners seem to be getting. That’ll attract a lot of investors who shouldn’t be owning a big club just to double their money the instant the deal is signed. Half price and (best case scenario) the 1.5b debt written off? They’ll be licking their lips.
That’ll be leveraged as well imo so that’s more debt you’ll have to pay and a probable structured repayment for Romans loan added in.
it could get dark for your club
Abramovich poured money into Chelsea, its unlikely anyone else will do the same and if the rumours of the price he's asking are true, then even less so.
Chelsea will be ok, won't be able to spend like before unfortunately it leaves City and Newcastle as the big spenders, well the clubs who can spend without being self funded, dodgy sponsership not withstanding
Chelsea will be ok, won't be able to spend like before unfortunately it leaves City and Newcastle as the big spenders, well the clubs who can spend without being self funded, dodgy sponsership not withstanding
I think it will be a reality check for the fans at the very least but should sort the wheat from the chaff so to speak.
He appealed to me a few years ago when he was showing interest. I would want someone who understands football and culture around English football.
It's been quoted Roman is looking for £3billion to sell.
What the real question that will never be asked is - 'Who in the British government or elite class cashed in on Oligarchs. Both Russian, Saudis etc.' There should be a full independent enquiry. But there never will be. Someone was paid off. That's for sure.
I hear you and those things would be worrisome if that is how it panned out. I won't waste my energy being worried about potential dark days ahead and doomsday scenarios when we don't really have any tangible information to work with yet though.
£3billion seems a crazy price
Where is John Terry and his NFT consortium when you need him.
Please let that happen. Chelsea getting Glazered would be devine justice of the highest order after their role in the degradation of football to what we see today from their sports washing/financial doping
Didn't Ken Bates buy Chelsea for a quid or am I making it up?
Is someone offered him half that, he would snap their hand off.
Yes and the debt!
This is like saying my house burned down, so I hope the house down the street burns down too.
He did, but it had a lot of debt I think. So he's buying it for however much debt it had. That's my layman's understanding of it anyway.
There's loads of them. Even the conservative party as a body gets loads of Russian donations. There's no way that guys like Abramovich, Usmanov, Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven etc have avoided sanctions without yielding political influence.
Come on Mike Ashley. Do the decent thing.
Nah this is a really stupid reason for buying a billion pound football club
At the risk of detailing this thread, sportswashing is a term that has little sense to it.
Sportswashing is real and the cost of buying a football club and throwing a few quid at it is nothing compared to what these countries/people do to make that money in the first place.
I think the term is so loosely, arbitrarily and inconsistently applied that it has very little meaning outside of online discussions.
I've made this point before but Russian oligarchs and Emirate leaders have had their money sloshing around Europe for decades. I really doubt they spent billions, to buy the opinions of club fans. If anything, the purchases have bought more attention on said leaders (the very antithesis of money laundering: avoid attention to your bad behavior).
Its literally what it is and an accepted term for what the billionaires are doing. Its not just some made up word.
Maybe the asking price is in rubles, in which case the Caf might be able to pool our money and buy it
All words are made up
Again, the reasoning behind this sportswashing doesn't make sense. I already have my way in your real estate, your shopping... You sell me weapons to bomb my neighbors, you vacation in my cities... And I need to buy a football club so I can get 20,000 fans to argue I'm a good guy online, despite the fact that potentially attracts more negative attention to me?
Ignoring the fact that this term is predominantly applied to Middle East/Russian dictators... Have never heard of US military endorsement and bombardment of US sport events as sportswashing but what would you expect for a term that has little meaning?
That would be fantastic.
Really I just hope their next owners are ones looking to make a profit and not another sugar daddy. Chelsea will immediately lose a lot of their appeal.
Attention is the whole point. It brings connections in many other areas, especially politically. Other investments that serve a similar purpose doesn't mean sportswashing isn't real or not effective.
Any idea when will this happen to City?
Sorry i can't post in Ukraine topic....
But flightradar is more than a mercato tool...u can see actualy "Forte 10" near belarus border 50 000 feet high
Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk the Ultimate UAV
But flightradar is more than a mercato tool...u can see actualy "Forte 10" near belarus border 50 000 feet high
Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk the Ultimate UAV
Is negative attention part of the deal?
Because I for one didn't know much about how oligarchs made their money until Roman bought Chelsea. I'm sure he would have preferred I remained ignorant on the actual source of his wealth.
That's the problem with this term, it's so vague. Has any concrete connection been made between an act of sportswashing and an observed delta in benefit to the alleged sportswasher?
It is best to be prepared, just join us in the match day threads and that is your life from now on as a Chelsea fan.