Roman Abramovich plans to sell Chelsea | SOLD for £4.25BN

cyberman said:
It’ll be too controversial and throw up awkward questions. Anyway wasnt there a report saying they didn’t want to be sold to any dubious owners like this? I’m sure Chelsea and the government will have some sort of dialogue here
Click to expand...

They'll be awkward questions about them green lighting the Newcastle ownership if they reject these Saudi blokes, no? You're right though. There was something about not wanting to entertain bids from politically sensitive regions. Either way, the optics are bad with this one, even if they genuinely have no connections to the Saudi state, which is a very dubious claim to begin with. There's already claims one of the investors that Saudi Media want to team up with is an advisor to the crown prince.
 
Lots of salt from Chelsea fans here.

I understand you are upset at the sanctions hitting your club hard, but if you have an owner who is well known to be 'on the edge' and 'a little bit dodgy', then you have to realise that eventually this will happen.

Can see it happening to City soon also.

You dance with the devil, you will get burnt. Said it before and I'll keep on saying it.
 
WeePat said:
Understandable. If he and his partners in the private consortium aren't linked to the Saudi state in any way (and I have BIG reservations about that claim), would they really be any different, ethically/morally speaking, than an investment group from the US?
Click to expand...
Yes and I think you know this pal. You’ve been one of the better Chelsea fans coming across here and I can’t judge because I haven’t grown up supporting a Russian oligarch backed club. But I personally wouldn’t be able to stand it. I couldn’t even advocate or play whataboutism. I know it’s difficult right now, but I think the best outcome for Chelsea is being taken over by business first capitalists and having to rely on actually working for your success. It’s far more gratifying.

But some of the state of posts I’ve seen on here in regards to comparisons has been shocking. I’ve a Chelsea supporting brother, he’s a thoroughly smart bloke but it’s insane how tribalism and a lack of care can cloud perception.
 
WeePat said:
They'll be awkward questions about them green lighting the Newcastle ownership if they reject these Saudi blokes, no? You're right though. There was something about not wanting to entertain bids from politically sensitive regions. Either way, the optics are bad with this one, even if they genuinely have no connections to the Saudi state, which is a very dubious claim to begin with. There's already claims one of the investors that Saudi Media want to team up with is an advisor to the crown prince.
Click to expand...
I think the optics would be horrific rn from a purely cynical viewpoint. We’re in unprecedented times to some extent, I don’t think there would be any appetite from anyone in this country for another disgusting regime to walk in. This government is many things but one thing it’s proved is it’ll respond to whatever is the popular sentiment.

Now if they can only grow a pair and sanction the PL too for allowing the Newcastle takeover, but that’ll never happen unfortunately.

It’s a horrible state of affairs all round, many chickens are coming home to roost.
 
Liver_bird said:
Yes and I think you know this pal. You’ve been one of the better Chelsea fans coming across here and I can’t judge because I haven’t grown up supporting a Russian oligarch backed club. But I personally wouldn’t be able to stand it. I couldn’t even advocate or play whataboutism. I know it’s difficult right now, but I think the best outcome for Chelsea is being taken over by business first capitalists and having to rely on actually working for your success. It’s far more gratifying.

But some of the state of posts I’ve seen on here in regards to comparisons has been shocking. I’ve a Chelsea supporting brother, he’s a thoroughly smart bloke but it’s insane how tribalism and a lack of care can cloud perception.
Click to expand...

I suppose what I was asking was, hypothetically, if it could be proven beyond doubt that there is no connection between anyone involved with this group and the state, would there be a difference between a normal Saudi investment group or a US investment group. Its a moot point anyway, because I don't think that claim could ever be something that's genuinely possible in a country like Saudi Arabia and it didn't take that long before indirect links to the state started popping up. It was a no from me from the beginning regardless, because the optics are bad, even if they were sneaky clean.

Liver_bird said:
I think the optics would be horrific rn from a purely cynical viewpoint. We’re in unprecedented times to some extent, I don’t think there would be any appetite from anyone in this country for another disgusting regime to walk in. This government is many things but one thing it’s proved is it’ll respond to whatever is the popular sentiment.

Now if they can only grow a pair and sanction the PL too for allowing the Newcastle takeover, but that’ll never happen unfortunately.

It’s a horrible state of affairs all round, many chickens are coming home to roost.
Click to expand...

I don't think the government would have a leg to stand on though in rejecting a bid like this. What would they say? That it's a murderous regime that we shouldn't be doing business with? I don't think a statement like that against an ally and a huge business partner to the UK would ever be uttered by this government. So yeah, there would be a ton of bad press and the public would be baying for blood, but neither the government nor the league would unfortunately be in a position to moralise about the dangers of jumping into bed with the Saudis.
 
A Saudi consortium? What a farce, I guess Chelsea fans be content knowing they won't drop much if at all.
 
How does this affect their womens team? Suppose the cost for and the sales around that team aren't that big... but merch and tickets for their games should work just the same, right?
 
Ken bates quote worth the read.
From daily mail.

'The fact that you can't buy a match programme must mean that Putin is s****** himself': Former Chelsea owner Ken Bates slams sanctions imposed on the club as he claims 'it is the ordinary people who are suffering'

Ken Bates has never been one to mince words and the former Chelsea owner is forthright in his condemnation of the Government sanctions imposed on the club.

While the outspoken former football executive agrees with the decision to freeze the most famous of Roman Abramovichs assets, Bates is furious that Chelsea fans and staff have been forced to suffer too, with tickets sales frozen, club facilities shut and jobs said to be at risk.

He cannot fathom what meaningful impact such measures could exert on Vladimir Putin and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The fact that you cant buy a Chelsea match programme must mean that Putin is s*****g himself and all the ordinary people of Moscow are hiding in their cellars because they cant see a Chelsea match on TV, Bates said, speaking from his home in Monte Carlo.

As usual it is the ordinary people who are suffering. Youve probably got people working at Chelsea saying do they have a job? What is their future? Do they have security? And fans at Chelsea. What have they got to do with Putin bombing maternity hospitals in Ukraine?

Instead weve got all these regulations, which just get some good headlines. "England takes firm action against Russia." If we are trying to help Ukraine we should be doing things that are meaningful.

Bates famously bought Chelsea for a £1 in 1982 before selling to Abramovich 19 years later in a deal reported to be worth around £140million.

Abramovich had grown rich after acquiring state-owned assets following the break-up of the Soviet Union and was close to Putin, then serving his first term as president, but the source of his wealth was scarcely investigated in the UK at the time.

Selling it to a Russian was the same as selling to anybody else, Bates says. It was no different in those days. The dealings I had with him were always straightforward and simple.

What is his response to the oligarchs asset-freeze? I dont feel sympathy for him. Why should I? Hes worth £7-8billion. But he can only eat steak and chips twice a day, same as me. When he goes to his grave, his shroud wont have any pockets in it.

The Government has said it will allow the club to be sold despite the sanctions on Abramovich. Potential bidders who want to expand Stamford Bridge will run into the same problem that the current owner has faced.

The brainchild of Bates during his time in charge, the Chelsea Pitch Owners group own the leasehold to Stamford Bridge and the club name, giving them the power of veto on any proposed venue move.

Bates is proud that he empowered the fans with an idea inspired by an enterprising Irishman he had heard about. The Irish are all over the world and they get sentimental about the "old sod". This guy bought four acres of land north of Dublin. Sold it off in square foot pieces. 100 quid each or whatever. Then he went around the world, saying have a piece of the old sod.

I thought what a bloody clever idea. Ill do the same with Chelsea. But the lawyer rang me up and said Ken if you do that youre trading in land. Youll probably get charged VAT. And youve got to pay registration.

So then I came up with the idea of forming a company, the Chelsea pitch owners. I gave them a 999-year lease on the pitch. And I made a rule no matter how many shares you own you only have one vote.

I also gave them the name Chelsea Football Club and I said you can only use that name if you play at Stamford Bridge. So the fans own the name and the pitch. Stamford Bridge is probably the most valuable piece of land in London. But it belongs to the club. Thats my legacy.
 
Rajiztar said:
Ken bates quote worth the read.
From daily mail.

'The fact that you can't buy a match programme must mean that Putin is s****** himself': Former Chelsea owner Ken Bates slams sanctions imposed on the club as he claims 'it is the ordinary people who are suffering'

Ken Bates has never been one to mince words and the former Chelsea owner is forthright in his condemnation of the Government sanctions imposed on the club.

While the outspoken former football executive agrees with the decision to freeze the most famous of Roman Abramovichs assets, Bates is furious that Chelsea fans and staff have been forced to suffer too, with tickets sales frozen, club facilities shut and jobs said to be at risk.

He cannot fathom what meaningful impact such measures could exert on Vladimir Putin and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The fact that you cant buy a Chelsea match programme must mean that Putin is s*****g himself and all the ordinary people of Moscow are hiding in their cellars because they cant see a Chelsea match on TV, Bates said, speaking from his home in Monte Carlo.

As usual it is the ordinary people who are suffering. Youve probably got people working at Chelsea saying do they have a job? What is their future? Do they have security? And fans at Chelsea. What have they got to do with Putin bombing maternity hospitals in Ukraine?

Instead weve got all these regulations, which just get some good headlines. "England takes firm action against Russia." If we are trying to help Ukraine we should be doing things that are meaningful.

Bates famously bought Chelsea for a £1 in 1982 before selling to Abramovich 19 years later in a deal reported to be worth around £140million.

Abramovich had grown rich after acquiring state-owned assets following the break-up of the Soviet Union and was close to Putin, then serving his first term as president, but the source of his wealth was scarcely investigated in the UK at the time.

Selling it to a Russian was the same as selling to anybody else, Bates says. It was no different in those days. The dealings I had with him were always straightforward and simple.

What is his response to the oligarchs asset-freeze? I dont feel sympathy for him. Why should I? Hes worth £7-8billion. But he can only eat steak and chips twice a day, same as me. When he goes to his grave, his shroud wont have any pockets in it.

The Government has said it will allow the club to be sold despite the sanctions on Abramovich. Potential bidders who want to expand Stamford Bridge will run into the same problem that the current owner has faced.

The brainchild of Bates during his time in charge, the Chelsea Pitch Owners group own the leasehold to Stamford Bridge and the club name, giving them the power of veto on any proposed venue move.

Bates is proud that he empowered the fans with an idea inspired by an enterprising Irishman he had heard about. The Irish are all over the world and they get sentimental about the "old sod". This guy bought four acres of land north of Dublin. Sold it off in square foot pieces. 100 quid each or whatever. Then he went around the world, saying have a piece of the old sod.

I thought what a bloody clever idea. Ill do the same with Chelsea. But the lawyer rang me up and said Ken if you do that youre trading in land. Youll probably get charged VAT. And youve got to pay registration.

So then I came up with the idea of forming a company, the Chelsea pitch owners. I gave them a 999-year lease on the pitch. And I made a rule no matter how many shares you own you only have one vote.

I also gave them the name Chelsea Football Club and I said you can only use that name if you play at Stamford Bridge. So the fans own the name and the pitch. Stamford Bridge is probably the most valuable piece of land in London. But it belongs to the club. Thats my legacy.
Click to expand...

So you’re now championing Ken Bates? Jesus. He almost ruined Chelsea.
 
Rajiztar said:
Ken bates quote worth the read.
From daily mail.

'The fact that you can't buy a match programme must mean that Putin is s****** himself': Former Chelsea owner Ken Bates slams sanctions imposed on the club as he claims 'it is the ordinary people who are suffering'

Ken Bates has never been one to mince words and the former Chelsea owner is forthright in his condemnation of the Government sanctions imposed on the club.

While the outspoken former football executive agrees with the decision to freeze the most famous of Roman Abramovichs assets, Bates is furious that Chelsea fans and staff have been forced to suffer too, with tickets sales frozen, club facilities shut and jobs said to be at risk.

He cannot fathom what meaningful impact such measures could exert on Vladimir Putin and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The fact that you cant buy a Chelsea match programme must mean that Putin is s*****g himself and all the ordinary people of Moscow are hiding in their cellars because they cant see a Chelsea match on TV, Bates said, speaking from his home in Monte Carlo.

As usual it is the ordinary people who are suffering. Youve probably got people working at Chelsea saying do they have a job? What is their future? Do they have security? And fans at Chelsea. What have they got to do with Putin bombing maternity hospitals in Ukraine?

Instead weve got all these regulations, which just get some good headlines. "England takes firm action against Russia." If we are trying to help Ukraine we should be doing things that are meaningful.

Bates famously bought Chelsea for a £1 in 1982 before selling to Abramovich 19 years later in a deal reported to be worth around £140million.

Abramovich had grown rich after acquiring state-owned assets following the break-up of the Soviet Union and was close to Putin, then serving his first term as president, but the source of his wealth was scarcely investigated in the UK at the time.

Selling it to a Russian was the same as selling to anybody else, Bates says. It was no different in those days. The dealings I had with him were always straightforward and simple.

What is his response to the oligarchs asset-freeze? I dont feel sympathy for him. Why should I? Hes worth £7-8billion. But he can only eat steak and chips twice a day, same as me. When he goes to his grave, his shroud wont have any pockets in it.

The Government has said it will allow the club to be sold despite the sanctions on Abramovich. Potential bidders who want to expand Stamford Bridge will run into the same problem that the current owner has faced.

The brainchild of Bates during his time in charge, the Chelsea Pitch Owners group own the leasehold to Stamford Bridge and the club name, giving them the power of veto on any proposed venue move.

Bates is proud that he empowered the fans with an idea inspired by an enterprising Irishman he had heard about. The Irish are all over the world and they get sentimental about the "old sod". This guy bought four acres of land north of Dublin. Sold it off in square foot pieces. 100 quid each or whatever. Then he went around the world, saying have a piece of the old sod.

I thought what a bloody clever idea. Ill do the same with Chelsea. But the lawyer rang me up and said Ken if you do that youre trading in land. Youll probably get charged VAT. And youve got to pay registration.

So then I came up with the idea of forming a company, the Chelsea pitch owners. I gave them a 999-year lease on the pitch. And I made a rule no matter how many shares you own you only have one vote.

I also gave them the name Chelsea Football Club and I said you can only use that name if you play at Stamford Bridge. So the fans own the name and the pitch. Stamford Bridge is probably the most valuable piece of land in London. But it belongs to the club. Thats my legacy.
Click to expand...

Honestly would rather hear what Ja Rule thinks.

Ken Bates is a fossil and clearly has no concept of anything beyond his own blinkered interpretation of the world.
 
TheReligion said:
So you’re now championing Ken Bates? Jesus. He almost ruined Chelsea.
Click to expand...

CPO was a product of its time. It’s now antiquated and redundant.

Despite it holding the club back from competing financially with other big clubs, we have fans who buy into this nonsense about it protecting the club. Would I want the club to move from Stamford Bridge? Not really but at this point it’s obvious that expansion is virtually impossible.
 
Rajiztar said:
Ken bates quote worth the read.
From daily mail.

'The fact that you can't buy a match programme must mean that Putin is s****** himself': Former Chelsea owner Ken Bates slams sanctions imposed on the club as he claims 'it is the ordinary people who are suffering'

Ken Bates has never been one to mince words and the former Chelsea owner is forthright in his condemnation of the Government sanctions imposed on the club.

While the outspoken former football executive agrees with the decision to freeze the most famous of Roman Abramovichs assets, Bates is furious that Chelsea fans and staff have been forced to suffer too, with tickets sales frozen, club facilities shut and jobs said to be at risk.

He cannot fathom what meaningful impact such measures could exert on Vladimir Putin and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The fact that you cant buy a Chelsea match programme must mean that Putin is s*****g himself and all the ordinary people of Moscow are hiding in their cellars because they cant see a Chelsea match on TV, Bates said, speaking from his home in Monte Carlo.

As usual it is the ordinary people who are suffering. Youve probably got people working at Chelsea saying do they have a job? What is their future? Do they have security? And fans at Chelsea. What have they got to do with Putin bombing maternity hospitals in Ukraine?

Instead weve got all these regulations, which just get some good headlines. "England takes firm action against Russia." If we are trying to help Ukraine we should be doing things that are meaningful.

Bates famously bought Chelsea for a £1 in 1982 before selling to Abramovich 19 years later in a deal reported to be worth around £140million.

Abramovich had grown rich after acquiring state-owned assets following the break-up of the Soviet Union and was close to Putin, then serving his first term as president, but the source of his wealth was scarcely investigated in the UK at the time.

Selling it to a Russian was the same as selling to anybody else, Bates says. It was no different in those days. The dealings I had with him were always straightforward and simple.

What is his response to the oligarchs asset-freeze? I dont feel sympathy for him. Why should I? Hes worth £7-8billion. But he can only eat steak and chips twice a day, same as me. When he goes to his grave, his shroud wont have any pockets in it.

The Government has said it will allow the club to be sold despite the sanctions on Abramovich. Potential bidders who want to expand Stamford Bridge will run into the same problem that the current owner has faced.

The brainchild of Bates during his time in charge, the Chelsea Pitch Owners group own the leasehold to Stamford Bridge and the club name, giving them the power of veto on any proposed venue move.

Bates is proud that he empowered the fans with an idea inspired by an enterprising Irishman he had heard about. The Irish are all over the world and they get sentimental about the "old sod". This guy bought four acres of land north of Dublin. Sold it off in square foot pieces. 100 quid each or whatever. Then he went around the world, saying have a piece of the old sod.

I thought what a bloody clever idea. Ill do the same with Chelsea. But the lawyer rang me up and said Ken if you do that youre trading in land. Youll probably get charged VAT. And youve got to pay registration.

So then I came up with the idea of forming a company, the Chelsea pitch owners. I gave them a 999-year lease on the pitch. And I made a rule no matter how many shares you own you only have one vote.

I also gave them the name Chelsea Football Club and I said you can only use that name if you play at Stamford Bridge. So the fans own the name and the pitch. Stamford Bridge is probably the most valuable piece of land in London. But it belongs to the club. Thats my legacy.
Click to expand...
Quoting a Daily Mail article from Ken Bates is absolutely not worth a read
 
Have they confirmed when they'll be correctly awarding us the illegitimate titles Chelsea won yet?
 
So all the chelsea players who are out of contract this summer will be leaving on frees as Chelsea cant offer them new deals if they wanted to i presume?

Dont they have 6-7 players out of contract for the summer of 2023 as well? I can see the vultures circling around those players as well.
 
dinostar77 said:
So all the chelsea players who are out of contract this summer will be leaving on frees as Chelsea cant offer them new deals if they wanted to i presume?

Dont they have 6-7 players out of contract for the summer of 2023 as well? I can see the vultures circling around those players as well.
Click to expand...

3 players out of contract this summer, 2 would likely have left anyway.

Are you expecting sanctions to remain in place in 12 months time?
 
dinostar77 said:
So all the chelsea players who are out of contract this summer will be leaving on frees as Chelsea cant offer them new deals if they wanted to i presume?

Dont they have 6-7 players out of contract for the summer of 2023 as well? I can see the vultures circling around those players as well.
Click to expand...

Christensen, Azpi and Rudiger. At least 2 of them were probably off anyway according to reports from before this whole mess).

This will get sorted (one way or another) long before the 2023 contracts become an issue.
 
duffer said:
Because it's not a tuesday night kickabout down the park between friends.
Click to expand...

Nike sending clothes to private addresses doesn't sound that far fetched to me. I heard people do it all the time these days.
 
WeePat said:
3 players out of contract this summer, 2 would likely have left anyway.

Are you expecting sanctions to remain in place in 12 months time?
Click to expand...
I'm expecting our bumbling government to add delays to any potential sale of chelsea FC.
 
duffer said:
Christensen, Azpi and Rudiger. At least 2 of them were probably off anyway according to reports from before this whole mess).

This will get sorted (one way or another) long before the 2023 contracts become an issue.
Click to expand...
Normally a club would try to sell a player the summer before his contract is due to expire, with the current situation Chelsea cant offer new deals nor line deals up to get them off the books.

I just dont think UK gov have thought this one through properly, as in how it affect Chelsea FC in a sporting sense regardless if its owned by Abramovich.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.