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

Bluelion7 said:
Everyone had net deficits after the two Covid years. Ours ONLY being 139 million proves my point more than yours. The NFL has probably the greatest “guaranteed” income in the world, and 20 of the 32 teams still lost gobs of money during that period. Without Romelu Lukaku we would have been near net even… during the Covid disaster . That’s pretty impressive. We are not revenue generator like Man United, no. But the days of every dollar having to come from Roman were over as well.
And no, that is not how sanctions against an individual work. Which was exactly my point. They are behaving as if the CLUB is sanctioned.
Click to expand...

Not every dollar from Roman this is true but it is an undisputable fact that he has continued to supplement the club every season and even this year has covered the shortfall in the clubs accounts some months so that they can pay the wages. Chelsea do not currently have sufficient revenue streams to service their wage bill and expenses unaided and so a new owner willing to lose money is the only way you can continue to run as you have been. I doubt another owner is willing to lose a fortune funding a vanity project so it will likely be option 2 which is likely a few prize assets on high salaries shipped out this summer and a much more realistic transfer and salary budget moving forward. It does not have to be a negative as this is a moment the club was always going to have to face and better it happen off the back of recent trophies and with CL football next year. Prudent management could still keep Chelsea around the top 4 and progressing to a more healthy financial situation.

With regards to the 1.5 billion debt as it has been mentioned a few times. Chelsea is not actually liable for any of it as Roman funneled it all into a separate company which exists purely to park the debt. When there was talk of him leaving back when he lost his investors visa a couple of years ago it was concluded that if he wanted to protect the club he could sell Chelsea but retain the company holding the debt and once the sale was complete simply wind it up as bankrupt and Chelsea would be totally shielded. Not sure if this is still the case but it seems plausible.
 
sun_tzu said:
and first 2 lines from wiki


perhaps they will occasionally let Newcastle win to keep some pretence of a competition?

or perhaps newcaste will buy kepa for a trillion pounds ... sure newcastle will get a load of FFP issues and be banned from europe for a few years but chelsea will have a trillion quid they can spend
Click to expand...
Different company. SRMG do however employ SMC.

'The Saudi Research and Media Group (SRMG) has appointed the Saudi Media Company (SMC), a leader in digital advertising sales across the Middle East, as its exclusive media representative. Based on the agreement, SMC will handle commercial advertising sales for all SRMG brands and platforms, including audio-visual, print and digital, effective November 8th, 2021.'

However this is a reasonably well balanced take from a Chelsea blog.

'It’s a bold claim given the conditions and circumstances of media operations in the country, or such things as SMC’s Mohamed Alkhereiji, who’s spearheading this bid and is the CEO of SMC’s parent company, Engineer Holding Group (EHG), also serving as the chairman of the Middle East Broadcasting Center Group, whose major shareholder is Abdul Aziz bin Fahd, the son of the former Saudi King, King Fahd (EDIT: or at least used to be; point being that it’s all soft power in the end for the state itself). And even if these claims of independence are true (assuming they’re relevant or needed in the first place), Chelsea are said to have discouraged “politically sensitive” bids, though SMC evidently don’t believe that applies to them. It’s not going to be an easy sell either way. (Or maybe it is; who knows what political whims and winds are going to blow in whichever direction.)'
 
sun_tzu said:
and first 2 lines from wiki


perhaps they will occasionally let Newcastle win to keep some pretence of a competition?

or perhaps newcaste will buy kepa for a trillion pounds ... sure newcastle will get a load of FFP issues and be banned from europe for a few years but chelsea will have a trillion quid they can spend
Click to expand...

Literally in the subsequent tweets he mentions a link to the state. It's a big fat no from me. It's too messy already. If they're connecting this media group with folks either within the state or close to the state at this stage already, it's pretty much a guarantee the Saudi state has their fingers all over this. Please stay away from my club.

 
Paxi said:
Right so the club has been seized in full then. I thought his assets were just frozen but he technically had his final say.
Click to expand...

It's not really been seized in that sense. It's still just a frozen asset, but Abramovich has allowed the government to oversee the sale via Raine Group.
 
Government just try to avoid handpick who will own Chelsea. It can go seriously awkward so just keep roman in loop to pick the next owner and after government accept the owner then only sale proceedings will go through.But roman won't get a penny and money will goto both war victims Ukrainians and Russians.
 
If Tony Khan and Family are real Fulham fans, they would buy Chelsea fold the club and then turn it into private flats to get their money back.
 
Rajiztar said:
Government just try to avoid handpick who will own Chelsea. It can go seriously awkward so just keep roman in loop to pick the next owner and after government accept the owner then only sale proceedings will go through.But roman won't get a penny and money will goto both war victims Ukrainians and Russians.
Click to expand...
Russia isn’t getting a penny of this ffs
 
choccy77 said:
If Tony Khan and Family are real Fulham fans, they would buy Chelsea fold the club and then turn it into private flats to get their money back.
Click to expand...

If the Fulham owners at the back end of the 19th century agreed to buy Stamford Bridge, Chelsea wouldn't even exist. They've had their chance to stop Chelsea becoming what it is today.
 
Bluelion7 said:
Everyone had net deficits after the two Covid years. Ours ONLY being 139 million proves my point more than yours. The NFL has probably the greatest “guaranteed” income in the world, and 20 of the 32 teams still lost gobs of money during that period. Without Romelu Lukaku we would have been near net even… during the Covid disaster . That’s pretty impressive. We are not revenue generator like Man United, no. But the days of every dollar having to come from Roman were over as well.
And no, that is not how sanctions against an individual work. Which was exactly my point. They are behaving as if the CLUB is sanctioned.
Click to expand...
Didn't Roman have to bail you out in 2018 or was it 2019?
 
WeePat said:
If the Fulham owners at the back end of the 19th century agreed to buy Stamford Bridge, Chelsea wouldn't even exist. They've had their chance to stop Chelsea becoming what it is today.
Click to expand...
Ironically it was Henry Norris (who decided against Fulham playing at The Bridge), the guy who then went on to Arsenal where he allegedly brought promotion (literally).
 
GifLord said:
Didn't Roman have to bail you out in 2018 or was it 2019?
Click to expand...
Thats because Chelsea buy out Adidas sponsor and Conte got sacked had to pay him too i think. COVID years aside we were always within our means.

May not be sustainable because player sale income raised steadily during that period. But we weren't bankrupt like some on here portraying.

Yes if chelsea avoid lukakus Torres morottas drinkwaters then we will be very very competitive with our excellent academy continuously producing good players we will be there every season.
 
Last edited:
cyberman said:
Russia isn’t getting a penny of this ffs
Click to expand...
Russians and Ukrainians both will get. Thats what i read. It's not about Russian soldiers but many Russians also in Ukraine and got dead in this war.
 
Rajiztar said:
Thats because Chelsea buy out Adidas sponsor and Conte got sacked had to pay him too i think. COVID years aside we were always within our means.

May not be sustainable because player sale income raised steadily during that period. But we weren't bankrupt like some on here portraying.

Yes if chelsea avoid lukakus Torres morottas drinkwaters then we will be very very competitive with our excellent academy continuously producing good players we will be there every season.
Click to expand...

I would not be too sure of that. Your academy has been largely stuffed with players pinched from other clubs by offering bigger contracts and not really having to give a feck about paying compensation. If the money tap is turned off you won't have half as much talent in the pipeline as you have been used to.
 
Gandalf said:
I would not be too sure of that. Your academy has been largely stuffed with players pinched from other clubs by offering bigger contracts and not really having to give a feck about paying compensation. If the money tap is turned off you won't have half as much talent in the pipeline as you have been used to.
Click to expand...
Thats not true. Yes we were signed talented kids from others here and there like most clubs but most kids were play for us from u8 s u 13s. So I don't know from where you get this idea.
 
WeePat said:
If the Fulham owners at the back end of the 19th century agreed to buy Stamford Bridge, Chelsea wouldn't even exist. They've had their chance to stop Chelsea becoming what it is today.
Click to expand...

Well, they had a choice of two and chose granny and her cottage :lol:
 
Rajiztar said:
Thats not true. Yes we were signed talented kids from others here and there like most clubs but most kids were play for us from u8 s u 13s. So I don't know from where you get this idea.
Click to expand...

I probably got the idea from the UEFA investigation that found you guilty of doing just that and banned you from conducting transfers for a year.
 
Gandalf said:
I would not be too sure of that. Your academy has been largely stuffed with players pinched from other clubs by offering bigger contracts and not really having to give a feck about paying compensation. If the money tap is turned off you won't have half as much talent in the pipeline as you have been used to.
Click to expand...

Complete and utter guff.
 
Genuine question, for that kind of money, why wouldn't a potential owner just buy United? The market cap is well less than that, even at a premium.
 
duffer said:
Because Man United are not for sale and the Glaziers wouldn't entertain selling at the price Chelsea will eventually go for.
Click to expand...
Is that because the stock on the market are a different class than the Glazers'? I think I remember hearing that. Otherwise couldn't someone just do a hostile takeover a bit like the Glazers themselves did?
 
Beachryan said:
Genuine question, for that kind of money, why wouldn't a potential owner just buy United? The market cap is well less than that, even at a premium.
Click to expand...

The Saudis? You're welcome to them. The middle eastern Manchester Derby kinda has a ring to it :D
 
Gandalf said:
Truth hurts

Chelsea's transfer ban explained: What did they do wrong, and how will the punishment play out? (espn.com)
Click to expand...

That's about the transfer ban we got years ago. Have you linked the wrong thing?

The big successes from our academy (Mount, Tammy, James, Tomori, CHO, RLC, Gallagher) have all been at the club since they were about 8.

We have never "stuffed the academy with players pinched from other clubs". There's the odd few of course (like every top side, including you lot) but none of them have really been much of a success anyway.
 
What happened to free spech, ehh?
 
So they are now being bought by a richer entity?
They're going to spend even more now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.