fecking hell, the state of some of our fanbase. Shameful shit.
Roman Abramovich plans to sell Chelsea | SOLD for £4.25BN
- Thread starter Ali Dia
- Start date
Appreciate the kind words in these dark times mate - hope all is well with you and yours!
BREAKING: Roman Abramovich will receive bids to buy Chelsea this week with parties believing that, for the first time, he will consider a sale.
Roman Abramovich has previously turned down offers worth £2.2 billion for Chelsea, while the club’s debt to him is £1.51bn which he would almost certainly expect to be covered. (Telegraph) #CFC
For the first time during his ownership, potential buyers believe he would be willing to sell the club.
Preventing the club being part of sanctions. Club being prepared for an eventual sale… #
Roman Abramovich has previously turned down offers worth £2.2 billion for Chelsea, while the club’s debt to him is £1.51bn which he would almost certainly expect to be covered. (Telegraph) #CFC
For the first time during his ownership, potential buyers believe he would be willing to sell the club.
Preventing the club being part of sanctions. Club being prepared for an eventual sale… #
He should get Drogba involved in some capacity who has experience with this type of thing.
I'm with Tuchel here. As I was with Rangnick when they keep asking again and again what everyone feels about this.
Wow, there must be loads of politicians on the Caf judging by the amount of activity on the Ukraine thread and this one!
Not surprising given they regularly bomb the shit out of Yemen
Yes, and one of their owners half brothers has a video of him torturing a man to death in the desert in the UAE. Yet the British press won't say a bad word about that, for obvious reasons.
It's about time we fecked off state ownership for football for these exact reasons. Fans of those clubs end up venerating MURDERERS, because they buy them a Drogba or Aguero or a Trippier. The people running a football club should either be 51% fans, or at least an elected representative from a company that operates in that constituency. The German method might not end up with the best footballers, but at least you can grandstand -some- kind of ethics. It's really hard to follow football with any seriousness these days, given the world cups in Russia and Qatar, and the absolutely rife and clear levels of corruption, doping and cheating that go completely ignored.
Wiki on the subject here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issa_bin_Zayed_Al_Nahyan
Why would anyone spend 2.2bn on Chelsea when they can buy Brighton for 100m and spend 600m odd to bankroll them into Chelsea's position.
Maybe West London is a key area for some states out there
What creative and totally original nickname will Chelsea have once we leave Russian hands and fall into American hands?
Chelsylvania? Yanksea?
Chelsylvania? Yanksea?
That might be the case but gaining the worldwide reputation, fanbase and becoming as big a club as we have done in the last two decades will be a totally harder challenge.
City have matched (and are probably about to beat) our EPL title haul, devoured us in terms of league cup wins and were Kai Havertz panicking away from possibly matching us in regards to the UCL yet they've not got close to making those gains on us.
Last edited:
I’m these political times I would love to go for Chomsky.
Because it’s practically impossible to expect to get Brighton into Chelsea’s position for 600m.
I’d argue you aren’t that bigger now then you were 10 years ago, I dont think any position is that hard to reach other than Liverpool and Uniteds. The billionaires don’t take over big clubs for a reason, it’s to mould smaller clubs in their vision and have it easier to sports wash with.
If anybody takes over Chelsea it’s some sort of investment group with eyes on tv rights in the future. Same with Utd.
I think there's other factors beyond the investment that is required to help the club grow in terms of it's standing.
Money got us resources to win in itself but being in London (and the only team in the capital with the ambition/resources to win once Wenger dismantled his invincibles and went all in on project youth), quickly mastering the UCL in terms of competing at the latter stages, Mourinho's box office personality (which according to Terry Rooney told him triggered your squad to the point of actively cheering on Liverpool against us) combined with the personalities of Drogba, Essien, Terry, Carvalho etc and the fact we already made some headway on the global scale with the Zola, Vialli, Di Matteo era meant we became a massive club fairly quickly.
I'm not convinced that our club growth of the last 20 years will be easily to replicate at any random club, even if they match/better the success rate on the pitch but i guess there's only one way to find out.
Is there anyway, any way at all, that the Glazers could sell up and buy Chelsea for some weird kind of profit. Then run them into the ground over a slow painful period of time instead?
Buying Chelsea then putting that debt on the club would be interesting. They can get Ed back and put the band back together
Has Usmanov had his assets frozen? If so RA will be next
The report report earlier of him trying to find a buyer looks likely in my opinion
The report report earlier of him trying to find a buyer looks likely in my opinion
Idiots gave us a Polish nickname ("Chelski") when a Russian took over. Maybe a Mexican or Canadian one if an American person buys the club?
Chelupa!
You may not want to admit it, but Chelsea have had this ownership for almost 20 years, they are a big football club now, they have been competing and winning at the top level for two decades, attract top level players and managers and have a worldwide fanbase. How long does a club have to be at the top and how successful does a club have to be to be considered a big club?
I don't think that has anything to do with the point he's making.
It's more, if you have that kind of money, why buy an already established club when you can go down the city route. And he's right.
The City route was successful because they built their reputation on the back of being antagonists to United. Had they taken over Burnley there would have been much less widespread interest in the city project and generally a lot less people around the world caring about what they did.
Pure arrogance. Whilst being in the same city as United to helped, to say they've been successful because of being United's rivals is laughable.
If that's the case, why did the saudis buy Newcastle as opposed to a club like Everton? Fulham? West ham?
Agree. They could have taken over Nottingham Forest instead of City back then and they still would have dominated the league today.
I hope the Glazers sell to. I want a shady rich owner that wants to change the image of their country.
Sounds like we'll end up in the hands of people who very much care about profit first. That Swiss bloke is talking about a consortium of 5 or 6 investors. With that many people involved looking at spreadsheets and profit margins the focus tends to be less and less on the football.
But here we are. We have probably become too big for a singular owner to take over.
But here we are. We have probably become too big for a singular owner to take over.
I think if we first hear an alleged potential buyer talk about the sale loudly in his county's version of The Sun, you can put a massive question mark after his genuineness.
MBS probably regrets going for Newcastle now. Chelsea should have been perfect instead.
God, how I long for the day the Glazers sell Manchester United. I wonder if I will live long enough to see it.
How long did Roman take to propel Chelsea into title challengers? 2 years? City 3 years? Newcastle already look like a top 10 team in hardly 6 months. Thats your data, a PL team will take around 3 years of investment or 6 windows to be established as title challengers. Why would someone put that investment into Chelsea, instead of propping up a smaller team and dumping Chelsea down the table. All the while at 1bn lesser than it Chelsea would need.
Here's a good example of why sportswashing works if you look at the response here:
If you say something fairly innocent, such as that you personally would give your season ticket up at United should they fall under the ownership of an oligarch, dictator or state fund, you immediately get jumped on by City and Newcastle fans who feel the need to defend their unchallenged allegiance to their clubs. Taking ownership of a major sports club instantly gives you a huge legion of people who need little provocation to engage in whataboutery and at best neutrality towards, and at worst support for, the actions of a regime. That's exactly the trap that I never want to fall into. I don't want to ever feel the need to justify my support that way. I was against the possible purchase of United by the Saudis for years for that reason.
If you say something fairly innocent, such as that you personally would give your season ticket up at United should they fall under the ownership of an oligarch, dictator or state fund, you immediately get jumped on by City and Newcastle fans who feel the need to defend their unchallenged allegiance to their clubs. Taking ownership of a major sports club instantly gives you a huge legion of people who need little provocation to engage in whataboutery and at best neutrality towards, and at worst support for, the actions of a regime. That's exactly the trap that I never want to fall into. I don't want to ever feel the need to justify my support that way. I was against the possible purchase of United by the Saudis for years for that reason.
Because investors will look at a variety of metrics to assess how interesting it might be to acquire a certain asset, and in the case of a football club, capacity to challenge will be one of course, but the brand recognition, commercial revenue, the global footprint... are others that will be at least as important. While they might be able to challenge with short term investments, gaining the same global status that Chelsea has would be a much longer project, and they might consider that those investments would come in more expensive than just buying an established club like Chelsea. You've also got to factor in market saturation, i.e. the fact that there's only so much space for so many clubs. It's definitely not as straightforward as you're making it out to be, and I could easily imagine investors looking at it and assessing Chelsea to be more interesting than trying to prop up a small club.
I distinctly remember a piece about Chelsea v Liverpool at the end of the 2002-03 season eventually being a 1 Billion dollar game in retrospect, since Chelsea won and qualified for the CL, while Pool finished 5th. It implied that Roman had a CL only agenda and would've picked either of Liverpool or Chelsea basis the result that day.Mayhe I should've said Spurs, at least Leicester won the PLdo you remember which clubs he was considering at the time?
Chelsea up for sale
Don't think they will, otherwise the Saudis would've purchased Spurs/Everton and not Newcastle. Don't think Roman is going to get anything close to the 2.2bn he's asking for. A deal - if it closes, will be around the 1.5bn mark, most probably under it. This might not neccessarily impact Chelsea though, because for all intents and purposes they are self sustaining and taking money out of the club will actually push them down and reduce their value, so no investor is going to do that. The only loser in this will be Abramovich.