You have to keep in mind the government have not seized the club from Abramovich. This is still essentially an owner choosing who he wants to sell his club to. The government's role doesn't go beyond making sure the incoming owners are palatable and the proceeds from the sale goes into a holding account Abramovich has no access to. Beyond that, Abramovich can instruct Raine Group to select based on whichever criteria he pleases, within the accepted limits. It's his club still. I fail to see why it wouldn't sit well with you if Raine Group rejects higher bids in favour of what they feel are better owners for the club. Why would that be a bothersome issue for anyone?
Roman Abramovich plans to sell Chelsea | SOLD for £4.25BN
- Thread starter Ali Dia
- Start date
You have to keep in mind the government have not seized the club from Abramovich. This is still essentially an owner choosing who he wants to sell his club to. The government's role doesn't go beyond making sure the incoming owners are palatable and the proceeds from the sale goes into a holding account Abramovich has no access to. Beyond that, Abramovich can instruct Raine Group to select based on whichever criteria he pleases, within the accepted limits. It's his club still. I fail to see why it wouldn't sit well with you if Raine Group rejects higher bids in favour of what they feel are better owners for the club. Why would that be a bothersome issue for anyone?
I can understand it because proceeds from the sale ostensibly are being donated to humanitarian causes in Ukraine - so I can appreciate that that is a more worthy cause than our football club. That said, if the money is being distributed by the Tories then I have a sneaking suspicion much of it will go elsewhere and I'm less inclined to feel bad, if that makes sense.
I'm not distupting this.
But if you don't understand why I have a problem with a sanctioned owner having a say over who the next owner will be when he has nothing to gain from the sale himself, the premier league having had no issue with allowing terrible owners right up until a few months ago, and that accepting a lower bid could deprive hundreds of millions from where the money will hopefully end up, then I'm surprised.
This isn't a fundraiser for Ukraine though. Its the sale of a football club. Its great that proceeds from the sale is going to humanitarian causes, if it indeed ends up there, but surely raising as much money as possible for a humanitarian cause isn't and shouldn't be at the forefront of the sales process.
I hear what you both are saying, but I'm not convinced you're right. If the government want total say on who gets to buy the club, they should seize the club and cut Abramovich out of the picture completely. Since they haven't, on what grounds would they step in and act like defacto custodians of the club?
Yeah I agree that it's unlikely and I don't think that @C'est Moi Cantona would dispute that. I am inclined to agree with him that it would be somewhat distasteful, especially if the perception is that by spending less on the sale the new owner is able to spend more on players or the stadium - and therefore by extension the club have strategically chosen a lower bid to better ourselves at the expense of a humanitarian crisis.
I definitely think that is a bit reductive, but I would suspect that this would be the prevailing narrative should this hypothetical come to pass. That said, I don't think anyone with Chelsea's best interests at heart could make a cogent argument for either Ricketts or Johnson over the Boehly consortium all else being equal - but I suppose therein lies the rub. To what extent is Chelsea's standing in world football worth an unequal bid?
Apologies if I've misrepresented your position in any way, @C'est Moi Cantona!
What you are saying is right I suppose, with regards to the government cutting RA out completely, and it should have happened imo, but perhaps legally it can't.
The first point is how you view things, as a Chelsea fan you see it purely as the sale of your club and want the best owner who will keep on funding you, so you have no issue with it going for £500 million less just as long as it's a good owner for you, which is fair enough, I'd maybe want the same for us, but as I say it doesn't sit right that the sale is been conducted like this to me for reasons given, and in the circumstances, yes I would say the amount raised far outweighs the benefit of accepting a lower bid for the good of Chelsea.
No, not at all.
It's not as the expense of a humanitarian crisis though. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but the proceeds of the sale being used to aid a humanitarian crisis doesn't mean that the club (or Raine Group at the behest of Abramovich) should make decisions to the detriment of themselves in order to raise more money for the cause. I understand Ukraine and the sale of Chelsea are intrinsically linked but the sales of proceeds will be the sales of the proceeds and what is done with that money is a bridge we'll cross when we get to it. Until then, Ukraine should have no bearing on the sales process and the outcome of it.
It feels fairly obvious that the goal of the sale of a football club should be the interests of the football club in question, and if the prevailing narrative ends up being that Chelsea somehow fecked over Ukrainians in need then, forgive me for being blunt, it would be a pretty bizarre narrative.
Abramovich initially instructed Raine Group before he was sanctioned. He likely knew what was coming but he wasn't officially sanctioned when he put the club up for sale and into the hands of Raind Group.
Its easy to paint me as a Chelsea fan who just wants what's best for his club. It is true to an extent, but I'm discussing this in good faith and I suppose I just fundamentally disagree that the club should be sold with the main aim of the sales process being to raise as much money for the crisis in Ukraine. Its important, of course it is, but its a separate issue. It seems pretty logical to me that Chelsea’s interest should be at the forefront of the sales process of Chelsea.
Last edited:
I suppose it all is just a bit muddled - usually when one is selling a large asset like this, more often than not the biggest bid is inherently the best for the selling party. The issue is though that Roman could conceivably have two different reasons for selling at a (relative) discount - either he wants what is best for the club (personally I'd genuinely believe this), or he wants less money to go to Ukraine (I don't believe this but also believe that this would be a prevailing narrative potentially - not that it's logical, but someone like Woody Johnson absolutely might kick up a fuss if he technically outbid someone more competent).
It's also unclear to me the extent to which the board is involved versus Abramovich versus the Raine group - if the board are the ultimate decision-makers then I agree with you that they should be picking the most compelling proposition first and foremost above sticker price.
I think I'm rambling a bit but I definitely agree with you in wanting what's best for Chelsea (at this point for me that's pretty clearly the Boehly consortium) - but I can definitely see how if they've bid £500m less than someone else that that looks a bit suspicious from the outside.
I can't put myself through reading the British mainstream press about this or anything else really. What's the gist of this? Will Roman not get the proceeds of the forced sale? If not, who will? How is this in line with any due process? The term whataboutism is being used to quell legitimate criticism. You have all these yank owners, who knows what they're tied up in, you've got Chinese investors, Qatar, Abu Dhabi, Saudis. The hypocrisy is truly astounding.
The brief appears to be to find the best owners possible, not necessarily the highest bidders. That's the perfect way to conduct the sale of a football club.
I don't think distasteful or suspicious are even remotely close to being accurate descriptors of Chelsea in this sales process. We obviously can't control what the prevailing narrative ends up being. I'm just saying, even if we put my love for Chelsea to side, logically it makes no sense to not prioritise the interests of the club during the sales process of said club. I understand the argument. I just disagree with it.
Last edited:
Before Roman was sanctioned (He may knew it was coming) he said he would sale the club and the net profits would go to the victims of the Ukraine war. I’m not sure it could be looked at as a forced sale. There are things that look like Roman was covering his ass or attempting to do so, like trying to move funds from investments to Chelsea FC.
I’m not sure anyone knows what was the actual plan before he was sanctioned? The UK government is allowing the sale as long as no proceeds go to Roman. No details on what happens to the funds after the sale? Who and where the funds will be held through the sanctions?
Fair enough! I think I would generally agree with you and I hope you're right; suppose I'm just playing a bit of devil's advocate in trying to see how it'd look from the outside.
Cheers for the chat; enjoyable as always mate!
My worry with another US owner is that we will move never closer to a Super League/no relegation type set up. Personally, I don't want to see anymore owners in the PL that think of their club as a 'franchise'
It most definitely is a forced sale. Sure, he tried to get ahead of things, but as it is, it's a forced sale of a football club in a league where there is loads of diabolical ownership.
I'm sorry but some of their fans deserve terrible owners, the continuing chanting of Abramovich's name is so incredibly tone deaf and proves that fans will overlook/even defend just about anything if an owner pumps in money and brings success. The Newcastle fans wearing tea towels are no different.
Who's looking likely to be the purchaser?
Who's looking likely to be the purchaser?
It really is.
Depends on who you want to believe. At the moment, it is either Boehly or Ricketts. However, I have my doubts. One thing I have always known about merchant banks and Billionaire's that if they are serious about buying an expensive purchase/taking over a company, they don't really talk to the press and/or publicly declare it if they're interested. Tbf, Boehly hasn't said much himself but I suspect there may be players that haven't been declared and/or some that were mentioned, have gone very quiet and being discounted are still in the running.
One thing I am certain of however, is that the likes of Kav from Sky Sports or anyone on Twitter doesn't have an inside track with a merchant bank.
If i was put on the spot, Boehly. Ricketts/Ken Griffin consortium will get shortlisted, too i think. But as @Dave Smith pointed out, i think an unknown bidder may also be in there.
It really is up in the air, I just think of all the ones i have read, Boehly is best suited. Nick Candy despite being a chelsea fan comes across as a right chancer, even though he has some serious backing behind him apparently.
Pre-season matches are all ready being played stateside and it wouldn't take much for a couple of US owned clubs to agree to play a Premier League fixture in say NY.
This isn't about diabolical ownership, it's about an active illegal war.
Still a long way down the road though. The more likely initial impact would be more late kickoffs on the weekend like we see with La Liga and Serie A scheduling 8 o clock PM starts on Saturday and Sunday. California is the largest tv market and they are 8 hours behind us.
Yemen says hello.
The war in Yemen does not threaten Western interests. If you are looking for moral or ethical reasoning behind the decisions our leaders make you are going to be looking for a very long time.
Well, I'm hesitant to throw gas on this dumpster fire, but this seems like it's highly relevant.
I was against that war, and protested it at the time. Doesn't mean I will stop the US from helping others when they are being wronged though.
I don't think Zaphod's statement is accurate. Participation in high school level tackle football has been declining every year since 2013-14 and college football attendance is dropping year over year as well.
I don't think its all due to concussions though, a combination of factors that surely includes the rise of social media, video games and hundreds of other things for kids to do (from getting into the Premier League to watching social influencers and video game streamers) than play or watch tackle football.
Last edited:
The government has amended the special license allowing Chelsea to sell tickets to fans for both PL and CL games. Proceeds from the Real Madrid game will be pocketed by UEFA and proceeds from the PL games will be pocketed by the PL and FA. They say some of that will go to charity too.
I don't think Zaphod's statement is accurate. Participation in high school level tackle football has been declining every year since 2013-14 and college football attendance is dropping year over year as well.
I don't think its all due to concussions though, a combination of factors that surely includes the rise of social media, video games and hundreds of other things for kids to do (from getting into the Premier League to watching social influencers and video game streamers) than play or watch tackle football.
That is reflective of sports overall. Football is still by a very large margin the most popular sport in American schools. Our stadiums are packed on Friday nights. Contrast that with a high school soccer match and just the kid’s parents and girlfriends show up for the boys. Girls soccer actually does a little better with attendance.
What state?
Here in California at the high schools around where I live, high school football is definitely less popular than it was 10 years ago and far less popular than 30 years ago. It still gets more attendance than other HS sports but it gets less than it used to (and only high school basketball ever really got meaningful attendance anyway) so I'd definitely say tackle football has been overall declining in popularity and fewer people care about it than at any other point in the last 50 years. As the Forbes article shows, it's declining across the board in all metrics meanwhile PL viewership is increasing. Sure, it's still the most popular sport but not by the margin it used to be and if trends continue, its margin will decrease further. Soccer will never be the USA's most popular sport but the margins will get closer in the coming decades.
Coastal Georgia
I completely agree Soccer is growing. We go to Atlanta United games and watch on TV. I went to the season opener against Sporting KC and there were 71k in attendance. Just five years ago nobody would have thought that at a MLS game.
I don’t think soccer is growing as a result of kids leaving football. I think it is because of more soccer rec and travel teams at the youth level. Parents are good with their young kids playing youth soccer even when they don’t follow the sport. The kids fall in love with the game. Soccer and American football usually have different skill sets, with a good amount of overlap on some skills. Kids are at a higher rate getting exposed to soccer and loving it. There are still huge amounts of kids playing American football. My generation are the ones that came from those horrible AYSO soccer leagues… but still loved playing. There are things changing, my wife and I did not allow our two boys to play American football. It was before the concussion headlines hit. We were more concerned about all the ACL injuries we were seeing with our high schoolers (we are both teachers). It used to be if you hit someone full on, you could really hurt your shoulders, like Brian Bosworth did. The pads have got so good there really is no risk of that now, so kids are getting leg injuries so much more.
Soccer is growing because kids love the sport and more are exposed to it.
Cheque must've cleared.
New ownership should be in place by then and the sanctions will be an irrelevance to Chelsea.
Simon Jordan questioning why anyone is paying stupid money for Chelsea, when it is a distressed asset.
Says makes very little business sense.
Have been saying this all along, the £3bn price tag even £2bn is far to much for a club of this size.
Will be interesting to see what happens in the short and long term.
Says makes very little business sense.
Have been saying this all along, the £3bn price tag even £2bn is far to much for a club of this size.
Will be interesting to see what happens in the short and long term.
I don’t get where the money is going? Who are they paying? If Chelsea are going to boom in a few months then why not wait? Makes zero sense.
Still so many unanswered questions.
I suspect at some point, the money will reach Roman in some form.