You can't equate investor groups and the Saudis (or Qataris or Emiratis) who do it for sportswashing reasons, and have very different access to capital. The criteria and metrics that will be looked at are very different.
Roman Abramovich plans to sell Chelsea | SOLD for £4.25BN
- Thread starter Ali Dia
- Start date
The question is if Chelsea can function as a big club without external investment. Utd have shown that they don't need investment and can function equally well without it. Has Chelsea displayed that, I don't know. If I was an investor Id try to get Chelsea at a steep discount so as to leave a decent enough purse to prop Chelsea up if they need it.
These are the metrics that investment groups would be looking at as part of their due diligence - pretty sure it would come up as a yes.
There's no way anyone will buy Chelsea "at a steep discount", in terms of football clubs it's a premium product (global footprint, recent success, location...). It might not go at the price Abramovich is hoping for, but it will be an extremely high price, and rightly so.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidd...-into-chelsea-despite-losing-love-for-london/
The problem with Chelsea is I don’t know how attractive they are without Roman pumping money in. The hiring and firing is gone with the random waking up and spouting 250m in a summer to bridge the gap not far behind it.
Nationalise Chelsea
Turn it into Britain FC, sign only British players with British managers and play a British style of football.
Turn it into Britain FC, sign only British players with British managers and play a British style of football.
What happens if they can't sell Chelsea before the sanctions.
One normal day following Chelsea is all I ask.
Roman has no bargaining power here does he, he is desperate to sell quick and everyone knows it
Rip to chelsea if some Americans take over.
My friends who support Chelsea are losing it. What a terrible week this has been for you guys
Might offer him a quid.
With Ole as manager? Maybe we could sell Maguire.
Chelsea fans were so calm to me a few days ago.
This must mean goodbye to any sort of new stadium for Chelsea now? An investment group won’t spend 1b on one now
This must mean goodbye to any sort of new stadium for Chelsea now? An investment group won’t spend 1b on one now
Roman‘s Chelsea has 2000 million pounds debt, so the new owner must think carefully to buy Chelsea. Due to his 2000 million pounds debt+ Chelsea’s value which probably combine over 3000 million pounds for sure.
It’s up to new owner, if this deal is complete. I hope Chelsea find good owner who really love this sports and not like Tom Hicks.
If Roman were simply leaving He would sell to whoever was best for Chelsea. This looks like it’s a fire sale to get out so it’s 50/59 imo.
The problem for Chelsea is that they never waned themselves off Romans billons so any owner will look likes a lesser owner because of it. No more spend hundreds of millions in the squad and hire and fire until someone can work with it
Might take a week, im afraid
Trust me, I'm still calm. Sure, I'm apprehensive about what the future looks like but the club won't go anywhere. Owners come and go as they have done since the beginning of time.
This is going to get a bit messy I think. As much as I like a bit of banter with the Chelsea bunch on here (and even though there’s been some idiotic posts about RA from some of them since the war) I wouldn’t want anything seriously bad to happen to the club.
As @WeePat and I said the other week though it’s certainly the end of an era and when he goes the whole structure will change, including Mariana and co. I don’t think any future buyer is able to do what RA has been able to do either. It’s another time and a tough sell with the debt and stadium issue.
As @WeePat and I said the other week though it’s certainly the end of an era and when he goes the whole structure will change, including Mariana and co. I don’t think any future buyer is able to do what RA has been able to do either. It’s another time and a tough sell with the debt and stadium issue.
My friends who support Chelsea are losing it. What a terrible week this has been for you guys
I don't know why they'd be losing it. Yes we might not have a billionaire benevolent benefactor going forward, and we might have to forget about competing with City, but the club remains where it is, where it's always been and we can only judge what success looks like in the future once we have the new ownership in place and we see what they're about. Until then, I'm very relaxed about things.
Tbh, the recent "historic" success Chelsea have enjoyed is in danger of coming to an end. I certainly don't see any new owners coming in investing like Roman did. He would invest even if it didn't make business sense.
I wouldn't say Chelsea is "where it's always been". Where Chelsea has been since Roman took charge is a very different place to where they have always been.
I mean we won't dive down the leagues like many people are dreaming about but goes without saying if we're joining the group of having owners just happy to get by while appointing managers like Ole and Arteta who are too happy to be around to rock the boat it won't be a particularly pleasant experience all the same.
I mean it's a football club I love and support, and the way I engage with my club remains the same and the enjoyment I derive from watching Chelsea remains where it has always been.
Hopefully a Mike Ashley type takes them over and they start dropping like a stone. Don’t expect them to get relegated or anything but turning them into a mid table side competing for Europa/Conference will do nicely.
At least you got about 15 years of success, that's more than most clubs get.
Thinking about this, the fact RA used Chelsea as a sportwashing vehicle, I'm assuming not all is lined up legitimately, my guess is that the due diligence on the buyers side will have to be thorough, which would probably take longer than a week.
Reckon Roman will have to write off the past debt Chelsea "owe" him for the new owners.
Reckon Roman will have to write off the past debt Chelsea "owe" him for the new owners.
I wonder who they'd sell first, Lukaku?
This really is the crucial moment for me into the whole 'football club as an investment' malarkey. As I've said down the years on here, I don't believe that City/Chelsea/PSG can exist at the top level without their benefactor, and that the club cannot sustain its spending within its own means. We finally get a test case!
Despite Chelsea being purchased for just about 150m back 20 years ago, Roman is currently 'owed' c. 1.5bn that he has put in. So on average he has subsidised Chelsea to the tune of c. 75m per season across his ownership. Which forces the question: what does Chelsea FC look like with 75m less spent every season? Because if an owner takes over that wants to run in the black, that is what will have to happen.
What is categorically true is that if Roman had simply stuck his 1.5bn in any kind of market tracker across those 20 years, he would have made significantly more than what appreciation the asset has incurred at a sale. Note, that won't stop pro-Roman/Chelsea 'journalists' claiming that he took a measly 150m and turned it into, say 2bn - they'll just ignore the bit where he spent 1.5bn to do so, and ignore inflation/opportunity cost.
Anyway, my whole theory/argument with all the sugar-daddy clubs was that a day of reckoning can come, and when it does all those vehemently arguing that their club can totally 'stand on its own feet' and was a 'shrewd investment' will be put to the test. Let us see.
Despite Chelsea being purchased for just about 150m back 20 years ago, Roman is currently 'owed' c. 1.5bn that he has put in. So on average he has subsidised Chelsea to the tune of c. 75m per season across his ownership. Which forces the question: what does Chelsea FC look like with 75m less spent every season? Because if an owner takes over that wants to run in the black, that is what will have to happen.
What is categorically true is that if Roman had simply stuck his 1.5bn in any kind of market tracker across those 20 years, he would have made significantly more than what appreciation the asset has incurred at a sale. Note, that won't stop pro-Roman/Chelsea 'journalists' claiming that he took a measly 150m and turned it into, say 2bn - they'll just ignore the bit where he spent 1.5bn to do so, and ignore inflation/opportunity cost.
Anyway, my whole theory/argument with all the sugar-daddy clubs was that a day of reckoning can come, and when it does all those vehemently arguing that their club can totally 'stand on its own feet' and was a 'shrewd investment' will be put to the test. Let us see.
Can one person own two football clubs in the same continental federation?
Roman is not exactly exactly sitting with a strong hand here, if he is desperate to sell, he won't be getting his money's worth.
This was my question from two posts up, why would an investor buy something for 2billion whilst it's currently 1.5 billion I'm debt to its current owner, meani the club would be valued at 3.5billion, surely RA would have to "sell" it for £500m taking the debt into consideration - obviously telling the world he sold it for 2billion.
They are just afraid of getting owners who only care about profit we all know that Roman loved your club...the new owners who might take over wont even share the same love or even care about the club on top of being less rich than Roman himself.
True however I still think Chelsea will win stuff especially if Roman passes the "you have to win a trophy or get sacked" mentality to the new owners and board (if it will change).
We welcome Chelsea to join us in mediocrity.
Interesting. Thanks. Didn't know he owned a Swiss club too.
Ideally, Roman calls in his debt, Chelsea go into administration and are deducted 12 points. Make the most of a shitty situation.