Ridiculous amount of money splashed out for him.
Romelu Lukaku | Chelsea
- Thread starter RDCR07
- Start date
Eh, matchday revenue is a pretty small component of how PL clubs make money these days:
It also might not have been a problem for Chelsea given the owner, but to be fair there is recent precedent for a new stadium being crippling financially and impacting the team (coughARSENALcough).
Nah you can spin it how you like but every single organically grown team improves their stadium, capacity and matchday revenue. You haven't bothered whilst City and PSG were both given their stadiums.
It's a risk and expense you don't need to take and it is another advantage you hold over other clubs.
Yeah I agree. And to be fair, it's been looked at and considered for years and years now - obviously there are massive challenges logistically but as you say the prioritisation is very different for Chelsea.
Have mentioned it in the past but I was quite keen on the Battersea proposal - think that could have gone down as an all time iconic stadium if the concepts were anything to go off of!
You're right about this. There's also the issue of the CPO, which is why relocating to a more favourable location for a renovation job isn't that simple. Chelsea tried this, but were met with stubborn opposition from the CPO. The renovation project of the Bridge did eventually start though, hired architects, plans submitted etc but all that was put on hold when Abramovich's visa issues began.
Land in Chelsea is famously cheap and easy to come by. Scandalous that Chelsea have not built a new stadium.
Good job at missing the point on this one.
ABCs dont have a point.
@TheReligion is as usual talking out of his arse. Our sponsorship deals are legitimate from genuine third parties unlike PSG and City who's sponsorship revenue is from companies controlled by their owners. We shouldn't be talked about in the same breath as City and PSG who are propped up by the Arab states.
The irony here
I think you are just struggling to find reasons to discount the success of Chelsea. The Glazers are billionaires too. Chelsea runs with the money the club generates. Sure Roman built it up with his own money, but many clubs expand that way. The stadium comments are bizarre. Many sports teams are opting to build stadiums that are not huge. There was a time that was necessary, but with TV revenues what they are, not necessary at all.
100%
explain.
They’ll have to get used to playing big games with ten men.
Your club was propped up by a Russian businessman. It may well be self-sufficient in terms of revenue now, but it wasn't when it was first taken over. You're just a decade of City and PSG, who will also no doubt be fully funded by their own revenue streams and legitimate sponsors within 10 years.
And both ours would have gone bankrupt long ago without other rich men coming in and propping us up. What's the point?
I just made my point in the post you quoted. That was it.
Ok, so your point was that we did the same as United and many, many other clubs in the past? Fair enough.
The mental gymnastics some Chelsea fans will go to in order to try and make their club appear organically grown like United and Liverpool.
Just accept what you are and move on. You all say you don't care anyway as you're successful so why bother trying to justify yourselves and cry when you're lumped in with City and PSG.
It's kind of sad.
Just accept what you are and move on. You all say you don't care anyway as you're successful so why bother trying to justify yourselves and cry when you're lumped in with City and PSG.
It's kind of sad.
Inorganic Champions of Europe.
Are you 12?
They're able to be self sufficient now but they've chosen not to be. We complied with the bullshit FFP since its inception.
Are you jelly?
You're not even 12. Ffs.
I don't understand how they spent 100 million on Lukaku when Kane is available for 150 million.
As well as that Haaland. if you offered 150 million now for Haaland you would definitely get him.
Haaland is the obvious choice and Id be suprised if city just get Haaland instead of Kane due to his age.
Is there a deal with Haaland allready or something with Madrid?
150 million for Haaland for a top quality striker for the next 10 years.
Bargain in todays market. Chelsea could of getting Kane or Haaland for he price of Fred or AWB + 100 million obviosuly
As well as that Haaland. if you offered 150 million now for Haaland you would definitely get him.
Haaland is the obvious choice and Id be suprised if city just get Haaland instead of Kane due to his age.
Is there a deal with Haaland allready or something with Madrid?
150 million for Haaland for a top quality striker for the next 10 years.
Bargain in todays market. Chelsea could of getting Kane or Haaland for he price of Fred or AWB + 100 million obviosuly
Are you coming onto me guv'nor?
In fairness Roman grew up watching Chelsea in Siberia
100 million for him, i was delighted when we took a hit.
He'll get 20 goals in the league but he will make Chelsea fans pull their hair out.
He'll get 20 goals in the league but he will make Chelsea fans pull their hair out.
Manchester United and Chelsea would have gone bankrupt? What?
Does the name James W Gibson not mean anything to you? Or Ken Bates?
The point being that talking about Chelsea getting 'propped up' by Roman as if its something unique is a bit funny, considering both our clubs have been saved from ruin in the past by rich benefactors. As have countless other clubs. All that was new with Roman was the amount of his own cash he pumped in. If he'd been a millionaire rather than a billionaire, no-one would have raised an eyebrow.
Oh he's trying to compare something that happened over a 100 years ago when Newton Heath went and we became United.
Essentially United were funded by a group of local businessmen as they were in a bit of debt (few hundred £k).
Apparently that's the same as a Russian billionaire coming in to Chelsea and doing what he's done the past 20 years.
It's quite laughable.
It happened so long in the past that it is just silly point scoring. Also doesn't address the key point being the funding coming from a corrupt oligarch. I suppose that's irrelevant?
No, I was talking about the second time I happened, when Gibson saved you in the 30s. As I made quite clear, it wasn't about a direct comparison between the two, but rather pointing out that rich people saving clubs isn't a new or particularly rare thing.
Not irrelevant, just a different discussion. One that I don't particularly disagree over, given that it makes me deeply uneasy too. I've loved Chelsea for over 40 years but I don't allow myself to forget who our owner actually is.
What's the relevance? No one is arguing that football clubs don't get bought. Did Gibson pump millions into the club?
It's utterly ridiculous of you to even try and compare it to Roman and Chelsea.
If you stopped entering every conversation like it was a prize fight, there might be a point to talking to you.
There's no point talking to me if you're going to make ridiculous comparisons to things that happened 100s of years ago and that bear no relevance whatsoever to what's being discussed.
I'm unsure why you're unable to just accept what Chelsea are under Roman?