Chelsea

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
RVclaret
Posts: 13836
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:30 am
Been Liked: 3707 times
Has Liked: 2499 times

Chelsea

Post by RVclaret » Fri Mar 11, 2022 6:31 pm

Bank accounts have been frozen by Barclays. The plot thickens!

IanMcL
Posts: 30129
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:27 pm
Been Liked: 6340 times
Has Liked: 8654 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by IanMcL » Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:18 pm

Sponsors gone
No pies

Dark Cloud
Posts: 6586
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:03 am
Been Liked: 1981 times
Has Liked: 3299 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by Dark Cloud » Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:22 pm

I honestly can't work myself out here. Bury get a crap owner and go to the wall and I feel absolutely gutted for their fans who are obviously the big losers in the end and I just feel it's so unfair. Chelsea have an extremely dubious owner, look like they could end up in serious crap with major financial meltdown and I OUGHT to feel exactly the same. But I don't. I actually feel quite smug. Why!? What's the difference? I need a word with myself.

Duffer_
Posts: 2309
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 am
Been Liked: 792 times
Has Liked: 1353 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by Duffer_ » Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:29 pm

Dark Cloud wrote:
Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:22 pm
I honestly can't work myself out here. Bury get a crap owner and go to the wall and I feel absolutely gutted for their fans who are obviously the big losers in the end and I just feel it's so unfair. Chelsea have an extremely dubious owner, look like they could end up in serious crap with major financial meltdown and I OUGHT to feel exactly the same. But I don't. I actually feel quite smug. Why!? What's the difference? I need a word with myself.
Don't be too harsh on yourself 😉

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30275
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10917 times
Has Liked: 5594 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: Chelsea

Post by Vegas Claret » Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:38 pm

Jamie Reuben, son of David, co-owner of Newcastle since the Saudi takeover, is interested in buying Chelsea!

The takeover is complicated because the League prohibits having interests in several clubs at the same time.

claptrappers_union
Posts: 5758
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:40 pm
Been Liked: 1747 times
Has Liked: 345 times
Location: The Banana Stand

Re: Chelsea

Post by claptrappers_union » Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:41 pm

You have feel sorry for the fans of ANY club who are experiencing the uncertainty of their football teams future.

But the Chelsea we have known in recent history has gone. They’ll be ok though in the grand scheme of things. They won’t be winning any titles again for a long time though.

NewClaret
Posts: 13225
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
Been Liked: 3037 times
Has Liked: 3759 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by NewClaret » Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:42 pm

Bet the Saudi’s wish they’d hung on actually.
These 3 users liked this post: gawthorpe_view MT03ALG Bosscat

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30275
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10917 times
Has Liked: 5594 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: Chelsea

Post by Vegas Claret » Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:44 pm

NewClaret wrote:
Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:42 pm
Bet the Saudi’s wish they’d hung on actually.
would be hilarious if they sold Newcastle and bought Chelsea instead
These 2 users liked this post: gawthorpe_view MT03ALG

KRBFC
Posts: 18018
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
Been Liked: 3784 times
Has Liked: 1071 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by KRBFC » Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:48 pm

claptrappers_union wrote:
Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:41 pm
They won’t be winning any titles again for a long time though.
Says who? stupid statement to make, you don't even know who the new owners are gonna be!

ecc
Posts: 4197
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:08 am
Been Liked: 1394 times
Has Liked: 1272 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by ecc » Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:52 pm

Will all they be stripped of all the trophies bought with Russian money? No. But they should be.
This user liked this post: MT03ALG

bobinho
Posts: 9248
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:48 pm
Been Liked: 4070 times
Has Liked: 6538 times
Location: Burnley

Re: Chelsea

Post by bobinho » Fri Mar 11, 2022 8:25 pm

Heard on the radio this morning that what's happening to Chelsea is very sad and how wrong it is that they will have to manage without RA's money. Someone actually said he fears for Chelsea's future.

They will just end up the type and size of club they were before RA turned up and changed the game. People have just got so used to seeing Chelsea as they are now, top four in the PL and ECL semi-finalists. Yes, i know they are the champions of Europe, i just mean that is roughly their operating level. People think that being ECL Champions IS Chelsea. The reality is they weren't really all that much before RA. It's not like they have the pedigree of Man Utd or Liverpool, but they are now discussed in the same conversations as these two giants of the English game. Bizarre considering how average they have been as a club for almost their entire existence.
These 3 users liked this post: Juan Tanamera MT03ALG claret222

Roosterbooster
Posts: 2583
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:22 pm
Been Liked: 688 times
Has Liked: 361 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by Roosterbooster » Fri Mar 11, 2022 8:29 pm

KRBFC wrote:
Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:48 pm
Says who? stupid statement to make, you don't even know who the new owners are gonna be!
RS has been bankrolling them. £1.5b of it. You'd need new owners prepared to do similar. I'd say that's extremely unlikely. Chelsea just don't have the financial pull to match their expenditure

TheFamilyCat
Posts: 10843
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:56 pm
Been Liked: 5521 times
Has Liked: 208 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by TheFamilyCat » Fri Mar 11, 2022 8:36 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:
Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:44 pm
would be hilarious if they sold Newcastle and bought Chelsea instead
Especially if Mike Ashley bought them back on the cheap.
These 2 users liked this post: MT03ALG longsidepies

TheFamilyCat
Posts: 10843
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:56 pm
Been Liked: 5521 times
Has Liked: 208 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by TheFamilyCat » Fri Mar 11, 2022 8:38 pm

bobinho wrote:
Fri Mar 11, 2022 8:25 pm
Heard on the radio this morning that what's happening to Chelsea is very sad and how wrong it is that they will have to manage without RA's money. Someone actually said he fears for Chelsea's future.

They will just end up the type and size of club they were before RA turned up and changed the game. People have just got so used to seeing Chelsea as they are now, top four in the PL and ECL semi-finalists. Yes, i know they are the champions of Europe, i just mean that is roughly their operating level. People think that being ECL Champions IS Chelsea. The reality is they weren't really all that much before RA. It's not like they have the pedigree of Man Utd or Liverpool, but they are now discussed in the same conversations as these two giants of the English game. Bizarre considering how average they have been as a club for almost their entire existence.
Their gates in the 1st Division dropped below 10,000 in the '80's didn't they?

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30275
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10917 times
Has Liked: 5594 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: Chelsea

Post by Vegas Claret » Fri Mar 11, 2022 8:43 pm

TheFamilyCat wrote:
Fri Mar 11, 2022 8:36 pm
Especially if Mike Ashley bought them back on the cheap.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Buxtonclaret
Posts: 16618
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:05 am
Been Liked: 3750 times
Has Liked: 7520 times
Location: Derbyshire

Re: Chelsea

Post by Buxtonclaret » Fri Mar 11, 2022 8:44 pm

TheFamilyCat wrote:
Fri Mar 11, 2022 8:36 pm
Especially if Mike Ashley bought them back on the cheap.
I'd buy everyone the popcorn for a ringside seat of that show. :twisted:
This user liked this post: MT03ALG

bobinho
Posts: 9248
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:48 pm
Been Liked: 4070 times
Has Liked: 6538 times
Location: Burnley

Re: Chelsea

Post by bobinho » Fri Mar 11, 2022 8:46 pm

Had a few lower than that in cup games TheFamilyCat. Some around 15k & Some slightly more if they were big boys or local.

Milltown1882
Posts: 3063
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:47 pm
Been Liked: 1102 times
Has Liked: 854 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by Milltown1882 » Fri Mar 11, 2022 8:55 pm

TheFamilyCat wrote:
Fri Mar 11, 2022 8:38 pm
Their gates in the 1st Division dropped below 10,000 in the '80's didn't they?
The gate issue wouldn’t happen in this generation though. They could probably sell out two or three times over a lot of time with the tourist fans etc

KRBFC
Posts: 18018
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
Been Liked: 3784 times
Has Liked: 1071 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by KRBFC » Fri Mar 11, 2022 8:56 pm

Roosterbooster wrote:
Fri Mar 11, 2022 8:29 pm
RS has been bankrolling them. £1.5b of it. You'd need new owners prepared to do similar. I'd say that's extremely unlikely. Chelsea just don't have the financial pull to match their expenditure
Not quite, Abrahmovich has invested and put in all of the leg work and foundations with finance to set up Chelsea to be an incredibly successful club for a while.

Their current side won the UCL last season, they have a world class manager in charge, their academy is the best around. They really don't need much investment to continue competing.

Boss Hogg
Posts: 3295
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:34 am
Been Liked: 846 times
Has Liked: 1090 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by Boss Hogg » Fri Mar 11, 2022 8:56 pm

Think they’ll just carry on unscathed once a new owner steps in. They wouldn’t be where there are though without the potentially dirty money bank rolling them.

Newcastleclaret93
Posts: 11039
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:29 pm
Been Liked: 1559 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by Newcastleclaret93 » Fri Mar 11, 2022 8:57 pm

KRBFC wrote:
Fri Mar 11, 2022 8:56 pm
Not quite, Abrahmovich has invested and put in all of the leg work and foundations with finance to set up Chelsea to be an incredibly successful club for a while.

Their current side won the UCL last season, they have a world class manager in charge, their academy is the best around. They really don't need much investment to continue competing.
Not entirely sure that is accurate given the number of sponsors they have lost as a result of this.

KRBFC
Posts: 18018
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
Been Liked: 3784 times
Has Liked: 1071 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by KRBFC » Fri Mar 11, 2022 8:59 pm

People who expect them to suddenly drop into a mid table/lower end side are seriously delusional, this current sides good enough to win trophies and it isn't going anywhere providing the players/manager still get paid.

One billionaire out, another billionaire in.

KRBFC
Posts: 18018
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
Been Liked: 3784 times
Has Liked: 1071 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by KRBFC » Fri Mar 11, 2022 9:01 pm

Newcastleclaret93 wrote:
Fri Mar 11, 2022 8:57 pm
Not entirely sure that is accurate given the number of sponsors they have lost as a result of this.
And you are completely stupid if you believe those sponsors and many many more wont be queuing back up again once the club is sold in the near future...
This user liked this post: Milltown1882

KRBFC
Posts: 18018
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
Been Liked: 3784 times
Has Liked: 1071 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by KRBFC » Fri Mar 11, 2022 9:04 pm

3 is the only one to drop their Chelsea sponsorship, £40m a year. Just about covers 2 weeks wages at the club. Not a huge loss.

Dark Cloud
Posts: 6586
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:03 am
Been Liked: 1981 times
Has Liked: 3299 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by Dark Cloud » Fri Mar 11, 2022 9:04 pm

Younger people don't realise that Chelsea were something of a conundrum for years and years. They were always seen as an extremely trendy and fashionable club, but were extremely mediocre on the field. They beat Leeds to win the FA Cup in the famous relay in 1970 and had a more than decent side then, but it was a flash in the pan and at least once in the 70s/80s they found themselves in Div 2. RA made them the force they are and I'll concede one thing to him, he's been in it for the long term and not just a quick dabble and then lost interest. But as others have said, when English footy was being totally dominated by mainly Liverpool and Man U, these guys were nowhere.
These 3 users liked this post: Juan Tanamera MT03ALG Bcap1959

Dark Cloud
Posts: 6586
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:03 am
Been Liked: 1981 times
Has Liked: 3299 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by Dark Cloud » Fri Mar 11, 2022 9:12 pm

KRBFC wrote:
Fri Mar 11, 2022 8:56 pm
Not quite, Abrahmovich has invested and put in all of the leg work and foundations with finance to set up Chelsea to be an incredibly successful club for a while.

Their current side won the UCL last season, they have a world class manager in charge, their academy is the best around. They really don't need much investment to continue competing.
In fairness KRBFC, according to what I've read, they seem to need £28 million of investment every single week to continue competing.

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30275
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10917 times
Has Liked: 5594 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: Chelsea

Post by Vegas Claret » Fri Mar 11, 2022 9:17 pm

Chelsea haven't lost any sponsors, they have suspended not withdrawn - big difference

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14566
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Fri Mar 11, 2022 9:17 pm

Chelsea are a top 4 club and one of the leading clubs in Europe based on their history of winning everything at club level over the last 25yrs, because prior to Abramovich they were picking up trophies in cup competitions.

I encountered a stupid Geordie on twitter who's adamant that his club are historically bigger than Chelsea and Chelsea are a nothing club without RA's money, but he was ignoring Chelsea's then recent record of winning stuff in the mid to late 90's, early 00's, something Newcastle have never managed over the last 50yrs :lol:
He was also adamant that if Chelsea and Newcastle were both for sale at the same time the Arabs would've still chosen Newcastle ahead of Chelsea :lol:

Their recent transfer ban actually did the club a favour, it forced Lampard to play the academy players and it's shown the footballing world that their academy is now packed with quality players, whereas before Terry was their last regular first choice player from the Academy.

There aren't many clubs who're churning out first team ready players from their Academy, even Utd have slowed down over the years.

They generate a lot of money, via sponsorships and the sales of academy players who don't quite make the grade for their first time, they actually make more than City do from it.

Current CL and WCC holders, regularly challenging on all fronts etc and they've absolutely got the pedigree of the other top clubs, because they've been doing it for the last 25yrs.
They've won the CL twice in that time, that's twice more than Arsenal, City and Spurs combined, also the same number as Fergie won at Utd and the same number as Liverpool during the same time.

They aren't in desperate need of a new stadium, but that would take them up another step in revenue generation.

Someone will buy them, the people with that sort of money don't tend to worry about a club losing money like Chelsea have been, they buy for the prestige and/or sports washing.

I think I heard it mentioned that there are two dozen interested parties just to give us an idea of the interest, even at a sale price of £3 billion ono.

They won't drop down the table in the long term, it's just short term pain we are seeing and the sponsors will return once a new owner is in place.

However this short term pain is amusing.
This user liked this post: MT03ALG

TheFamilyCat
Posts: 10843
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:56 pm
Been Liked: 5521 times
Has Liked: 208 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by TheFamilyCat » Fri Mar 11, 2022 9:17 pm

Milltown1882 wrote:
Fri Mar 11, 2022 8:55 pm
The gate issue wouldn’t happen in this generation though. They could probably sell out two or three times over a lot of time with the tourist fans etc
I was referring to where Chelsea were pre-Abramovic.

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14566
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Fri Mar 11, 2022 9:18 pm

Dark Cloud wrote:
Fri Mar 11, 2022 9:12 pm
In fairness KRBFC, according to what I've read, they seem to need £28 million of investment every single week to continue competing.
FH604r0WYBo-vfj.jpeg
FH604r0WYBo-vfj.jpeg (431.85 KiB) Viewed 3659 times
Their financial figures.

KRBFC
Posts: 18018
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
Been Liked: 3784 times
Has Liked: 1071 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by KRBFC » Fri Mar 11, 2022 9:33 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Fri Mar 11, 2022 9:17 pm
Chelsea are a top 4 club and one of the leading clubs in Europe based on their history of winning everything at club level over the last 25yrs, because prior to Abramovich they were picking up trophies in cup competitions.

I encountered a stupid Geordie on twitter who's adamant that his club are historically bigger than Chelsea and Chelsea are a nothing club without RA's money, but he was ignoring Chelsea's then recent record of winning stuff in the mid to late 90's, early 00's, something Newcastle have never managed over the last 50yrs :lol:
He was also adamant that if Chelsea and Newcastle were both for sale at the same time the Arabs would've still chosen Newcastle ahead of Chelsea :lol:

Their recent transfer ban actually did the club a favour, it forced Lampard to play the academy players and it's shown the footballing world that their academy is now packed with quality players, whereas before Terry was their last regular first choice player from the Academy.

There aren't many clubs who're churning out first team ready players from their Academy, even Utd have slowed down over the years.

They generate a lot of money, via sponsorships and the sales of academy players who don't quite make the grade for their first time, they actually make more than City do from it.

Current CL and WCC holders, regularly challenging on all fronts etc and they've absolutely got the pedigree of the other top clubs, because they've been doing it for the last 25yrs.
They've won the CL twice in that time, that's twice more than Arsenal, City and Spurs combined, also the same number as Fergie won at Utd and the same number as Liverpool during the same time.

They aren't in desperate need of a new stadium, but that would take them up another step in revenue generation.

Someone will buy them, the people with that sort of money don't tend to worry about a club losing money like Chelsea have been, they buy for the prestige and/or sports washing.

I think I heard it mentioned that there are two dozen interested parties just to give us an idea of the interest, even at a sale price of £3 billion ono.

They won't drop down the table in the long term, it's just short term pain we are seeing and the sponsors will return once a new owner is in place.

However this short term pain is amusing.
Agree with every word, people are talking like Abramovich is gonna be replaced by a local millionaire businessman. One billionaire out, another billionaire in.

They really don't need anything:
Their academy is the very best around and self sufficient
Stadium is fine
Manager is great
The squad is full of world class players, worth a fortune. (and ALREADY capable of winning the biggest trophies)


This isn't like buying Newcastle, where £1bn will need to be spent on players to compete at the top table, multiple managers and years will be needed to get the very best, right staff into the correct roles. The academy will need significant spending to improve, and the clubs infrastructure will need a major revamp.

Roman has put ALL of the foundations in place, any buyer is buying a complete football club with all of the fancy fittings. Not some long term project that's gonna need billions for upgrades.
These 2 users liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81 MT03ALG

LS7
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 9:42 pm
Been Liked: 125 times
Has Liked: 76 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by LS7 » Fri Mar 11, 2022 10:09 pm

Like Man United, it can come apart at the seams quickly though. Tuchel is a top manager so as long as he stays they’ll be ok.

Roosterbooster
Posts: 2583
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:22 pm
Been Liked: 688 times
Has Liked: 361 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by Roosterbooster » Fri Mar 11, 2022 10:54 pm

KRBFC is missing the point

The current Chelsea model works on a loss. It is propped up by Abramovic loaning money that is essentially never paid back. It is not a self sufficient model. So unless they replace Abramovic with someone else willing to throw away money and not make a profit, then that model will have to change. And that model is spending less, which clearly increases the chance of being much less competitive

Flixtonclaret1
Posts: 442
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2020 8:03 am
Been Liked: 141 times
Has Liked: 92 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by Flixtonclaret1 » Fri Mar 11, 2022 11:11 pm

Roosterbooster wrote:
Fri Mar 11, 2022 10:54 pm
KRBFC is missing the point

The current Chelsea model works on a loss. It is propped up by Abramovic loaning money that is essentially never paid back. It is not a self sufficient model. So unless they replace Abramovic with someone else willing to throw away money and not make a profit, then that model will have to change. And that model is spending less, which clearly increases the chance of being much less competitive
I think the term is money laundering ….
This user liked this post: Buxtonclaret

n_ero
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:17 pm
Been Liked: 10 times
Has Liked: 7 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by n_ero » Fri Mar 11, 2022 11:35 pm

Don't the majority of clubs run at a loss though?

I don't normally like to get involved in 'history' arguments but ALL clubs at one point were mid table or worse. Chelsea were there or thereabouts in the 90s (should have won the league in 98-99 but for a few dodgy results towards the end of the season which could be put down to pressure). Money has always been part of the game and always been alligned to success. Liverpool in the late 70s and 80s spent serious money, Forest effectively spent £1m to win the European Cup in 1979. What's changed? Sustained periods of dominance or flashes in bed pans by one club or another (from a pool of 3 prior to 2003) so why has it been an issue that it has taken money to break this up? It's the same in every league in every country (probably* I'm prepared to be proved wrong). As has been said on this forum, if Burnley had the same investment, I really cannot see anyone arguing or behaving any different.

Yes, the Abramovich chants can be seen as crass, bad taste or just downright appallling, but Chelsea fans will feel backed into a corner and would no doubt want to make it known that they feel hard done by. To be fair, who says they aren't? If anyone related to or associated with you was publicly vilified and quite literally sanctioned for something that is said to have happened but no proof was offered, how would you feel? Can anyone actually believe (as has pretty much been said elsewhere on this forum) that Roman Abramovich has stood in a factory and overseen the manufacture of tanks and other military hardware because he owns/has an investment in a steel manufacturing company?!

We've gone from a nation disbelieving everything the government has said about Covid to blindly accepting everything they have said about the crisis in Ukraine and all those allegedly tied to it (and no, I am not stating that the war is a hoax, is just or is anything else than an absolute disgusting act of blatant land grabbing, history opining bullsh*t).

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by Chester Perry » Fri Mar 11, 2022 11:51 pm

n_ero wrote:
Fri Mar 11, 2022 11:35 pm
... As has been said on this forum, if Burnley had the same investment, I really cannot see anyone arguing or behaving any different.
Oh I can, the takeover thread provides ample evidence of it - and it is just not Burnley fans either, I know there have been Chelsea fans who have been in the same position ever since Abramovich arrived, there are some Man City fans who are equally disturbed, David Conn of the Guardian probably being the most prominent, there are some at Newcastle and Everton,

that said there are plenty more who will adopt the attitude you describe, it is the hugely disappointing fact of the majority's mindset
This user liked this post: tiger76

n_ero
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:17 pm
Been Liked: 10 times
Has Liked: 7 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by n_ero » Sat Mar 12, 2022 12:16 am

Sorry Chester, I have no idea how you quote on here. ANd to warn, this is a ramble, so apologies.

You are correct, there are some who will object or who will at the very least voice concerns. I did the very same in a bar in Stuttgart in 2004. However, my point is that when the success comes (and it invariably will), people will forget these concerns and enjoy the success. Newcastle WILL win the league within 5/6 years because that is how success happens; it is bought and it always has been. I don't want to get into a history debate because all clubs have a history, regardless of measure of success. Investment must happen to keep up.

If Abramovich had not purchased Chelsea in 2003, the league would be a continuing humdrum of Manchester success (red, not blue). The fact that blue Manchester is having success is a direct result of red domination and success over nearly 18 years, in the same way red success was due to the other red success prior to them, which was a direct result of the other other reds success in the late 70s. Everything is cyclical and it is all to do with money.

Die hard fans will always believe their club is right and will feel the need to defend it when required. Always. Away fans are, generally, the die hards.

However, there can't be too many fans troubled by the investment into their club as we would surely have seen more FC United's of Manchester/London/Tyneside/Leicester/Blackburn.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
This user liked this post: Buxtonclaret

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by Chester Perry » Sat Mar 12, 2022 1:20 am

This article in the Telegraph asks the same questions with a little less of what you call your ramble - the link takes you through the paywall

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fw ... ic-life%2F

for the most part you are right

Preston North End were kicked out of the FA Cup for paying players wages, Blackburn were the first to win it with a team of Professionals, Liverpool's league title in 1901 paying players around £7 per week that could be £10 with win bonuses led to the introduction of a maximum wage of £4 (ironically that followed complaints, first from Derby County in the mid 1890's (so much for Mel Morris's Derby Way) and Stoke in Liverpool's title winning season (the same Stoke who now want to get rid of FFP because their owners are billionaires and they can afford it). More often than not bigger and richer clubs have collected most of the titles, but now and again teams that lived within their means developed and with clear strategy managed to have their day in the sun, ours is one of those few - yes we probably broke the maximum wage at times but we won without financing the trophies with financial losses. It is something many Burnley fans were once proud of, our titles were won not bought by a benefactor, oligarch or state and against teams with far greater riches than ours at the time. It is not a co-incidence that following the removal of each of the levelling-measures: Maximum wage (however much it was abused); gate share; equal TV distribution (across all four divisions, not just within a division), the Bosman ruling and the introduction of the Champions league and now the co-efficient payments in UEFA club competitions (how long before they become a feature of Premier League distribution?); that title winners come from an ever smaller group of clubs.

There is still opportunity for clubs to fight their way back up the league under their own revenues and using their smarts like ours has done and Luton have been doing, but it is becoming ever more difficult for that approach to keep you in the Premier League particularly if you are a town club. Our club are the outliers in the Premier League not Leicester, the fact we have been here so long confounds expectations and appears to anger those who throw money not cohesive planning at wanting the same level of participation, I cherish that history, fight and will, even as I recognise that for us it is as close to winning a title as we are ever likely to achieve now or in the future.

I do not expect a day of reckoning for monied and hugely indebted clubs overall, though some will obviously endure difficulties on occasion. It is no coincidence that it tends to be the same few clubs that have led the game down the path of greater inequality, they harbour most of the games wealth and appear intent to keep hold of ever more of it going forward. It remains amusing that two of the biggest such protagonists down the years have gone so long without a trophy (Everton and Spurs) we can only hope that the others join them.
These 4 users liked this post: GaryClaret Buxtonclaret n_ero tiger76

KRBFC
Posts: 18018
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
Been Liked: 3784 times
Has Liked: 1071 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by KRBFC » Sat Mar 12, 2022 1:42 am

Roosterbooster wrote:
Fri Mar 11, 2022 10:54 pm
KRBFC is missing the point

The current Chelsea model works on a loss. It is propped up by Abramovic loaning money that is essentially never paid back. It is not a self sufficient model. So unless they replace Abramovic with someone else willing to throw away money and not make a profit, then that model will have to change. And that model is spending less, which clearly increases the chance of being much less competitive
From 2014 to 2018 the club essentially broke even with 3 profitable years vs. 2 loss producing years.

They're a complete football club, 2017/18 they announced £60m profit, 2018/19 they lost £96M.

2019/20 they made a profit £40m, last year recorded they lost £145m.

You're missing the point entirely, the reason they were losing money previously was mainly due to bringing in players, they've built a young exciting foundation now, so wont need anywhere near the same investment in the team going forward.

The pieces have been financed, they are in place, they don't need to lose the same amount of money to purchase those pieces anymore.

KRBFC
Posts: 18018
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
Been Liked: 3784 times
Has Liked: 1071 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by KRBFC » Sat Mar 12, 2022 1:49 am

Abramovich has spent £100m+ on two goalkeepers, Mendy is one of the best in the world and won't need replacing any time soon.

That's money the new owners won't need to find/spend.

Foundations have been financed already.

James/Mount/Chalobah could play and be world class for Chelsea for 10+ years still. Their academy is producing exceptional talent now.

GordonvaleClaret
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 9:35 am
Been Liked: 49 times
Has Liked: 13 times
Location: near Cairns

Re: Chelsea

Post by GordonvaleClaret » Sat Mar 12, 2022 1:55 am

Perhaps they should revert to their previous nickname - The Pensioners.

Chester Perry
Posts: 19169
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3115 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by Chester Perry » Sat Mar 12, 2022 2:11 am

More from the Telegraph - link takes you through the paywall

Chelsea stars plot escape by contacting lawyers over tearing up contracts

https://12ft.io/proxy?ref=&q=https://ww ... s-tearing/

Bordeauxclaret
Posts: 10273
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
Been Liked: 3327 times
Has Liked: 1942 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by Bordeauxclaret » Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:18 am

Seems an odd thing to do for a club that is set up so well and has no worries.

Steve-Harpers-perm
Posts: 5744
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
Been Liked: 1868 times
Has Liked: 835 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by Steve-Harpers-perm » Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:36 am

Bordeauxclaret wrote:
Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:18 am
Seems an odd thing to do for a club that is set up so well and has no worries.
Maybe Roman hasn’t set the club up as well as he thought and that does not sound like the Roman we all know so well.

Top Claret
Posts: 5125
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 11:50 am
Been Liked: 1127 times
Has Liked: 1238 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by Top Claret » Sat Mar 12, 2022 8:51 am

Bidders lining up to buy Chelsea after Abravonic agreed to a quick sale approved by the government

Quickenthetempo
Posts: 17917
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
Been Liked: 3842 times
Has Liked: 2065 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by Quickenthetempo » Sat Mar 12, 2022 9:07 am

KRBFC wrote:
Sat Mar 12, 2022 1:49 am
Abramovich has spent £100m+ on two goalkeepers, Mendy is one of the best in the world and won't need replacing any time soon.

That's money the new owners won't need to find/spend.

Foundations have been financed already.

James/Mount/Chalobah could play and be world class for Chelsea for 10+ years still. Their academy is producing exceptional talent now.
They are expected to pay 3 billion quid and put money in to make up any short falls.

Is there any real chance of a bigger ground in West London? We have all seen the tiny space Brentford crammed their new ground in.
And what would they have to pay for a new ground in prime London? Another 3 billion?

Bonkers to take this on unless they think someone will pay 5 billion in a few years.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Chelsea

Post by Lancasterclaret » Sat Mar 12, 2022 9:16 am

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Fri Mar 11, 2022 9:18 pm
FH604r0WYBo-vfj.jpeg
Their financial figures.
Mrs LC (KPMG trained Chartered accountant) has had a quick look at that and reckons they need to be spending at least £3 million a week less to be even close to viable

Chelsea will survive under a new owner, but thinking more Spurs going forward (Sorry Chelsea!)
This user liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81

Claretincraven
Posts: 454
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:17 pm
Been Liked: 129 times
Has Liked: 54 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by Claretincraven » Sat Mar 12, 2022 9:29 am

KRBFC wrote:
Sat Mar 12, 2022 1:49 am
Abramovich has spent £100m+ on two goalkeepers, Mendy is one of the best in the world and won't need replacing any time soon.

That's money the new owners won't need to find/spend.

Foundations have been financed already.

James/Mount/Chalobah could play and be world class for Chelsea for 10+ years still. Their academy is producing exceptional talent now.
I think you have forgotten that contacts expire. And footballers being footballers they either want a massive wage rise or they simply walk away for fee and get a massive signing on fee elsewhere that is akin to that massive wage rise. I seem to recall that 3 of the current team are ooc at the end of this season and at present Chelsea can’t negotiate a new contract. No doubt they had good foundations this time last week, but those foundations have now been massively undermined and currently look very shaky.
These 2 users liked this post: BERNIEU tiger76

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by Paul Waine » Sat Mar 12, 2022 10:39 am

Abramovich provided massive cashflow loans to Chelsea every season. The Times quotes Kieran Maguire saying he put in £120m in recent season and got back £100m when prize money came in at the end of the season, the remaining £20m was added to the £1,5bn "never repaid" loan.

Other clubs, not operating with an owner with ill-gotten money would not be able to do this at this level. Yes, banks could provide overdrafts, but not to this scale -and, of course, they'd require interest on those loans.

It seems our politicians don't want to see Chelsea go bust but does that mean that Abramovich's club, operating under sanctions should have things made easy for them? The first thing the government should be doing is making sure that every penny of PAYE tax is collected from Chelsea. If wages are £28m per month, that will be somewhere like £17m income tax and NI due to the government. Yes, let's keep the "integrity" of this season's Premier League, but that should be as far as it goes. No new contracts for any existing Chelsea player. Players leaving as their contracts come to an end - and no extensions at either the club's or the players option. Of course, no new players signed, whether this is "top professionals" for the 1st team squad, or youngsters joining the Chelsea academy. Also, no finance to facilitate cashflow unless and until the club has new owners. Abramovich's £1.5bn loan should be repaid by the club and should be added to the sale proceeds and all held in escrow. When all legal necessities are dealt with the escrow amount should be put towards restitution for Ukraine and, if this ever becomes possible, restitution for the people of a new democratic Russia.

bfcjg
Posts: 13156
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:17 pm
Been Liked: 5002 times
Has Liked: 6721 times

Re: Chelsea

Post by bfcjg » Sat Mar 12, 2022 10:49 am

The whole freezing of assets issue is somewhat confusing, if they are seized I understand that but if Russia withdrew tomorrow and war ended would Abramovich get Chelsea and other assets back ?

Post Reply