Jump to content

coda

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

Hope that puts the shitters up Newcastle fans a bit because Roman is a saint in comparison with their ownsership.

Yeah, but regardless of how many atrocities Saudia Arabia commits, they buy our military equipment to do it, so they're our allies. Always worth remembering when our media pretends we're The Good Guys.

Ethics matter to our government when we can use it as an excuse to bang the war drums.

Edited by Davkaus
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 6.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

27 minutes ago, The_Steve said:

The I newspaper are saying Chelsea can be sold as long as it does not benefit Roman. How’s that work?

It means it can be sold and the monies filtered to Russia or wherever Roman wants it in a secretive way that makes the tories look a tad less c**tish than usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Is it not 20 like the championship?

It's 10 in the championship, 9 in the Premier League. 

Championship play more games, hence why it's 10 points

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

Thankfully we've already done our home game against them

 

but the away club buys tickets from the home club and then just sells them to their own fans. so technically they don't profit for away fixtures so fans should still be able to attend?

i assume the other way around that away fans won't be allowed to go to stamford bridge though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tomav84 said:

but the away club buys tickets from the home club and then just sells them to their own fans. so technically they don't profit for away fixtures so fans should still be able to attend?

i assume the other way around that away fans won't be allowed to go to stamford bridge though

I doubt that means they would be able to attend. I'm not an expert, but I believe the concern is that the UK government either believes or is pretending to believe that any monies coming into the club can be diverted to Abramovic personally. 

On the second point, though, I think you're right, and it might arguably be considered an advantage for them to play in front of 100% home fans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their wage bill is £28m per month, if Roman can't inject he funds, the players can rip up their contracts and move to another club. There is no way they will have that sort of liquid capital in the bank to sustain wages. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rodders said:

oh something will happen, a sale will be allowed, the rich and powerful will found a way around this,  chelsea will be fine but the govt get to enjoy the plaudits of a "look how tough we are" story for a few hours / days. 

Absolutely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless someone comes in with stupid money, who don’t grow on trees, they will slowly go back to being a semi-normal club again.

Will be interesting to see if there s a fire sale in the summer to balance the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems Abromovich was putting in £90m a year (increased loan) to fund the clubs operations. 

No new contracts, no sales, no purchases, no new tickets - they've got a huge problem. They could lose 3 of their better defenders in one go, and can't buy anyone to replace them. 
It could see an Administration, down the line so he loses all of his money and new owners can pick up the pieces, but I suspect there is a lot of legal wrangling here - which is why I suspect it's taken 2 weeks to get to this point - because the government had to be able to prove it was right before it acted.  

Personally, this is great, and the chance to take a big step on cleaning up football. Hope it does. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some footy writer of note, or not, said RA has put in approx £90mill a year to keep it running. That's a huge amount that no other owner will attempt. Major shift toward midtable for them, and that's with them being run professionaly.

Edit - £90m jinx!

Edited by Jareth
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alot of talk of Nick Candy leading a consortium to buy. Tory donor with influence in government, lifelong Chelsea fan and as he's heading the Earls Court redevelopment though funding has halted. Having Chelsea move there, a  could help massively with the EC funding that has stalled. Chelsea stay at SB whilst new ground development takes place, then once completed Chelsea move there and he redevelops SB into flats etc.

A good post on redcafe (pointed to this by a mate) highlights this:-

I have a little understanding of the London property market and their are a few things you need to consider here:

1) The whole EC project has been run disastrously. So much so that the council are in the process of taking it back via a CPO. This is because Capco (the oweners) haven't been able to make it financially viable to build another residential flat mega project on the land owing to how many are already in and around the area. For instance go to Battersea, Nine Elms and Ealing to see how empty they are; this is also beforeyou go to places like Croydon. The international investors have already dried up also.

https://www.egi.co.uk/news/earls-court-heats-up-with-councils-650m-acquisition-plan/

2) The problem for the council, is that they don't have the upfront costs to do this. They need an anchor tenant and/or a developer to help them out with funding and making the site viable (this is where Candy will come in.)

3) If Candy can get hold of Chelsea and agree with the CPO to switch their lease of the pitch from SB to EC (big asks admittedly; although possible) then he could partner with the council to direct funding to the project through his own companies.

4) At that point, the EC project could start to progress with it reverting, principally, back to a leisure and entertainment site but this time with a stadium. Rest of the site will then be used as a mixture of commercial/residential (although with a good dose of affordable housing to keep the council happy.) That way, Chelsea get to stay at SB whilst building their new ground. Think Arsenal/Leicester rather than Spurs as the sites are far enough apart.

5) Candy can then develop the SB site once Chelsea move into the EC site. A much more desirable site, more akin to the Chelsea Barracks and No.1 Hyde Park which he is already a developer of.

Everybody needs to remember Candy is a very influential Tory donor. He can get things agreed much more easily than other developers because of his connections within Government. Additionally, if he is able to get this through he solves Chelsea's stadium problems with a much reduced cost of developing (EC is already cleared and ready to be developed and doesn't have the same permits/requirements as SB; digging down/building walkways out over train lines/only having one exit (as EC has multiple.)

As I am writing this, I am more and more convinced that Candy will become the owner as he has the political influence in the UK to get the developments/negotiate a good deal at EC, while this sanctioning of RA also plays into his hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â