Eddy_JukeZ
Full Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2012
- Messages
- 17,270
Ridiculous amount of money splashed out for him.
Eh, matchday revenue is a pretty small component of how PL clubs make money these days:He's been at the club nearly 20 years. He's a billionaire. You're telling me he's not been able to do a jot to the stadium or look at new developments in that period? There may be a few issues but the necessity to do it isn't there. That's the point. Other clubs couldn't sustain what they have over this time in a poxy little shitbox of a stadium. They have because they have his cheque book to fall back on.
I'm surprised people are struggling with this.
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.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).
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.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.
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.Isn’t the lack of development more owing to limitations of what can be done at Stamford bridge? I thought that was the reason Roman Abramovich tried to buy Battersea power station to remodel it into a stadium. I reckon he’ll do the same when an opportunity pops up and convert the bridge into condos and shopping or something.
Good job at missing the point on this one.Land in Chelsea is famously cheap and easy to come by. Scandalous that Chelsea have not built a new stadium.
ABCs dont have a point.Good job at missing the point on this one.
The irony here@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.
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.You're an American Chelsea fan right?
The fact you don't understand speaks volumes and is why there's no point having a discussion with you about FFP billionaire sugar daddy clubs like Chelsea, City and PSG.
As I've said, you can get away with having a tiny stadium as you don't need the revenue. Other clubs have to grow organically and therefore have to speculate to accumulate. That's why United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, West Ham and soon Everton and Leicester have all invested in their stadiums or built new ones.
You haven't because you don't need to do it. Roman pays. The fact you don't see the advantage of that is even more baffling. If other clubs develop, as they have to, and get the timing wrong, you end up with a Sunderland situation (another club with a bigger, better stadium than you) languishing in the lower leagues or in huge debt like Spurs. You haven't had to take that risk as you have the everlasting safety blanket of your sugar daddy.
100%The irony here
The irony here
explain.100%
They’ll have to get used to playing big games with ten men.Regarding Lukaku, he adds goals to Chelsea especially against lesser sides, but I'll be interested to see how he affects their big game strategy.
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.explain.
And both ours would have gone bankrupt long ago without other rich men coming in and propping us up. What's the point?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.
I just made my point in the post you quoted. That was it.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.I just made my point in the post you quoted. That was it.
What?Ok, so your point was that we did the same as United and many, many other clubs in the past? Fair enough.
Inorganic Champions of Europe.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.
Are you 12?Inorganic Champions of Europe.
They're able to be self sufficient now but they've chosen not to be. We complied with the bullshit FFP since its inception.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.
Are you jelly?Are you 12?
You're not even 12. Ffs.Are you jelly?
Are you coming onto me guv'nor?You're not even 12. Ffs.
See Varane thread and it will all make sense.Are you coming onto me guv'nor?
In fairness Roman grew up watching Chelsea in SiberiaYour 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.
Manchester United and Chelsea would have gone bankrupt? What?And both ours would have gone bankrupt long ago without other rich men coming in and propping us up. What's the point?
Does the name James W Gibson not mean anything to you? Or Ken Bates?Manchester United and Chelsea would have gone bankrupt? What?
Oh he's trying to compare something that happened over a 100 years ago when Newton Heath went and we became United.Manchester United and Chelsea would have gone bankrupt? What?
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?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.
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.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.
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.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?
What's the relevance? No one is arguing that football clubs don't get bought. Did Gibson pump millions into the club?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.
If you stopped entering every conversation like it was a prize fight, there might be a point to talking to you.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.
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.If you stopped entering every conversation like it was a prize fight, there might be a point to talking to you.