Roman Abramovich plans to sell Chelsea | SOLD for £4.25BN

Roger

Full Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2001
Messages
2,593
looks like Roman is trying to sell Chelsea before the english gov't seizes his assets which would in essence leave the club with little to no financial backing. With his "loan" and finances tied to the club he can't afford to sit on a 2bn pound asset where he can't make his money back
With Chelsea in debt by £2 billion the only tangible assets are the players and the Stadium. Even if they sold the stadium and the entire squad they wouldn't have enough left to pay back their debt. The accounts on registered on Companies House are scary.
 

el3mel

New Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2016
Messages
43,736
Location
Egypt
Saudi Arabia should have waited, Chelsea would have been a much better buy than Newcastle.

Dont see Chelsea being sold anytime soon. £3billion is alot of money especially when the markets are in such turmoil.
How would they have known Russia will invade Ukraine later ?
 

SirReginald

New Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
2,295
Supports
Chelsea
Give the man a statue and permanent box seat at the bridge. Such sad news.
 

Member 101269

Guest
With Chelsea in debt by £2 billion the only tangible assets are the players and the Stadium. Even if they sold the stadium and the entire squad they wouldn't have enough left to pay back their debt. The accounts on registered on Companies House are scary.
17m quid in cash
 

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
25,702
Location
Sydney
the Oligarch's are worried, their net wealth is plummeting and they're all looking to liquidate assets before they get taken off them

someone is gonna get Chelsea on the cheap, but Chelsea could end up in big debt here if Roman doesn't write off the loan
 

SalfordRed18

Netflix and avocado, no chill
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
14,100
Location
Salford
Supports
Ashwood City FC
Came here to post the same thing, bet the Newcastle owners are kicking themselves now.

Writing off a 1.5 billion pound loan is a joke as well.
And I repeat, why exactly, from a business perspective, would Chelsea be a better buy than Newcastle?
 

DeGea’sFeet

New Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2022
Messages
733
Saudi Arabia should have waited, Chelsea would have been a much better buy than Newcastle.

Dont see Chelsea being sold anytime soon. £3billion is alot of money especially when the markets are in such turmoil.
If Roman sold due to Ukraine and Saudi came in and bought it the uproar would be something the U.K. gov can do without as they arm the Saudis.

I’d imagine both the Saudis and U.K. gov are happy the Saudis have already bought whatever they wanted.
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
51,493
Location
Manchester
Well so far he has tried to broker peace and promised what must be a significant amount of money to victims of the war. If that’s failure then you must adjust your life perspective
As said he’s failed to come out strongly against the war and seems to be trying to sell the club now as he’s expecting to be sanctioned and have his assets frozen/seized.

When he does “broker peace” (despite many of you saying he’s not politically attached the other day :houllier:) and when he does give some of his personal wealth directly to a Ukrainian based charity I will believe it.

Right now it just looks like PR spin by a man desperately trying to get away.
 

Robertd0803

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2014
Messages
6,630
And I repeat, why exactly, from a business perspective, would Chelsea be a better buy than Newcastle?
Better position on the pitch and with a better set up behind the scenes. Chelsea is more attractive to players.You could take over Chelsea in the morning and Id reckon the club would run smoothly regardless. You dont need to massively overhaul everything like you do with Newcastle.

About the only thing Newcastle have thats more attractive is their stadium.
 

MUFC OK

New Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
7,216
Putin has been known to freeze their assets, put them in jail or exile them at the drop of a hat. They have little power. So many Oligarchs got deposed
These are money men, this is devastating them financially. Maybe they know people who could do the world a favour..
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
6,667
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
And I repeat, why exactly, from a business perspective, would Chelsea be a better buy than Newcastle?
There is a massive disparity in terms of infrastructure and profile between the clubs. I think your point stands if the aim is to rescue a distressed asset, but for a buyer for whom profit isn't the main objective Chelsea are orders of magnitude more appealing.
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
51,493
Location
Manchester
Better position on the pitch and with a better set up behind the scenes. Chelsea is more attractive to players.You could take over Chelsea in the morning and Id reckon the club would run smoothly regardless. You dont need to massively overhaul everything like you do with Newcastle.

About the only thing Newcastle have thats more attractive is their stadium.
Would run smoothly? They are operating in debt.
 

Roger

Full Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2001
Messages
2,593
17m quid in cash
£4000 in held cash according to the most recent accounts. Where did you get the 17m figure from. Even if they had 17m in cash wouldn't even cover the clubs monthly wage bill.
 

Cheech Wizard

Liverpool fan
Joined
Jul 2, 2013
Messages
6,823
Location
Lé Fylde Coast
Supports
Liverpool
Yeah, that fecker, if he buys Chelsea, is going straight for Mbappe. No doubts about it. Wouldn't be surprised if you start seeing Lebron and some other major sports stars as a minor owners in this thing.
Already happened. Lebron James has a stake in Liverpool with FSG. ;)
 

SalfordRed18

Netflix and avocado, no chill
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
14,100
Location
Salford
Supports
Ashwood City FC
Better position on the pitch and with a better set up behind the scenes. Chelsea is more attractive to players.You could take over Chelsea in the morning and Id reckon the club would run smoothly regardless. You dont need to massively overhaul everything like you do with Newcastle.

About the only thing Newcastle have thats more attractive is their stadium.
You could bring a club like Newcastle up to Chelsea's level on and off the pitch in 4 years for a fraction of the price. They've even already got a bigger stadium. I don't see how buying Chelsea (or any elite club) is more attractive than buying something smaller and building them up if you have the funds to put into said club. That "massive overhaul" is still cheaper than buying a club for billions and operating in debt.
There is a massive disparity in terms of infrastructure and profile between the clubs. I think your point stands if the aim is to rescue a distressed asset, but for a buyer for whom profit isn't the main objective Chelsea are orders of magnitude more appealing.
Who's buying clubs in the top 2 divisions for passion projects? Who's spending billions and not looking for a return?
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
37,331
What do we expect here? Are we gonna have half of Chelsea's players playing for Newcastle by this time next year?
Was just thinking this. Where does this leave them now FFP wise?
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
6,667
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
You could bring a club like Newcastle up to Chelsea's level on and off the pitch in 4 years for a fraction of the price. They've even already got a bigger stadium. I don't see how buying Chelsea (or any elite club) is more attractive than buying something smaller and building them up if you have the funds to put into said club. That "massive overhaul" is still cheaper than buying a club for billions and operating in debt.

Who's buying clubs in the top 2 divisions for passion projects? Who's spending billions and not looking for a return?
Well, Abramovich for one. Or any other buyers whose focus is on sportswashing as opposed to making profit - aka the Saudis. Who I believe your initial query was regarding...?

I do agree that the equation changes significantly for someone who's looking to invest in the league - i.e. most rich Americans. But if it's a matter of who the Saudis would prefer to buy, I don't think there's an argument that Chelsea are a more attractive proposition than Newcastle.
 

CallyRed

Full Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
11,249
Ken Bates still going? Get him and Ridsdale on it whilst being propped up by Mike Ashley and everyone's a winner
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
6,667
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
Was just thinking this. Where does this leave them now FFP wise?
We're still pretty comfortable given the way FFP is structured - because it's assessed over a 3 year period and COVID losses can be disregarded, we shouldn't have any problems. It's not like we're Man City relying on made-up bogus sponsorship deals to artificially inflate our revenue, to be fair.
 

Rooney24

Full Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
8,346
Someone is gonna get a bargain if they have the patience to wait long enough.
 

WeePat

Full Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
17,548
Supports
Chelsea
We're still pretty comfortable given the way FFP is structured - because it's assessed over a 3 year period and COVID losses can be disregarded, we shouldn't have any problems. It's not like we're Man City relying on made-up bogus sponsorship deals to artificially inflate our revenue, to be fair.
Feck that oil club. Despicable. Ruining football. Proper football clubs like us and Liverpool should win the CL.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
37,331
We're still pretty comfortable given the way FFP is structured - because it's assessed over a 3 year period and COVID losses can be disregarded, we shouldn't have any problems. It's not like we're Man City relying on made-up bogus sponsorship deals to artificially inflate our revenue, to be fair.
Yeah but having a rich owner allowed you to spend your entire FFP on players. You have to save money now, actually pay other bills with that income.
It’s why we can’t go out every summer and spend 300m odd without blinking an eye
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
6,667
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
Yeah but having a rich owner allowed you to spend your entire FFP on players. You have to save money now, actually pay other bills with that income.
It’s why we can’t go out every summer and spend 300m odd without blinking an eye
That's a fair point - but I don't think we are currently carrying too many expenses that don't count for FFP. Historically this has been dominated by paying off sacked managers and things like investing in the training ground. At this point though, we're not paying off anyone and our infrastructure is more or less world class at all levels - so don't think this applies.
 

Chief123

Full Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
12,787
For sure. But I don’t think this is some hammer blow like giddy oppo fans think. A new ownership group isn‘t coming into a full, years long rebuild like a Newcastle or City when they were first taking over. They aren’t starting from the bottom and building over a decade.

They'll be taking over a winning machine with a world class coach, very good squad, and lots of smart football people in place already.

I don’t foresee a significant drop off at all next season for example. Even if we don’t spend huge there are a whole lot of top free agents available as well as loanees like Connor Gallagher to come back. We’ll be fine.
I think you are clinging on to some serious hopium there. No doubt the drop off won’t be instant, but it will gradually fall off starting with investment in players. You’ll no longer have the benefit of Romans ambition of just splashing out £100m on the likes of Lukaku to solve a major problem. The gradual decline is what will push you to the point where we are right now. The difference is the Utd owners will keep spending silly money which the club generates itself in order to stay up there. Chelsea just won’t generate those revenues to allow themselves the capacity to spend in the same manner.