Looking back in retrospect, abramovich moves and early spending seems like a one time booster to keep up with the pack. And once that's achieved their spending now seems reasonable compared to their level of income.Spent the money they didn't earn and went on to make a "mark" in the footballing world becoming self sustaining.
Its like you borrowing a million from your billionaire dad interest free in a instant then paying the million back later. Good for you, but you are still nobody without your dad.
I forgot what i wanted to say.
One time booster is a bit generous. For the past 5 years they're at a total 6m profit. The 10 years before that it's a loss of ~670m. Most of their profit in recent years has been player sales which isn't a realiably steady income.Looking back in retrospect, abramovich moves and early spending seems like a one time booster to keep up with the pack. And once that's achieved their spending now seems reasonable compared to their level of income.
And those players sales more or less came by breaking UEFA rules too didn't it?One time booster is a bit generous. For the past 5 years they're at a total 6m profit. The 10 years before that it's a loss of ~670m. Most of their profit in recent years has been player sales which isn't a realiably steady income.
I don't know. They have put in some illegal clauses for the young players that they've signed.And those players sales more or less came by breaking UEFA rules too didn't it?
I'm sorry, but I had to laugh.He would never trust whoever was in charge of Russia after Yeltsin, because any Russian leader would question how he or other oligarchs made their fortunes in the 1990s.
This is a fantastic sentence. Bless your innocent heart.No. Abramovich bought Chelsea to gain reputation in UK. He would never trust whoever was in charge of Russia after Yeltsin, because any Russian leader would question how he or other oligarchs made their fortunes in the 1990s. So, he decided to prepare a safe haven in UK while being cooperative with whoever rules Russia. Doing so, he was too greedy and involved himself into too many affairs with Putin. Now, UK have issues with Roman. His plan didn’t work. He is not that interested in Chelsea anymore. All he wants that Chelsea keeps status quo with internal resources. Which is a very difficult task given Chelsea size. They became a bigger club since Roman took over but not nearly as big as us or Liverpool, and even Arsenal. These three clubs have a massive fanbase and commercial power.
Remind us again how the early years of roman from the fans pov. Are they happy?The club have operated within FFP rules since they were introduced so the simple answer is no, they shouldn't be.
Its true to say they have made money from player sales but this has only happened by buying younger talent, getting the best out of that talent and then selling on. (Mata, Matic, Hazard etc) This hasn't worked with every player they have bought but enough to tip the balance into the positive. (It could be argued that Utd is the new sugar daddy) This demonstrates a sound transfer and procurement policy for which the club should be congratulated. The club have also increased revenue by being successful on the pitch.
The club is now entering a new stage where the significant investment in the Academy is finally paying off and the value of the young talent coming through can be counted in the 100's of millions. Loftus Cheek £60m? Christensen £40m Hudson Odoi £80m? Mount £50m? Tomori £30m? James £30m? If you add in the value of Ampadu, Pulisic and a few others you have a solid asset that will only increase in value. I think what we are now seeing is the Board, without Abramovich in the country, reaping the benefit of years of sound management and investment in a strong youth policy that could set the club up for years to come.
It could even be a good time for a buyer to come in and invest even more into club. ( The stadium needs to be taken to another level)
Not entirely sure what you are asking or if you are having a laugh.Remind us again how the early years of roman from the fans pov. Are they happy?
The likes of Milan, Inter or Juventus aren't seen as sugar daddy clubs even though that's exactly how they operated for many years, so we have precedents that shows what happens with time. This model is part of Football history, maybe at some point people will remember that Football being a business is a relatively new model, historically in most cases sports clubs are financially supported by local wealthy people who do it for local popularity or pride, Juventus are an example of that.I remember someone asked a while back what it'd take for City to shake the label of being an oil club, & I responded just sustained success & the passage of time.
15 years later, we're starting to see that with Chelsea. No-one talks about their ludicrous investment in the early years anymore, dragging them from midtable obscurity to one of the best teams in world football. It's been 15 years, they've won a lot of trophies, and honestly, their case is probably helped by Man City coming in & taking over the crown.
NoWhat was it? 15 years after being taken over by Abramovich? Their spending lately has towed in line with the rest and way behind city.
How would you class them these days? Do you still think of them as sugar daddy club?
Abramovich bought chelsea for 140m in 2003 and has spent 900m total.
Nope. I'm asking. Because our lot seems to be excited with the thhought of UAE takeoverNot entirely sure what you are asking or if you are having a laugh.
I fit into that "old timers" bracket you speak of and to be honest it was always my impression that Liverpool were a well run club and could afford the better players because they had a huge fanbase. Actually I think they also had a very good scouting and training policy. Back in the day it was never a topic of discussion that Liverpool were a sugar daddy club. Teams didn't buy big on the continent in those days anyway. Forrest paid £1m for Trevor Francis and everybody asked where would it all end. Utd were rubbish in those days but still had a huge fanbase and it took them decades to fully recover. They had the money but couldn't buy a real top team. (Sounds a bit familiar actually)To be having this sort of conversation you'd have to bring in old timers, too. You can't have people that have not lived through the 70s and 80s to be dissecting this matter. By living those time I mean to have actually been going to football matches and so on, it would have to be people in their mid 50s now, early 60s. How many are in here? Don't think that much to be fair.
Genuine question though? Do you think Liverpool was winning so much back then being on par with the others? Do you think their budget was the same as Chelsea's? Salary wise, transfer wise etc? You'd have to be a fool and born post 1990 to think Chelsea was not massively represented in England. What Liverpool and others had back than was a powerful backing, something you see now with City, PSG, Chelsea etc. There was always a wealthy family/business/figure behind every successful project. Always.
'Plastic', 'Oil money' etc. Terms used by kids that have only watched football post 2000. Ask you grandfathers they will tell you it's a normal thing for winning teams to be the wealthiest around, Liverpool did not operate on peanuts money in the 70s and the 80s, nor was United during their glory days, they were a different animal from the others in terms of money spent on transfers and contracts.
Stop fooling yourselves Liverpool and United went from average spending to being wealthy just by having a good fan base and global recognition. It's a foolish thing to do, better ask your old pals and then maybe all the bs would stop.
For Westerners my words sound naive. for us, living under dictatorship, it’s just by default so.I'm sorry, but I had to laugh.
Really? Apart from January 2011 we haven't really spent big (net) in relation to the market value since the mid 00's, even the Costa/Fabregas summer were funded by sales.They absolutely still spend like a sugar daddy club, they just haven’t been able to this summer because of the transfer ban.
Conte went on and on about needing players and wanting more money to spend. Maybe they didn’t buy any quality but they spent more than City that season, something like £250m.
I can guarantee they will spend big next summer.
Nothing innocent in my sentence. what I meant was that Abramovich was afraid of whoever were to become a new Tzar. It’s normal life in Russia.This is a fantastic sentence. Bless your innocent heart.
You've made it sound like Putin was not the part of Yeltsin's regime before he got chosen as his successor, which was funny. He knew Abramovich and had worked with him for years, and Abramovich helped him massively at the beginning, proving time and again that he is loyal and that he is not interested in politics like Khodorkovsky (which was his undoing). It's obvious that Abramovich, like any sane man, prefers to live in a country with an independent judicial system, but he has tons of assets in Russia and still spends a lot of time here, I've seen him just this September. His right hand in terms of the finances, Irina Panchenko (a lot of his assets are technically hers), also lives here, not sure about the others.bad wording from me. For Westerners my words sound naive. for us, living under dictatorship, it’s just by default so.
Russia de-facto is run by mafia (as is Kazakhstan where I live). The new boss would put pressure on whoever benefited under the previous boss regime. Putin put Khodorkovsky (who was by far richer than Abramovich) in jail. Putin took power in 1999. Roman was one of the first oligarchs who bent his knees and announced his utmost loyalty.
However, he never trusted Putin. And moved to UK. Does it make sense for you? Just having a nice business, never mind being ultra rich in Russia or Kazakhstan, is a very nerve wrecking experience. Believe me, I personally experience predatory instincts of different government officials at my properties almost every day.
The fans were elated when Abramovich came in. They were very happy to be in the Champions League but the joy went to another level when the likes of Robben, Duff, Drogba and Co came in.Nope. I'm asking. Because our lot seems to be excited with the thhought of UAE takeover
Nothing from what you mentioned contradicts what I said. Your perception of Putin doesn’t cancel the fact that Putin became new boss, and the country belonged to him and his caporegimes from Ozero Kooperativ and Tambov Organization. Abramovich felt unsafe at the time, but he managed to stay on the wave with the new Don.You've made it sound like Putin was not the part of Yeltsin's regime before he got chosen as his successor, which was funny. He knew Abramovich and had worked with him for years, and Abramovich helped him massively at the beginning, proving time and again that he is loyal and that he is not interested in politics like Khodorkovsky (which was his undoing). It's obvious that Abramovich, like any sane man, prefers to live in a country with an independent judicial system, but he has tons of assets in Russia and still spends a lot of time here, I've seen him just this September. His right hand in terms of the finances, Irina Panchenko (a lot of his assets are technically hers), also lives here, not sure about the others.
Politically do you think it would be a good move for him to sell Chelsea and move the cash back to Russia?You've made it sound like Putin was not the part of Yeltsin's regime before he got chosen as his successor, which was funny. He knew Abramovich and had worked with him for years, and Abramovich helped him massively at the beginning, proving time and again that he is loyal and that he is not interested in politics like Khodorkovsky (which was his undoing). It's obvious that Abramovich, like any sane man, prefers to live in a country with an independent judicial system, but he has tons of assets in Russia and still spends a lot of time here, I've seen him just this September. His right hand in terms of the finances, Irina Panchenko (a lot of his assets are technically hers), also lives here, not sure about the others.
He invests enough in Russia to get Putin off his back. No one is moving their cash back to Russia, they’re all (Putin’s close circle) moving it out. If he sells Chelsea, he’ll probably reinvest in somewhere on the West. Maybe even in Israel, since he is based there now apparently.Politically do you think it would be a good move for him to sell Chelsea and move the cash back to Russia?
That's interesting.He invests enough in Russia to get Putin off his back. No one is moving their cash back to Russia, they’re all (Putin’s close circle) moving it out. If he sells Chelsea, he’ll probably reinvest in somewhere on the West. Maybe even in Israel, since he is based there now apparently.
For selfish reasons I hope that don't happen.That's interesting.
He has allegedly withdrawn his application for an investor VISA because of the unfavourable investment climate here. This could be true but I question if the UK governments policy to investigate the origins of Oligarchs wealth has something to do with it. After the Salisbury poisoning they had a crack down and he moved to Israel. This has been going on for about a year now.
I think he genuinely fell in love with Chelsea and loved his football. He went to nearly every match and was often seen wriggling in his seat like we all do. At the beginning he even walked down the Fulham Rd and sat in with the fans. How long he will stay away is anybody's guess but I can't help feel that if a decent offer came him he would seriously consider selling. The time is right for a deal. The club under Abramovich won everything and a new era is beginning. I'm sure he would get his investment back, and some, and what's the point in owning a club that you can't run yourself?
I would like to think that if he sold he would only let the club go to someone who was going to build the new stadium. I also think Bruce Buck has to take a lot of the credit for where the club is at the moment and maybe he could stay.For selfish reasons I hope that don't happen.
Things are running quite smoothly under Roman/Marina despite some hiccups in the market and a new owner is rolling the dice a bit, we could easily end up with a Hicks and Gillett or a Mike Ashley.
You're still living off the elevation given to you by that huge initial investment though. It's like the son of a billionaire saying he made it on his own because he no longer needs to live on handouts (after having his entire business built up by the money of others).Really? Apart from January 2011 we haven't really spent big (net) in relation to the market value since the mid 00's, even the Costa/Fabregas summer were funded by sales.
This is an open secret, so to say. They delayed the renewal of his visa and asked him to disclose the origins of his wealth, like they did with many other Russian oligarchs (London was the place to go for them at some point); apparently, he tried to get a residence permit in Switzerland before that and his application got denied. Israel was more lenient towards him, I think he even got/is getting the citizenship.That's interesting.
He has allegedly withdrawn his application for an investor VISA because of the unfavourable investment climate here. This could be true but I question if the UK governments policy to investigate the origins of Oligarchs wealth has something to do with it. After the Salisbury poisoning they had a crack down and he moved to Israel. This has been going on for about a year now.
I think he genuinely fell in love with Chelsea and loved his football. He went to nearly every match and was often seen wriggling in his seat like we all do. At the beginning he even walked down the Fulham Rd and sat in with the fans. How long he will stay away is anybody's guess but I can't help feel that if a decent offer came him he would seriously consider selling. The time is right for a deal. The club under Abramovich won everything and a new era is beginning. I'm sure he would get his investment back, and some, and what's the point in owning a club that you can't run yourself?
Nonsense. You talk as if Chelsea didn't even exist before Abramovich.You're still living off the elevation given to you by that huge initial investment though. It's like the son of a billionaire saying he made it on his own because he no longer needs to live on handouts (after having his entire business built up by the money of others).
You don't act like a sugarbaby club anymore, but the reason why you are where you are is entirely down to being exactly that at one point.
Perhaps I was a bit hyperbolic, but without that influx of money, you'd likely not be competing with Arsenal/United in the following seasons, never mind top European honours. You'd likely have been scrapping it out for CL football with the rest of us for the rest of the decade.Nonsense. You talk as if Chelsea didn't even exist before Abramovich.
Cast your mind back to the final game of the 2003/04 season. You may remember it. Let me remind you. Liverpool were playing away to Chelsea in a game that set out the clubs future. Chelsea won that day and by doing so entered the Champions League, for the second time, and also making sure Liverpool didn't. Had Chelsea not won that day a certain Mr Abramovich may not have invested in the club during the closed season. They made their own luck and pipped Spurs to the investment.
Entirely doesn't even come into it.
Perhaps doesn't even come into it.Perhaps I was a bit hyperbolic, but without that influx of money, you'd likely not be competing with Arsenal/United in the following seasons, never mind top European honours. You'd likely have been scrapping it out for CL football with the rest of us for the rest of the decade.
