I mean Pat got the joke from the off...Ahhh the old “I’m not owned, it was a joke!” routine.
Roman Abramovich plans to sell Chelsea | SOLD for £4.25BN
- Thread starter Ali Dia
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Pat Nevin?I don't mind it but it would be a wee bit disrespectful to the player I'm paying homage to
Someone who wants to get a a couple of billion dollars cash out of the UK quick sharp.
I wonder if there are FFP considerations if 1.5 billion quid in loans is simply written off? Yet if they aren't written off it would be an asset of Abramovich's that could be in danger if he is subject to sanctions in the future.
Did you just try to make an unfavourable comparison between Abramovich and Kissinger? Read up on history. Friendly advice despite your foul language. You are putting your massive ignoricance on display.
He is not. He bought the club for 140m and is demanding more than 2.5B if reports are correct. He's getting back every penny.
If his assets are frozen won’t his proposed donations to Ukraine be under threat of collapsing? So in many ways he has cornered the UK government into choosing between aid money or going through with their sanctions.
we'll likely be sold for slightly above that, so he would take it out of that.
His wording is not "I am clearing all debts owed" it's "all debts will not have to be repaid" slight difference.....
Forgive my ignorance but isn’t there a difference between selling an asset for what it is now deemed to be worth and the debt owed to him being repaid? Happy to be corrected
Rename ManUnited to The Chelsea of London and sell it for $2.5 billion minus the stadium.
Buy Chelsea for $1.5 billion minus the stadium, rename it to Manchester United.
Adjust the shirts and logos.
Profit. Now we are no longer stuck with paying Ronaldo until he turns 45. We have 1 extra billion, Tuchel and Ralf (sack him before selling the club then hire him).
Buy Chelsea for $1.5 billion minus the stadium, rename it to Manchester United.
Adjust the shirts and logos.
Profit. Now we are no longer stuck with paying Ronaldo until he turns 45. We have 1 extra billion, Tuchel and Ralf (sack him before selling the club then hire him).
If Chelsea is worth 3bn but has a debt of 1,5bn, then any potential buyer would only pay 1,5bn cash to take over the club.
If Chelsea is worth 3 bn but has no debt, any potential buyer would have to pay 3bn cash.
This is because in scenario 1 you are basically taking on 1,5bn in debt. if you paid 3 bn in that scenario, you would actually value the club at 4,5bn.
Hahahaha mate, you expect me to be all "I hope they get good owners and continue to flourish....."
Yeah the one and only.
Personally I wouldn't wish losing their club on any set of fans (not to mention the livelihoods that will tank as a consequence) but maybe I'm in the minority.
Can't British government do expropriation. Sell club and give it back to Russia when Putin overthrow? The Russian economy is going to need rebuilding.
Why would you lose your club? It just wouldn't be in the prem anymore.
That's the crux of it.
Hyperbole. Bury can play on Sundays down the park.
so its speculation. it kinda sets a precedent though possibly. we could in effect go for every rich person from a country if the country does some fecked up shit. Richard Branson gonna be on the chopping board
This is highly dodgy and how is it fair to other clubs, they don't get their loans or debts wiped off, its not allowed I believe under FFP rules and maybe even others.
[/QUOTE]
The loan that have been talked about don’t actually appear on Chelsea Football Clubs balance sheets.
What has happened is that to fund the original purchase, to pay off the debts that had accumulated under Bates RA funded a holding company ( now called Fordstam) That holding company hold 100% of the shares in the club. Year on year Chelsea football club have received cash injection from RA via the holding company and in return more shares have been issued
You them have to factor in that a chunk of the debt was pre FFP but also the loans to the holding company that have indeed now reached in excess of £1.5 billion facilitated an increase in equity in lines with FFP.
[/QUOTE]
The loan that have been talked about don’t actually appear on Chelsea Football Clubs balance sheets.
What has happened is that to fund the original purchase, to pay off the debts that had accumulated under Bates RA funded a holding company ( now called Fordstam) That holding company hold 100% of the shares in the club. Year on year Chelsea football club have received cash injection from RA via the holding company and in return more shares have been issued
You them have to factor in that a chunk of the debt was pre FFP but also the loans to the holding company that have indeed now reached in excess of £1.5 billion facilitated an increase in equity in lines with FFP.
He never transferred the club to the charity he planned to transfer the stewardship.
To even answer the question you have to separate the trading entity that is Chelsea Football Club from the holding company.
Far too many seem to think that RA funds the club 100% and yes over the years he has put in vast sums but under his owners Chelsea have significantly grown all income streams.
One very very interesting point is that many clubs have had to massively increase their borrowings to get past COVID. Chelsea were no different other than the fact that Arsenal , like Spurs had to borrow monies for HM Government those debts will have to be repaid.
Strangely enough I don't think Uniteds issue is to do with owners not investing. You still have one of the most expensive squads, pretty much comparable to ours., If you take both ins and outs into consideration, Uniteds is considerably higher. Uniteds issue is the club structure and management, which in my humble opinion is better at Chelsea
. Had united got conte rather than sticking with solsksjaer for example, you'd have been competing this year.
Coming to Chelsea, as a Chelsea fan I don't mind if the club were run sustainabily. In fact we have been sustainable and have been following ffp for some years now. You may quote the lukaku and havertz purchase but all of these have been done after equivalent sales. Hazard was sold for 120 odd, Tammy for 34 etc which offsets the 2 big purchases. I never really liked us going for lukaku anyway and going big for young promising stars makes sense at all levels. I don't think too many big buys are the answer for Chelsea anyway as we have an excellent academy to back on.
For the short term , We have made enough big purchases Already that sets us for the next 2 3 years and with broja and Gallagher we have 2 new signings next season. We have buy backs with livramento, Tammy and a few more too.
The bigger thing in the short term is not transfers but to convince Tuchel to stay long term. Given our squad it shouldn't be difficult to have him for at least for 1 or 2 seasons.
We really don't need a big overhaul. A few good purchases here and there like Liverpool go for should be enough as we can at least for a few years manage with some excellent academy products. Don't think Roman will want to change the management structure much really and hope the new owners don't change it too much either.
If the question is how the sale will affect us after 5 years time., That's really anybody's guess. It is definitely a concern, I admit., But as a Chelsea fan, we take the days as they come. No point commenting on a future we have absolutely no clue about. But on the short term for the next 3 to 5 years don't see much changing as long as we keep Tuchel, which is the most important thing.
The big risk for Chelsea here is that any takeover happens through a leveraged buyout, similar to United. Abramovich is looking to offload quickly and these types of deals just don't happen in a week or two. The stadium situation has to be a concern too. There is no quick or cheap solution to that and I would suspect that a sale price north of $1.5bn is unlikely.
Really need some help here….
- He is only selling as he fears losing it through sanctions
- If sanctions are incoming, how is it even possible for someone to give him a couple of billion quid for the club?
Aside from that conundrum, imagine how bad the new owner will be. Happy to give a Russian Oligarch under sanctions, lots of cash.
Absolute horror show of a situation. Great to see.
- He is only selling as he fears losing it through sanctions
- If sanctions are incoming, how is it even possible for someone to give him a couple of billion quid for the club?
Aside from that conundrum, imagine how bad the new owner will be. Happy to give a Russian Oligarch under sanctions, lots of cash.
Absolute horror show of a situation. Great to see.
Wonder if we'll ever see similar situations at Man City and Newcastle, with their equally dodgy ownership.
The Man City deal saw agreed in one day
Yes but with finances that Chelsea have now, it shouldn’t be a problem. Its never been a problem for United unless you live on twitter or Reddit.
Look. If this is your sense of humor, you may need to calm down.
This isn't child's play. Chelsea are a big marketable club with a global fan base and a ton of employees. Why would the UK government want to disrupt a football club and rob it's employees of their employment if the funds are not being parried over to Russia.
Absent the debt 1.5 bn is very likely. And Roman suggested the debt is a write off. And even after reading his statement without my blue tinted glasses that is what I got from his statement.
It's possible that Roman realized that any money from the sale wouldn't do him much good anyway. It can be sanctioned. So instead giving it to charity for victims of Ukraine can save his reputation. Roman may have economic interests in other countries too. So saving his reputation is a must at this point.
I am not seeing this as anything negative against Roman. But from a practical standpoint, he'd have realized what's coming and tried to make the best of the situation. Not just for himself but for the club as well.
Writing the loans off makes the club an excellent buy for anyone involved. Don't think he would change the club structure much as well. Donating the proceeds to charity can calm some of the mps until the sale is done properly.
Difference is that United was an obvious opportunity to take over a massive revenue generating scheme. One look at the books will tell any prospective buyers, especially American buyers, that Chelsea would not function well as a piggy bank. You need historic clubs with massive followings who will fork over cash regardless of what you do to attract the likes of the Glazers and Kroenke. We are more likely to get frugal, but solid management like the Fenway group, or another non American (hopefully British) sugar daddy that wants in the game.
For some reason the UK government are dithering on sanctions, so he's trying to sell it and his properties in the UK quick before the sanctions happen. That way he can get his money out and hide it.
The first point is a given
The second is an interesting one . It’s all well and good freezing a bank account, or impounding a plane but a trading entity opens up all sorts of issues and particularly the fact that football clubs are treated differently even though they shouldnot be. RA may well have given HM Government a way out of a conundrum in that they won’t be having somehow to take over running the club or appointing someone in the knowledge that the nett proceeds will be handed over to a charity that I suspect will be the get out of jail card for any new owner who stumps up cash
The point about foreign owners is something that Gary Neville touched on. You don’t have to be foreign to be a bad owner there are some obvious examples just ask Bury or Derby supporters but even then It will be interest to see at some point in the future how other owners of non UK origin fare if their country engages in occupation or war against another country
Put to one side what is happening and l ets look at some hard numbers.
RA through Fordstam has invested £1.5 billion . Had things not turned the way that they have that £1.5 billion was worth what £2-2.5 billion.So growth of around £500-£1000 million over a 19 year period.
The Man Utd example is unique but Fenway and indeed KSE haven’t turned a profit and in the case of KSE their loans, even ignoring the money they stumped up to buy the shares) is said by AST to now be in excess of £250 million with another £250 million owed by way of their recent and historical transfers.
Seems It would take something for the whole world to be up in arms over, like Putin going full on maniac. It also allows them to plan for a situation like this to cover their backs i guess
Thanks for this. Great post.
Fair point. Kissinger's team, Greuther Furth, is bottom of the Bundesliga, whereas Abramovich's team, Chelsea, is near the top of the Premier League.
The issue is the timing of this. Roman needs a quick sale, and that vastly increases the likelihood that any buyer would use credit to buy the club, and thus some or all of the repayment of that credit could be put on the club rather than any individuals. The list of people willing and able to spend billions on a football club is much smaller than a lot of people think, and it bears repeating that the stadium is going to be a real issue for any buyers. It's no longer fit for purpose for a club the size of Chelsea and there is no easy or cheap solution to that.
Obviously anything can happen from here but I think the most likely scenario is that Chelsea will see a significant reduction in spending over the next 10 years. It won't be felt immediately but over time it will be tougher for them to continue to challenge. Fortunately Chelsea are now very much established as a top tier club and that won't go away anytime soon so you'll have no problem attracting players whatever happens.
There's a book you might like called 'Once Upon a Time in Russia', talks about the theft of Russia's assets at natural resources by the ruling class and oligarchs during 'perestroika'.
Abrahamovich is mentioned numerous times. It's nothing short of outright robbery, downright corruption and deliberate and knowing impoverishment of millions of people.
But Chelsea fans will defend him, because their team did a bit better during his tenure....
The whole world - 'Fk Putin and Russia. Our hearts bleed for the loss of life in Ukraine'
Chelsea fans - 'Oh what a wonderful guy Ambramovich was. We'll miss you. Much love'
Newcastle and Man City fans ... Stick heads in sand. 'Don't look at us. Don't look at us'.
Its ridiculous.
Chelsea fans - 'Oh what a wonderful guy Ambramovich was. We'll miss you. Much love'
Newcastle and Man City fans ... Stick heads in sand. 'Don't look at us. Don't look at us'.
Its ridiculous.
This. Chelsea are in a situation where this goes one of two ways.
At worst they get a Glazer model where they get put in debt up to their eyeballs to leverage buy the club. At best they get an even richer owner who then takes it over and uses them for either
A) Sports Washing (Another Arab state)
B) To brand themselves, diversify their assets/use club to promote their business interests (this could be someone like Bezos)
In my opinion they'll get something inbetween A or B. Not sure they'll get the full Glazer treatment simply because their ground cannot really be leveraged.
The world is not black and white my friend. You can condemn Russia for obvious war crimes and at the same time say it is not right to send people to the gulag based on weak or unsubstantiated claims.