They haven't said that he'll cease to own or fund the club
Abramovich & Chelsea + a bit of Everton
- Thread starter BaZ87
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 28,420
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
He will not have any funds left when everything is all done and dusted.
Again, why?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 28,420
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
Lol are you not watching the news!?
Yes, obviously I'm aware of what's going on, I'm just not sure why you expect it to deplete his personal wealth
The courts or government could grant a freezing order against him, but that doesn't strip him of anything.
It's so the club and sponsors of the club won't be in the news and thus won't affect Chelsea in a negative way(quite capable of that ourselves) but to tarnish the club with what's going on in Ukraine would be just trashy.
Chelsea aren't going to fall off a cliff even if RA's funds were all seized. They'd still be one of the 4 richest sides in the League, they just wouldn't be able to go out and spend over the top like they have before. We're a very long way from that happening anyway and nobody probably knows where half of RA's money is hidden too.
One thing I will say is that I would be surprised if RA's still Chelsea's owner in 2 years time. He only bought Chelsea to raise his profile so that Putin wouldn't go after him as he had others - he's achieved that now. He's already pulled the plug on funding the new stadium and has barely been seen at a Chelsea game since he didn't have his visa renewed. There's been talk that he's had discussions around a sale over the last couple of years and this may be the final straw and he might just sell up once the Ukraine situation dies down.
One thing I will say is that I would be surprised if RA's still Chelsea's owner in 2 years time. He only bought Chelsea to raise his profile so that Putin wouldn't go after him as he had others - he's achieved that now. He's already pulled the plug on funding the new stadium and has barely been seen at a Chelsea game since he didn't have his visa renewed. There's been talk that he's had discussions around a sale over the last couple of years and this may be the final straw and he might just sell up once the Ukraine situation dies down.
You're doing a terrible job of hiding how nervous you are.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 28,420
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
Took the words right out of my mouth.
What do I have to be nervous of?
The club existed before Roman and will do after him.
Can't see him selling up just because of the price he would want and I don't think people would be willing to pay.
You're aware that Chelsea were on the brink of bankruptcy prior to Abramovic taking over?
As for him not selling due to the price, that would depend on what you think his motivations are. As I said he didn't buy Chelsea as a financial investment, it was a political/security investment to protect himself from going the same way as ex-business partners of his and other oligarch's that Putin had enough of. His high profile status, due to his connection with Chelsea, is now hurting him and will continue to do so.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2019
- Posts
- 888
That doesn't change his statement that they existed before him and will after. Liverpool too were reported to be one day away from bankruptcy but big clubs like that won't just disappear when funding gets pulled. There's always another mug to pump money into top 6 clubs.
It's not pointless, it's covering his arse so he can't be stripped of it by some sanctions against wealthy russians with links to Putin or whatever.
Who says he can't be stripped of it? He still owns the club so, theoretically, it could be seized.
As I said in my earlier post, nothing dramatic will change with Chelsea if and when RA is gone as even without him they'd be one of the richest clubs in the country but I found Giburrows comment funny considering RA saved Chelsea from going under in 2003.
Liverpool weren't though, as confirmed by court documents in Hicks' failed attempt at suing RBS. Chelsea on the other hand were on the brink of going bust. And this was in the early 2000's, when there weren't a number of billionaires queuing up to buy football clubs that were losing millions of pounds.
As I said in my earlier post, nothing dramatic will change with Chelsea if and when RA is gone as even without him they'd be one of the richest clubs in the country but I found Giburrows comment funny considering RA saved Chelsea from going under in 2003.
How does land pay a bank? It's well documented, by Chelsea's current Chairman no less, that Chelsea were about to default on a £75m debt repayment prior to RA flying in. Chelsea would have gone into administration.
Chelsea would easily have gotten a new loan out, back then Sir James Ratcliffe was sniffing around the club so would have easily done a deal for the club, tried to buy us but ended up buying Nice for 90m.
But woulda coulda shoulda, don't be jealous or hateful as no club won anything without spending money.
Blissfully ignorant or naive, I don't know but you're so so wrong. As I said, there are quotes from Bruce Buck about the fact that Chelsea were about to default on a £75m repayment - they were losing lots of money and couldn't afford to pay their bills, they weren't getting another loan. Football wasn't as fashionable nor financially attractive to investors as it is now either. Chelsea were about to do a Leeds. And James Ratcliffe's interest was only around 15 years after RA's takeover
And who's jealous? I've said that Chelsea won't go to the wall if and when RA sells up or is sanctioned. Your arguments are like that of a 10 year old and as I said at the start, it sounds like a massive overcompensation, almost like you're getting nervous.
Again what is there to be nervous about, we've won everything. I don't believe Chelsea could ever have gone under due to the fact they are sitting on West London land(possibly the most expensive land in the country) so this 75m debt was still nothing back then.Blissfully ignorant or naive, I don't know but you're so so wrong. As I said, there are quotes from Bruce Buck about the fact that Chelsea were about to default on a £75m repayment - they were losing lots of money and couldn't afford to pay their bills, they weren't getting another loan. Football wasn't as fashionable nor financially attractive to investors as it is now either. Chelsea were about to do a Leeds. And James Ratcliffe's interest was only around 15 years after RA's takeover
And who's jealous? I've said that Chelsea won't go to the wall if and when RA sells up or is sanctioned. Your arguments are like that of a 10 year old and as I said at the start, it sounds like a massive overcompensation, almost like you're getting nervous.
If its not nerves can you explain the petty jealousy comments?
And sitting on land can't pay debts. The land is only worth something if its sold, which of course it couldn't be as its owned by Chelsea Pitch Owners. In case you're not aware, the freehold of the stadium was put into this supporter controlled company to prevent it being sold. In fact they even blocked RA's attempts of buying it back as part of a new stadium proposal some years ago.
And sitting on land can't pay debts. The land is only worth something if its sold, which of course it couldn't be as its owned by Chelsea Pitch Owners. In case you're not aware, the freehold of the stadium was put into this supporter controlled company to prevent it being sold. In fact they even blocked RA's attempts of buying it back as part of a new stadium proposal some years ago.