1 hour ago, TokyoBlue said:

Easier said than done. Even Roman with all the goodwill in the world could not persuade the CPO to get enough votes. I agree with the CPO stance on this both then and now.

I am certain the CPO would have voted to move the club to earls court. 

The option wasn't earls court, it was "somewhere else". 

I'd be delighted if we moved to earls court. Better transport links, bigger space, cheaper, less time away from our home stadium. 

But don't think it's an option. 

I really don’t know why the Ricketts are still insisting on buying Chelsea. It’s started badly and it’s hard to turn the fans around. 

6 minutes ago, JM7 said:

I really don’t know why the Ricketts are still insisting on buying Chelsea. It’s started badly and it’s hard to turn the fans around. 

It's not necessarily that hard. Too me at least it seems this "NoToRicketts" campaign is lead mostly by our American supporters and doesn't have all that much traction in England.

If reports are to believed they would purchase the club with straight cash. That is a big plus and the way I see it they are the only bidders remaining that may possibly put a "warchest" forward. Everything else is a consortium where cash injections can be complicated while the Ricketts/Griffin/Gilbert trio both have the money and have also made public promises that investments will be made so we keep competing.

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Sindre said:

It's not necessarily that hard. Too me at least it seems this "NoToRicketts" campaign is lead mostly by our American supporters and doesn't have all that much traction in England.

If reports are to believed they would purchase the club with straight cash. That is a big plus and the way I see it they are the only bidders remaining that may possibly put a "warchest" forward. Everything else is a consortium where cash injections can be complicated while the Ricketts/Griffin/Gilbert trio both have the money and have also made public promises that investments will be made so we keep competing

If they are serious let's hope they have some way of placating the Muslim players, something like prayer rooms might work.

12 minutes ago, Sindre said:

It's not necessarily that hard. Too me at least it seems this "NoToRicketts" campaign is lead mostly by our American supporters and doesn't have all that much traction in England.

If reports are to believed they would purchase the club with straight cash. That is a big plus and the way I see it they are the only bidders remaining that may possibly put a "warchest" forward. Everything else is a consortium where cash injections can be complicated while the Ricketts/Griffin/Gilbert trio both have the money and have also made public promises that investments will be made so we keep competing.

 

 

 

The 8 point list would be easy for them to circumnavigate if they really wanted to.

It's too vague for me and some of it is pretty obvious and surprised they even need to say it (Chelsea team colours will remain blue?).

Another one, what's the timeline on the stadium work?

They've said more than most on their plans, but then they probably felt they had to. All the bidders should declare their intentions in public, and how they intend to pay for them.

But the thing is, the Ricketts have decimated Chicago Cubs and now Gilbert have joined them, I’m hearing that he’s done the same to basketball team Cleveland Cavaliers.

What makes you think they will treat us any different?

The Cubs are not in bad shape, and the stupid US woke chelsea fans from Chicago are an embarrasment to the rest of Us fans in the USA.

On 31/03/2022 at 13:34, bisright1 said:

That would never happen. It's just too expensive to do as a prank. 

for 100 pounds people from liverpool can go to the whores at least 5 times, and those are the higher end ones 

they usually have a family package which includes a discounted rate 

Edited April 4, 20224 yr by azpi28

I suppose with Ricketts bid, the fear is that they will be like Glazers or Mike Ashley. Gary Neville was warning them to stay away as the bid has attracted negative interest. Even United have shown that throwing money at the situation doesn’t work because it’s about how they are run, not just how much you spend as a club. 
 

Roman is usually pretty good at choosing people and usually goes with those with a proven track record - so let’s hope he picks the right one. 

I think being picky about who owns us is a bit illogical. We need a new owner and beggars can't be choosers. We don't have Roman any longer, so we have to accept whoever it may be. Maybe the Ricketts family will end up doing a good job at Chelsea. It's unlikely they won't be getting advice from football experts if they did take over anyway. 

On 31/03/2022 at 16:40, Trueblue76 said:

But didn't they regenerate the area around the stadium and upgrade Wrigley Field...all that costs money and will need to be offset in someway?

True. Although I'm not sure how much of that was money from the Ricketts family. The city would have provided tax incentives, and there were a lot of businesses/hotels that saw value in the area, especially after the World Series win in 2016.

If we are looking at this from the point of view of fans though, the fact remains that most Chicago Cubs fans do not like the Ricketts family, despite the fact that their only World Series win in modern history came under their ownership. I think the biggest complaint is over massive hikes in pricing, followed by the fact that the team massively underachieved after winning their one championship.

19 minutes ago, Phillip said:

The Cubs are not in bad shape, and the stupid US woke chelsea fans from Chicago are an embarrasment to the rest of Us fans in the USA.

Ha! I resemble that remark 😉

3 minutes ago, JM7 said:

I suppose with Ricketts bid, the fear is that they will be like Glazers or Mike Ashley

£3bn in cash not only suggest but even confirms that they aren't going to be like the Glazers or even Kroenke who did the same thing to buy Arsenal.

27 minutes ago, Sindre said:

£3bn in cash not only suggest but even confirms that they aren't going to be like the Glazers or even Kroenke who did the same thing to buy Arsenal.

Too early to say. The Glazers ended up taking a huge loan out against the club to offset their own debt, and yet still took income from the club on an annual basis. It would be difficult to stop any prospective owner from doing similar. We've been spoilt by Roman in that respect. There is a good chance that we will see a pretty big increase in ticket prices once the new owners have settled in.

At the end of the day though I think most of us just want to see the club in safe hands and in a position to continue competing at the top level. If the Ricketts consortium is in the best position to provide that, then their bid should win. 

it would be a lot easier to buy a championship team invest heavily and make profit once they go into the prem 

i mean you could buy Derby for cheap and spend 1 billion on players, you would have spared yourself a cool 2 billion 

6 hours ago, JM7 said:

I really don’t know why the Ricketts are still insisting on buying Chelsea. It’s started badly and it’s hard to turn the fans around. 

 

On a similar note:

@NizaarKinsella: “These bids are getting more and more money behind it, and that’s because money is ultimately a huge factor.”

Initially, we were told it wasn’t about the highest bidder, it was about whoever had the best plans for #CFC. But I think increasingly, the money is important. Chelsea is worth 3 billion potentially, and this is becoming a bidding war with different players.”

2 hours ago, JM7 said:

On a similar note:

@NizaarKinsella: “These bids are getting more and more money behind it, and that’s because money is ultimately a huge factor.”

Initially, we were told it wasn’t about the highest bidder, it was about whoever had the best plans for #CFC. But I think increasingly, the money is important. Chelsea is worth 3 billion potentially, and this is becoming a bidding war with different players.”

Why would the government not prioritize money when they can then say they used the Chelsea sale to donate 3bill to the war victims? I doubt they really care about what becomes of us, we are not the beloved Liverpool after all.

6 hours ago, azpi28 said:

it would be a lot easier to buy a championship team invest heavily and make profit once they go into the prem 

i mean you could buy Derby for cheap and spend 1 billion on players, you would have spared yourself a cool 2 billion 

True but with Chelsea you already have a world renown club so the risks are less compared to trying to turn a low-level team into a top division title contender. The platform has pretty much already been laid down for which ever new owner comes all they have to do is get us a new stadium to take us to the elite level.

7 hours ago, Sindre said:

£3bn in cash not only suggest but even confirms that they aren't going to be like the Glazers or even Kroenke who did the same thing to buy Arsenal.

Not sure I agree. All the owners at this stage of the takeover are heavily backed by investment companies which means they will be expecting some sort of a return. It might not be a "loan" per se but the club will definitely have to pay back what they invest so we might see in an increase in ticket prices etc.

24 minutes ago, Frankie8Lampard said:

True but with Chelsea you already have a world renown club so the risks are less compared to trying to turn a low-level team into a top division title contender. The platform has pretty much already been laid down for which ever new owner comes all they have to do is get us a new stadium to take us to the elite level.

i just meant that if you only care about making money surely it's easier to make more profit by taking over a smaller club

to make profit with Chelsea you need to extend the stadium or sell for more than you bought the club

2 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Why would the government not prioritize money when they can then say they used the Chelsea sale to donate 3bill to the war victims? I doubt they really care about what becomes of us, we are not the beloved Liverpool after all.

I suspect its more about Raine making a cut which is no doubt based on the price. I wouldn't be surprised if the likes of Bruce Buck are going to take a % too.

26 minutes ago, forbzy said:

I suspect its more about Raine making a cut which is no doubt based on the price. I wouldn't be surprised if the likes of Bruce Buck are going to take a % too.

Good point too. Raine are said to be on for a very nice price.

The stadium rebuild is said to be a key issue for choosing the winning bid, I know shocker right:

https://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/2022/4/4/23010042/stadium-issue-key-as-bidding-groups-gear-up-for-meeting-chelsea-executives-in-final-week-report

The key points from this article are that both the Bohley led bid and Sir Martins one are NOT looking to follow Roman's plan and more want to do as Liverpool have with Anfield, a stand by stand rebuild so we can remaining playing at the bridge during work, and keep the costs significantly down.

Key point is we are not allowed to have the stands higher than they are, which is why Roman wanted to dig down to have larger stands that were taller but not higher.

Also key for the CPO is apparently the Bohley led bid will forgive the 8mill owed to the club by CPO.

Edited April 4, 20224 yr by axman2526

I know its harsh to ask someone to not use a picture with his father in it but maybe Ricketts and co should ask their PR people to start sending out images without his father in them. For someone who is so adamant that his views aren't the same as his father, he is literally posing with him in everyone of them and that doesn't help his case.