42 minutes ago, KonaKai Blue said:

All this Glazers 2.0 talk. Utd have spent MASSIVE amounts of money under the Glazers however, many have been flops. Under Roman we've spent a huge amount of money on flops also. There is serious room for improvement and as long as we keep buying enough talent to challenge, we should be okay.

exactly

united spend much as city lol 

they spend bad but they spend a LOT

42 minutes ago, KonaKai Blue said:

All this Glazers 2.0 talk. Utd have spent MASSIVE amounts of money under the Glazers however, many have been flops. Under Roman we've spent a huge amount of money on flops also. There is serious room for improvement and as long as we keep buying enough talent to challenge, we should be okay.

Difference is that United make 'commercial signings' rather than buying what they need. They needed a midfielder last summer but decided to go for Ronaldo instead. Who has done well for them but does his benefit outweigh the cost?

I tell you what’s getting in my tits, is the Rudiger scenario, as if the gutter sh*te lax media know Jack sh*t about how are new owners will operate, they may make it a priority to give him what he deserves, I think the Candy man would make that a priority….

The issue for a lot of us isnt on whether the new owners will invest or not, it has more to do with how the club will be run. Will it be run like a business or will it be run like a football club?

Also this Acquisition of the club looks to be taking some unseen routes, Roman could veto the sail to people from countries that have sanctioned Oligarchs, and Whether that 1.5 billion debt Roman doesn’t want repaying can actually stand, without smashing sustainability issues…🤔🤔🤔

Just being able to write big Cheques is not enough look at PSG. You need people that understand what it is that makes one expensive squad beat another. 
 

There is no point buying Chelsea unless you plan to invest enough to keep it winning it’s share of things. That is the only way the value goes up and that together with moving from a loss to a profit is how you get a return on a big investment. You can only move to a profit either by cutting costs or getting more revenue. More revenue comes from redeveloping the the stadium. Cutting costs too hard will lead to losing players and that’s a lose lose outcome. 
 

it’s this rationale that makes me somewhat confident that chelsea will still be competing for trophies next season and the season after. But I could be wrong. It has happened before. 

I should add that preserving the winning chelsea “culture” will be important. It’s an intangible but very valuable. 

2 hours ago, axman2526 said:

You think Candy and Sir Martin would run us just to suck us dry of cash and honor?

Tbh yes because he still has to answer to the rest of the consortium who will no doubt see profits as their priority.

4 hours ago, Frankie8Lampard said:

Difference is that United make 'commercial signings' rather than buying what they need. They needed a midfielder last summer but decided to go for Ronaldo instead. Who has done well for them but does his benefit outweigh the cost?

I've never seen a Utd fan complain about any of these so called commercial signings at the time. They only complain when it goes wrong. 

Awb isn't exactly a commercial signing either. Let's put that excuse to bed because it's simply not true.

And if it is true, Roman is just as culpable because our signings aka lukaku and Falcao for example must be commercial too. Must explain why we've only won two prems in 10 years. 

For whatever reason, Utd are poorly managed and the signings may have been wrong (again we are not much different with successful signings) but that's not the Glazers fault. They've put up the money to be spent. Alot more than FSG who struck gold with Klopp and Salah.

Edited March 20, 20224 yr by KonaKai Blue

5 hours ago, Ballack & Blu said:

Also this Acquisition of the club looks to be taking some unseen routes, Roman could veto the sail to people from countries that have sanctioned Oligarchs, and Whether that 1.5 billion debt Roman doesn’t want repaying can actually stand, without smashing sustainability issues…🤔🤔🤔

I thought of this too. Roman may want to favour non-Anglo American bidders more due to how he has been treated. A sort of sour grapes but somehow justified.

On the 1.5 billion debt being written off, this can be treated as a "Force Majeure". Irresistible compulsion to write it off by Roman. Due to the sanctions, he couldn't be paid. A typical example is when a creditor dies, how does the debtor pay? So, I think worst scenario for Chelsea is that, the 1.5 billion will be recognised as a gift or income and we will be liable to pay tax on it.

Muhsin Bayrak, having initially announced he would be flying the ‘Turkish flag in London soon’, has said he had the wrong email address and so had sadly missed the deadline to bid for #Chelsea.

(@MailSport)

Gotta laugh at this one!

Sources: Roman Abramovich does not want to accept a bid for #Chelsea from a country that has sanctioned Russian oligarchs. Abramovich will be able to influence the club’s sale despite having had his assets seized by the Government.

[via @MailSport]

Lord Seb Coe has been declared ‘completely unsuitable’ for a Chelsea takeover bid because of his media company’s relationship with an imprisoned Russian oligarch Andrey Chernyakov. (Mail) #CFC
 

Didnt see that coming. 

Todd Boehly intends to emulate Liverpool’s use of data to enhance Chelsea’s transfer dealing. Boehly’s team seems a long way down the track to reassuring the UK Government that they can do a quick, uncomplicated deal, which will appeal to fans. (Mail) #CFC

41 minutes ago, rooomage said:

I thought of this too. Roman may want to favour non-Anglo American bidders more due to how he has been treated. A sort of sour grapes but somehow justified.

On the 1.5 billion debt being written off, this can be treated as a "Force Majeure". Irresistible compulsion to write it off by Roman. Due to the sanctions, he couldn't be paid. A typical example is when a creditor dies, how does the debtor pay? So, I think worst scenario for Chelsea is that, the 1.5 billion will be recognised as a gift or income and we will be liable to pay tax on it.

On CFCs balance sheet there isn’t a loan shown the debt is held on Fordstams books.

 My guess is that Fordstam will sell the shares in the club and property interest to whoever for the circa £2.5 billion the accounting shenanigans will appear on Fordstams. In effect they will sell their assets profits/ loss etc will happen  in Fordstams accounts with losses etc factored in and when the loan is written off ( it might not be if they decide to leave Fordstam still in live as it were)  any Coropration Tax paid based on the write off will generate a Corporation Tax liability which will create a dilemma for HMR  before the  nett proceeds find their way to charity .

 

16 minutes ago, JM7 said:

Lord Seb Coe has been declared ‘completely unsuitable’ for a Chelsea takeover bid because of his media company’s relationship with an imprisoned Russian oligarch Andrey Chernyakov. (Mail) #CFC
 

Didnt see that coming. 

Would have thought the fact he is so involved with World Athletics and their justified actions against Russian Athletics would be the issue as far as RA would be concerned and my guess is that may well be 

As an aside has Switzerland and or the US sanctioned RA ?

Edited March 20, 20224 yr by terraloon

The sooner we find out who it is the better,this is doing my bloody head in.' I really hope it's no-one that's been mentioned but someone who loves the team,doesn't have a dozen dodgy backers with them,and wants us challenging,and of course sorts out our ground,' oh dear time to wake up from this wonderful dream.

22 hours ago, bisright1 said:

Our club made the decision to sign lukaku, that was the price. He wasn't going to be cheaper. Marina didn't watch serie a games and think he's the man for us. 

Blame the people who decided we should buy him, not the person who executed the sale. That person is more likely Roman than Marina. 

Did the scouts decide to pay him £325K a week, when he was on about £142K a week at Inter ?

Shame, with the benefit of hindsight, we didn’t buy Tchouameni or rice and Kounde while we had the money. Ah well. 

Having done a bit of research I believe the Boehly consortium may be decent owners for us.

There should be a lot of untapped potential at this club in a financial sense. One quick look at the revenue streams and you realize that we "only" had £150m in commercial income for our last financial year for example. Compared to City at £270m, Liverpool at £220m and Manchester United at £321m. So not only have we fallen far behind in matchday income, we are falling even further behind in terms of the commercial revenue stream.

I don't know if that's because we had the crutch of Roman to fall back on but it's disappoiting that we haven't done better there in my opinion. But I believe that for example Boehly would make sure we tap into all our revenue streams and maximize what we can bring in. There will obviously be a transitional period, it's going to be no matter who our new owners are but I think we should be able to compete going into the future if we do things right.

 

20 minutes ago, ozboy said:

Shame, with the benefit of hindsight, we didn’t buy Tchouameni or rice and Kounde while we had the money. Ah well. 

The saddest part is we wasted those precious funds on Lukaku

11 minutes ago, Sindre said:

Having done a bit of research I believe the Boehly consortium may be decent owners for us.

There should be a lot of untapped potential at this club in a financial sense. One quick look at the revenue streams and you realize that we "only" had £150m in commercial income for our last financial year for example. Compared to City at £270m, Liverpool at £220m and Manchester United at £321m. So not only have we fallen far behind in matchday income, we are falling even further behind in terms of the commercial revenue stream.

I don't know if that's because we had the crutch of Roman to fall back on but it's disappoiting that we haven't done better there in my opinion. But I believe that for example Boehly would make sure we tap into all our revenue streams and maximize what we can bring in. There will obviously be a transitional period, it's going to be no matter who our new owners are but I think we should be able to compete going into the future if we do things right.

 

City doesn't count as they fake their commercial revenue so they can evade FFP. Most of their biggest partners have ties to their owners - interestingly we have the opposite, very little Russian commercial money.

Liverpool and United are ahead of us because they are bigger brands. But we should close the gap in the next decade with the right ownership. 

when we know the next owner?

26 minutes ago, Mário César said:

when we know the next owner?

48 hours. Everything is always 48 hours away. 

3 hours ago, rooomage said:

Syria is sending soldiers to aid Putin in Ukraine as well.