One thing im worried about however is the structure of true blues with regards to the app...

Essentially we will all have a tiny share and then we can all trade sell or buy etc, But that opens it up to absolute abuse...

Rival fans, Trolls all sorts even possibly whoever ends up owning us could just try to buy loads of shares from people and end up having more of a say in the club than actual supporters and fans

Then you would say only ST holders using their ST serial numbers to confirm legitimacy, Even then people could just borrow their mates etc so it could get dramatic

2 years time some rival fan comes out showing they've bought half the members shares and now control more of the 10% than anyone at the bridge!!

God this waiting for more news is doing my head in, I know its going to take time but we really need to move forward.

11 minutes ago, Bluesince66 said:

God this waiting for more news is doing my head in, I know its going to take time but we really need to move forward.

Looks like Ricketts got the inside track with both Raine & Bruce Buck so hard to see past them at this point.

They will meet resistance from many supporters it seems though

Todd Boehly remains very ambitious and wants to invest in the Chelsea squad. One contact talks about his desire to compete with Real Madrid, and also the desire to redevelop Stamford Bridge at the same time.

- @TheAthleticUK 
 

Sources talk about the Todd Boehly consortium running Chelsea similarly to how FSG operates at Liverpool. FSG still makes major transfers, but works far more within the club’s means. Boehly is not trying to buy the club to take it backwards, though. (Athletic) #CFC #LFC

46 minutes ago, Sindre said:

Looks like Ricketts got the inside track with both Raine & Bruce Buck so hard to see past them at this point.

They will meet resistance from many supporters it seems though

Why though? I really don't get this whole no to ricketts campaign, We don't even know the details of the bids.... If we get Boehly and he turns out to be like the Glazers then we'll be f***ed. I want what's best fo the club, all this talk of protests etc is just lunacy!!!

2 hours ago, Kantesmini said:

One thing im worried about however is the structure of true blues with regards to the app...

Essentially we will all have a tiny share and then we can all trade sell or buy etc, But that opens it up to absolute abuse...

Rival fans, Trolls all sorts even possibly whoever ends up owning us could just try to buy loads of shares from people and end up having more of a say in the club than actual supporters and fans

Then you would say only ST holders using their ST serial numbers to confirm legitimacy, Even then people could just borrow their mates etc so it could get dramatic

2 years time some rival fan comes out showing they've bought half the members shares and now control more of the 10% than anyone at the bridge!!

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

5 minutes ago, Trueblue76 said:

Why though? I really don't get this whole no to ricketts campaign, We don't even know the details of the bids.... If we get Boehly and he turns out to be like the Glazers then we'll be f***ed. I want what's best fo the club, all this talk of protests etc is just lunacy!!!

I'm still waiting to hear why it's no to ricketts. 

It's literally just another American sports billionaire.

5 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

I'm still waiting to hear why it's no to ricketts. 

It's literally just another American sports billionaire.

For me it’s primarily the statements associated to the family that are anti Muslim. I said in a previous post that Chelsea have done a lot of good work over the years with regards to anti-semitism and it feels like it would be a step backwards if the club was owned by someone who has these horrible views towards the Muslim community. We have several high profile Muslim players and I can’t imagine they’d be too happy to be employed by people who hold those views. 
 

From a sporting point of view - they have seemingly stripped back and used the Chicago Cubs purely as a profit machine. Yes they had some success in 15 or 16 but since then apparently they have been offloading the valuable assets and not replacing them suitably. If they was to operate the same model here it would take Chelsea away from the top table of football. The people close to the club seem to want someone who will sustain and build on Chelsea’s success and for me what I’ve heard about the Ricketts I’m not convinced they would be the people to do this. 

7 minutes ago, drjonesy1994 said:

For me it’s primarily the statements associated to the family that are anti Muslim.

That's not right at all. Lots of people have ancestors with more than a bit of racism in them.

Max Mosley wasn't responsible for his fascist father.

Racism isn't hereditary.

14 minutes ago, drjonesy1994 said:

For me it’s primarily the statements associated to the family that are anti Muslim. I said in a previous post that Chelsea have done a lot of good work over the years with regards to anti-semitism and it feels like it would be a step backwards if the club was owned by someone who has these horrible views towards the Muslim community. We have several high profile Muslim players and I can’t imagine they’d be too happy to be employed by people who hold those views. 
 

From a sporting point of view - they have seemingly stripped back and used the Chicago Cubs purely as a profit machine. Yes they had some success in 15 or 16 but since then apparently they have been offloading the valuable assets and not replacing them suitably. If they was to operate the same model here it would take Chelsea away from the top table of football. The people close to the club seem to want someone who will sustain and build on Chelsea’s success and for me what I’ve heard about the Ricketts I’m not convinced they would be the people to do this. 

That was their dad not them. I'm really not bothered by that at all. 

And I just can't believe anyone would spend billions buying a club just to asset strip it and therefore ultimately make a loss. If you don't invest in Chelsea, we decline. We aren't united, or the cubs, so any sensible business man can't buy us without a view to invest.

34 minutes ago, Trueblue76 said:

Why though? I really don't get this whole no to ricketts campaign, We don't even know the details of the bids.... If we get Boehly and he turns out to be like the Glazers then we'll be f***ed. I want what's best fo the club, all this talk of protests etc is just lunacy!!!

I don't understand it either, I get that the dad is someone we wouldn't want associated with our club but I haven't seen anything from the others along those lines.  I also find it incredible that a few weeks ago we were all thinking our club was going into administration and we wouldn't survive and now we have fans protesting over being saved by a buyer who is backed by a billionaire!  Lets face it, we don't really know anything about any of the bidders for sure or what they have promised to invest in.

7 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

 

And I just can't believe anyone would spend billions buying a club just to asset strip it and therefore ultimately make a loss. If you don't invest in Chelsea, we decline. We aren't united, or the cubs, so any sensible business man can't buy us without a view to invest.

If they are successful in buying the club then I hope they prove me wrong obviously, but I think it’s a fair enough reservation to have at this stage given how the Cubs have been run under their ownership. 
 

23 minutes ago, coco said:

That's not right at all. Lots of people have ancestors with more than a bit of racism in them.

Max Mosley wasn't responsible for his fascist father.

Racism isn't hereditary.

I might be wrong on this but didn’t the children distance themselves from the father in a statement, but didn’t condemn the comments he had made? 

If they made a public statement on it then condemning the dads comments would’ve been a good idea.
 

 

8 minutes ago, drjonesy1994 said:

If they are successful in buying the club then I hope they prove me wrong obviously, but I think it’s a fair enough reservation to have at this stage given how the Cubs have been run under their ownership. 
 

Nothing wrong with having reservations, but you have to also be realistic, why have we had so many bidders scrambling to buy a club that doesn't make a profit. ?  obviously they will think they can make a profit, they are billionaires, not dunces, but the biggest driving force for me is our success on the pitch over the last 20 years, catapulting us to one of the top clubs in the World, and currently at the very top of club level, in the #1 sport on the planet. These opportunities come up very rarely, Mears Bates, Abramovich ?????

2 hours ago, JM7 said:

Todd Boehly remains very ambitious and wants to invest in the Chelsea squad. One contact talks about his desire to compete with Real Madrid, and also the desire to redevelop Stamford Bridge at the same time.

- @TheAthleticUK 
 

The Boehly-led consortium is the one I'm warming to the most.

Making all the right noises from what I've read.

Chelsea takeover: How data-led Todd Boehly would maximise youth talent in Stamford Bridge revolution

Todd Boehly will put data at the heart of his Chelsea revolution if his bid to buy the club is successful, with maximising youth talent one of his key visions for the future.

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/chelsea-fc-takeover-todd-boehly-la-dodgers-b991708.html

3 hours ago, bisright1 said:

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

I wouldn't be so sure, You can invest down to £100, once everyone has one and the movement starts you could form groups just like terry and start to shift and consolidate the shares etc

Ive watched enough billions to see a bit of a red flag in the idea but its better than nowt!!!

2 hours ago, bisright1 said:

That was their dad not them. I'm really not bothered by that at all. 

And I just can't believe anyone would spend billions buying a club just to asset strip it and therefore ultimately make a loss. If you don't invest in Chelsea, we decline. We aren't united, or the cubs, so any sensible business man can't buy us without a view to invest.

Doesn't have to be an asset strip, All sorts of offers may come in as we are one of the crown jewels of London and we end up in an absolute mess within the decade 

With the way things have gone so far I wouldn't be surprised we end up being thrown about like a hot potato i.e. They buy us at 2.5, Renege on spending "soz ladz can't get the loan" and someone offers 3B, Its a win, No?!!

 

32 minutes ago, Kantesmini said:

I wouldn't be so sure, You can invest down to £100, once everyone has one and the movement starts you could form groups just like terry and start to shift and consolidate the shares etc

Ive watched enough billions to see a bit of a red flag in the idea but its better than nowt!!!

You could say the same for the CPO though surely?

It’s interesting that despite the opposition to the Ricketts bid, they made the shortlist and seemingly have links to Raine and Buck. It sounds dodgy. 
 

Bohley sounds like the most sensible and one that we can trust (based on the info we know). Data driven, good sporting history.
 

Ricketts have the money but there seems to be concerns about the way they run their clubs and their assets stripping. Whilst I agree no-one would buy a club just to strip it, people especially American owners can be naive. They need to understand the PL is highly competitive- the slightest drop in standards can lead to a downfall. 

4 hours ago, bisright1 said:

I'm still waiting to hear why it's no to ricketts. 

It's literally just another American sports billionaire.

Being based in Chicago I am pretty familiar with the way that the Ricketts family runs a sports team. So I do have significant concerns over them owning Chelsea. While the Cubs did win their first World Series in a century under the Ricketts family, they should have gone on to build a dynasty. Instead that great team underachieved and was ultimately broken up. While that was not all down to the Ricketts there were definitely some poor decisions made around contracts.

Also they are highly unpopular with most Cubs fans. The Cubs have always had sellout games even when they have been awful due to the location of the stadium, and the loyalty of the fans. Ricketts family took advantage of the success by increasing ticket prices, especially for corporate areas, without worrying about success on the field. Not to mention they have suggested moving out of the City unless they get certain tax breaks. Moving from Wrigley Field would be unthinkable for most Cubs fans so that went down terribly.

Overall I think they would be like the Glazers. I am sure they would want success from any team that they own, but only to increase the value of their investment. 

 

Concerning if these statements  are true. 

Surely, the club would have to listen to the fans and the noise and not select Ricketts???