1 hour ago, evissy said:

Him?..I am here. Don't patronise me. Makes you look pretty ignorant.

I had my reasons and I wonder if no one else here reacted the same way or similar. Roman ended up being amazing owner. No matter the way Roman actually made his money or what he might represent to different people.

The sudden influx of money poured into a side like it happened back then changed the landscape of Premier League. He was one of the pioneers in that sense and now we have many rich owners and groups who have done the same thing. That is why we have these idiotic weird systems trying to keep the playing field level such as FFP and PSR. My only comment on the matter really relates to the way European top football is run compared to NHL for example. Their system is actually pretty smart and it keeps the sport itself interesting. Football works via clubs and what they want. Different system and different culture.

Time has also passed since 2003. World looks different. I am not defending the owners per say. I am among the few that sees what they are trying to do and try to take a positive outlook on them. This forum is something like 2% positive on them 98% negative. Based on the vibe that is here in the comments.

Because then plan they are selling would only bare fruit after years of building. Why would you then spend years of wallowing in negativity around these matters? Life choices I guess. Or just the negative outlook on most things. I chose to be more positive.

I was talking about you, not to you.

I could give you 10 examples of why the ownerships plan is flawed and you would ignore every single one of them and tell me to focus on their vision.

39 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

I was talking about you, not to you.

I could give you 10 examples of why the ownerships plan is flawed and you would ignore every single one of them and tell me to focus on their vision.

Disappointing that you decline to wallow in positivity 😛

47 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

I was talking about you, not to you.

I could give you 10 examples of why the ownerships plan is flawed and you would ignore every single one of them and tell me to focus on their vision.

Read the comments you made. Looks absolutely patronising to me. Like a child in the room. Anyway your choice and especially style.

I could give 10 examples of what is good about the plan and we would end up disagreeing. So there is no point.

2 hours ago, evissy said:

I had my reasons and I wonder if no one else here reacted the same way or similar. Roman ended up being amazing owner. No matter the way Roman actually made his money or what he might represent to different people.

I genuinely don't know anyone who had the same reaction as you.

You've explained your reasons based on where you are from which is fair enough but it's not going to be one that resonates with anyone in England.

42 minutes ago, Remodez said:

I genuinely don't know anyone who had the same reaction as you.

You've explained your reasons based on where you are from which is fair enough but it's not going to be one that resonates with anyone in England.

I know quite a few Finnish lads through work, 2 are chelsea fans, none of them give/gave a sh*t about Romans ownership of Chelsea

4 hours ago, evissy said:

Him?..I am here. Don't patronise me. Makes you look pretty ignorant.

I had my reasons and I wonder if no one else here reacted the same way or similar. Roman ended up being amazing owner. No matter the way Roman actually made his money or what he might represent to different people.

The sudden influx of money poured into a side like it happened back then changed the landscape of Premier League. He was one of the pioneers in that sense and now we have many rich owners and groups who have done the same thing. That is why we have these idiotic weird systems trying to keep the playing field level such as FFP and PSR. My only comment on the matter really relates to the way European top football is run compared to NHL for example. Their system is actually pretty smart and it keeps the sport itself interesting. Football works via clubs and what they want. Different system and different culture.

Time has also passed since 2003. World looks different. I am not defending the owners per say. I am among the few that sees what they are trying to do and try to take a positive outlook on them. This forum is something like 2% positive on them 98% negative. Based on the vibe that is here in the comments.

Because then plan they are selling would only bare fruit after years of building. Why would you then spend years of wallowing in negativity around these matters? Life choices I guess. Or just the negative outlook on most things. I chose to be more positive.

Presumably, on the basis of your previous post, with the back up that you can go off and support another club if you didn't agree with the way that they were doing things.

2 hours ago, Remodez said:

I genuinely don't know anyone who had the same reaction as you.

You've explained your reasons based on where you are from which is fair enough but it's not going to be one that resonates with anyone in England.

Fair enough. Each of our own.

49 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

Presumably, on the basis of your previous post, with the back up that you can go off and support another club if you didn't agree with the way that they were doing things.

I don't understand a word of this...

1 hour ago, dkw said:

I know quite a few Finnish lads through work, 2 are chelsea fans, none of them give/gave a sh*t about Romans ownership of Chelsea

Again everyone is entitled to their opinions.

52 minutes ago, evissy said:

I don't understand a word of this...

On 31/05/2025 at 21:22, evissy said:

Roman's takeover was a brilliant thing for us. For sure.

I was one of those fans here that couldn't stomach the idea we were in a Carabao Cup final and to play the strongest lineup as it wasn't Champions league final. Many here felt similarly here. Only the best would suffice. Only the best of the best would be up to our standard. That was the feeling around here. At least I was like that.

Now in a complete new circumstances we are idiots to expect something like that. Maybe it is just me. Maybe I live too much in my own head.

I started following Chelsea 1996-97. I remember when Roman took over I thought a long time I'd find a new club as I thought this is unfair. That was 20+ year old me.

6 hours ago, evissy said:

Him?..I am here. Don't patronise me. Makes you look pretty ignorant.

I had my reasons and I wonder if no one else here reacted the same way or similar. Roman ended up being amazing owner. No matter the way Roman actually made his money or what he might represent to different people.

The sudden influx of money poured into a side like it happened back then changed the landscape of Premier League. He was one of the pioneers in that sense and now we have many rich owners and groups who have done the same thing. That is why we have these idiotic weird systems trying to keep the playing field level such as FFP and PSR. My only comment on the matter really relates to the way European top football is run compared to NHL for example. Their system is actually pretty smart and it keeps the sport itself interesting. Football works via clubs and what they want. Different system and different culture.

Time has also passed since 2003. World looks different. I am not defending the owners per say. I am among the few that sees what they are trying to do and try to take a positive outlook on them. This forum is something like 2% positive on them 98% negative. Based on the vibe that is here in the comments.

Because then plan they are selling would only bare fruit after years of building. Why would you then spend years of wallowing in negativity around these matters? Life choices I guess. Or just the negative outlook on most things. I chose to be more positive.

There's a very good reason that hardly anyone agrees with you mate.. And it's nothing to do with our "life choices" either.

I won't "patronise" you by explaining it to you . I'm beginning to think you're an AI generated troll

On 08/06/2025 at 08:53, dkw said:

It's literally how professional football came into existence, rich people funding a team. To take umbrage at it now is just nonsense.

Liverpool in the 70s/80s were funded by a family that owned the football pools competition too.

As you say, been going on for ever, but it's suddenly a problem when Chelsea get a rich owner and threaten the cosy dominance of the few.. Hypocrisy and jealousy from the football world. f**k em

Come on you BLUES !

4 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

There's a very good reason that hardly anyone agrees with you mate.. And it's nothing to do with our "life choices" either.

I won't "patronise" you by explaining it to you . I'm beginning to think you're an AI generated troll

I don't need people to agree with me. Not why I am here.

I am an AI generated troll. A very bad one mind you.

8 hours ago, evissy said:

Read the comments you made. Looks absolutely patronising to me. Like a child in the room. Anyway your choice and especially style.

I could give 10 examples of what is good about the plan and we would end up disagreeing. So there is no point.

Give me the 10 examples and I’ll tell you why you’re wrong

Just for fun I asked ChatGPT how were the news received when Roman took over the club...

When Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea Football Club in 2003, the news was met with a mix of surprise, curiosity, and skepticism, both in the UK and internationally. Here's a breakdown of the reception at the time.

🔹 Media Reaction

Shock and Sensation: The takeover came out of nowhere. Abramovich, a relatively unknown Russian billionaire at the time, had no public ties to English football, so his sudden purchase of a high-profile Premier League club made global headlines.

Speculation about motives: There was significant speculation in the press about why he bought Chelsea. Was it a genuine interest in football, a way to park wealth outside Russia, or an image-polishing exercise?

🔹 Fan Reaction

Initial Skepticism: Some Chelsea fans were wary. They were unsure of Abramovich’s intentions or staying power, and concerned about what changes he might bring.

Quick Turn to Optimism: Once it became clear he was willing to invest heavily—bringing in stars like Hernán Crespo, Claude Makélélé, and later José Mourinho—fans quickly warmed to him. Chelsea supporters began to dream big.

🔹 Football Establishment

Jealousy and Concern: Other clubs viewed the takeover with suspicion. The huge spending that followed (over £100 million in the first transfer window) was seen as distorting the market.

"Chequebook Club" Narrative: Critics labeled Chelsea as buying success, and this label stuck for years, often used by rival fans and pundits.

🔹 Wider Public & Government

Oligarch Involvement: Some media outlets and commentators raised red flags about the origins of Abramovich’s wealth during the Russian post-Soviet privatization era. There were quiet concerns within UK political circles, but these didn't affect the footballing side much until years later (especially post-2010s).

🧠 Summary

In 2003, Roman Abramovich’s Chelsea takeover was high-profile, controversial, and transformative. It marked the start of a new era in English football—ushering in the age of billionaire club owners, vast transfer spending, and the globalization of club brands.

Would you like press quotes from that time or headlines from newspapers?

18 hours ago, evissy said:

Just for fun I asked ChatGPT how were the news received when Roman took over the club...

When Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea Football Club in 2003, the news was met with a mix of surprise, curiosity, and skepticism, both in the UK and internationally. Here's a breakdown of the reception at the time.

🔹 Media Reaction

Shock and Sensation: The takeover came out of nowhere. Abramovich, a relatively unknown Russian billionaire at the time, had no public ties to English football, so his sudden purchase of a high-profile Premier League club made global headlines.

Speculation about motives: There was significant speculation in the press about why he bought Chelsea. Was it a genuine interest in football, a way to park wealth outside Russia, or an image-polishing exercise?

🔹 Fan Reaction

Initial Skepticism: Some Chelsea fans were wary. They were unsure of Abramovich’s intentions or staying power, and concerned about what changes he might bring.

Quick Turn to Optimism: Once it became clear he was willing to invest heavily—bringing in stars like Hernán Crespo, Claude Makélélé, and later José Mourinho—fans quickly warmed to him. Chelsea supporters began to dream big.

🔹 Football Establishment

Jealousy and Concern: Other clubs viewed the takeover with suspicion. The huge spending that followed (over £100 million in the first transfer window) was seen as distorting the market.

"Chequebook Club" Narrative: Critics labeled Chelsea as buying success, and this label stuck for years, often used by rival fans and pundits.

🔹 Wider Public & Government

Oligarch Involvement: Some media outlets and commentators raised red flags about the origins of Abramovich’s wealth during the Russian post-Soviet privatization era. There were quiet concerns within UK political circles, but these didn't affect the footballing side much until years later (especially post-2010s).

🧠 Summary

In 2003, Roman Abramovich’s Chelsea takeover was high-profile, controversial, and transformative. It marked the start of a new era in English football—ushering in the age of billionaire club owners, vast transfer spending, and the globalization of club brands.

Would you like press quotes from that time or headlines from newspapers?

Not really relevant, please answer the question asked of you in the message before

Roman saved Chelsea, the Premier League and European football on the whole. I shall not hear a bad word said against the innocent Israeli businessman’s name.

Without him we’d currently have the reanimated corpse of Fergie leading Utd to their 55th consecutive league title whilst Martin Keown still tries to convince the population that the ‘invincibles’ (who actually lose like 7 times that year) deserve to be mentioned as the greatest ever.

Thank You Roman x

City fell off last season, but a couple of new signings and they already look ready to push for titles again now and in the future. Here we are obsessing about how good our players MAY end up becoming in 3 years time. But even that may be a smoke screen, because the amount of young players we have signed and are now trying to sell makes me think something else is going on.

Let's just say we are building towards a future where we compete at the top, how are we supposed to realistically do it? It basically relies on every player commiting to the project for a large chunk of their career, and I just can't see the best ones doing that. The ones that won't quite make it to the very top will stay because they can't go a level higher, but the likes of Caicedo, Palmer, Lavia, why will they stick around and throw a large chunk of their career away when they could be part of a team winning all of the biggest titles right now?

If Maresca is still around throughout this "project", I expect him to say we're not ready to challenge in every single one of those seasons.

30 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

City fell off last season, but a couple of new signings and they already look ready to push for titles again now and in the future. Here we are obsessing about how good our players MAY end up becoming in 3 years time. But even that may be a smoke screen, because the amount of young players we have signed and are now trying to sell makes me think something else is going on.

Let's just say we are building towards a future where we compete at the top, how are we supposed to realistically do it? It basically relies on every player commiting to the project for a large chunk of their career, and I just can't see the best ones doing that. The ones that won't quite make it to the very top will stay because they can't go a level higher, but the likes of Caicedo, Palmer, Lavia, why will they stick around and throw a large chunk of their career away when they could be part of a team winning all of the biggest titles right now?

If Maresca is still around throughout this "project", I expect him to say we're not ready to challenge in every single one of those seasons.

Palmer, Lavia and Caicedo are already at a good transition club. We've always been a very good club that players use as the final stepping stone before going to the big club where they cement their legendary status.

Or they become one with us. Either way they profit

12 minutes ago, Deino said:

Palmer, Lavia and Caicedo are already at a good transition club. We've always been a very good club that players use as the final stepping stone before going to the big club where they cement their legendary status.

Or they become one with us. Either way they profit

They became one with us by becoming winners though, which is the point I am getting at. If we can't provide them a platform to become winners, then they won't stick around long to wait for it. So what chance does this so called project have of us reaching that level with the trajectory we are on? We've now made it to the Champions League, we should be looking to strengthen in key areas, but we're 100% sticking to buying kids. Our rivals strengthen through a mix of both high quality young players and high quality experience, it just feels like we will always be playing catch up.

If we were buying kids that were already good enough, then it wouldn't be an issue, but every signing we make is about how good they will be in the future, and there is no sign of them stopping this. So if they are still doing this next season, and the season after, and the season after that, this project of competing with the best in the future will never actually materialise. In 3 years, Palmer and Caicedo will be 26, and I am sure that when the 2026-27 season starts, they will start demanding the club challenges for titles. If not, then they will be pushing to leave, and I wouldn't blame them. So then we look for our next Palmer and Caicedo, maybe an Estevao, Delap, or Lavia become that player, but they run into the same issues Palmer and Caicedo run into, and then they start pushing for moves too.

I just don't feel this project of buying young to compete in future can work, unless you go the PSG route and all of the young players are ready right now and you surround them with a spine of experience.

When you mention PSG doesn't their revamp of the squad give you any hope? Why couldn't we do a similar thing? We could strengthen the squad with some experienced players in the summer.

Maybe because the track record of these SDs so far is to buy sh*t players for too much, or endless unknowns just to loan out and try to make peanuts back?

1 minute ago, Zeta said:

Maybe because the track record of these SDs so far is to buy sh*t players for too much, or endless unknowns just to loan out and try to make peanuts back?

Patience.

For what? For them to buy more overpriced, average players? And what point is enough enough for you?

8 minutes ago, Zeta said:

For what? For them to buy more overpriced, average players? And what point is enough enough for you?

First enough was enough.