Had the government imposed sanctions on the Bury owner??
Roman Abramovich plans to sell Chelsea | SOLD for £4.25BN
- Thread starter Ali Dia
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Had the government imposed sanctions on the Bury owner??
Bury folded because of financial mismanagement, Chelsea is different because their owner is under sanctions, also there are many people interested in buying Chelsea which I dont thinm was the case with Bury which was a shame.
In the worst circumstances I can't see Chelsea going out of business. Surely the government would step in as they are one of the biggest teams in the country and unfortunately a cultural asset.
Relegation would be worst realistic outcome for them though if it gets messy with their debt.
Relegation would be worst realistic outcome for them though if it gets messy with their debt.
Indeed. The club will ultimately be sold. The sale looks complicated and so the licence may need to be extended beyond 31 May, but there are willing buyers and all sides are strongly motivated to ensure this goes through eventually.
Chelsea's summer transfer plans might have to be put on hold, but I don't think the consequences will be much more severe than that.
Jim Ratcliffe has changed his tune the past few years then if he was serious about purchasing Chelsea. Said you’d be mad to buy Man Utd, yet here he is bidding over £4bn on Chelsea.
Do these bids not include the money owed to RA? If not we are talking about close to £5-6bn if you include the RA money
Technically Chelsea would be folding due to financial mismanagement too as they have been spending money they don't have for 20 years and receiving regular cash injections from their owner is a manner which makes a mockery of financial fair play. Can Chelsea operate as they currently are without financial doping? 1.5bn in unpaid loans from Roman says they can't. I am not saying I want Chelsea to go into administration but to pretend they are more deserving than Bury is just snobbish PL bias.
It may be snobbish PL bias, but Chelsea are in this situation because their owner’s ties to Russia and therefore the sanctions imposed on him. Bury had a lot of debt from what I can remember with no one willing to bail them out (to pay off debt and purchase them), whereas Chelsea have a few willing to buy them.
Im not saying its right but thats the way it is unfortunately.
Chelsea lose around £80-100m per year? So its not sustainable going forward, new owners will have taken that into account.
Chelsea are absolutely not more "deserving" than Bury, I agree with that even though I'm not 100% sure I know what you mean by "deserving".
If there were multiple people trying to buy Bury, they would've been sold.
My prediction:
1) Govt will give an extension as there are interested buyers.
2) Chelsea get sold sometime in June.
3) Chelsea have an issue with the Summer window with some players trying to use the uncertainty as an excuse to get out.
4) Chelsea struggle to buy in the window due to a lack of time and teams know they're desperate for a CB in particular.
5) Money get put into a holding account as RA says he wants to decide where the money is going. 5-10 years down the line he gets his money by winning in court.
For me, this current news about the debt/Chelsea not being able to ensure their participation in the PL next season is just a case of the media generating sensationalist clickbait articulates to throw some blood in the water on their comments pages/social media etc.
1) Govt will give an extension as there are interested buyers.
2) Chelsea get sold sometime in June.
3) Chelsea have an issue with the Summer window with some players trying to use the uncertainty as an excuse to get out.
4) Chelsea struggle to buy in the window due to a lack of time and teams know they're desperate for a CB in particular.
5) Money get put into a holding account as RA says he wants to decide where the money is going. 5-10 years down the line he gets his money by winning in court.
For me, this current news about the debt/Chelsea not being able to ensure their participation in the PL next season is just a case of the media generating sensationalist clickbait articulates to throw some blood in the water on their comments pages/social media etc.
Of course it is, to think that the club would genuinely fold or be expelled from the Premier League is moronic. The sale will go through and the dispute will be sorted post sale is my guess.
Last edited:
Love this 20 year old gotcha
I am from the Roy Keane School of Forgiveness and Grudge-Bearing
Seriously though, it is sad but nobody wants to listen - when you call this stuff out at the time, you just get accused of being bitter.
Look at Derby County...their fans were absolutely loving life under Mel Morris initially. I know loads of Derby County season ticket holders and they were full of themselves, lording it about how they would soon be 'back were they belong'. Then when it all blows up, they write about how sad it is and how we should all feel sorry for them. They'll be in League One next season, with another player exodus looking likely...if they survive administration.
Chelsea is another case in-point, IF the worst does happen, and Chelsea can't compete next season....was a decade of relative success worth losing your club?
Likewise...City can brag all they like about their achievements...but it's not 'Manchester City' anymore. Different club, different badge, group of players and staff who weren't even aware there were two Manchester clubs 15 years ago. If that goes tits up, are we meant to feel sorry for them too?
United opposed the BSKYB takeover and we opposed the Glazer takeover. At least we have been consistent.
Where there’s blame there’s a claim
We won't lose the club. Worst case is we end up in a lower division under new owners like Bury.
And it's closer to two decades of success. If the worst happens was it worth it? feck yes. To quote the great philosopher of our age Ronan Keating: "life is a roller coaster".
Chelsea going bust is the absolute best case scenario but it will never happen unfortunately.
I am from the Roy Keane School of Forgiveness and Grudge-Bearing
Seriously though, it is sad but nobody wants to listen - when you call this stuff out at the time, you just get accused of being bitter.
Look at Derby County...their fans were absolutely loving life under Mel Morris initially. I know loads of Derby County season ticket holders and they were full of themselves, lording it about how they would soon be 'back were they belong'. Then when it all blows up, they write about how sad it is and how we should all feel sorry for them. They'll be in League One next season, with another player exodus looking likely...if they survive administration.
Chelsea is another case in-point, IF the worst does happen, and Chelsea can't compete next season....was a decade of relative success worth losing your club?
Likewise...City can brag all they like about their achievements...but it's not 'Manchester City' anymore. Different club, different badge, group of players and staff who weren't even aware there were two Manchester clubs 15 years ago. If that goes tits up, are we meant to feel sorry for them too?
United opposed the BSKYB takeover and we opposed the Glazer takeover. At least we have been consistent.
I hear you man. I think the dynamic with Abramovich is a bit odd because when he first arrived in 2003 I don't think anyone really had a clue who he was or how he amassed his wealth. I was just a young lad back then but I'm pretty sure certain most adults at the time had no clue either. Years later when people started to fill in the blanks on his background, the fanbase was already emotionally hooked to him and his ownership.
Which is why, though I disagree with the continued support he was getting, and still is, I don't really look at them all and think they're definitely terrible people who literally put football and Chelsea's success before everything else. Some definitely are doing that and feck them, but it's not as black and white as that. It took me years to detach my support for Chelsea from Abramovich and it was the stuff he was doing in Palestine that eventually broke the camels back for me. It wasn't instantaneous, like I didn't wash my hands of him the same day I realised he was a crook. It was a slow process.
And somewhere along the way you realise there isn't really much you can do. We were here before the current custodians of our clubs and we'll be here long after they're gone. Not really much we can do to impact who gains control of our clubs. United fans have been protesting against the Glazers for what seems like decades with no success. So yeah, I hear you. You're not wrong, but it's also kinda complicated and there are no straight and clear answers.
Best case for who?
Best for the thousands of employees and small businesses that survive from match day revenue, catering / merchandise contracts?
Best for the premier league who lose one of the most successful teams In the past twenty years which like it or not has added to the brand and success which feeds the rest of the PL and football ladder via the huge tv deals?
Or best for a vocal minority of opposition supporters who would like to score points?
I think I can guess where you sit.
Having supported the club through the 80’s and 90’s when the highlight was the Zenith Data Trophy until Hoddle came in changed the dynamic of the club I personally wouldn’t of changed anything in regards to the ownership of the last twenty years.
We struck gold with his tenure as owner and the fans are rightly grateful for the success he provided by way of investment in the club and facilities.
Being thankful for his stewardship of the club in that period can be separated for support of his ideals or background. But football is so tribal it’s being used as a cheap dig again supporters of the club to suggest they some how support the war in Ukraine which is obviously abhorrent.
Most likely partly Putins money also. That money will be collected one way or another unless it’s really not politically prudent to do so
M & S? He'd have to be into S & M to want to get involved at Man United.
Please do show where Chelsea FC have publicly condemned the Russians brutal attack, murder and rape of Ukraine and its people.
That's not good enough.
And it came from being forced to publicly say something after Romans long speech about passing control and how he wasn't going to ask for his £1.5b loan back. (cough).
Chelsea compared to every other club, have been very poor in comparison and having fans and ex players supporting Roman and not what is happening in Ukraine only proves this mindset you so clearly say isn't fair.
Roman promised he would give proceeds to war victims... but not to Ukrainians.
Says it all and Chelsea backed that up also with terminology over the weeks.
It's better to just stay quiet at this point and see what happens with your club and where the money goes than complain about others being factual.
Mate you asked for proof of Chelsea publicly condemning Russia's actions. I provided it. Whether its enough or not in your opinion is immaterial.
That isn't enough considering how Chelsea are clearly very deeply involved with the people aiding war criminals.
Chelsea FC have by far been very poor as a club.
Even your own manager did more to publicly condemn Russia than the club has.
But yes, I take your point, you feel that was enough and answered my question and fair enough.
Im sorry, how many clubs have made any statements on Ukraine? Chelsea has nothing to do with the war. Stop repeating your childish nonsense.
Plenty, I researched it so I could use facts and not the Chelsea FC fiction
It should never have been left to the fans to have to fight for the future of their clubs and even football as we know it.
Of course I don't blame Chelsea fans or Derby fans or City fans or Newcastle for being excited. We all want to see our clubs competing for top honours and we're all so emotionally attached to our clubs that we find it naturally hard to be objective sometimes.
I believe this boils down to poor governance by the Premier League/the FA who should have been aware of what might happen if we just start to sell-off football clubs in their entirety to billionaires and sovereign wealth funds. As usual, greed got the better of them and they were willing to stick their fingers in their ears and cover their eyes...until their own position came under threat from the ESL.
Could be argued that it's best for all the other clubs, FA and England in general to not just accept any rich owner to take control of a cultural asset and think that all will be good no matter where the money is coming from. A lesson that you should actually care who owns such things because the consequences can be more impactful then the benefits.
Chelsea will be fine though.
Abramovich has not asked for any loan to be repaid to him.
Club statement https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2022/05/05/statement-on-behalf-of-mr-abramovich
Club statement https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2022/05/05/statement-on-behalf-of-mr-abramovich
If only it was possible.
But the Glazers know they are sitting on a gold mine that will keep their family billionaires for generations to come.
Why would they sell now.
Was it a special loan operation?
Do you even fecking believe the absolute vile shite that comes out of your cnut club and its piece of shit owner?
Another turn where The Times had it completely wrong.
Well hope new owner take over the club soon. And roman already forced them to commit 500 mn immediate cash injection to oversee upcoming transfer window and contract negotiations.Once new owners get the operational license from government they have enough fund to sort out contract problems and new signings.