Chelsea

[aws]

1 hour ago, Barrington Womble said:

There are no rules though that they could apply are there? They could write some, they would work out how they think they can drive a bus through them and if they can't, they'll wrap the authorities up in years long legal cases till it gets to the point the clubs owners have already achieved what they needed from the sportswashing. It's like the thing with the PL and city that's been running for years. Let's say they eventually get found guilty and even lose their titles, in the mean time they've had 10 years or more of legitimising their state - and fans of other teams don't get the years back where they've had titles stolen from them. 

It's how you frame the rules. They should draft them so that it's up to each club to prove to the satisfaction of the authorities before every season that they are in compliance beyond all reasonable doubt. And they can't compete until they do. The same way they couldn't play a game in a stadium without a safety certificate.

 

 At the moment the authorities have to gather all the evidence and prove a breach so just flip the onus of proof round.  Not foolproof but it would make evasion a lot more difficult. 

[Barrington Womble]

32 minutes ago, aws said:

It's how you frame the rules. They should draft them so that it's up to each club to prove to the satisfaction of the authorities before every season that they are in compliance beyond all reasonable doubt. And they can't compete until they do. The same way they couldn't play a game in a stadium without a safety certificate.

 

 At the moment the authorities have to gather all the evidence and prove a breach so just flip the onus of proof round.  Not foolproof but it would make evasion a lot more difficult. 

but if you take sponsorship as an example, how would you get a rule that allows for companies that don't really exist to not be able to sponsor clubs? that's what's happening at city right now and they just go "start ups init". and it's waved through - and if they tried to be more explicit, they'd just put such complicated ownership structures around things, it would be impossible to know where the money is coming from. These new rules from uefa are wages & amortisation shouldn't be more than 70% of turnover. But that is pointless if there's no real way to measure valid turnover. which there won't be and clubs like city would lawyer up so hard - in your situation they would just bully them through. honestly, i just think it is fanciful to think it can be policed by the PL when they're up against the wealth of an oil state. the issue here is not the rules, it's the people we ask to abide by them. 

[Vincent Vega]

Good news hopefully. 

 

[Vincent Vega]

The bots are out in force.

 

[Reckoner]

10 minutes ago, Vincent Vega said:

The bots are out in force.

 

Good spot. Sounds like they are softening up the fans for a few barren years. Great stuff.

[Jennings]

I believe this is what's best for their club. They need to take a while to reflect on their standards and overall passion for the club, even if it means going trophyless for a few years.

[Bobby Hundreds]

Standards and passion.... Chelsea. Yeah right. Roman needs to take his trophies with him as they don't belong to Chelsea.

[Barrington Womble]

3 hours ago, Reckoner said:

Good spot. Sounds like they are softening up the fans for a few barren years. Great stuff.

I can't even begin to think why any prospective buyer would even bother their arse at this point. And whoever they are, clearly aren't very good at it, so it's pretty unlikely they've hidden their tracks! 

[dockers_strike]

Seems there some conflicts of interest in other football clubsby at least one of the four 'preferred bidders.'

 

The sale of Chelsea has come down to a four-way battle after Boston Celtics owner Stephen Pagliuca was a surprise addition to the shortlist.

 

While Todd Boehly’s group and the consortium funded by Crystal Palace shareholders Josh Harris and David Blitzer, and fronted by Sir Martin Broughton, remain the front-runners after being the first to be shortlisted, Raine, the bank in charge of the sale, progressed two more consortiums to the final stage.

 

Despite a fan backlash, which was endorsed by Chelsea’s Supporters’ Trust, over racist emails from Joe Ricketts and comments made by other members of the family, the Ricketts were informed on Friday evening that they had progressed to the final stage.

 

That sparked immediate outrage among Chelsea fans part of the #notoRicketts campaign who had called for the family to be eliminated from the process.

 

And Pagliuca became the shock fourth name on the shortlist. He also owns a 55 per cent stake in Atalanta, which could prove problematic given the Italian team have played in the Champions League, and has the backing of his investment firm Bain Capital, which claims to have £117billion in assets under management.

 

A preferred buyer will be decided upon over the course of the next fortnight with the intention of a sale going through, following Government and Premier League checks, by the end of April.

 

Whichever group buys Chelsea are expected to pay in the region of £2.5bn, the vast majority of which will be donated to good causes, with the Government insisting nothing must go to Roman Abramovich following his sanctions.

 

The process of deciding upon and communicating the shortlist has provoked private criticism from a number of the bidders, who expected the process to be conducted faster and cleaner.

 

Raine informed a number of bidders they had been unsuccessful long before communicating that others had made it through to the shortlist, which created rumour and counter-rumour on Thursday night and Friday. The shortlisted groups were told they would receive further communication inside 24 hours over the process for the final stage.

 

Some of those eliminated were upset that a bid that included two shareholders of another club, Harris and Blitzer, and could not currently pass the Premier League owners’ and directors’ test was advanced. There was also surprise at Pagliuca’s inclusion, given he would have to dilute his share in Atalanta, which he only bought in February.

 

There was confusion over the claims of Nick Candy that he had been advised to talk to other groups after his own Blue Football Consortium bid, which was almost fully funded by Catalina Kim’s Korean investors, had been rejected.

 

Kim released a statement that said: “We, the group of C&P Sports, Hana Financial and other strategic investors from South Korea, were suggested to join another consortium. We thank Mr Nick Candy for our journey and wish him the best of luck for his future.”

 

The Boehly-led group are considered the favourites, while the Ricketts family, despite being shortlisted, are rated as outsiders after failing to convince the Supporters Trust in a meeting in London this week that they could present an “inclusive” ownership.

 

In a statement, the Trust said: “It is essential that the new owners of the club has the confidence of the supporter base and demonstrate an understanding of the values that we stand for. That is why the strength of feeling towards the Ricketts family bid from Chelsea supporters cannot and must not be ignored.

 

"The CST are grateful to the Ricketts family for meeting with us this week. We challenged them on all of the points supporters have raised concerns about. However, our concerns about their ability to run an inclusive, successful club on behalf of our diverse supporter base around the world have not yet been allayed.

 

“It is for the Ricketts family to demonstrate how they will address supporter concerns – especially with regard to inclusivity, given both past and recent statements by members of the family, and they have not yet done that.

 

"They must do so publicly and they must do so urgently. If they are unable to do this and gain the confidence of Chelsea supporters, the CST Board does not believe it would be in the best interests of our members and Chelsea supporters for their bid to succeed. We will also survey our members in the coming week on this point.”

 

Tom Ricketts, who met the Trust and the Chelsea Pitch Owners before flying back to Chicago, responded with a statement of his own that said: “My family and I are very grateful to all the fans and supporters’ groups who took time to meet with us this week and share their passion and concerns for Chelsea Football Club. It’s clear you have nothing but the best interests of the club at heart.

 

“We have listened to all of your feedback – including from the Chelsea Supporters’ Trust – and are grateful that the door is still open for us to demonstrate our commitment to working with fans to protect the club’s heritage.

 

“It is now up to us to redouble our efforts and clearly lay out a vision for our stewardship of the club with diversity and inclusion at its heart.”

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/03/25/exclusive-chelsea-sale-earn-raine-30m-despite-frustration-slow/

[tokyojoe]

Chelsea. Seriously, who the fuck are they?

[dockers_strike]

32 minutes ago, tokyojoe said:

Chelsea. Seriously, who the fuck are they?

Hopefully, they're going to discover the gravy train has been shunted into the sidings. They may still win things but I think the days of just splashing endless amounts of cash from a rich benefactor are hopefully coming to an end and they have to start living within their means.

[VladimirIlyich]

'Our values?' You cheeky bastards! Your values consist of any cunt with enough money to buy trophies and that is all.

[DalyanPete]

On 24/03/2022 at 22:13, Jennings said:

I believe this is what's best for their club. They need to take a while to reflect on their standards and overall passion for the club, even if it means going trophyless for a few years.

Don't really know why you'd say that.

[Leyton388]

Haha not only are buyers expted to buy the club for £3bn, take on its £1.5bn debt but also commit another £1bn to future investment. 

 

https://news.sky.com/story/bidders-told-to-commit-1bn-to-future-of-chelsea-as-four-way-shootout-looms-12575355

 

Seems like this deal is getting better and better for the buyers. You'd swear Lyle Lanley was doing the negotiations. 

[Joey8FrogsLegs]

15 hours ago, tokyojoe said:

Chelsea. Seriously, who the fuck are they?

Not sure. But a couple of months ago they were a well functioning sportswashing machine.

[dockers_strike]

1 hour ago, Leyton388 said:

Haha not only are buyers expted to buy the club for £3bn, take on its £1.5bn debt but also commit another £1bn to future investment. 

 

https://news.sky.com/story/bidders-told-to-commit-1bn-to-future-of-chelsea-as-four-way-shootout-looms-12575355

 

Seems like this deal is getting better and better for the buyers. You'd swear Lyle Lanley was doing the negotiations. 

Not sure I like the sound of it to be honest. Making the bidders commit another billion quid for future investment will not all go on the stadium.

 

There's all these pipe dreams about Abramovich's billion quid stadium but that will never fly. Back in the 70s chelsea built that triple decker stand which was supposed to be the first stage of rebuilding the ground. They were supposed to go on and build similar 3 tier stands on the other 3 side but, I think they got relegated and that put paid to those plans.

 

Id suspect most of the billion quid future investment would end up financing the team, in others words, almost a continuation of the Abramovich model.

[Scott_M]

There is an article in The Athletic today about funds being guaranteed for a new ground / redevelopment. 
 

IMO, given their going back to being shite soon, they should just ground-share with Fulham. 

[A_S]

On 25/03/2022 at 06:25, Bobby Hundreds said:

Standards and passion.... Chelsea. Yeah right. Roman needs to take his trophies with him as they don't belong to Chelsea.

 

[dockers_strike]

1 hour ago, Scott_M said:

There is an article in The Athletic today about funds being guaranteed for a new ground / redevelopment. 
 

IMO, given their going back to being shite soon, they should just ground-share with Fulham. 

I still dont get how the sale to new owners can be conditional on a new or rebuilt ground. It sets an alarming precedent, build us a new ground or fuck off.

 

Abramovich let the previous planning permission for his monstrosity lapse in 2018, I think after his visa application was turned down. The design was an over elaborate and extravant palace. No wonder it was costed at a billion even in expensive London. They cannot build a new ground somewhere else and call the club chelsea because the chelsea pitch owners hold the veto.

 

I dont really give a shit about whether they rebuild or move elsewhere. I just think most of this billion quid for future investment will just be used for the club to continue its M.O. of being financed by injected money, not living on what it truely earns.

 

Even if the money is ring fenced solely for ground improvement, it's still giving them a benefit most ofther PL clubs dont have because the clubs via fans and maybe naming rights \ sponsorship have to meet that cost.

[Jimmy Hills Chin]

I still don’t know who the £2 billion for the sale actually goes to if Abramovich is ruled out.

[Rotpeter]

1 hour ago, Jimmy Hills Chin said:

I still don’t know who the £2 billion for the sale actually goes to if Abramovich is ruled out.

Abramovich's assets are only frozen not seized.  So you would presume that eventually the money would go to him unless that changes.

[Jimmy Hills Chin]

43 minutes ago, Rotpeter said:

Abramovich's assets are only frozen not seized.  So you would presume that eventually the money would go to him unless that changes.

Would be about right that, all is forgiven now.

[George Costanza]

This Chelsea sale is just as corrupt as their current owner. It stinks of goverment interference and favouritism.  Until Abramovich's assets are either unfrozen or seized then legally I'm not sure how a sale can actually take place.  Dodgy as fuck imo

[aRdja]

I reckon this is a blessing in disguise for Chelsea. They have arguably the best academy in the world at the moment and with funding no longer limitless, the seduction to compete with City and PSG for big transfers will no longer be there. They could’ve still had the likes of Lamptey, Tomori, Abraham, Livramento, Musiala, Guehi, Rice.. that’s before taking into account the players out on loan like Gallagher and Broja. 
 

3-4-2-1 

Mendy; James, Guehi, Tomori; Lamptey, Rice, Gallagher, Boga; Musiala, Mount; Abraham

 

Subs: Chalobah, Christiansen, Livramento, Gilmour, Loftus-Cheek, Hudson-Odoi, Broja.

I can’t think of a goalie off the top of my head so I’ve kept Mendy in for now, but that’s a mightily impressive starting XI, as well as squad and would probably do as well as the current Chelsea team if not better. 
 

[Karl_b]

That eleven is nowhere near as good as their current one.