CheLOLsea

[6ft Kerplunk]

Chelsea get a decade of riding on Russian dirty money and now get their debts completely wiped out.

Jammy fukkers

It's more than a decade isn't it, more like two?

[Mr Angry]

I bet those Saudi's who bought Newcastle are checking the contractual fine print this morning!

Maybe there is a clause that allows them to back out of the sale, because if there is, you bet they would rather buy Chelsea than Newcastle.

As for RA's legacy, I can understand why there are some who see what he has done as a good thing for football (and not just Chelsea) but I disagree; I think that football was settling down without mad transfer fee's and player salaries by 2000/01, but RA came in and basically blew the game apart, ushering in stupid transfer fees and even more stupid wages for average players, leading directly to dodgy owners and dodgier agents all too keen to try and get their hands on the loot.

Not only did this mean that watching football on TV cost a foirtune, it meant that watching it at grounds did to, thus changing the nature of the game.

Our situation today - and that of many clubs - is as a direct result of RA coming into football.

And all to end the Manchester United/Arsenal duopoly?

Pretty big price to pay IMHO.

[paultheroyal]

I bet those Saudi's who bought Newcastle are checking the contractual fine print this morning!

Maybe there is a clause that allows them to back out of the sale, because if there is, you bet they would rather buy Chelsea than Newcastle.

As for RA's legacy, I can understand why there are some who see what he has done as a good thing for football (and not just Chelsea) but I disagree; I think that football was settling down without mad transfer fee's and player salaries by 2000/01, but RA came in and basically blew the game apart, ushering in stupid transfer fees and even more stupid wages for average players, leading directly to dodgy owners and dodgier agents all too keen to try and get their hands on the loot.

Not only did this mean that watching football on TV cost a foirtune, it meant that watching it at grounds did to, thus changing the nature of the game.

Our situation today - and that of many clubs - is as a direct result of RA coming into football.

And all to end the Manchester United/Arsenal duopoly?

Pretty big price to pay IMHO.

Still rather have Newcastle.

Better fan base.

Better stadium.

Room to improve.

Can’t be doing any worse whereas chelsea could go on slide…

[South Coast Royal]

I bet those Saudi's who bought Newcastle are checking the contractual fine print this morning!

Maybe there is a clause that allows them to back out of the sale, because if there is, you bet they would rather buy Chelsea than Newcastle.

As for RA's legacy, I can understand why there are some who see what he has done as a good thing for football (and not just Chelsea) but I disagree; I think that football was settling down without mad transfer fee's and player salaries by 2000/01, but RA came in and basically blew the game apart, ushering in stupid transfer fees and even more stupid wages for average players, leading directly to dodgy owners and dodgier agents all too keen to try and get their hands on the loot.

Not only did this mean that watching football on TV cost a foirtune, it meant that watching it at grounds did to, thus changing the nature of the game.

Our situation today - and that of many clubs - is as a direct result of RA coming into football.

And all to end the Manchester United/Arsenal duopoly?

Pretty big price to pay IMHO.

Agreed with your points but that is capitalism at work.
The irony is that the NFL in America ,the most capitalist of countries, has the draft pick designed to level out and to keep clubs on as equal a footing as possible.

[Mr Angry]

I bet those Saudi's who bought Newcastle are checking the contractual fine print this morning!

Maybe there is a clause that allows them to back out of the sale, because if there is, you bet they would rather buy Chelsea than Newcastle.

As for RA's legacy, I can understand why there are some who see what he has done as a good thing for football (and not just Chelsea) but I disagree; I think that football was settling down without mad transfer fee's and player salaries by 2000/01, but RA came in and basically blew the game apart, ushering in stupid transfer fees and even more stupid wages for average players, leading directly to dodgy owners and dodgier agents all too keen to try and get their hands on the loot.

Not only did this mean that watching football on TV cost a foirtune, it meant that watching it at grounds did to, thus changing the nature of the game.

Our situation today - and that of many clubs - is as a direct result of RA coming into football.

And all to end the Manchester United/Arsenal duopoly?

Pretty big price to pay IMHO.

Still rather have Newcastle.

Better fan base.

Better stadium.

Room to improve.

Can’t be doing any worse whereas chelsea could go on slide…

The highlighted is a key element to the threat to Chelsea's longer term viability as a top European and World football club; RA doesn't own Stamford Bridge (I wonder if Ken Bates mentioned it during the sale?); instead it is owned by an organisation called the Chelsea Pitch Owners, who were given the freehold by Bates on a 199 Year basis. (This was done to ensure that the club couldn't be sold to a property developer who would then closed down the club and use Stamford Bridge to build expensive houses).

The owners of Chelsea FC cannot do anything at Stamford Bridge with the permission of the CPO (they needed their permission to put a mast on the stadium to improve WiFi reception.)

Another term in their ownership is that if Chelsea move away from Stamford Bridge to a new ground without getting CPO Ltd approval, , the team aren't allowed to be called Chelsea FC anymore. In any case, the real estate costs in that part of London - even if they could find anywhere - are horrendous and though they had planning permission for a new ground and plans for a £1.4Bn stadium (now it would £2.2Bn) planning permission lapsed a couple of Years ago - basically, RA - who would have funded it - decided not to.

As a result, their match day takings bring in £50-70M a season less than teams like Man Utd, Man City, Arsenal and now even Spurs. Big problem going forward.

[Mr Optimist]

It was a clever idea at the time the CPO to keep Marler Estates at bay from developing the Bridge for housing. Without it they would’ve built on it and Chelsea would’ve been ground sharing with Fulham, although they had their own similar threats in the 80s.

What will be “interesting” is who the new owners will be, a benevolent owner like Abramovich or a leveraged debt owner like the Glazers. If the latter what happens if the club sink to mid table obscurity and the newly developed global fan base melts away and bails for a more successful club like City, then Roman’s legacy to a degree will go, but nothing can take away the trophies won since 2003 from the history books.

A fork in the road for Chelsea, back to relative mediocrity or retain a place at the top table of European football, time will tell!

Better problems to have than our own.

[Ascotexgunner]

I bet those Saudi's who bought Newcastle are checking the contractual fine print this morning!

Maybe there is a clause that allows them to back out of the sale, because if there is, you bet they would rather buy Chelsea than Newcastle.

As for RA's legacy, I can understand why there are some who see what he has done as a good thing for football (and not just Chelsea) but I disagree; I think that football was settling down without mad transfer fee's and player salaries by 2000/01, but RA came in and basically blew the game apart, ushering in stupid transfer fees and even more stupid wages for average players, leading directly to dodgy owners and dodgier agents all too keen to try and get their hands on the loot.

Not only did this mean that watching football on TV cost a foirtune, it meant that watching it at grounds did to, thus changing the nature of the game.

Our situation today - and that of many clubs - is as a direct result of RA coming into football.

And all to end the Manchester United/Arsenal duopoly?

Pretty big price to pay IMHO.

Still rather have Newcastle.

Better fan base.

Better stadium.

Room to improve.

Can’t be doing any worse whereas chelsea could go on slide…

The highlighted is a key element to the threat to Chelsea's longer term viability as a top European and World football club; RA doesn't own Stamford Bridge (I wonder if Ken Bates mentioned it during the sale?); instead it is owned by an organisation called the Chelsea Pitch Owners, who were given the freehold by Bates on a 199 Year basis. (This was done to ensure that the club couldn't be sold to a property developer who would then closed down the club and use Stamford Bridge to build expensive houses).

The owners of Chelsea FC cannot do anything at Stamford Bridge with the permission of the CPO (they needed their permission to put a mast on the stadium to improve WiFi reception.)

Another term in their ownership is that if Chelsea move away from Stamford Bridge to a new ground without getting CPO Ltd approval, , the team aren't allowed to be called Chelsea FC anymore. In any case, the real estate costs in that part of London - even if they could find anywhere - are horrendous and though they had planning permission for a new ground and plans for a £1.4Bn stadium (now it would £2.2Bn) planning permission lapsed a couple of Years ago - basically, RA - who would have funded it - decided not to.

As a result, their match day takings bring in £50-70M a season less than teams like Man Utd, Man City, Arsenal and now even Spurs. Big problem going forward.

Americans won't give a shit about a name change..
I can see a Kronke style sports brand buying them and moving them out of the area.
Arsenal and Spurs have big modern stadiums.....Chelsea just can't stay there and and lag behind.

[bcubed]

I'm going to post something controversial here but he did change the Premier League and is one of the most important people to have been in the history of the league and I think as a result of him coming in and the "money buys leagues", he has contributed to the league being the best in the world and a place where all the best players want to play

He has made it a more competitive league that is for sure, due to this I doubt Man City would have been the club they are today without wanting to compete with Chelsea and him, and Liverpool to and extent

Dont doubt this at all. He went a long way to break up the Man Utd era for sure.

He ushered in the era of the billionaire big spenders and football losing its soul.

Great.

Well quite

[Loafer]

Dont doubt this at all. He went a long way to break up the Man Utd era for sure.

He ushered in the era of the billionaire big spenders and football losing its soul.

Great.

Well quite

I do not have an issue with it and feel he has changed English football for the better and made us more competitive, and get the worlds best players to our teams

No coincidence since he came in we have won multiple European competitions

[Mr Angry]

Americans won't give a shit about a name change..
I can see a Kronke style sports brand buying them and moving them out of the area.
Arsenal and Spurs have big modern stadiums.....Chelsea just can't stay there and and lag behind.

I agree that the most likely buyers are a large American Corporate buyer (Microsoft just paid $26Bn for a games company, so £4Bn is cheap in comparison); there is a belief in the US that English football is underpriced and if purchased through debt leveraged (as per Man United) can be a mony spinner.

Whether Chelsea is worth twice as much as Man U at this time (Man U are valued at £2.1Bn) is moot; this is a rare opportunity to get ownership of the current World Champions.....

As for an American buyer not giving a crap about renaming the club, possibly not. But the fans - or put another way, the "customers" - will do, and as you saw with the proposed ESL, fan power DOES matter.

[leon]

He ushered in the era of the billionaire big spenders and football losing its soul.

Great.

Well quite

I do not have an issue with it and feel he has changed English football for the better and made us more competitive, and get the worlds best players to our teams

No coincidence since he came in we have won multiple European competitions

I really couldn't give shit about that.

"We" haven't won any European competitions.

[Loafer]

Well quite

I do not have an issue with it and feel he has changed English football for the better and made us more competitive, and get the worlds best players to our teams

No coincidence since he came in we have won multiple European competitions

I really couldn't give shit about that.

"We" haven't won any European competitions.

[From Despair To Where?]

Well quite

I do not have an issue with it and feel he has changed English football for the better and made us more competitive, and get the worlds best players to our teams

No coincidence since he came in we have won multiple European competitions

I really couldn't give shit about that.

"We" haven't won any European competitions.

Not even sure it's that true either. Since 2003, English clubs have won the Champions League 5 times and the Europa League 3 times (by 3 different clubs). 11 trophies in 25 years if you include Chelsea in 98, United in 99 and Liverpool in 2001. The roll call is still just 3 clubs)

Considering English clubs were banned from European competition for 7 years and were playing catchup for another 5 (Not withstanding United's CWC win in 91), if you take just the 10 years prior to Heysel, English clubs won the European Cup 7 times, UEFA Cup 3 times and the Cup Winners Cup once (by 6 different clubs). In the 21 seasons from 1965 to 1985, English clubs won 20 European trophies. (By 12 different clubs, Liverpool, Nottingham Forest, Aston Villa, Manchester United, Everton, West Ham, Spurs, Leeds, Chelsea, Manchester City, Newcastle, Ipswich).

The obvious culmination of the likes of Abramovich taking over clubs is the European Super League which pretty much everyone bar Florentino Perez thought was a fcuking shit idea driven by money.

[Uke]

He ushered in the era of the billionaire big spenders and football losing its soul.

Great.

Well quite

I do not have an issue with it and feel he has changed English football for the better and made us more competitive, and get the worlds best players to our teams

No coincidence since he came in we have won multiple European competitions

Since “the world’s best players” arrived the whole connection with the fans was lost

Abramovich is responsible for a lot of this trend.

The 2006 team had more of a connection with fans than any of our recent crop

[Loafer]

Well quite

I do not have an issue with it and feel he has changed English football for the better and made us more competitive, and get the worlds best players to our teams

No coincidence since he came in we have won multiple European competitions

Since “the world’s best players” arrived the whole connection with the fans was lost

Abramovich is responsible for a lot of this trend.

The 2006 team had more of a connection with fans than any of our recent crop

Yes but is that the result of Abramovic? I don't see that

[Uke]

I do not have an issue with it and feel he has changed English football for the better and made us more competitive, and get the worlds best players to our teams

No coincidence since he came in we have won multiple European competitions

Since “the world’s best players” arrived the whole connection with the fans was lost

Abramovich is responsible for a lot of this trend.

The 2006 team had more of a connection with fans than any of our recent crop

Yes but is that the result of Abramovic? I don't see that

He’s the first of the foreign owners who started to pay ridiculous prices for players IIRC

The first to “buy” the Premier League rather than just develop players and have just a couple of stars

Which started the whole trend for rich money launderers spending as much as possible

Happy to be put right though

[From Despair To Where?]

Without his money, the overwhelming majority of these world class players wouldn't have given Chelsea a second glance. This is a club that prior to his arrival, had won the equivalent of the Simod Cup more times than they'd won the league.

It's all about buying success and stockpiling players which is why (excluding caretakers who've managed less than a month) they've had 15 managers in 19 years. In that time, Arsenal have had 3, Liverpool 6, Manchester United 6 and Manchester City 7.

[Loafer]

Since “the world’s best players” arrived the whole connection with the fans was lost

Abramovich is responsible for a lot of this trend.

The 2006 team had more of a connection with fans than any of our recent crop

Yes but is that the result of Abramovic? I don't see that

He’s the first of the foreign owners who started to pay ridiculous prices for players IIRC

The first to “buy” the Premier League rather than just develop players and have just a couple of stars

Which started the whole trend for rich money launderers spending as much as possible

Happy to be put right though

I was more talking about the last statement re the 2006 vs now, apologies

I think Sky have been more damaging in terms of football then him. But without Abramovic I still think it would have been the same same same teams as before. The league is a lot more competitive then it was beforehand. Before it was the "top 3" now its the likes of 7 or 8 and you never would have seen West Ham or Spurs be up there years ago

The team that won the first Premier League was 'bought' with players such as Joe Cole, Bridge, Parker and Duff

[From Despair To Where?]

You honestly believe there are more than 3 teams with a realistic chance of winning the league? It may be a different 3 teams to 20 years ago but it's still 3 teams. Spurs have always been one of the "Big 5"

[Hendo]

Yes but is that the result of Abramovic? I don't see that

He’s the first of the foreign owners who started to pay ridiculous prices for players IIRC

The first to “buy” the Premier League rather than just develop players and have just a couple of stars

Which started the whole trend for rich money launderers spending as much as possible

Happy to be put right though

I was more talking about the last statement re the 2006 vs now, apologies

I think Sky have been more damaging in terms of football then him. But without Abramovic I still think it would have been the same same same teams as before. The league is a lot more competitive then it was beforehand. Before it was the "top 3" now its the likes of 7 or 8 and you never would have seen West Ham or Spurs be up there years ago

The team that won the first Premier League was 'bought' with players such as Joe Cole, Bridge, Parker and Duff

Joe Cole cost £6.6m
Wayne Bridge cost £7m
Scott Parker cost £10m
Damian Duff cost £17m

Hardly pennies and that’s not including their wages.