chara

Roman Abramovich and Chelsea FC : Sanctions

Recommended Posts

Ruudboy   
25 minutes ago, chara said:

Indeed it did!.....despite being let down by "YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE.... I managed to find an alternative investor...and now we wait!

You mean my rare British Guiana 1c magenta stamp was acceptable? I’ve can run off some more, if it helps …

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chara   
1 minute ago, Ruudboy said:

You mean my rare British Guiana 1c magenta stamp was acceptable? I’ve can run off some more, if it helps …

Yep..was a clincher....now we wait......what colour do you think we should paint the away dressing room?...and I think we should close the officials room....plenty of room on the sideline for them to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ruudboy   

Paint? What’s wrong with breeze blocks and plasterboard?

Mickey Thomas would have the officials room, of course, carefully converted …

Edited by Ruudboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bob Singleton said:

You've brought up Reading. Someone else, earlier in the thread, brought up Fulham and QPR regarding lack of investment from billionaire owners.  Were any of those clubs multiple PL winners? Multiple CL winners? 

You don't spend £2bn+ on a club like Chelsea just for the land the stadium sits on.

 RA has invested approx 80m per season for 20 years to keep the club afloat.On that basis the club itself is technically insolvent.

so what exactly is the new buyer getting apart from the right to use the name? which in itself has a restrictive covenant on it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chara   
42 minutes ago, Ruudboy said:

Paint? What’s wrong with breeze blocks and plasterboard?

Mickey Thomas would have the officials room, of course, carefully converted …

Perfect..I was wondering how to use the spare room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ham   
34 minutes ago, r.bartlett said:

 RA has invested approx 80m per season for 20 years to keep the club afloat.On that basis the club itself is technically insolvent.

so what exactly is the new buyer getting apart from the right to use the name? which in itself has a restrictive covenant on it. 

 

Well for a start the new owner can build a brand new stadium and then sort naming rights and get bigger sponsorships and more of them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Ham said:

Well for a start the new owner can build a brand new stadium and then sort naming rights and get bigger sponsorships and more of them.  

the new owner will run into the same issues which made RA back away from  it.

 

what makes you think those historical apparently insurmountable restrictions will miraculously disappear..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ham   
4 minutes ago, r.bartlett said:

the new owner will run into the same issues which made RA back away from  it.

 

You mean the new owner will have his visa revoked? Doubtful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, r.bartlett said:

 RA has invested approx 80m per season for 20 years to keep the club afloat.On that basis the club itself is technically insolvent.

so what exactly is the new buyer getting apart from the right to use the name? which in itself has a restrictive covenant on it. 

 

Quite. New owners are here to either win at their own expense or extract value while there is some. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now