Jump to content

Roman Abramovich


Pokerprince2004

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Kanji said:

Just like we were a week away from the bank asking for immediate repayment of the loan when Ashley took over.

That was a condition of sale (or rather a condition of change of ownership), not because the banks were calling us in.

 

 

Edited by madras

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TBG said:

 

Had a look over on Reddit and Havertz is the second coming of Christ for saying he'd pay for the away traveling. 

 

That's Kai 'Multimillionaire & £310,000 per week' Havertz saying he'd pay the bus fare

 

 

 

Give Chelsea fans' footballer's wages

Link to post
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, madras said:

That was a condition of sale (or rather a condition of change of ownership), not because the banks were calling us in.

 

 

 

 

Right, but Ashley and Llambias used it as some way to say he/they saved us. 

 

I'm sure Buck would have been able to find financing for a London based club in the top 7-8 of football or worked out a deal to keep the team a float. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kanji said:

 

Right, but Ashley and Llambias used it as some way to say he/they saved us. 

 

I'm sure Buck would have been able to find financing for a London based club in the top 7-8 of football or worked out a deal to keep the team a float. 

No Buck said they were dead and I don't remember even Ashley trying to say that he saved us from imminent demise.

 

Edit....if not dead, severely wounded and in a critical condition.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2005/oct/17/newss

 

 

Edited by madras

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, madras said:

Well we know that was a lie.

 

Correct. I'm just pondering if the Chelsea situation was ever as bad as it made out to be. The article does paint a grim picture.  What I'm speculating is that Buck could easily just make a statement "we were a week from admin..." in a book years later, but the reality is a club like Chelsea in London with that pulling power could have either sourced equity investment, refinanced the debt etc. I just don't ever really believe claims of "we're going under" because it takes a hell of a lot longer than missing 1 debt service payment to lose it all. Esp a football club. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kanji said:

 

Correct. I'm just pondering if the Chelsea situation was ever as bad as it made out to be. The article does paint a grim picture.  What I'm speculating is that Buck could easily just make a statement "we were a week from admin..." in a book years later, but the reality is a club like Chelsea in London with that pulling power could have either sourced equity investment, refinanced the debt etc. I just don't ever really believe claims of "we're going under" because it takes a hell of a lot longer than missing 1 debt service payment to lose it all. Esp a football club. 

Getting investment into a precarious football club was very iffy. They didn't have the history and cache they now have. Investment would have had to come through the financial institutions and I can't see what would be in it for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheInfiniteOdyssey said:


I’ve been reluctant to buy into a discourse around agendas against Newcastle because most of the time it makes us look paranoid and overly sensitive. However, in this case it really is reflective of a blatant media agenda.
 

Tuchel less than a month ago dedicated the club World Cup win to Roman -

 

 

All very good trying to play down your association to him now he has no control over the club.

 

Tuchel has also had nothing but praise for Qatar when he was PSG coach:

 

 

Conveniently forgotten by most major media outlets.

 

There’s no consistency at all on this.

 

They also cover Tuchel a lot more, and have relationships with these guys. When we talk about media bias it usually pertains to favouritisim over 'I hate club x'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Kanji said:

 

Right, but Ashley and Llambias used it as some way to say he/they saved us. 

 

I'm sure Buck would have been able to find financing for a London based club in the top 7-8 of football or worked out a deal to keep the team a float. 

They weren't in the top 7-8 of football, they weren't even bigger than us at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Wolfcastle said:

They weren't in the top 7-8 of football, they weren't even bigger than us at the time.

They were like. Granted because they spent a load on players that they couldn't really pay for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, madras said:

They were like. Granted because they spent a load on players that they couldn't really pay for.

 

We'd finished 4th and 3rd, they finished 6th and 4th in the previous two seasons, we had had higher gates (and had done for 10years and most of the century) and finished ahead of them more than they had us in the PL era. Also wouldn't be surprised if our turnover was higher. Certainly had been for most of the previous 10years.

Personally definitely at the time didn't think of them as bigger than us.

 

Arsenal, Man United, Liverpool, us (arguably) - Leeds were at least as big before they imploded. Then the rest of a stronger Europe?

 

 

Edited by Wolfcastle

Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Wolfcastle said:

 

We'd finished 4th and 3rd, they finished 6th and 4th in the previous two seasons, we had had higher gates (and had done for 10years and most of the century) and finished ahead of them more than they had us in the PL era. Also wouldn't be surprised if our turnover was higher. Certainly had been for most of the previous 10years.

Personally definitely at the time didn't think of them as bigger than us.

 

Arsenal, Man United, Liverpool, us (arguably) - Leeds were at least as big before they imploded. Then the rest of a stronger Europe?

 

 

 

Did they not have about 6 seasons finishing too 5 or 6 ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, madras said:

Did they not have about 6 seasons finishing too 5 or 6 ?

2004/2005Premiership 1st (NUFC 14th)

2003/2004Premiership 2nd (NUFC 5th)

2002/2003Premiership 4th (NUFC 3rd)

2001/2002Premiership 6th (NUFC 4th)

2000/2001Premiership 6th (NUFC 11th)

1999/2000Premiership 5th (NUFC 11th)

1998/1999Premiership 3rd (NUFC 13th)

1997/1998Premiership 4th (NUFC 13th)

1996/1997Premiership 6th (NUFC 2nd)

1995/1996Premiership 11th (NUFC 2nd)

1994/1995Premiership 11th (NUFC 6th)

1993/1994Premiership 14th (NUFC 3rd)

1992/1993Premier League 11th

 

 

Edited by Manxst
Added NUFC positions

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, madras said:

We were, they'd been top 6 for 6yrs. We'd been there 2year, mid table before that.

 

Around top 2 or 3 before that although at that time it was only two teams qualifying for CL iirc. we were a bigger team than them for a lot longer prior to Abramovich.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TRon said:

 

Around top 2 or 3 before that although at that time it was only two teams qualifying for CL iirc. we were a bigger team than them for a lot longer prior to Abramovich.

They had half a dozen years top 6, we at that time had 2. Did they win the cup ? And had a much higher profile but like I said it was on the back of spending money They couldn't afford.

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
×
×
  • Create New...