Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, bowlingcrofty said:

So he’s “handed it over” but not sold it. Seems like a holding solution for if/when his assets are frozen. 

 

That's how I interpret it. What's going to be interesting is if/when assets are frozen, it's how long for. It could fuck them up in the summer.

 

 

Edited by WarrenBartonCentrePartin

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

Absolute bollocks from Sky that like. Not even worth mentioning and the way they did it was like something serious had happened.

 

I mean... Announcing pretty big football news during a football match... I'm not sure why people are being pissy about it. 

 

 

Edited by Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest neesy111
2 minutes ago, WarrenBartonCentrePartin said:

 

That's how I interpret it. What's going to be interesting is if/when assets are frozen, it's how long for. It could fuck them up in the summer.

 

 

 

He's always previously converted debt to equity.  They'll have to cut their wage bill massively I'd imagine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, STM said:

You can bet your bollocks that he won't be putting any more money into Chelsea.

 

Chelsea have grown commercially but it remains to be seen if they have the money to bankroll themselves.

of course they don’t. As per The Athletic:

 

“Chelsea’s debt to Roman Abramovich now exceeds £1.5 billion, spanning the Russian’s 18-year ownership of the Premier League club.

 

Annual accounts for Fordstam Limited for the financial year ending June 30, 2021 confirm that the oligarch poured a further £19.9 million of interest-free loans into Chelsea FC plc’s parent company last season, underlying the club’s continued reliance upon the Russian’s backing.

Chelsea, hampered by the financial ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic which largely condemned football behind closed doors throughout last season, recorded a pre-tax loss of £155.9 million for the year, despite being crowned European champions for the second time in their history in May.

 

Fordstam Limited, with its registered address of Stamford Bridge, is owned by Abramovich and serves as Chelsea FC plc’s parent company. Its funding is ploughed into Chelsea FC plc as equity, and then on to the football club itself — Chelsea Limited — again as equity, to cover any cash losses sustained.

 

Fordstam’s latest accounts note that funding “is provided by the ultimate controlling party, Mr R Abramovich” in the form of an interest-free loan. The accounts add: “The Group (Fordstam’s subsidiary undertakings) has received an increase in funding of £19.9 million during the last financial year”. That is mirrored in Chelsea FC plc’s accounts.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, STM said:

You can bet your bollocks that he won't be putting any more money into Chelsea.

 

Chelsea have grown commercially but it remains to be seen if they have the money to bankroll themselves.

 

They'll struggle more and more generating enough income to sustain their purchasing power and player wages as the new loan rules come more and more into play as well imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky have previous like. I was at a house party on the night Bowyer and Dyer had their fight earlier in the day. SSN was on in the background as everyone who hadn't been at the game wanted to see it. All of a sudden they cut off from discussing the day's games and yellow tickers appeared everywhere, saying to switch to Sky News immediately.

 

Why? The fucking Pope had died :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, geordie_b said:

Not sure what hes meant to be tbh, he isnt 'Russia' and he probably isnt allowed to sell them atm.

He can sell if he wants. He’s not listed under sanctions. Whether anyone would buy them in the current market at the price he’d want, is a different matter. As for ‘Russia’, he’s in a protracted legal case after being called “Putin’s ATM” in a book, and he was also named by MPs on Tuesday as being one of 35 oligarchs identified by  Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny as one of the 'key enablers' of the 'kleptocracy' run by the country's president Vladimir Putin. He might not be ‘Russia’, but he’s certainly got extremely strong links to Putin. 
 

edit- it’s been stated that he doesn’t want to sell. 

 

 

Edited by Manxst

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is my interpretation right that he still owns the club but it is currently under the control of Chelseas Trustees? So presumably this means he cannot bank roll them personally but they can continue to function via their own commercial revenues? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest neesy111

17 games unbeaten.  They've kept that under the radar.  Dark horse for the playoffs.

 

 

Edited by neesy111

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Heron said:

Is my interpretation right that he still owns the club but it is currently under the control of Chelseas Trustees? So presumably this means he cannot bank roll them personally but they can continue to function via their own commercial revenues? 

No reason why he can’t bankroll them as usual. He’s still the owner after all. This is just about long term decision making. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Manxst said:

He can sell if he wants. He’s not listed under sanctions. Whether anyone would buy them in the current market at the price he’d want, is a different matter. As for ‘Russia’, he’s in a protracted legal case after being called “Putin’s ATM” in a book, and he was also named by MPs on Tuesday as being one of 35 oligarchs identified by  Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny as one of the 'key enablers' of the 'kleptocracy' run by the country's president Vladimir Putin. He might not be ‘Russia’, but he’s certainly got extremely strong links to Putin. 
 

edit- it’s been stated that he doesn’t want to sell. 

Jeez.. it's almost as if PIF's ownership of Newcastle United isn't unprecended.  Ooops, whataboutism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Manxst said:

No reason why he can’t bankroll them as usual. He’s still the owner after all. This is just about long term decision making. 

Ah, that seems strange to me, doesn't that enable him to launder potential dirty money through the club? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Heron said:

Ah, that seems strange to me, doesn't that enable him to launder potential dirty money through the club? 

The rules haven’t changed for him

since he purchased the club. As stated, he’s currently not under any sanctions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...