What's new

Let's All Laugh At... Let's all laugh at Chelsea thread

riggi

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2008
48,569
105,004
IMG_2329.PNG
 

class of 62

Well-Known Member
Apr 29, 2009
1,408
1,197
Because then you can sell the prime Thameside development land that is Craven Cottage and get back a sizeable chunk of what you've paid for Wembley. Plus you get a stadium that - while it's a souless pile of crap that's impossible to get to - has a certain cache in the football world and would enable you to attract higher crowds and better players if and when you improve.
Wembley is a whole different thing.. The owner and the nfl bollocks? Fulham fc have just been given planning permission to redevelop the Riverside stand and enlarge capacity at craven cottage.... Always a Great away day down by the river by the way.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
TBH if you compare our stadium with some of the big projects around the world, ours is a bit meh, the only thing is, is that is actually being built and finished. Stadiums design is coming from a limited amount of architects who are coming up with extortionate designs.

The exterior is uninspiring(though it dont look like the emirates which is shit, I hate the fact that any bowl made now is like the emirates) especially the roof, our facilities is revolutionary in terms of football stadiums but thats because our new stadium is more like an american football stadium which are light years ahead of football stadiums but that is partly down to a stadium having a life of around 20-30 years

The thing is though, while some of the stadium designs you see a really spectacular, at the end of the day having a fancy exterior doesn't actually add anything to the stadium experience once you're in, but it massively increases costs. If the inside is good, then it's alright by me.
 

popstar7

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2012
3,036
9,367
RA is in a bit of a corner. He can visit for up to six months but not on a regular/repeat basis and specifically not to work -

Having been granted an Israeli passport last week, Abramovich is entitled to stay in Britain for up to six months at a time as a business visitor. But, under the government’s immigration rules, which were updated last month, there are limits on the frequency with which he can return to a country that has been his second home since 2003. Home Office sources have made clear that these will be enforced.

In appendix V of the immigration rules, paragraph V 4.2 (b) states that business visitors must “not live in the UK for extended periods through frequent or successive visits”, a precondition to entry that will severely limit Abramovich’s scope for visiting London and watching Chelsea. “The Home Office will be watching him closely and carefully,” a source said.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...m-regular-working-visits-to-britain-t0gq96t5z


 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
RA is in a bit of a corner. He can visit for up to six months but not on a regular/repeat basis and specifically not to work -

Having been granted an Israeli passport last week, Abramovich is entitled to stay in Britain for up to six months at a time as a business visitor. But, under the government’s immigration rules, which were updated last month, there are limits on the frequency with which he can return to a country that has been his second home since 2003. Home Office sources have made clear that these will be enforced.

In appendix V of the immigration rules, paragraph V 4.2 (b) states that business visitors must “not live in the UK for extended periods through frequent or successive visits”, a precondition to entry that will severely limit Abramovich’s scope for visiting London and watching Chelsea. “The Home Office will be watching him closely and carefully,” a source said.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...m-regular-working-visits-to-britain-t0gq96t5z

For ra, why spend £1bn on upgrading sb, when wembley is going for £600m? Then sell the ground?
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
For ra, why spend £1bn on upgrading sb, when wembley is going for £600m? Then sell the ground?

Or even better, why not just take your money out and walk away? The government are clearly trying to send a message that they don't want him here so why bother? He could take his money out and just live out his days as a billionaire enjoying his life, until Putin gets to him at least
 

TheChosenOne

A dislike or neg rep = fat fingers
Dec 13, 2005
48,137
50,180
Thanks to Ken Bates, 'Chelsea Pitch Owners' (or similar) own the ground. So he can't sell it.

And if they move away from Stamford Bridge they can't use the name 'Chelsea' unless the CPO gives it's permission.

I've been trolling loads of Chelsea fans everywhere in the last few days, just for shits and giggles.

Half the dumbarses don't even realise their ground is in Fulham, not Chelsea.
 

Gb160

Well done boys. Good process
Jun 20, 2012
23,685
93,482
Or even better, why not just take your money out and walk away? The government are clearly trying to send a message that they don't want him here so why bother? He could take his money out and just live out his days as a billionaire enjoying his life, until Putin gets to him at least
Admittedly i'm quite ignorant about the entire oligarch thing, but i was under the impresssion that they're all well aware that they're more or less babysitting the money until Putin comes calling for it?
I thought him and Vlad were mates?

Lets face it, you do what Putin tells you to or you're getting a cup of polonium tea.
 

popstar7

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2012
3,036
9,367
I don't think it's that he's going to call the money in at some point in the future. It's that he gets a healthy share of whatever they have in return for staying out of jail, not falling out of windows etc
 

Spurs 1961

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
6,684
8,754
Admittedly i'm quite ignorant about the entire oligarch thing, but i was under the impresssion that they're all well aware that they're more or less babysitting the money until Putin comes calling for it?
I thought him and Vlad were mates?

Lets face it, you do what Putin tells you to or you're getting a cup of polonium tea.

Yes but they always considered London, as well as New York, a place of stability and security, in countries that wouldn't take assets and let in anyone with pots of money to do whatever they like. Mostly we target the poor, helpless refugees. It would be nice to think we are catching up with the crooks but I suspect it's just a bit of short term political posturing
 

Gb160

Well done boys. Good process
Jun 20, 2012
23,685
93,482
I don't think it's that he's going to call the money in at some point in the future. It's that he gets a healthy share of whatever they have in return for staying out of jail, not falling out of windows etc
I saw an interesting documentary about Putin a while back, it made claims that he himself was now one of the worlds richest men, with a personal fortune of circa £40b thanks to siphoning it from Russian assets....shocking stuff.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
Admittedly i'm quite ignorant about the entire oligarch thing, but i was under the impresssion that they're all well aware that they're more or less babysitting the money until Putin comes calling for it?
I thought him and Vlad were mates?

Lets face it, you do what Putin tells you to or you're getting a cup of polonium tea.

They're not exactly "mates". Long story short, the oligarch's money is effectively stolen from the Russian people, and one of Putin's policies when he was first coming to power was to reclaim the money from them, but because he's a massive crook, he basically ggave the oligarchs the choice of either supporting him both financially and by using their influence, or they would be "seen to" in one way or another. Some of them have been sent to prison and had their assets seized while others have been mysteriously disappeared. Abramovic is obviously one of the ones that's on Putin's side, that's why he still has his money, but obviously Putin could chanrge his mind when he thinks Abramovic has served his purpose.

So they're not exactly babysitting the money, they're just not sure if Putin is going to one day try and take it form them.
 

popstar7

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2012
3,036
9,367
The reality is hitting the Abramovich jackpot has put them into the elite in Europe and if he wants to sell up there will be wealthy people interested in taking over. They won't be able to throw their weight around financially the way they were from 2003 to 2012 when FFP came in but one rich foreign owner will more than likely sell them to another rich foreign owner.
 

jurgen

Busy ****
Jul 5, 2008
6,756
17,365
At least the new Chelsea stadium design was innovative, had some architectural interest and merit and challenged the perceived norms, made some kind of architectural statement. Which is the least such a monumentally huge and expensive building should do.

All we’ve built is a circular airport terminal, that mimics the emirates.

For once I agree with B-C.

Fact is, Chelsea hired a far superior architecture firm to do their scheme, who are world famous for their public buildings whereas our ones are sports / events specialists. So our stadium should be great in terms of functionality, but it's not interesting design wise. But given we wouldn't have Abramovich's vanity money, it was always going to be unlikely for us to go that route as it's just an extra expense.
 

Hakkz

Svensk hetsporre
Jul 6, 2012
8,196
17,270
The reality is hitting the Abramovich jackpot has put them into the elite in Europe and if he wants to sell up there will be wealthy people interested in taking over. They won't be able to throw their weight around financially the way they were from 2003 to 2012 when FFP came in but one rich foreign owner will more than likely sell them to another rich foreign owner.

Abramovich has been an effective sugar daddy though. Just because someone else with money buys them doesn't mean that they do good business football-wise.
 
Top