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

[TheChosenOne]

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.

The whole aim of The Emirates was to generate loads of cash to be up there and independent of sugar daddy type investors plus Arse being able to buy who and what they wanted anytime.

Some would argue that it hasn't worked out as well as expected.

 

[Pellshek]

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.

It's a matter of taste of course, but I want a football stadium to look like a football stadium, not a neo-Gothic cathedral, a flower-petel or an art gallery. Form & function.

 

[popstar7]

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.

Sure, I just think the idea that they'll disintegrate if Abramovich sells up and return to their former status is a bit wishful thinking. New owners could be prepared to bankroll them like the old regime or City's owners, or be happy with a level of investment that keeps them ticking over profitably but not particularly successfully, the way Arsenal have been set up under Kroenke. I just don't see Abramovich leaving as instant implosion.

 

[slartibartfast]

Sure, I just think the idea that they'll disintegrate if Abramovich sells up and return to their former status is a bit wishful thinking. New owners could be prepared to bankroll them like the old regime or City's owners, or be happy with a level of investment that keeps them ticking over profitably but not particularly successfully, the way Arsenal have been set up under Kroenke. I just don't see Abramovich leaving as instant implosion.

Highly unlikely a new owner would carry on bank rolling as RA has.
You can count how many owners in the entire world do that on one hand.
And Id consider them falling into the same situation as Arsenal as a instant implosion.
Only takes 1 or 2 transfer windows without a bottomless bucket of money to have a massive impact on a club.
The big time Charlies will leave as they'll see the club going nowhere, the club itself would struggle to pay the massive wages of those left on long term contracts and have to offload as many as quickly as possible.
As Riggi said, it would be Leeds all over again.
Maybe not sinking as far but it would be instantly damaging if RA left or even just stopped throwing money around imo.
They cant afford to pay their current squad and their youth development on tv money, shirt sales and 40,000 coming through the gate.
As for their former status pre RA they were a regular top 4 team. That would be very difficult to achieve now.

 

[Pellshek]

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

But where else does he live out his billionaire life? London, New York and LA would probably be the hedonist's and/or bon vivant's places of choice, and they're all off the table. As are Paris, Sydney and Berlin, and pretty much any place in the Western alliance.

That leaves the likes of Israel, northern Cyprus, the Caribbean, Thailand, South Africa etc. All perfectly great places in their own way, but none of them are Knightsbridge, the Upper East Side or Beverley Hills. If I were a billionaire with time on my hands, I'd be gutted to lose access to any of those places.

 

[TheChosenOne]

Highly unlikely a new owner would carry on bank rolling as RA has.
You can count how many owners in the entire world do that on one hand.
And Id consider them falling into the same situation as Arsenal as a instant implosion.
Only takes 1 or 2 transfer windows without a bottomless bucket of money to have a massive impact on a club.
The big time Charlies will leave as they'll see the club going nowhere, the club itself would struggle to pay the massive wages of those left on long term contracts and have to offload as many as quickly as possible.
As Riggi said, it would be Leeds all over again.
Maybe not sinking as far but it would be instantly damaging if RA left or even just stopped throwing money around imo.
They cant afford to pay their current squad and their youth development on tv money, shirt sales and 40,000 coming through the gate.
As for their former status pre RA they were a regular top 4 team. That would be very difficult to achieve now.

Always wondered how they and the Goons would cope on Europa money ? And less prestige.

We were used to it.

 

[slartibartfast]

It's a matter of taste of course, but I want a football stadium to look like a football stadium, not a neo-Gothic cathedral, a flower-petel or an art gallery. Form & function.

Agree. And as Jurgen said, its a lot easier to come up with a top notch innovative design when money doesnt come into it.
Personaly I think NWHL looks fantastic and Chelseas looked shit.
Onions innit.

 

[parj]

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.

With Roman the focus was on Uber premium, with us it was revenue. We are building a fit for purpose stadium which will have second to none hospitality.

Focus has to be revenue driving so that THFC is self reliant. Look at Chelsea shitting it now that Roman might be pissed off over the visa issue

 

['O Zio]

But where else does he live out his billionaire life? London, New York and LA would probably be the hedonist's and/or bon vivant's places of choice, and they're all off the table. As are Paris, Sydney and Berlin, and pretty much any place in the Western alliance.

That leaves the likes of Israel, northern Cyprus, the Caribbean, Thailand, South Africa etc. All perfectly great places in their own way, but none of them are Knightsbridge, the Upper East Side or Beverley Hills. If I were a billionaire with time on my hands, I'd be gutted to lose access to any of those places.

Why can't he go to any of those places? He's not an escaped Nazi war criminal, he's a shady as fuck obviously but AFAIK there's nothing stopping him from going to London, New York etc. He's being denied and "investor visa" or whatever it is but he can still visit. Giving up his assets in London doesn't mean he can't go to a West End musical or eat at London's restaurants or whatever it is billionaires like to do.

 

[slartibartfast]

Giving up his assets in London doesn't mean he can't go to a West End musical or eat at London's restaurants or whatever it is billionaires like to do.

Stay on my yacht wittling my dick down to a stump by fkin as many hot babes as possible.

I can dream.

 

[Pellshek]

Why can't he go to any of those places? He's not an escaped Nazi war criminal, he's a shady as fuck obviously but AFAIK there's nothing stopping him from going to London, New York etc. He's being denied and "investor visa" or whatever it is but he can still visit. Giving up his assets in London doesn't mean he can't go to a West End musical or eat at London's restaurants or whatever it is billionaires like to do.

If you read up the thread, someone posted Home Office guidelines, which clearly prohibit back-door residency. You can't just keep renewing visas and pretend you're living elsewhere while actually you're living in the UK. That's what RA's previous visa allowed, but not the new one.

 

[popstar7]

This is the deal with the Home Office he's had for the last 15 years -

"It is interesting that the visa Abramovich had been reapplying for was a Tier 1 UK Investor Visa. This type requires a minimum investment of £2 million in particular ventures in the county, and allows the holder to remain in the UK for up to 40 months and provides a future opportunity to apply for settlement depending on the amount of money being invested. It is, in effect, an “entrepreneur's visa.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/leeige...ner-roman-abramovich-visa-chaos/#36960d03e862

He never really took advantage of the chance to live even semi-permanently in the UK. But having the freedom to work here and come and go as he pleased for 40 months at a time before a fairly straightforward renewal without too much stress would have been a huge attraction. That's gone now. As an Israeli citizen he's entitled to visit the UK for up to six months but no repeat visits to allow him to effectively live in the UK and no permission to work at all while he''s here. It's a complete change in circumstance for him.

 

[TheChosenOne]

This is the deal with the Home Office he's had for the last 15 years -

It is interesting that the visa Abramovich had been reapplying for was a Tier 1 UK Investor Visa. This type requires a minimum investment of £2 million in particular ventures in the county, and allows the holder to remain in the UK for up to 40 months and provides a future opportunity to apply for settlement depending on the amount of money being invested. It is, in effect, an “entrepreneur's visa.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/leeige...ner-roman-abramovich-visa-chaos/#36960d03e862

He never really took advantage of the chance to live even semi-permanently in the UK. But having the freedom to work here and come and go as he pleased for 40 months at a time before a fairly straightforward renewal without too much stress would have been a huge attraction. That's gone now. As an Israeli citizen he's entitled to visit the UK for up to six months but no repeat visits to allow him to effectively live in the UK and no permission to work at all while he''s here. It's a complete change in circumstance for him.

Oh goody - we can blame Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

 

['O Zio]

If you read up the thread, someone posted Home Office guidelines, which clearly prohibit back-door residency. You can't just keep renewing visas and pretend you're living elsewhere while actually you're living in the UK. That's what RA's previous visa allowed, but not the new one.

Right but that's irrelevant, why would he need a back-door residency, or any kind of residency? He doesn't live permanently in London anyway so my point was he could sell up his assets there so he wouldn't need to do business etc. but that doesn't mean he can never visit London again like you seem to be suggesting.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

It's a matter of taste of course, but I want a football stadium to look like a football stadium, not a neo-Gothic cathedral, a flower-petel or an art gallery. Form & function.

I'd like my stadium to look like a stadium, not an airport terminal or global HQ of an Insurance company.

 

[SUIYHA]

Good read (admittedly from an Arsenal blog) on the state of Chelsea's finances:

https://shewore.com/2018/06/01/exposed-chelseas-financial-problems/

 

[TheChosenOne]

Good read (admittedly from an Arsenal blog) on the state of Chelsea's finances:

https://shewore.com/2018/06/01/exposed-chelseas-financial-problems/

Interesting read. Also interesting to note Chelsea having to sell off some stars to inject some cash - I suggested that Arsenal did this when they flogged off the Ox to Liverpool for £40 mil at the start of the season.
The money they got would compensate for lack of CL money straight away.

 

[McArchibald]

Interesting read. Also interesting to note Chelsea having to sell off some stars to inject some cash - I suggested that Arsenal did this when they flogged off the Ox to Liverpool for £40 mil at the start of the season.
The money they got would compensate for lack of CL money straight away.

They have an incredible stockpile of players out on loan as well. They could sell 10 of those and not notice the difference.
The article does suggest however the days of them bullying us in the transfermarket may be drawing to a close... fingers crossed!

 

[riggi]

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.

What do you mean by stadium experience?

 

['O Zio]

What do you mean by stadium experience?

I mean it doesn't make the stadium any better once you're in there. For example, if you make the stands close to the pitch and steep, that improves the stadium "experience" because there's a better atmosphere etc., which I reckon most people value pretty highly. Whereas having a fancy architectural feature on the exterior like the arch thing at Wembley is all well and good, but it doesn't actually add anything once you're inside the stadium, so it's just an expensive and unnecessary feature.