comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 9 minutes ago
Same. As a football fan I can, and kinda have to, stretch my morals for many things - but I'd find it very hard to support a regime that's obviously in the pocket of MBS (whether they are 'officially' or not). It just wouldn't feel right.
It would also be incredibly difficult to support us in the knowledge there would be individuals on the board who legitimately hate me simply for being born in the west. I'm sure that's true of all clubs in the boardrooms, the hating the fans part, but not for such alien reasons I can't possibly understand. That's too much of a disconnect from my personal reality to be comfortable with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wouldn't affect my support of Chelsea the football club Devil, the owners are not the football club just as managers or players are not, they're all just servants of the club who are just passing through in a window of history.
I just couldn’t take pride in or have any empathy with owners borne of such a brutal regime who have so little regard for human rights!
It must be a bit of a dilemma for Chelsea fans. US investors do not have the best track record in the PL and while they seemingly know how to run a business well, they do not generally put massive funds into clubs.
Any consortium bid also highlight the possible lack of financial muscle of the individual parts to be able to make significant investment as would be required by a new stadium for example.
The appeal of a single owner with access to huge funding is appealing, a la NUFC, against the prospect of normal ownership with greater (but more normal) financial constraints.
Chelsea are well run but currently Spurs and Arsenal have greater growth potential , Newcastle are now at the party and United are a sleeping giant. Will be interesting to see how they develop in the coming years
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 18 seconds ago
The only reason we turned down Saudis was not morality - even the Guardian said SMG were not directly connected to regime - it was because the offer involved debt finance.
FT covered the story last night
https://amp.ft.com/content/85584dae-10db-44dd-a922-e94047ce8606
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really not bothered about the reasons Quad, just grateful they're not in the running.
I read your article over your support for their bid and couldn't comprehend why anyone would be happy to embrace it.
Sorry, you're entitled to your opinion but my own opinion couldn't be any more polar opposite!
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
It must be a bit of a dilemma for Chelsea fans. US investors do not have the best track record in the PL and while they seemingly know how to run a business well, they do not generally put massive funds into clubs.
Any consortium bid also highlight the possible lack of financial muscle of the individual parts to be able to make significant investment as would be required by a new stadium for example.
The appeal of a single owner with access to huge funding is appealing, a la NUFC, against the prospect of normal ownership with greater (but more normal) financial constraints.
Chelsea are well run but currently Spurs and Arsenal have greater growth potential , Newcastle are now at the party and United are a sleeping giant. Will be interesting to see how they develop in the coming years
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends what stock you place on wanting to support a 'Big' club. I'm sure fans of clubs like Cambridge or Carlisle don't love their clubs any less than fans of 'Big' clubs, who in many cases just choose to support a club for it's conceived prestige.
I'm just happy I have my club to support after the turmoil of the 80s!
comment by (K̇ash) I'm the Mané - Free Palestine 🇵🇸 (U1108)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 7 hours, 52 minutes ago
comment by (K̇ash) I'm the Mané - Free Palestine 🇵🇸 (U1108)
posted 56 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by TENƎꓕ (U17162)
posted 8 minutes ago
Why are you happy with Saudis backing out?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't back out, they weren't shortlisted.
I don't want us to be associated with a country that executes people on a routine basis, for the most trivial of offences, including homosexuality and blasphemy, were women are treated as not even 2nd class citizens.
Not for me thanks, I'd rather us be back in Division Two!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you happy the racist Ricketts managed to make it on the shortlist?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they did they do not appear to be front runners.
A bit more detail is available here
https://metro.co.uk/2022/03/24/ricketts-familys-bid-for-chelsea-knocked-back-as-two-favourites-emerge-16340390/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good to see the fans unite over not wanting this racist family to take over
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally I don't judge a whole family by the acts of the father. I once dated a lovely girl many years ago but sadly I wasn't white enough for her dad and used to get all sorts of threats, eventually it led to me ending it with her and I never told her, a big regret to this day, she was awesome.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 17 minutes ago
It must be a bit of a dilemma for Chelsea fans. US investors do not have the best track record in the PL and while they seemingly know how to run a business well, they do not generally put massive funds into clubs.
Any consortium bid also highlight the possible lack of financial muscle of the individual parts to be able to make significant investment as would be required by a new stadium for example.
The appeal of a single owner with access to huge funding is appealing, a la NUFC, against the prospect of normal ownership with greater (but more normal) financial constraints.
Chelsea are well run but currently Spurs and Arsenal have greater growth potential , Newcastle are now at the party and United are a sleeping giant. Will be interesting to see how they develop in the coming years
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do either Arsenal or Spurs have greater growth potential? Seriously interested in your thoughts on this
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 17 minutes ago
It must be a bit of a dilemma for Chelsea fans. US investors do not have the best track record in the PL and while they seemingly know how to run a business well, they do not generally put massive funds into clubs.
Any consortium bid also highlight the possible lack of financial muscle of the individual parts to be able to make significant investment as would be required by a new stadium for example.
The appeal of a single owner with access to huge funding is appealing, a la NUFC, against the prospect of normal ownership with greater (but more normal) financial constraints.
Chelsea are well run but currently Spurs and Arsenal have greater growth potential , Newcastle are now at the party and United are a sleeping giant. Will be interesting to see how they develop in the coming years
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do either Arsenal or Spurs have greater growth potential? Seriously interested in your thoughts on this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought it a bit of a strange comment myself JFDI. Currently I would say Spurs and Chelsea are of similar size as clubs with Arsenal bigger than both of us.
The future however is notoriously hard to predict and how anyone could make such a statement I find hard to fathom!
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by (K̇ash) I'm the Mané - Free Palestine 🇵🇸 (U1108)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 7 hours, 52 minutes ago
comment by (K̇ash) I'm the Mané - Free Palestine 🇵🇸 (U1108)
posted 56 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by TENƎꓕ (U17162)
posted 8 minutes ago
Why are you happy with Saudis backing out?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't back out, they weren't shortlisted.
I don't want us to be associated with a country that executes people on a routine basis, for the most trivial of offences, including homosexuality and blasphemy, were women are treated as not even 2nd class citizens.
Not for me thanks, I'd rather us be back in Division Two!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you happy the racist Ricketts managed to make it on the shortlist?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they did they do not appear to be front runners.
A bit more detail is available here
https://metro.co.uk/2022/03/24/ricketts-familys-bid-for-chelsea-knocked-back-as-two-favourites-emerge-16340390/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good to see the fans unite over not wanting this racist family to take over
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally I don't judge a whole family by the acts of the father. I once dated a lovely girl many years ago but sadly I wasn't white enough for her dad and used to get all sorts of threats, eventually it led to me ending it with her and I never told her, a big regret to this day, she was awesome.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I still love you though mate!
Ashley the preferred bidder.
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 11 minutes ago
Ashley the preferred bidder.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was mildly amusing the first time, however repeatedly mentioned the same comment every opportunity you get reduces the impact each time!
Just passing on the most up to date information from my source.
Keeping the Chelsea fans in the loop.
You need a fresh source, who knows, the new one might have half a clue.
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 9 minutes ago
Didn’t see many chelsea fans lamenting the fact Saudi’s were in the running in the first place.
Easy to say “phew didn’t want them” when they’ve not in the running.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet another dullard with his flawed propaganda!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah so you’re going to show us the chelsea fans who were railing against possibility of Saudi ownership?
Nah , didn’t think so… you just like shouting at the sky.
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 9 minutes ago
Didn’t see many chelsea fans lamenting the fact Saudi’s were in the running in the first place.
Easy to say “phew didn’t want them” when they’ve not in the running.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet another dullard with his flawed propaganda!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah so you’re going to show us the chelsea fans who were railing against possibility of Saudi ownership?
Nah , didn’t think so… you just like shouting at the sky.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How would he know what I or anyone else is thinking? I ahvent indicated a preferred bidder to anyone to date, I don't personally spend anytime thinking too much or worrying about it.
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 9 minutes ago
Didn’t see many chelsea fans lamenting the fact Saudi’s were in the running in the first place.
Easy to say “phew didn’t want them” when they’ve not in the running.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet another dullard with his flawed propaganda!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah so you’re going to show us the chelsea fans who were railing against possibility of Saudi ownership?
Nah , didn’t think so… you just like shouting at the sky.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More appropriately, maybe you'd like to highlight those, apart from Quad, that had been rejoicing at the prospect?
Nah, didn't think so, just Deadinthehead blowing his usual hot air again - you're nothing more than a cheap WUM pal!!
You just can't stay away from Chelsea can you - with all the room we take up in your head there must be little room left for the team you purport to support
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 9 minutes ago
Didn’t see many chelsea fans lamenting the fact Saudi’s were in the running in the first place.
Easy to say “phew didn’t want them” when they’ve not in the running.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet another dullard with his flawed propaganda!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah so you’re going to show us the chelsea fans who were railing against possibility of Saudi ownership?
Nah , didn’t think so… you just like shouting at the sky.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How would he know what I or anyone else is thinking? I ahvent indicated a preferred bidder to anyone to date, I don't personally spend anytime thinking too much or worrying about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's best forgotten about from herein JFDI, we know he's someone of little substance, with little else in his life to take his time up, apart from live on the Chelsea board being like a dose of Thrush.
Pity he didn't show as much effort supporting his own club!
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 9 minutes ago
Didn’t see many chelsea fans lamenting the fact Saudi’s were in the running in the first place.
Easy to say “phew didn’t want them” when they’ve not in the running.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet another dullard with his flawed propaganda!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah so you’re going to show us the chelsea fans who were railing against possibility of Saudi ownership?
Nah , didn’t think so… you just like shouting at the sky.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How would he know what I or anyone else is thinking? I ahvent indicated a preferred bidder to anyone to date, I don't personally spend anytime thinking too much or worrying about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's best forgotten about from herein JFDI, we know he's someone of little substance, with little else in his life to take his time up, apart from live on the Chelsea board being like a dose of Thrush.
Pity he didn't show as much effort supporting his own club!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said lads, I love the way opposition WUM’s decide that what they think is what we’re thinking. Like JFDI I had no particular preference for who takes over as long as they have the Clubs best interests at heart.
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 2 hours, 48 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 17 minutes ago
It must be a bit of a dilemma for Chelsea fans. US investors do not have the best track record in the PL and while they seemingly know how to run a business well, they do not generally put massive funds into clubs.
Any consortium bid also highlight the possible lack of financial muscle of the individual parts to be able to make significant investment as would be required by a new stadium for example.
The appeal of a single owner with access to huge funding is appealing, a la NUFC, against the prospect of normal ownership with greater (but more normal) financial constraints.
Chelsea are well run but currently Spurs and Arsenal have greater growth potential , Newcastle are now at the party and United are a sleeping giant. Will be interesting to see how they develop in the coming years
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do either Arsenal or Spurs have greater growth potential? Seriously interested in your thoughts on this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea are well run and successful and have been for many years. To a degree their finances have peaked, or to put it another way, there is a ceiling and they are pretty close to it.
If you take last season, the difference between revenues of the respective clubs was about 80m euros (£65m). That was in a season when Chelsea ran all the way to the UCL final and won it, and Spurs were out of the Europa in the round of 16.
Spurs stadium was not being utilised in the way it was intended due to covid, not just the large capacities but the additional use.
If you put Spurs in Chelsea place, competing in the UCL latter stages, gaining more of the broadcasting revenues etc then their revenues would be much greater than Chelsea's. There is also the continued expansion of the stadium use and possible sponsorship.
Chelsea have some very good sponsorship deals built on years of success making them a big brand. Spurs are a tier below, but all of this just means Spurs financial ceiling is higher and currently we are nowhere near it.
UCL participation alone would see Spurs revenues comfortably exceed Chelsea's, and the knock on effect of that runs through many elements of the business.
So yes, financially Spurs have the greater growth potential, if everything clicked into place we could increase revenues by £150m. We'd be up challenging Liverpool and closing the gap to Utd. Chelsea do not currently have that capacity for growth, unless you can tell me otherwise.
And ok, maybe i was being a bit far fetched about Arsenal as their revenues are another 40m short of ours, but they are still performing well financially depsite no UCL/Europe, despite aging sponsorship deals. If they get their act together they would be your financial contemporary, like they used to be.
Without the Roman safety net to hoover up any losses, Chelsea will have to think differently about how they can rebuild at the times when it is necessary, how much money they can throw at a problem.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 2 hours, 48 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 17 minutes ago
It must be a bit of a dilemma for Chelsea fans. US investors do not have the best track record in the PL and while they seemingly know how to run a business well, they do not generally put massive funds into clubs.
Any consortium bid also highlight the possible lack of financial muscle of the individual parts to be able to make significant investment as would be required by a new stadium for example.
The appeal of a single owner with access to huge funding is appealing, a la NUFC, against the prospect of normal ownership with greater (but more normal) financial constraints.
Chelsea are well run but currently Spurs and Arsenal have greater growth potential , Newcastle are now at the party and United are a sleeping giant. Will be interesting to see how they develop in the coming years
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do either Arsenal or Spurs have greater growth potential? Seriously interested in your thoughts on this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea are well run and successful and have been for many years. To a degree their finances have peaked, or to put it another way, there is a ceiling and they are pretty close to it.
If you take last season, the difference between revenues of the respective clubs was about 80m euros (£65m). That was in a season when Chelsea ran all the way to the UCL final and won it, and Spurs were out of the Europa in the round of 16.
Spurs stadium was not being utilised in the way it was intended due to covid, not just the large capacities but the additional use.
If you put Spurs in Chelsea place, competing in the UCL latter stages, gaining more of the broadcasting revenues etc then their revenues would be much greater than Chelsea's. There is also the continued expansion of the stadium use and possible sponsorship.
Chelsea have some very good sponsorship deals built on years of success making them a big brand. Spurs are a tier below, but all of this just means Spurs financial ceiling is higher and currently we are nowhere near it.
UCL participation alone would see Spurs revenues comfortably exceed Chelsea's, and the knock on effect of that runs through many elements of the business.
So yes, financially Spurs have the greater growth potential, if everything clicked into place we could increase revenues by £150m. We'd be up challenging Liverpool and closing the gap to Utd. Chelsea do not currently have that capacity for growth, unless you can tell me otherwise.
And ok, maybe i was being a bit far fetched about Arsenal as their revenues are another 40m short of ours, but they are still performing well financially depsite no UCL/Europe, despite aging sponsorship deals. If they get their act together they would be your financial contemporary, like they used to be.
Without the Roman safety net to hoover up any losses, Chelsea will have to think differently about how they can rebuild at the times when it is necessary, how much money they can throw at a problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, all ifs and buts then!
If a new owner comes and and redevelopes Stamford Bridge, that's another variable thrown in that will change the landscape.
I just go with the flow and whatever develops, so be it!
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 3 hours, 59 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 17 minutes ago
It must be a bit of a dilemma for Chelsea fans. US investors do not have the best track record in the PL and while they seemingly know how to run a business well, they do not generally put massive funds into clubs.
Any consortium bid also highlight the possible lack of financial muscle of the individual parts to be able to make significant investment as would be required by a new stadium for example.
The appeal of a single owner with access to huge funding is appealing, a la NUFC, against the prospect of normal ownership with greater (but more normal) financial constraints.
Chelsea are well run but currently Spurs and Arsenal have greater growth potential , Newcastle are now at the party and United are a sleeping giant. Will be interesting to see how they develop in the coming years
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do either Arsenal or Spurs have greater growth potential? Seriously interested in your thoughts on this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is risible. Spurs cant even sell naming rights for stadium.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 2 hours, 48 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 17 minutes ago
It must be a bit of a dilemma for Chelsea fans. US investors do not have the best track record in the PL and while they seemingly know how to run a business well, they do not generally put massive funds into clubs.
Any consortium bid also highlight the possible lack of financial muscle of the individual parts to be able to make significant investment as would be required by a new stadium for example.
The appeal of a single owner with access to huge funding is appealing, a la NUFC, against the prospect of normal ownership with greater (but more normal) financial constraints.
Chelsea are well run but currently Spurs and Arsenal have greater growth potential , Newcastle are now at the party and United are a sleeping giant. Will be interesting to see how they develop in the coming years
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do either Arsenal or Spurs have greater growth potential? Seriously interested in your thoughts on this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea are well run and successful and have been for many years. To a degree their finances have peaked, or to put it another way, there is a ceiling and they are pretty close to it.
If you take last season, the difference between revenues of the respective clubs was about 80m euros (£65m). That was in a season when Chelsea ran all the way to the UCL final and won it, and Spurs were out of the Europa in the round of 16.
Spurs stadium was not being utilised in the way it was intended due to covid, not just the large capacities but the additional use.
If you put Spurs in Chelsea place, competing in the UCL latter stages, gaining more of the broadcasting revenues etc then their revenues would be much greater than Chelsea's. There is also the continued expansion of the stadium use and possible sponsorship.
Chelsea have some very good sponsorship deals built on years of success making them a big brand. Spurs are a tier below, but all of this just means Spurs financial ceiling is higher and currently we are nowhere near it.
UCL participation alone would see Spurs revenues comfortably exceed Chelsea's, and the knock on effect of that runs through many elements of the business.
So yes, financially Spurs have the greater growth potential, if everything clicked into place we could increase revenues by £150m. We'd be up challenging Liverpool and closing the gap to Utd. Chelsea do not currently have that capacity for growth, unless you can tell me otherwise.
And ok, maybe i was being a bit far fetched about Arsenal as their revenues are another 40m short of ours, but they are still performing well financially depsite no UCL/Europe, despite aging sponsorship deals. If they get their act together they would be your financial contemporary, like they used to be.
Without the Roman safety net to hoover up any losses, Chelsea will have to think differently about how they can rebuild at the times when it is necessary, how much money they can throw at a problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rubbish
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 2 hours, 48 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 17 minutes ago
It must be a bit of a dilemma for Chelsea fans. US investors do not have the best track record in the PL and while they seemingly know how to run a business well, they do not generally put massive funds into clubs.
Any consortium bid also highlight the possible lack of financial muscle of the individual parts to be able to make significant investment as would be required by a new stadium for example.
The appeal of a single owner with access to huge funding is appealing, a la NUFC, against the prospect of normal ownership with greater (but more normal) financial constraints.
Chelsea are well run but currently Spurs and Arsenal have greater growth potential , Newcastle are now at the party and United are a sleeping giant. Will be interesting to see how they develop in the coming years
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do either Arsenal or Spurs have greater growth potential? Seriously interested in your thoughts on this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea are well run and successful and have been for many years. To a degree their finances have peaked, or to put it another way, there is a ceiling and they are pretty close to it.
If you take last season, the difference between revenues of the respective clubs was about 80m euros (£65m). That was in a season when Chelsea ran all the way to the UCL final and won it, and Spurs were out of the Europa in the round of 16.
Spurs stadium was not being utilised in the way it was intended due to covid, not just the large capacities but the additional use.
If you put Spurs in Chelsea place, competing in the UCL latter stages, gaining more of the broadcasting revenues etc then their revenues would be much greater than Chelsea's. There is also the continued expansion of the stadium use and possible sponsorship.
Chelsea have some very good sponsorship deals built on years of success making them a big brand. Spurs are a tier below, but all of this just means Spurs financial ceiling is higher and currently we are nowhere near it.
UCL participation alone would see Spurs revenues comfortably exceed Chelsea's, and the knock on effect of that runs through many elements of the business.
So yes, financially Spurs have the greater growth potential, if everything clicked into place we could increase revenues by £150m. We'd be up challenging Liverpool and closing the gap to Utd. Chelsea do not currently have that capacity for growth, unless you can tell me otherwise.
And ok, maybe i was being a bit far fetched about Arsenal as their revenues are another 40m short of ours, but they are still performing well financially depsite no UCL/Europe, despite aging sponsorship deals. If they get their act together they would be your financial contemporary, like they used to be.
Without the Roman safety net to hoover up any losses, Chelsea will have to think differently about how they can rebuild at the times when it is necessary, how much money they can throw at a problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, all ifs and buts then!
If a new owner comes and and redevelopes Stamford Bridge, that's another variable thrown in that will change the landscape.
I just go with the flow and whatever develops, so be it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Duh! We are talking about financial potential so yes, no certainties, but the prospect of UCL qualification or stadium sponsorship or growth in the use of teh stadium are not remote IFs and BUTS, they are really quite possible and may be even likley.
and certainly more deliverable than Chelsea's stadium expansion plans which were deemed unviable 4 years ago. That position will not have changed, probably worsened. If Roman wasnt prepared to back it, its unlikely anyone will. You'd probably need to relocate.
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 2 hours, 48 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 17 minutes ago
It must be a bit of a dilemma for Chelsea fans. US investors do not have the best track record in the PL and while they seemingly know how to run a business well, they do not generally put massive funds into clubs.
Any consortium bid also highlight the possible lack of financial muscle of the individual parts to be able to make significant investment as would be required by a new stadium for example.
The appeal of a single owner with access to huge funding is appealing, a la NUFC, against the prospect of normal ownership with greater (but more normal) financial constraints.
Chelsea are well run but currently Spurs and Arsenal have greater growth potential , Newcastle are now at the party and United are a sleeping giant. Will be interesting to see how they develop in the coming years
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do either Arsenal or Spurs have greater growth potential? Seriously interested in your thoughts on this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea are well run and successful and have been for many years. To a degree their finances have peaked, or to put it another way, there is a ceiling and they are pretty close to it.
If you take last season, the difference between revenues of the respective clubs was about 80m euros (£65m). That was in a season when Chelsea ran all the way to the UCL final and won it, and Spurs were out of the Europa in the round of 16.
Spurs stadium was not being utilised in the way it was intended due to covid, not just the large capacities but the additional use.
If you put Spurs in Chelsea place, competing in the UCL latter stages, gaining more of the broadcasting revenues etc then their revenues would be much greater than Chelsea's. There is also the continued expansion of the stadium use and possible sponsorship.
Chelsea have some very good sponsorship deals built on years of success making them a big brand. Spurs are a tier below, but all of this just means Spurs financial ceiling is higher and currently we are nowhere near it.
UCL participation alone would see Spurs revenues comfortably exceed Chelsea's, and the knock on effect of that runs through many elements of the business.
So yes, financially Spurs have the greater growth potential, if everything clicked into place we could increase revenues by £150m. We'd be up challenging Liverpool and closing the gap to Utd. Chelsea do not currently have that capacity for growth, unless you can tell me otherwise.
And ok, maybe i was being a bit far fetched about Arsenal as their revenues are another 40m short of ours, but they are still performing well financially depsite no UCL/Europe, despite aging sponsorship deals. If they get their act together they would be your financial contemporary, like they used to be.
Without the Roman safety net to hoover up any losses, Chelsea will have to think differently about how they can rebuild at the times when it is necessary, how much money they can throw at a problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rubbish
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great insight as usual from Quad.
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 4 hours, 22 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 18 seconds ago
The only reason we turned down Saudis was not morality - even the Guardian said SMG were not directly connected to regime - it was because the offer involved debt finance.
FT covered the story last night
https://amp.ft.com/content/85584dae-10db-44dd-a922-e94047ce8606
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really not bothered about the reasons Quad, just grateful they're not in the running.
I read your article over your support for their bid and couldn't comprehend why anyone would be happy to embrace it.
Sorry, you're entitled to your opinion but my own opinion couldn't be any more polar opposite!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not all Saudis are bad people. Just like all Brit billionaires like Candy are good.
SMG had no direct links to regime, according to papers even the most critical of Saudi human rights.
And all billionaires have some dirt on them.
I want what is best for Chelsea. The Saudi bid wasn’t right because it involved too much debt finance
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 2 hours, 48 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 17 minutes ago
It must be a bit of a dilemma for Chelsea fans. US investors do not have the best track record in the PL and while they seemingly know how to run a business well, they do not generally put massive funds into clubs.
Any consortium bid also highlight the possible lack of financial muscle of the individual parts to be able to make significant investment as would be required by a new stadium for example.
The appeal of a single owner with access to huge funding is appealing, a la NUFC, against the prospect of normal ownership with greater (but more normal) financial constraints.
Chelsea are well run but currently Spurs and Arsenal have greater growth potential , Newcastle are now at the party and United are a sleeping giant. Will be interesting to see how they develop in the coming years
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do either Arsenal or Spurs have greater growth potential? Seriously interested in your thoughts on this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea are well run and successful and have been for many years. To a degree their finances have peaked, or to put it another way, there is a ceiling and they are pretty close to it.
If you take last season, the difference between revenues of the respective clubs was about 80m euros (£65m). That was in a season when Chelsea ran all the way to the UCL final and won it, and Spurs were out of the Europa in the round of 16.
Spurs stadium was not being utilised in the way it was intended due to covid, not just the large capacities but the additional use.
If you put Spurs in Chelsea place, competing in the UCL latter stages, gaining more of the broadcasting revenues etc then their revenues would be much greater than Chelsea's. There is also the continued expansion of the stadium use and possible sponsorship.
Chelsea have some very good sponsorship deals built on years of success making them a big brand. Spurs are a tier below, but all of this just means Spurs financial ceiling is higher and currently we are nowhere near it.
UCL participation alone would see Spurs revenues comfortably exceed Chelsea's, and the knock on effect of that runs through many elements of the business.
So yes, financially Spurs have the greater growth potential, if everything clicked into place we could increase revenues by £150m. We'd be up challenging Liverpool and closing the gap to Utd. Chelsea do not currently have that capacity for growth, unless you can tell me otherwise.
And ok, maybe i was being a bit far fetched about Arsenal as their revenues are another 40m short of ours, but they are still performing well financially depsite no UCL/Europe, despite aging sponsorship deals. If they get their act together they would be your financial contemporary, like they used to be.
Without the Roman safety net to hoover up any losses, Chelsea will have to think differently about how they can rebuild at the times when it is necessary, how much money they can throw at a problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, all ifs and buts then!
If a new owner comes and and redevelopes Stamford Bridge, that's another variable thrown in that will change the landscape.
I just go with the flow and whatever develops, so be it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Duh! We are talking about financial potential so yes, no certainties, but the prospect of UCL qualification or stadium sponsorship or growth in the use of teh stadium are not remote IFs and BUTS, they are really quite possible and may be even likley.
and certainly more deliverable than Chelsea's stadium expansion plans which were deemed unviable 4 years ago. That position will not have changed, probably worsened. If Roman wasnt prepared to back it, its unlikely anyone will. You'd probably need to relocate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean unviable 4 years ago!
It was all designed, planned, approved and ready to go - the only thing that stopped it was Roman pulling the plug after not being issued a work visa after the Salisbury poisonings!
Sign in if you want to comment
Saudi's out of the running
Page 2 of 4
posted on 25/3/22
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 9 minutes ago
Same. As a football fan I can, and kinda have to, stretch my morals for many things - but I'd find it very hard to support a regime that's obviously in the pocket of MBS (whether they are 'officially' or not). It just wouldn't feel right.
It would also be incredibly difficult to support us in the knowledge there would be individuals on the board who legitimately hate me simply for being born in the west. I'm sure that's true of all clubs in the boardrooms, the hating the fans part, but not for such alien reasons I can't possibly understand. That's too much of a disconnect from my personal reality to be comfortable with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wouldn't affect my support of Chelsea the football club Devil, the owners are not the football club just as managers or players are not, they're all just servants of the club who are just passing through in a window of history.
I just couldn’t take pride in or have any empathy with owners borne of such a brutal regime who have so little regard for human rights!
posted on 25/3/22
It must be a bit of a dilemma for Chelsea fans. US investors do not have the best track record in the PL and while they seemingly know how to run a business well, they do not generally put massive funds into clubs.
Any consortium bid also highlight the possible lack of financial muscle of the individual parts to be able to make significant investment as would be required by a new stadium for example.
The appeal of a single owner with access to huge funding is appealing, a la NUFC, against the prospect of normal ownership with greater (but more normal) financial constraints.
Chelsea are well run but currently Spurs and Arsenal have greater growth potential , Newcastle are now at the party and United are a sleeping giant. Will be interesting to see how they develop in the coming years
posted on 25/3/22
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 18 seconds ago
The only reason we turned down Saudis was not morality - even the Guardian said SMG were not directly connected to regime - it was because the offer involved debt finance.
FT covered the story last night
https://amp.ft.com/content/85584dae-10db-44dd-a922-e94047ce8606
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really not bothered about the reasons Quad, just grateful they're not in the running.
I read your article over your support for their bid and couldn't comprehend why anyone would be happy to embrace it.
Sorry, you're entitled to your opinion but my own opinion couldn't be any more polar opposite!
posted on 25/3/22
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
It must be a bit of a dilemma for Chelsea fans. US investors do not have the best track record in the PL and while they seemingly know how to run a business well, they do not generally put massive funds into clubs.
Any consortium bid also highlight the possible lack of financial muscle of the individual parts to be able to make significant investment as would be required by a new stadium for example.
The appeal of a single owner with access to huge funding is appealing, a la NUFC, against the prospect of normal ownership with greater (but more normal) financial constraints.
Chelsea are well run but currently Spurs and Arsenal have greater growth potential , Newcastle are now at the party and United are a sleeping giant. Will be interesting to see how they develop in the coming years
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends what stock you place on wanting to support a 'Big' club. I'm sure fans of clubs like Cambridge or Carlisle don't love their clubs any less than fans of 'Big' clubs, who in many cases just choose to support a club for it's conceived prestige.
I'm just happy I have my club to support after the turmoil of the 80s!
posted on 25/3/22
comment by (K̇ash) I'm the Mané - Free Palestine 🇵🇸 (U1108)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 7 hours, 52 minutes ago
comment by (K̇ash) I'm the Mané - Free Palestine 🇵🇸 (U1108)
posted 56 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by TENƎꓕ (U17162)
posted 8 minutes ago
Why are you happy with Saudis backing out?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't back out, they weren't shortlisted.
I don't want us to be associated with a country that executes people on a routine basis, for the most trivial of offences, including homosexuality and blasphemy, were women are treated as not even 2nd class citizens.
Not for me thanks, I'd rather us be back in Division Two!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you happy the racist Ricketts managed to make it on the shortlist?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they did they do not appear to be front runners.
A bit more detail is available here
https://metro.co.uk/2022/03/24/ricketts-familys-bid-for-chelsea-knocked-back-as-two-favourites-emerge-16340390/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good to see the fans unite over not wanting this racist family to take over
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally I don't judge a whole family by the acts of the father. I once dated a lovely girl many years ago but sadly I wasn't white enough for her dad and used to get all sorts of threats, eventually it led to me ending it with her and I never told her, a big regret to this day, she was awesome.
posted on 25/3/22
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 17 minutes ago
It must be a bit of a dilemma for Chelsea fans. US investors do not have the best track record in the PL and while they seemingly know how to run a business well, they do not generally put massive funds into clubs.
Any consortium bid also highlight the possible lack of financial muscle of the individual parts to be able to make significant investment as would be required by a new stadium for example.
The appeal of a single owner with access to huge funding is appealing, a la NUFC, against the prospect of normal ownership with greater (but more normal) financial constraints.
Chelsea are well run but currently Spurs and Arsenal have greater growth potential , Newcastle are now at the party and United are a sleeping giant. Will be interesting to see how they develop in the coming years
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do either Arsenal or Spurs have greater growth potential? Seriously interested in your thoughts on this
posted on 25/3/22
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 17 minutes ago
It must be a bit of a dilemma for Chelsea fans. US investors do not have the best track record in the PL and while they seemingly know how to run a business well, they do not generally put massive funds into clubs.
Any consortium bid also highlight the possible lack of financial muscle of the individual parts to be able to make significant investment as would be required by a new stadium for example.
The appeal of a single owner with access to huge funding is appealing, a la NUFC, against the prospect of normal ownership with greater (but more normal) financial constraints.
Chelsea are well run but currently Spurs and Arsenal have greater growth potential , Newcastle are now at the party and United are a sleeping giant. Will be interesting to see how they develop in the coming years
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do either Arsenal or Spurs have greater growth potential? Seriously interested in your thoughts on this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought it a bit of a strange comment myself JFDI. Currently I would say Spurs and Chelsea are of similar size as clubs with Arsenal bigger than both of us.
The future however is notoriously hard to predict and how anyone could make such a statement I find hard to fathom!
posted on 25/3/22
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by (K̇ash) I'm the Mané - Free Palestine 🇵🇸 (U1108)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 7 hours, 52 minutes ago
comment by (K̇ash) I'm the Mané - Free Palestine 🇵🇸 (U1108)
posted 56 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by TENƎꓕ (U17162)
posted 8 minutes ago
Why are you happy with Saudis backing out?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't back out, they weren't shortlisted.
I don't want us to be associated with a country that executes people on a routine basis, for the most trivial of offences, including homosexuality and blasphemy, were women are treated as not even 2nd class citizens.
Not for me thanks, I'd rather us be back in Division Two!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you happy the racist Ricketts managed to make it on the shortlist?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they did they do not appear to be front runners.
A bit more detail is available here
https://metro.co.uk/2022/03/24/ricketts-familys-bid-for-chelsea-knocked-back-as-two-favourites-emerge-16340390/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good to see the fans unite over not wanting this racist family to take over
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally I don't judge a whole family by the acts of the father. I once dated a lovely girl many years ago but sadly I wasn't white enough for her dad and used to get all sorts of threats, eventually it led to me ending it with her and I never told her, a big regret to this day, she was awesome.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I still love you though mate!
posted on 25/3/22
Ashley the preferred bidder.
posted on 25/3/22
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 11 minutes ago
Ashley the preferred bidder.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was mildly amusing the first time, however repeatedly mentioned the same comment every opportunity you get reduces the impact each time!
posted on 25/3/22
Just passing on the most up to date information from my source.
Keeping the Chelsea fans in the loop.
posted on 25/3/22
You need a fresh source, who knows, the new one might have half a clue.
posted on 25/3/22
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 9 minutes ago
Didn’t see many chelsea fans lamenting the fact Saudi’s were in the running in the first place.
Easy to say “phew didn’t want them” when they’ve not in the running.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet another dullard with his flawed propaganda!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah so you’re going to show us the chelsea fans who were railing against possibility of Saudi ownership?
Nah , didn’t think so… you just like shouting at the sky.
posted on 25/3/22
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 9 minutes ago
Didn’t see many chelsea fans lamenting the fact Saudi’s were in the running in the first place.
Easy to say “phew didn’t want them” when they’ve not in the running.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet another dullard with his flawed propaganda!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah so you’re going to show us the chelsea fans who were railing against possibility of Saudi ownership?
Nah , didn’t think so… you just like shouting at the sky.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How would he know what I or anyone else is thinking? I ahvent indicated a preferred bidder to anyone to date, I don't personally spend anytime thinking too much or worrying about it.
posted on 25/3/22
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 9 minutes ago
Didn’t see many chelsea fans lamenting the fact Saudi’s were in the running in the first place.
Easy to say “phew didn’t want them” when they’ve not in the running.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet another dullard with his flawed propaganda!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah so you’re going to show us the chelsea fans who were railing against possibility of Saudi ownership?
Nah , didn’t think so… you just like shouting at the sky.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More appropriately, maybe you'd like to highlight those, apart from Quad, that had been rejoicing at the prospect?
Nah, didn't think so, just Deadinthehead blowing his usual hot air again - you're nothing more than a cheap WUM pal!!
You just can't stay away from Chelsea can you - with all the room we take up in your head there must be little room left for the team you purport to support
posted on 25/3/22
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 9 minutes ago
Didn’t see many chelsea fans lamenting the fact Saudi’s were in the running in the first place.
Easy to say “phew didn’t want them” when they’ve not in the running.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet another dullard with his flawed propaganda!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah so you’re going to show us the chelsea fans who were railing against possibility of Saudi ownership?
Nah , didn’t think so… you just like shouting at the sky.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How would he know what I or anyone else is thinking? I ahvent indicated a preferred bidder to anyone to date, I don't personally spend anytime thinking too much or worrying about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's best forgotten about from herein JFDI, we know he's someone of little substance, with little else in his life to take his time up, apart from live on the Chelsea board being like a dose of Thrush.
Pity he didn't show as much effort supporting his own club!
posted on 25/3/22
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 9 minutes ago
Didn’t see many chelsea fans lamenting the fact Saudi’s were in the running in the first place.
Easy to say “phew didn’t want them” when they’ve not in the running.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet another dullard with his flawed propaganda!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah so you’re going to show us the chelsea fans who were railing against possibility of Saudi ownership?
Nah , didn’t think so… you just like shouting at the sky.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How would he know what I or anyone else is thinking? I ahvent indicated a preferred bidder to anyone to date, I don't personally spend anytime thinking too much or worrying about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's best forgotten about from herein JFDI, we know he's someone of little substance, with little else in his life to take his time up, apart from live on the Chelsea board being like a dose of Thrush.
Pity he didn't show as much effort supporting his own club!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said lads, I love the way opposition WUM’s decide that what they think is what we’re thinking. Like JFDI I had no particular preference for who takes over as long as they have the Clubs best interests at heart.
posted on 25/3/22
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 2 hours, 48 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 17 minutes ago
It must be a bit of a dilemma for Chelsea fans. US investors do not have the best track record in the PL and while they seemingly know how to run a business well, they do not generally put massive funds into clubs.
Any consortium bid also highlight the possible lack of financial muscle of the individual parts to be able to make significant investment as would be required by a new stadium for example.
The appeal of a single owner with access to huge funding is appealing, a la NUFC, against the prospect of normal ownership with greater (but more normal) financial constraints.
Chelsea are well run but currently Spurs and Arsenal have greater growth potential , Newcastle are now at the party and United are a sleeping giant. Will be interesting to see how they develop in the coming years
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do either Arsenal or Spurs have greater growth potential? Seriously interested in your thoughts on this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea are well run and successful and have been for many years. To a degree their finances have peaked, or to put it another way, there is a ceiling and they are pretty close to it.
If you take last season, the difference between revenues of the respective clubs was about 80m euros (£65m). That was in a season when Chelsea ran all the way to the UCL final and won it, and Spurs were out of the Europa in the round of 16.
Spurs stadium was not being utilised in the way it was intended due to covid, not just the large capacities but the additional use.
If you put Spurs in Chelsea place, competing in the UCL latter stages, gaining more of the broadcasting revenues etc then their revenues would be much greater than Chelsea's. There is also the continued expansion of the stadium use and possible sponsorship.
Chelsea have some very good sponsorship deals built on years of success making them a big brand. Spurs are a tier below, but all of this just means Spurs financial ceiling is higher and currently we are nowhere near it.
UCL participation alone would see Spurs revenues comfortably exceed Chelsea's, and the knock on effect of that runs through many elements of the business.
So yes, financially Spurs have the greater growth potential, if everything clicked into place we could increase revenues by £150m. We'd be up challenging Liverpool and closing the gap to Utd. Chelsea do not currently have that capacity for growth, unless you can tell me otherwise.
And ok, maybe i was being a bit far fetched about Arsenal as their revenues are another 40m short of ours, but they are still performing well financially depsite no UCL/Europe, despite aging sponsorship deals. If they get their act together they would be your financial contemporary, like they used to be.
Without the Roman safety net to hoover up any losses, Chelsea will have to think differently about how they can rebuild at the times when it is necessary, how much money they can throw at a problem.
posted on 25/3/22
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 2 hours, 48 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 17 minutes ago
It must be a bit of a dilemma for Chelsea fans. US investors do not have the best track record in the PL and while they seemingly know how to run a business well, they do not generally put massive funds into clubs.
Any consortium bid also highlight the possible lack of financial muscle of the individual parts to be able to make significant investment as would be required by a new stadium for example.
The appeal of a single owner with access to huge funding is appealing, a la NUFC, against the prospect of normal ownership with greater (but more normal) financial constraints.
Chelsea are well run but currently Spurs and Arsenal have greater growth potential , Newcastle are now at the party and United are a sleeping giant. Will be interesting to see how they develop in the coming years
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do either Arsenal or Spurs have greater growth potential? Seriously interested in your thoughts on this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea are well run and successful and have been for many years. To a degree their finances have peaked, or to put it another way, there is a ceiling and they are pretty close to it.
If you take last season, the difference between revenues of the respective clubs was about 80m euros (£65m). That was in a season when Chelsea ran all the way to the UCL final and won it, and Spurs were out of the Europa in the round of 16.
Spurs stadium was not being utilised in the way it was intended due to covid, not just the large capacities but the additional use.
If you put Spurs in Chelsea place, competing in the UCL latter stages, gaining more of the broadcasting revenues etc then their revenues would be much greater than Chelsea's. There is also the continued expansion of the stadium use and possible sponsorship.
Chelsea have some very good sponsorship deals built on years of success making them a big brand. Spurs are a tier below, but all of this just means Spurs financial ceiling is higher and currently we are nowhere near it.
UCL participation alone would see Spurs revenues comfortably exceed Chelsea's, and the knock on effect of that runs through many elements of the business.
So yes, financially Spurs have the greater growth potential, if everything clicked into place we could increase revenues by £150m. We'd be up challenging Liverpool and closing the gap to Utd. Chelsea do not currently have that capacity for growth, unless you can tell me otherwise.
And ok, maybe i was being a bit far fetched about Arsenal as their revenues are another 40m short of ours, but they are still performing well financially depsite no UCL/Europe, despite aging sponsorship deals. If they get their act together they would be your financial contemporary, like they used to be.
Without the Roman safety net to hoover up any losses, Chelsea will have to think differently about how they can rebuild at the times when it is necessary, how much money they can throw at a problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, all ifs and buts then!
If a new owner comes and and redevelopes Stamford Bridge, that's another variable thrown in that will change the landscape.
I just go with the flow and whatever develops, so be it!
posted on 25/3/22
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 3 hours, 59 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 17 minutes ago
It must be a bit of a dilemma for Chelsea fans. US investors do not have the best track record in the PL and while they seemingly know how to run a business well, they do not generally put massive funds into clubs.
Any consortium bid also highlight the possible lack of financial muscle of the individual parts to be able to make significant investment as would be required by a new stadium for example.
The appeal of a single owner with access to huge funding is appealing, a la NUFC, against the prospect of normal ownership with greater (but more normal) financial constraints.
Chelsea are well run but currently Spurs and Arsenal have greater growth potential , Newcastle are now at the party and United are a sleeping giant. Will be interesting to see how they develop in the coming years
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do either Arsenal or Spurs have greater growth potential? Seriously interested in your thoughts on this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is risible. Spurs cant even sell naming rights for stadium.
posted on 25/3/22
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 2 hours, 48 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 17 minutes ago
It must be a bit of a dilemma for Chelsea fans. US investors do not have the best track record in the PL and while they seemingly know how to run a business well, they do not generally put massive funds into clubs.
Any consortium bid also highlight the possible lack of financial muscle of the individual parts to be able to make significant investment as would be required by a new stadium for example.
The appeal of a single owner with access to huge funding is appealing, a la NUFC, against the prospect of normal ownership with greater (but more normal) financial constraints.
Chelsea are well run but currently Spurs and Arsenal have greater growth potential , Newcastle are now at the party and United are a sleeping giant. Will be interesting to see how they develop in the coming years
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do either Arsenal or Spurs have greater growth potential? Seriously interested in your thoughts on this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea are well run and successful and have been for many years. To a degree their finances have peaked, or to put it another way, there is a ceiling and they are pretty close to it.
If you take last season, the difference between revenues of the respective clubs was about 80m euros (£65m). That was in a season when Chelsea ran all the way to the UCL final and won it, and Spurs were out of the Europa in the round of 16.
Spurs stadium was not being utilised in the way it was intended due to covid, not just the large capacities but the additional use.
If you put Spurs in Chelsea place, competing in the UCL latter stages, gaining more of the broadcasting revenues etc then their revenues would be much greater than Chelsea's. There is also the continued expansion of the stadium use and possible sponsorship.
Chelsea have some very good sponsorship deals built on years of success making them a big brand. Spurs are a tier below, but all of this just means Spurs financial ceiling is higher and currently we are nowhere near it.
UCL participation alone would see Spurs revenues comfortably exceed Chelsea's, and the knock on effect of that runs through many elements of the business.
So yes, financially Spurs have the greater growth potential, if everything clicked into place we could increase revenues by £150m. We'd be up challenging Liverpool and closing the gap to Utd. Chelsea do not currently have that capacity for growth, unless you can tell me otherwise.
And ok, maybe i was being a bit far fetched about Arsenal as their revenues are another 40m short of ours, but they are still performing well financially depsite no UCL/Europe, despite aging sponsorship deals. If they get their act together they would be your financial contemporary, like they used to be.
Without the Roman safety net to hoover up any losses, Chelsea will have to think differently about how they can rebuild at the times when it is necessary, how much money they can throw at a problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rubbish
posted on 25/3/22
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 2 hours, 48 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 17 minutes ago
It must be a bit of a dilemma for Chelsea fans. US investors do not have the best track record in the PL and while they seemingly know how to run a business well, they do not generally put massive funds into clubs.
Any consortium bid also highlight the possible lack of financial muscle of the individual parts to be able to make significant investment as would be required by a new stadium for example.
The appeal of a single owner with access to huge funding is appealing, a la NUFC, against the prospect of normal ownership with greater (but more normal) financial constraints.
Chelsea are well run but currently Spurs and Arsenal have greater growth potential , Newcastle are now at the party and United are a sleeping giant. Will be interesting to see how they develop in the coming years
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do either Arsenal or Spurs have greater growth potential? Seriously interested in your thoughts on this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea are well run and successful and have been for many years. To a degree their finances have peaked, or to put it another way, there is a ceiling and they are pretty close to it.
If you take last season, the difference between revenues of the respective clubs was about 80m euros (£65m). That was in a season when Chelsea ran all the way to the UCL final and won it, and Spurs were out of the Europa in the round of 16.
Spurs stadium was not being utilised in the way it was intended due to covid, not just the large capacities but the additional use.
If you put Spurs in Chelsea place, competing in the UCL latter stages, gaining more of the broadcasting revenues etc then their revenues would be much greater than Chelsea's. There is also the continued expansion of the stadium use and possible sponsorship.
Chelsea have some very good sponsorship deals built on years of success making them a big brand. Spurs are a tier below, but all of this just means Spurs financial ceiling is higher and currently we are nowhere near it.
UCL participation alone would see Spurs revenues comfortably exceed Chelsea's, and the knock on effect of that runs through many elements of the business.
So yes, financially Spurs have the greater growth potential, if everything clicked into place we could increase revenues by £150m. We'd be up challenging Liverpool and closing the gap to Utd. Chelsea do not currently have that capacity for growth, unless you can tell me otherwise.
And ok, maybe i was being a bit far fetched about Arsenal as their revenues are another 40m short of ours, but they are still performing well financially depsite no UCL/Europe, despite aging sponsorship deals. If they get their act together they would be your financial contemporary, like they used to be.
Without the Roman safety net to hoover up any losses, Chelsea will have to think differently about how they can rebuild at the times when it is necessary, how much money they can throw at a problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, all ifs and buts then!
If a new owner comes and and redevelopes Stamford Bridge, that's another variable thrown in that will change the landscape.
I just go with the flow and whatever develops, so be it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Duh! We are talking about financial potential so yes, no certainties, but the prospect of UCL qualification or stadium sponsorship or growth in the use of teh stadium are not remote IFs and BUTS, they are really quite possible and may be even likley.
and certainly more deliverable than Chelsea's stadium expansion plans which were deemed unviable 4 years ago. That position will not have changed, probably worsened. If Roman wasnt prepared to back it, its unlikely anyone will. You'd probably need to relocate.
posted on 25/3/22
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 2 hours, 48 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 17 minutes ago
It must be a bit of a dilemma for Chelsea fans. US investors do not have the best track record in the PL and while they seemingly know how to run a business well, they do not generally put massive funds into clubs.
Any consortium bid also highlight the possible lack of financial muscle of the individual parts to be able to make significant investment as would be required by a new stadium for example.
The appeal of a single owner with access to huge funding is appealing, a la NUFC, against the prospect of normal ownership with greater (but more normal) financial constraints.
Chelsea are well run but currently Spurs and Arsenal have greater growth potential , Newcastle are now at the party and United are a sleeping giant. Will be interesting to see how they develop in the coming years
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do either Arsenal or Spurs have greater growth potential? Seriously interested in your thoughts on this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea are well run and successful and have been for many years. To a degree their finances have peaked, or to put it another way, there is a ceiling and they are pretty close to it.
If you take last season, the difference between revenues of the respective clubs was about 80m euros (£65m). That was in a season when Chelsea ran all the way to the UCL final and won it, and Spurs were out of the Europa in the round of 16.
Spurs stadium was not being utilised in the way it was intended due to covid, not just the large capacities but the additional use.
If you put Spurs in Chelsea place, competing in the UCL latter stages, gaining more of the broadcasting revenues etc then their revenues would be much greater than Chelsea's. There is also the continued expansion of the stadium use and possible sponsorship.
Chelsea have some very good sponsorship deals built on years of success making them a big brand. Spurs are a tier below, but all of this just means Spurs financial ceiling is higher and currently we are nowhere near it.
UCL participation alone would see Spurs revenues comfortably exceed Chelsea's, and the knock on effect of that runs through many elements of the business.
So yes, financially Spurs have the greater growth potential, if everything clicked into place we could increase revenues by £150m. We'd be up challenging Liverpool and closing the gap to Utd. Chelsea do not currently have that capacity for growth, unless you can tell me otherwise.
And ok, maybe i was being a bit far fetched about Arsenal as their revenues are another 40m short of ours, but they are still performing well financially depsite no UCL/Europe, despite aging sponsorship deals. If they get their act together they would be your financial contemporary, like they used to be.
Without the Roman safety net to hoover up any losses, Chelsea will have to think differently about how they can rebuild at the times when it is necessary, how much money they can throw at a problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rubbish
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great insight as usual from Quad.
posted on 25/3/22
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 4 hours, 22 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 18 seconds ago
The only reason we turned down Saudis was not morality - even the Guardian said SMG were not directly connected to regime - it was because the offer involved debt finance.
FT covered the story last night
https://amp.ft.com/content/85584dae-10db-44dd-a922-e94047ce8606
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really not bothered about the reasons Quad, just grateful they're not in the running.
I read your article over your support for their bid and couldn't comprehend why anyone would be happy to embrace it.
Sorry, you're entitled to your opinion but my own opinion couldn't be any more polar opposite!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not all Saudis are bad people. Just like all Brit billionaires like Candy are good.
SMG had no direct links to regime, according to papers even the most critical of Saudi human rights.
And all billionaires have some dirt on them.
I want what is best for Chelsea. The Saudi bid wasn’t right because it involved too much debt finance
posted on 25/3/22
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 2 hours, 48 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 17 minutes ago
It must be a bit of a dilemma for Chelsea fans. US investors do not have the best track record in the PL and while they seemingly know how to run a business well, they do not generally put massive funds into clubs.
Any consortium bid also highlight the possible lack of financial muscle of the individual parts to be able to make significant investment as would be required by a new stadium for example.
The appeal of a single owner with access to huge funding is appealing, a la NUFC, against the prospect of normal ownership with greater (but more normal) financial constraints.
Chelsea are well run but currently Spurs and Arsenal have greater growth potential , Newcastle are now at the party and United are a sleeping giant. Will be interesting to see how they develop in the coming years
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do either Arsenal or Spurs have greater growth potential? Seriously interested in your thoughts on this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea are well run and successful and have been for many years. To a degree their finances have peaked, or to put it another way, there is a ceiling and they are pretty close to it.
If you take last season, the difference between revenues of the respective clubs was about 80m euros (£65m). That was in a season when Chelsea ran all the way to the UCL final and won it, and Spurs were out of the Europa in the round of 16.
Spurs stadium was not being utilised in the way it was intended due to covid, not just the large capacities but the additional use.
If you put Spurs in Chelsea place, competing in the UCL latter stages, gaining more of the broadcasting revenues etc then their revenues would be much greater than Chelsea's. There is also the continued expansion of the stadium use and possible sponsorship.
Chelsea have some very good sponsorship deals built on years of success making them a big brand. Spurs are a tier below, but all of this just means Spurs financial ceiling is higher and currently we are nowhere near it.
UCL participation alone would see Spurs revenues comfortably exceed Chelsea's, and the knock on effect of that runs through many elements of the business.
So yes, financially Spurs have the greater growth potential, if everything clicked into place we could increase revenues by £150m. We'd be up challenging Liverpool and closing the gap to Utd. Chelsea do not currently have that capacity for growth, unless you can tell me otherwise.
And ok, maybe i was being a bit far fetched about Arsenal as their revenues are another 40m short of ours, but they are still performing well financially depsite no UCL/Europe, despite aging sponsorship deals. If they get their act together they would be your financial contemporary, like they used to be.
Without the Roman safety net to hoover up any losses, Chelsea will have to think differently about how they can rebuild at the times when it is necessary, how much money they can throw at a problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, all ifs and buts then!
If a new owner comes and and redevelopes Stamford Bridge, that's another variable thrown in that will change the landscape.
I just go with the flow and whatever develops, so be it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Duh! We are talking about financial potential so yes, no certainties, but the prospect of UCL qualification or stadium sponsorship or growth in the use of teh stadium are not remote IFs and BUTS, they are really quite possible and may be even likley.
and certainly more deliverable than Chelsea's stadium expansion plans which were deemed unviable 4 years ago. That position will not have changed, probably worsened. If Roman wasnt prepared to back it, its unlikely anyone will. You'd probably need to relocate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean unviable 4 years ago!
It was all designed, planned, approved and ready to go - the only thing that stopped it was Roman pulling the plug after not being issued a work visa after the Salisbury poisonings!
Page 2 of 4