Chelsea put new stadium plans on hold

GavRedKing

Just splitting this from the Feedback thread

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/44315033

My two cents, I think Roman is posturing to the UK here over his Visa issues.

Chelsea, only a few weeks back bought out some more ground on the OAP home directly behind the stadium and promised to re-house veterans as well as buying out right to light zones of other residents as recently as March.

Now, hes clearly one of the most noticeable Russians in the UK so it could be a ploy form his buddy in the Kremlin.

Other theories include him putting the club up for sale and not wanting to commit to a 4 year build costing about 1 billion.

Either way, I think the turmoil of not hiring a new manager and giving the players stability will cost us for next season already, I wouldn't be expecting anything from Chelsea next year.

StringerBell

I'd say your on the money with the visa issue.

McGrath5

He does give of the impression that he has gotten cold feet for his Chelsea project.

All of this uncertainty is doing no favors for the football club.

Kiith

Yeah, it's definitely a politics thing. Britain being tough on Russian business interests. I'm sure he'll find a way around it, or just stay on his newly purchased Israeli passport and hope things blow over in a few months. Can't work on it, but he'll figure out a way around that (or just do his business in his boat off the coast :P)

Robxxx7

perhaps we'll see this back in the papers again soon

GavRedKing

GavRedKing wrote: »

Just splitting this from the Feedback thread

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/44315033

My two cents, I think Roman is posturing to the UK here over his Visa issues.

Chelsea, only a few weeks back bought out some more ground on the OAP home directly behind the stadium and promised to re-house veterans as well as buying out right to light zones of other residents as recently as March.

Now, hes clearly one of the most noticeable Russians in the UK so it could be a ploy form his buddy in the Kremlin.

Other theories include him putting the club up for sale and not wanting to commit to a 4 year build costing about 1 billion.

Either way, I think the turmoil of not hiring a new manager and giving the players stability will cost us for next season already, I wouldn't be expecting anything from Chelsea next year.

Potential dangerous side effects for Chelsea though if the UK government decides to call his bluff on this. It would dovetail with the anti-Russia mood currently popular among Western governments and politicians.

GavRedKing

Deleted User wrote: »

Potential dangerous side effects for Chelsea though if the UK government decides to call his bluff on this. It would dovetail with the anti-Russia mood currently popular among Western governments and politicians.

Romans already an Israeli citizen at this point so he can go back to the UK on a non-working Visa.

I think if the UK took a very serious stance on the large amount of Russian millionaire/billionaires in London, theyed be causing more harm for themselves than good.

I do think we'll get the stadium either completed rebuilt or the shed and matthew harding stands will be de-developed, at some stage over the next decade.

Trigger

So he has withdrawn his application for a Visa now and will travel on his Israeli documents and a non working visa, will this have any implications on Chelsea, does he have to step down from any positions?

GavRedKing

astradave wrote: »

So he has withdrawn his application for a Visa now and will travel on his Israeli documents and a non working visa, will this have any implications on Chelsea, does he have to step down from any positions?

The board will carry out his duties between them I'd imagine.

Harry Palmr

The guardian ran a story on his Israeli visa and how it'll restrict his working life

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/29/roman-abramovich-cannot-work-in-uk-israeli-passport-chelsea-fc

Roman Abramovich, the owner of Chelsea football club, who has faced difficulties obtaining a new UK visa, will not be allowed to work in Britain if he travels here on his new Israeli passport, Downing Street has said.

It emerged on Monday that the formerly Russian-based billionaire, a regular presence in Britain since he bought Chelsea in 2003, had been granted Israeli citizenship and was moving to Tel Aviv.

Abramovich, who had reportedly faced delays in renewing his UK visa, will be allowed to visit the UK visa-free for up to six months at a time with his Israeli passport, but cannot work in the country, Theresa May’s spokesman said.

Trigger

GavRedKing wrote: »

The board will carry out his duties between them I'd imagine.

So will he have to officially step down?

GavRedKing

astradave wrote: »

So will he have to officially step down?

I dont know TBH.

I imagine he'll stay on, he can still be a chairman in another country.

The board, Bruce Buck or Marina Granovskaia have long been the face of the club at anything official from signing players, contracts and sponsorship deals.

They'll continue with the day to day running of the cub in the UK I'd imagine under Romans guide form Israel or Russia or wherever his yacht or plane is that day.

Zico !

I read somewhere that hes going to sell chelsea

super_furry

Zico ! wrote: »

I read somewhere that hes going to sell chelsea

Problem is that he’s owed close to a billion by the club and that’s really going to put off any potential investors. I think Chelsea could be in real trouble here, particularly big the visa issue with the UK government goes sour.

GavRedKing

I dont think he'll sell the cub anytime soon..

If he does, theres a 18 month period to pay back the money hes invested interest free so if he does, only the mega rich elite 0.0001% could afford to buy Chelsea and then pay off Roman.

Drumpot

GavRedKing wrote: »

I dont think he'll sell the cub anytime soon..

If he does, theres a 18 month period to pay back the money hes invested interest free so if he does, only the mega rich elite 0.0001% could afford to buy Chelsea and then pay off Roman.

How much is he owed ?

The club looks like its worth anywhere from 1 Billion +

https://www.statista.com/statistics/267294/fc-chelsea-london-brand-team-value/

GavRedKing

Drumpot wrote: »

How much is he owed ?

The club looks like its worth anywhere from 1 Billion +

https://www.statista.com/statistics/267294/fc-chelsea-london-brand-team-value/

I think the last figure I seen was about 950m. :pac:

Financially speaking, he doesn't need to sell Chelsea, his wealth is actually going up again, he also doesn't need to keep us on but he does genuinely seem to love the club.

Thats why I think its more posturing than anything else.

It is going to hurt Chelsea on the pitch though, thats my most immediate worry, Courtois said he and the players wanted stability after the cup final and then this springs up some 10 days later.

Thats also before we sack Conte and replace him and dip into the transfer market all the while hoping we keep the better players.

Its never dull at Chelsea anyway. :pac:

Gbear

It'd cause absolute meltdowns throughout London if West Ham were seen to have been handed a stadium for peanuts on one hand and Chelsea were forced into administration through forcing out their owner, to whom they're massively indebted, on the other.

Actually I can't really think of any way that could happen. Probably wishful thinking. :pac:

Still, it could put them into limbo if he disengages from the club.

listermint

Well there is the whole brexit thing folks....

Labour and materials could become an awful lot cheaper soon enough. There is vast savings for a Billionaire to make rather than lumping it all in now.

Mitch Connor

GavRedKing wrote: »

I dont think he'll sell the cub anytime soon..

If he does, theres a 18 month period to pay back the money hes invested interest free so if he does, only the mega rich elite 0.0001% could afford to buy Chelsea and then pay off Roman.

I thought he converted his loans to chelsea into shareholdings or something a good few years back, which put Chelsea in the clear regarding any money he invested.

If there is still 1billion to be paid back that would change things considerably from a selling perspective.

Still, I don't doubt there would be interest in them even at that level and higher

Zebra3

Maybe Abramovich will just cut his losses and run.

There’d be no shortage of wealthy people willing to buy a PL club in London, especially the only one that has won either of the two trophies that really count in the last ten years or so.

All a bit hypocritical of the Brits to be having a fit over criminal Russian money but that’s what they do best, I guess.

They sure as hell won’t be going after dodgy Arab money. :rolleyes:

OneEightSeven

It took the UK 8 years to deport Egyptian-born Islamic fundamentalist Abu Hamza, who is actually rotting away in an America prison, yet a man who pumped £1 billion+ into an English football club can't get a visa because Putin sent someone to assassinate a double agent.

Europeans just don't do common sense immigration, we just love making it more difficult for ourselves.

Deise Vu

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I thought he converted his loans to chelsea into shareholdings or something a good few years back, which put Chelsea in the clear regarding any money he invested.

If there is still 1billion to be paid back that would change things considerably from a selling perspective.

Still, I don't doubt there would be interest in them even at that level and higher

There is a share premium account (same as share capital effectively) on Chelsea's Balance Sheet of £1.09BN.

If someone was to pay £1Bn for Chelsea, Roman would be writing off over £100M of his investment (share capital plus share premium). And Chelsea still wouldn't have a new stadium. I'm guessing somebody in the Home Office is not a Chelsea fan.

Deise Vu

OneEightSeven wrote: »

It took the UK 8 years to deport Egyptian-born Islamic fundamentalist Abu Hamza, who is actually rotting away in an America prison, yet a man who pumped £1 billion+ into an English football club can't get a visa because Putin sent someone to assassinate a double agent.

Europeans just don't do common sense immigration, we just love making it more difficult for ourselves.

There is slightly more than the Skirpals concerning Western Govts at the moment. There's the small matters of the Crimean invasion, Ukraine proxy war, shooting down passenger jets, interfering in US elections and the Brexit referendums. Putin and a small coterie of crooks surrounding him are a serious threat to us all.

The really scary thing is that they are doing all this so their dopey countrymen will ignore the rape of their own country and Putin probably couldn't spend a rouble of the fortune he has pillaged estimated between $40BN and $200Bn even if he wanted to. He is hardly going to turn up in Vegas some night lobbing a million bucks on black or sail into Monaco on a $500M yacht. Money is literally useless to him but he has zero problem with starting a war if it plays well at home. How scarily psychotic is that?

Zebra3

Deise Vu wrote: »

OneEightSeven wrote: »

It took the UK 8 years to deport Egyptian-born Islamic fundamentalist Abu Hamza, who is actually rotting away in an America prison, yet a man who pumped £1 billion+ into an English football club can't get a visa because Putin sent someone to assassinate a double agent.

Europeans just don't do common sense immigration, we just love making it more difficult for ourselves.

There is slightly more than the Skirpals concerning Western Govts at the moment. There's the small matters of the Crimean invasion, Ukraine proxy war, shooting down passenger jets, interfering in US elections and the Brexit referendums. Putin and a small coterie of crooks surrounding him are a serious threat to us all.

The really scary thing is that they are doing all this so their dopey countrymen will ignore the rape of their own country and Putin probably couldn't spend a rouble of the fortune he has pillaged estimated between $40BN and $200Bn even if he wanted to. He is hardly going to turn up in Vegas some night lobbing a million bucks on black or sail into Monaco on a $500M yacht. Money is literally useless to him but he has zero problem with starting a war if it plays well at home. How scarily psychotic is that?

Still no proof who carried out the chemical attack, and Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the stuff you’ve listed which there is no evidence for pales in too insignificance compared to American and British crimes such as the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq and the constant American interference in other countries around the world.

Oh, and the destruction of Libya, nice job as well, eh?

And the West has no issues when it’s them shooting down civilian airliners and murdering innocent people.

Deise Vu

listermint wrote: »

Well there is the whole brexit thing folks....

Labour and materials could become an awful lot cheaper soon enough. There is vast savings for a Billionaire to make rather than lumping it all in now.

I don't know where you are getting that from. If the Brits stay in the customs union nothing will change, if they crash out with no agreement or a bad agreement there will be customs duty on any imported materials.Also Stg will plummet in value having the same effect. And the whole point of 'taking back their borders' is to keep Johnny Foreigner out. I'm not sure how precluding Poles and Irish from the UK jobs market is going to reduce wage costs in the building sector.

Deise Vu

Zebra3 wrote: »

Still no proof who carried out the chemical attack, and Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the stuff you’ve listed which there is no evidence for pales in too insignificance compared to American and British crimes such as the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq and the constant American interference in other countries around the world.

Oh, and the destruction of Libya, nice job as well, eh?

And the West has no issues when it’s them shooting down civilian airliners and murdering innocent people.

If I may say so that's a startling post. It doesn't really matter what I think, it's what Western Govt's think so I'll leave the whataboutery to you.

Lukker-

I'm not sure what a club like Chelsea would fetch on the open market now, but I'd wager it'd be a fair bit over what Abramovich has ploughed into the club. I think it was around 2008 or so a German consortium was offering about £800m which was quickly shot down. That was before the revenue streams were significantly bolstered in recent years with some of the strongest commercial deals in England at a club not named Manchester United. As of June 2017 Forbes value the club at £1.45 BN

The site of Stamford Bridge alone is worth £500m too, although any sale or movement would have to be sanctioned by the CPO.

thebaz

at this rate everton will have ther new stadium built before Chelsea - tide changeing ??

Lukker-

thebaz wrote: »

at this rate everton will have ther new stadium built before Chelsea - tide changeing ??

Even if Everton build a 60k stadium they would make less in match day revenue due to the London tax on ticket prices

Harry Palmr

A billion quid to built a 60k stadium is nuts really. Regardless of the ability to pay for it.

the untitled user

OneEightSeven wrote: »

It took the UK 8 years to deport Egyptian-born Islamic fundamentalist Abu Hamza, who is actually rotting away in an America prison, yet a man who pumped £1 billion+ into an English football club can't get a visa because Putin sent someone to assassinate a double agent.

Europeans just don't do common sense immigration, we just love making it more difficult for ourselves.

I believe it actually has more to do with a long overdue clampdown on money laundering by the Brits, possibly something they feel obliged to do to give themselves a more credible standing when it comes to EU negotations around the City of London. They have basically begun to force foreign agents to prove where they got their money from and Abramovic reportedly won't play ball with this. I wonder why...



Let's face it, bad blood with Putin never stopped the UK govt and the City of London from debasing themselves to get their hands on the £400,000,000 or so Putin and his cronies have invested in the UK. Why would it now?

Lukker-

the untitled user wrote: »

I believe it actually has more to do with a long overdue clampdown on money laundering by the Brits, possibly something they feel obliged to do to give themselves a more credible standing when it comes to EU negotations around the City of London. They have basically begun to force foreign agents to prove where they got their money from and Abramovic reportedly won't play ball with this. I wonder why...



Let's face it, bad blood with Putin never stopped the UK govt and the City of London from debasing themselves to get their hands on the £400,000,000 or so Putin and his cronies have invested in the UK. Why would it now?

Any link for this?

the untitled user

Lukker- wrote: »

Any link for this?

It's actually referenced in the Guardian article on the story.

The government has since launched a further crackdown on wealthy investors coming to the UK and, it is believed, would have required some financial disclosures if Abramovich’s UK visa were to be renewed.

I think it's also mentioned in their piece about dodgy Russian investment in the UK. The bit about the EU though is my own speculation, but the UK government have certainly been coming under pressure from international agencies such as the OECD for years about it now so I'd be surprised if it hasn't been an issue. I remember coming across figures before that estimated as much as 40% of all money flowing through the City of London is essentially cash that's being laundered (an opinion piece in the Guardian two or three years ago iirc).


Not to mention, the UK press tendency to rail at Ireland for facilitating complex corporate structures that were basically invented by the money movers in the City of London has more a whiff of Tory damage limitation about it.

GavRedKing

Lukker- wrote: »

I'm not sure what a club like Chelsea would fetch on the open market now, but I'd wager it'd be a fair bit over what Abramovich has ploughed into the club. I think it was around 2008 or so a German consortium was offering about £800m which was quickly shot down. That was before the revenue streams were significantly bolstered in recent years with some of the strongest commercial deals in England at a club not named Manchester United. As of June 2017 Forbes value the club at £1.45 BN

The site of Stamford Bridge alone is worth £500m too, although any sale or movement would have to be sanctioned by the CPO.

Wont happen in the foreseeable future.

The CPO blocked any attempt to be re-located in similar plans for White City and Battersea and it would have cost about half what the new stadium would cost.

Now, the board did try to sneakily buy up CPO shares to force a motion through that would free up the freeholding at the Bridge and I think since thenm the CPO have been playing hard ball which, for the better interest of the club as whole, is utterly pointless.

Its brilliant that we could have stayed at the Bridge and build a 60k stadium on site but had we commissioned a build a few years back, chances are we;d be in a new stadium by now, the club is at least a decade behind some clubs in that regard and with the money as insane as it is now, losing about a million every match week on tickets alone to other top 6 clubs is stupid, thats before you factor in drinks, food, merch and the likes.

Its a revenue stream that in my life time would never be clawed back but I cant imagine that Roman was pumping 1 billion of his own money in, naming rights and all that would have paid off a chunk of it, I think the club playing hard balll with the home office is only going to badly effect one party, Chelsea.

I cant imagine the home office give a toss about Roman throwing his toys out of the pram.

Lukker-

the untitled user wrote: »

It's actually referenced in the Guardian article on the story.

I think it's also mentioned in their piece about dodgy Russian investment in the UK..

It's just politicking. I wonder will the good Sheikh have to explain his wealth? Or Usmanov at Arsenal, Aeroflot and the Qatari Royal Bank sponsoring United. Oh no, but the only dirty money in football is Russian.

He should have never have been approved for the takeover if that was the case. Everything was above aboard at the time, now 14 years later, they have some questions, well it's a bit late when you allowed/approved/encouraged him to take over a football club.

thebaz

Question for Chelsea fans ?

Has Roman lost in interest in Chelsea - no new stadium, still no confirmed manager - found it strange last summer when you bought Dannty Drinkwater and then later being linked with Crouch , more Watford type signing than the new title chasing Chelsea ?

Lukker-

thebaz wrote: »

Question for Chelsea fans ?

Has Roman lost in interest in Chelsea - no new stadium, still no confirmed manager - found it strange last summer when you bought Dannty Drinkwater and then later being linked with Crouch , more Watford type signing than the new title chasing Chelsea ?

If he had lost interest he would put us on the market plain and simple.

Everyone knows the stadium decision was related to politicking more than football. It wasn't coming out of his pocket regardless.

The aim has always been to become self-sufficient, which he has largely achieved, even though he has pumped over a billion into the club, he would recoup that + a tidy profit if he were to sell.

Really it's trying to operate on a different model. Look at the money United, City have spent, it's no guarantee of success really. There really is no point getting into a pissing contest with either club, because they just operate in a different stratosphere to everyone else.

ozzy jr

Lukker- wrote: »

The aim has always been to become self-sufficient, which he has largely achieved, even though he has pumped over a billion into the club.

Ffs

Oh look we made a £15m profit (just ignore that £1 billion though).

Lukker-

ozzy jr wrote: »

Ffs

Oh look we made a £15m profit (just ignore that £1 billion though).

Laugh all you want, but it's true. He could not put a penny more into the club (even call back his loan) and we'd be able to service the debt and compete for top 4.

If he sold the club, he'd be looking at clearing his debt + making a good profit, as most analysts value the club at between £1.5 bn- £1.7 bn

His debt has also been at the same level for about 7 years. Even look at transfer net spend for the last 6, they are in a profit still. The initial investment period is over, and he now owns a club that no longer dips into his coffers.

LuckyLloyd

I don't see why the UK government would be denying him a visa, he has invested massively in the club throughout the years. But that's politics and Britain is in bad shape politically at present.

Aside from that however, he should wait for Brexit to unfold before building. In the event of a hard Brexit, labour costs will plummet in the UK and it may become much cheaper overnight to build a stadium; it may also become clear that investing further in Chelsea is a bad idea.

ozzy jr

Lukker- wrote: »

Laugh all you want, but it's true.

It's not.

Look at the figures here (the 4th graph in particular),

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/

Lukker-

ozzy jr wrote: »

It's not.

Look at the figures here (the 4th graph in particular),

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/

That's from Jan 2017 and includes figures 'exceptional payments' that won't be repeated. Namely the £70m we paid to finish the Adidas deal early. That is then bolstered by new commercial revenue, and the second biggest kit deal in the league with Nike. It was also post Brexit and included £30m lost on cash flow hedges.

By and large, if not in and around the black, Chelsea will be close enough and have been for the last 5 years.

GavRedKing

Lukker- wrote: »

That's from Jan 2017 and includes figures 'exceptional payments' that won't be repeated. Namely the £70m we paid to finish the Adidas deal early. That is then bolstered by new commercial revenue, and the second biggest kit deal in the league with Nike. It was also post Brexit and included £30m lost on cash flow hedges.

By and large, if not in and around the black, Chelsea will be close enough and have been for the last 5 years.

Sssshh dont you know we're always making a loss.

Mitch Connor

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I don't see why the UK government would be denying him a visa, he has invested massively in the club throughout the years. But that's politics and Britain is in bad shape politically at present.

Aside from that however, he should wait for Brexit to unfold before building. In the event of a hard Brexit, labour costs will plummet in the UK and it may become much cheaper overnight to build a stadium; it may also become clear that investing further in Chelsea is a bad idea.

From the little I understand - a requirement of the visa is declaring the sources of income/wealth, which he wouldn't do, so was not granted a visa.

Isreal, where he got a visa doesnt have such a requirement, at least not for the first 6 years or something like that.

Tom Mann Centuria

Mitch Connor wrote: »

From the little I understand - a requirement of the visa is declaring the sources of income/wealth, which he wouldn't do, so was not granted a visa.

Isreal, where he got a visa doesnt have such a requirement, at least not for the first 6 years or something like that.

He's getting an Israeli passport, not a visa.

Lukker-

Mitch Connor wrote: »

From the little I understand - a requirement of the visa is declaring the sources of income/wealth, which he wouldn't do, so was not granted a visa.

Isreal, where he got a visa doesnt have such a requirement, at least not for the first 6 years or something like that.

What you are talking about is the Magnistky Act, and it hasn't been applied to him, yet at least

The Home Office hasn't requested a thing from him. Just delayed any decision w without giving him any update. So he withdrew and got Israeli citizenship, as was his right as a Jewish man.

FYI Israeli's can travel to the UK for up to 6 months without requiring a visa, so he's free to travel over, but he cannot conducts any business related activity.

ozzy jr

Lukker- wrote: »

By and large, if not in and around the black, Chelsea will be close enough and have been for the last 5 years.

Being "close enough" and "in and around the black" isnt really being self sufficient though is it?

In the last 5 seasons where financial results are available they made a total loss of over £100m (pre tax).

You can say it includes "exceptional items that won't be repeated", but the 2016-17 profit of £15.3m included the sale of Oscar for £60m. How often are they going to sell a player for that price?

Going on their financial results from the last season they missed out on the CL, they won't make an operating profit this season either.

Lukker-

ozzy jr wrote: »

Being "close enough" and "in and around the black" isnt really being self sufficient though is it?

In the last 5 seasons where financial results are available they made a total loss of over £100m (pre tax).

You can say it includes "exceptional items that won't be repeated", but the 2016-17 profit of £15.3m included the sale of Oscar for £60m. How often are they going to sell a player for that price?

Going on their financial results from the last season they missed out on the CL, they won't make an operating profit this season either.

Look at the transfer net spend of the last 5 seasons. The Oscar example, while an extraordinary sale, isn't against the grain of what the club has achieved visa vis player trading. Out of the top 6 only Liverpool have spent less net on transfers in the last 5 years afaik.

You can't compare the last time they weren't in the CL either, as any loss this season will be mitigated by 1) They are in the Europa league, a good run can see similar earnings than a group stage run in the CL 2) The Nike deal

Some revenue streams aren't as mature as other big institutions, but it's naive to say the club have been reliant on Abramovich in the last 5-6 years.

thebaz

apparently Britains richest person has put in a bid for Chelsea - but Roman rejected it - interesting summer for Chelsea

Lukker-

thebaz wrote: »

apparently Britains richest person has put in a bid for Chelsea - but Roman rejected it - interesting summer for Chelsea

But I thought if Roman got bored of the club Chelsea would just be wound up?

The bid was for about £2bn too - but he's a United fan...