Yes. Hypocrite.
But money laundering? Oligarch? Human rights abuser?
In fairness he might be a dickhead, but thats as bad as it gets.
3 Likes
I don’t disagree at all- he’s not any of those, far worse, things. But his piety here is a load of bollocks.
6 Likes
3 Likes
This, most especially the part in bold, would be terrible news.
Ineos said in a statement: “Sir Jim Ratcliffe, chairman of Ineos, has made a formal bid for Chelsea FC, for £4.25bn. £2.5bn is committed to the Charitable Trust to support victims of the war, with £1.75bn committed to investment directly into the club over the next 10 years. This is a British bid, for a British club.”
1 Like
Not overly worried by that.
That is 2 Lukakus’ each season
3 Likes
So he’s basically asking for a discounted price so he can fund them instead of paying the asking price and funding them on top of that. Not sure he’s going to get anyone to bite at that particular lure.
2 Likes
I think ~2.5b is within the price expectation.
Someone’s got to buy the club, and that someone will be bringing investment with them. Being a British company probably a good thing I’d say.
That £1.75bn is likely a throw away figure to get tongues wagging and fans onside. Chelsea have stadium issues as far as I understand, and the investment would likely include any changes to the ground situation, as well as paying all the crazy wages etc they need to deal with. They’ll stay competitive, but certainly won’t be able to do what Roman could, or what the Saudi/UAE sport washers can.
1 Like
Never heard of him, anyone that follows baseball - what can you say about him?
The Dodgers are the Chelsea of the baseball world. They just throw absurd money around winning occasionally but no where as much as they should for the amount they spend on players.
6 Likes
Yeah they spent big on Mookie Betts, competitive but win a lot less than you think they should do for a club with that cash.
1 Like
Cost Spurs 1bn to renovate Spurs ground, you assume Chelsea may also renovate the old Kingston ground out at Kingston as well for the women, that’s got a hell of a lot of space to be fair.
Being on the Kings Road I can see it being more costly than Spurs, it does have some space but has a train line on one side.
3 Likes
This might come off as being dickish, but it’s not intended to be. Im just very familiar the lack of commercial viability of the women’s game having been around it for 20 years, so is there any reason to redevelop a facility solely for the women? Is there any way to make the money back on that? I get things commercially are finally kicking up in the women’s game, and at some point you figure investment may accelerate that, but are we there?
2 Likes
SB will be tough to redevelop.
It has a very conveluted ownership structure where by the pitch is owned in trust and is seperate from the rest of the stadium and they to have a controlling say. Remember when RA talked about building a new stadium and they stepped in and prevented the club from leaving SB a few years after RA bought them and there isn’t a huge amount of space left to expand as you have 2 hotels and terrace housing that will prevent major growth.
Your an amateur at being dickish.
That’s like the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me
2 Likes
What’s the going rate for Werner to Lukaku these days?
Depends. Are we buying the player or are Utd or Chelsea?
Well the place is like a shed so I think they would undertake some improvements, in fact it could easily be redeveloped into their training complex like Kirkby.
1 Like
I’d say a minimum of 3 flushes, just to be sure 