Worrying time for Chelsea ?

bennyineire

Are any Chelsea fans worried over the possibility of Roman Abramovich been targeted for asset freeze if Russia decides to invade eastern Ukraine, there seems to be calls for this already http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10713040/Roman-Abramovich-should-face-sanctions-says-Vladimir-Putin-critic.html
I personally don't think Russia will invade eastern Ukraine but what the heck do I know, also even if they did I'm not sure the U.K. has the stomach to freeze the assets of all the Russian Oligarch who reside and invest in London.
But still who knows what can happen in the next year. What affect would this have on Chelsea if Roman's assets were frozen?

Agueroooo

bennyineire wrote: »

Are any Chelsea fans worried over the possibility of Roman Abramovich been targeted for asset freeze if Russia decides to invade eastern Ukraine, there seems to be calls for this already http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10713040/Roman-Abramovich-should-face-sanctions-says-Vladimir-Putin-critic.html
I personally don't think Russia will invade eastern Ukraine but what the heck do I know, also even if they did I'm not sure the U.K. has the stomach to freeze the assets of all the Russian Oligarch who reside and invest in London.
But still who knows what can happen in the next year. What affect would this have on Chelsea if Roman's assets were frozen?

They already have but not for this thread.

On the main jist of your point: It will never happen!

keeponhurling

Yes, as a Russian owned company, I suspect Chelsea will be wound up and asset stripped.

bennyineire

Agueroooo wrote: »

They already have but not for this thread.

On the main jist of your point: It will never happen!

They have invaded Crimea NOT eastern Ukraine, if Russia invade eastern Ukraine then you will see much tougher sanctions coming into play

ush

Russians own half of London. They are their new elite. Not a chance of any of this happening.

bennyineire

Mmm I really thought there would be interest in this thread ?

dreamers75

Are chelsea not solvent now as not relying on him anymore?

Could be wrong but though they functioned as a real football club now.

Blue giant

dreamers75 wrote: »

Are chelsea not solvent now as not relying on him anymore?

Could be wrong but though they functioned as a real football club now.

I'm sure they could survive reasonably well but I couldn't see any more summer spending sprees such as this year and even more so in the past. While they are a big club I don't think they would have as much revenue to finance them as the likes of Real Madrid,Bayern,Barça,United or even Arsenal would generate more income. They would certainly have to be fat more prudent in their transfers. No more selling a player fir about 2 million and then buying back for 25 a la Matic. The thing you have to remember is that without the money on offer there is nothing else there to attract players apart from Mourinho who would jump ship at the first sight of financial trouble I would imagine. Historically you would have to say United,Liverpool and Arsenal are far more prevalent in particular United and Liverpool. Obviously though this is all hypothetical so I wouldn't be worrying if I was a Chelsea fan yet

Chazz Michael Michaels

Blue giant wrote: »

I'm sure they could survive reasonably well but I couldn't see any more summer spending sprees such as this year and even more so in the past. While they are a big club I don't think they would have as much revenue to finance them as the likes of Real Madrid,Bayern,Barça,United or even Arsenal would generate more income. They would certainly have to be fat more prudent in their transfers. No more selling a player fir about 2 million and then buying back for 25 a la Matic. The thing you have to remember is that without the money on offer there is nothing else there to attract players apart from Mourinho who would jump ship at the first sight of financial trouble I would imagine. Historically you would have to say United,Liverpool and Arsenal are far more prevalent in particular United and Liverpool. Obviously though this is all hypothetical so I wouldn't be worrying if I was a Chelsea fan yet

Google "football clubs revenue 2013"

Blue giant

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Google "football clubs revenue 2013"

But that's with the success bought from the money. If the money from Abramovich dried up they wouldn't be able to afford as much in wages and transfer fees. I'm not saying they would drop dramatically but they wouldn't have the same draw to most players as the big clubs historically. You can't say much people grow up dreaming of playing for Chelsea apart from areas in London and Asia and lets face it there hasn't really been any real world beater from Asia yet and I don't see any coming through exactly

Chazz Michael Michaels

Blue giant wrote: »

But that's with the success bought from the money. If the money from Abramovich dried up they wouldn't be able to afford as much in wages and transfer fees. I'm not saying they would drop dramatically but they wouldn't have the same draw to most players as the big clubs historically. You can't say much people grow up dreaming of playing for Chelsea apart from areas in London and Asia and lets face it there hasn't really been any real world beater from Asia yet and I don't see any coming through exactly

Yeah, you're right, they are truly finished.

Tubbs4

Blue giant wrote: »

I'm sure they could survive reasonably well but I couldn't see any more summer spending sprees such as this year and even more so in the past. While they are a big club I don't think they would have as much revenue to finance them as the likes of Real Madrid,Bayern,Barça,United or even Arsenal would generate more income. They would certainly have to be fat more prudent in their transfers. No more selling a player fir about 2 million and then buying back for 25 a la Matic. The thing you have to remember is that without the money on offer there is nothing else there to attract players apart from Mourinho who would jump ship at the first sight of financial trouble I would imagine. Historically you would have to say United,Liverpool and Arsenal are far more prevalent in particular United and Liverpool. Obviously though this is all hypothetical so I wouldn't be worrying if I was a Chelsea fan yet

Last year? summer not much was spent. In Janurary they sold 2 players and got some in with change left over.
Have over 20 youngsters to sell if in trouble. Not like the end of the Bates era when money was needed.
If they go back to old times still get a few trophies without a 9 year gap so all good

bennyineire

I'm thinking there won't be to much spending from Cheski this summer or at the very least there will be very little coming for Roman

dreamers75

Tubbs4 wrote: »

If they go back to old times still get a few trophies without a 9 year gap so all good

Ummmm yah know Chelsea were **** for a bit. A lot longer than 9 years.....

Garzorico

dreamers75 wrote: »

Ummmm yah know Chelsea were **** for a bit. A lot longer than 9 years.....

Agreed we were'nt the greatest for a looooong time but in the decade prior to our new found wealth in the RA era we were on the up and up. a cup final (thrashing) here and there, top 6 team since mid nineties and 7/8 yrs in European competition (1 in the CL!)

2 Fa Cups
1 Cup Winners cup
1 League cup
1 Uefa super Cup

Not sh*t for a while then.

greendom

New stadium build will be on hold for a while I imagine

EuropeanSon

Tubbs4 wrote: »

Last year? summer not much was spent. In Janurary they sold 2 players and got some in with change left over.
Have over 20 youngsters to sell if in trouble. Not like the end of the Bates era when money was needed.
If they go back to old times still get a few trophies without a 9 year gap so all good

Summer not much was spent? Haha. Schurrle, Willian were free then? Van Ginkel even cost 9m. They spent over 60m net, which was almost 20m more than Arsenal spent in our biggest splurge in years.
Source for numbers: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/10283884/Summer-transfer-window-2013-Premier-League-report-cards-How-did-your-team-fare-this-summer.html

greendom

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Summer not much was spent? Haha. Schurrle, Willian were free then? Van Ginkel even cost 9m. They spent over 60m net, which was almost 20m more than Arsenal spent in our biggest splurge in years.
Source for numbers: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/10283884/Summer-transfer-window-2013-Premier-League-report-cards-How-did-your-team-fare-this-summer.html

Loose change from a Chelsea perspective !

CSF

Super worrying.