Asterix
Established Member
Wouldn't it be nice if he had to walk away - imagine the fire sale then.....
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/ ... 92029.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/ ... 92029.html
-
! ! ! IMPORTANT MESSAGE ! ! !
Discussions about police investigations
In light of recent developments about a player from Premier League being arrested and until there is an official announcement, ALL users should refrain from discussing or speculating about situations around personal off-pitch matters related to any Arsenal player. This is to protect you and the forum.
Users who disregard this reminder will be issued warnings and their posts will get deleted from public.
Is Abramovich in trouble?
- Thread starter Asterix
- Start date
- Replies 11
- Views 551
Gooner_Milton
Active Member
Would be nice.
Of course Chelsea will fall apart cause of their overblown wage bills. Now we don't want that do we? :wink:
These billionaire football club owners are bad for the game, not just the EPL.
Of course Chelsea will fall apart cause of their overblown wage bills. Now we don't want that do we? :wink:
These billionaire football club owners are bad for the game, not just the EPL.
Gunner4Eva
Established Member
Unless he's in for the long run, Chelsea are in trouble. They'd be the next Leeds....which would be good to see.
fuzz
Active Member
i don't know if chelsea would be that messed up once abramovic leave. Fistly i've heard he wants to increase their stadium to 55 thousand so that should help the club to become somewhat more self sufficient. Also abramovich would have to sell his shares to someone, the club would be given warning and would probably take steps to mitigate the effect of abramoic leaving.
Sigun
Well-Known Member
the club wouldent be in trouble.....they have assets.
RocktheCasbah
Established Member
Heheh, maybe Roman should ask Arsenal's advice on how dodge tax legally..
AFCG7
Established Member
They wont be in that much trouble if he leaves.. he cleared their debts.. so all their players would be assets and could be sold for "profits" wouldnt they?
dsurg
Active Member
yeah their players could be sold for profits...but those anybody remember that there wasnt any money in football b4 Abramovic came with his millionsAFCG7 said:
what that means is that the players would be have to be sold at a loss..
which is what happened to leeds
AFCG7
Established Member
yeh.. they have to be sold at a loss.. but it wont really be Chelsea's loss..since it was Roman who paid for all of them.. if he pulls out now and they need money they can sell half their squad for a fair enough amount and use that money to carry the club.
Its not like Leeds.. they had to sell players to clear huge debts.. Chelsea in effect dont have debts because Roman has cleared them all off.
Its not like Leeds.. they had to sell players to clear huge debts.. Chelsea in effect dont have debts because Roman has cleared them all off.
- Thread starter
- #10
Asterix
Established Member
That's true but they may still have to carry some of the huge wages they are currently stuck with - such as with Crespo's move to Milan, and barca's situation with Kluivert. This wouldn't send them into Leeds territory but would still be a burden.
imagine chelsea being the new leeds.
- Thread starter
- #12
Asterix
Established Member
imagine ManUre being the new Leeds!!
