Chelsea: From Family Club to Global Brand (Published in Insight Magazine)

With big money and grand trophies to play for, Chelsea fan Drew Goodsell is not overly concerned about the dustbin of history.

If you’re a regular spectator of football then you will be fully aware of the teams considered to have “no history”, who are regarded as clubs of the millennial generation. The past 14 years have seen Chelsea FC bear this ‘Millennial Club’ label; and 2003 is what many fans consider to be Chelsea’s formative year, it being the moment when Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich became sole owner of ‘Chelski Football Club.’

The myth of a club with no history is not borne out by reality. Nonetheless there is something to it. Clubs like Chelsea have been transformed since the turn of the century, to such an extent that it is debatable whether they really remain the same club as before.

Chelsea has not always had rich owners, but they’ve slowly been gaining a distinct financial prowess and boosting their status as both a business and a brand.

During the first 77 years of the club’s existence, it was owned and run by descendants of the original founders. In 1982 the club was ‘rescued’ by businessman Ken Bates. Bates’ acquisition of the club for only £1 initiated a transition towards the Chelsea we know today.

After taking responsibility for Chelsea’s debts, Bates’ plan was to implement a revitalising new business model based on shopping, leisure and tourism as much as football. This was a model that not many other clubs were willing to follow, due to its ‘complex corporate structure’. Within the redevelopment of Stamford Bridge stadium, Bates had plans for two hotels, multiple restaurants, two retail stores and a health club with a spa on site, changing Stamford Bridge Stadium into ‘Chelsea Village’ – the butt of many a jibe from rival clubs and their supporters.

Under Bates’ regime, Chelsea accumulated £80m worth of debt but often qualified for the Champions League, and, after a strong 2002/03 Premier League season, investment was the next step. This investment would be the start of big things for Chelsea Football Club – a move that would take them from just ticking over annually to becoming a super power in the world of football.

With the Abramovich takeover in July 2003, the transformation was well on the way to completion. But it also turned Chelsea into a target for everyone else – rightfully envied, but unfairly criticised, due to the privileged financial status the club now enjoyed.

With a new level of finance, the outlook of the club’s hierarchy changed immediately. Previously, a top four Premier League finish was the only aim; now came the expectation of winning trophies. At the end of the 2003/04 Premier League season, manager Claudio Ranieri was sacked for finishing second in the league, even though he was beaten to the title only by an Arsenal side which was widely held to be ‘invincible’.

Since that moment the club has only gotten stronger in every aspect. To many, it is still the same team that they have been going to see for years, and the same club that they have always loved. But to others, it is totally unrecognisable from the club that for years bore the brunt of visiting supporters’ jokes. To some extent, they are right. Chelsea is no longer a family run club and is fast becoming one of the biggest brands in world football.

Now that they’re climbing the ladder and increasing the revenue stream year on year, is the success of the club and the transition into a global brand all down to the Abramovich takeover? Of course it is the case that his investment has changed the fortunes of the club, and with a brand-new Stamford Bridge stadium on the way (costing Abramovich more than £500m of his own money), the growth of the club looks set to continue.

Perhaps such developments are down to Abramovich hiring the correct personnel. Unlike Ken Bates, he has made calculated and smart moves, especially the appointment of Marina Granovskaia, currently responsible for all player transactions.

As a measure of their overall financial and popular success, the value attached to the Chelsea team shirt is a good indication. The 2017/18 Premier League season will see Chelsea’s shirt bringing in a minimum of £110m.

Chelsea stand at seventh position in the 2016 Forbes Richest Football Clubs list, with a current financial value of $1.66bn (£1.15bn). The growth is impressive, but, if they want to be one of the largest sports clubs in the world, they’ve got a long way to go. The NFL’s Dallas Cowboys are leading the way at $4bn, and Real Madrid are the leading football club at $3.7bn.

It may take time, but the groundwork is in place to make Chelsea a world superpower. When the stakes are this high, the alleged absence of club history hardly figures in the minds of millennial fans like me.

Chelsea Football Club: From Family Club to Global Brand (Insight Magazine Draft)

If you’re a regular viewer of football matches, or if you’re fortunate enough to get tickets to a match, then you’ll be aware that there are certain clubs that are considered to have “no history”, and are considered to be clubs born in the Millennial generation.

If you’re not aware of this, then for the past 14 years, Chelsea has been the club that has been the bearer of this ‘Millennial Club’ label.

Since 2003, the face of football has been changing, and there have been certain events that have led to the ‘regeneration’ of football. 2003 is coincidentally the same year that many football fans believe that Chelsea Football Club were created, or perhaps they should be referred to as ‘Chelski Football Club.’

The ‘lack of history’ is something that has always been discussed since the first large scale foreign takeover of a football club in the Premier League, but the claims are farfetched. Admittedly, the club is not historically one of the most successful clubs, and like all clubs, they have had their struggles too, but in the modern financial market, and the modern football market, the history they do have cannot be ignored due to the ignorance of the fans desire to create chants on the terraces.

Chelsea is not a club that has always had rich owners, and it has not always had the powers they have now to become a global superpower that they are slowly becoming, both in terms of financial prowess and their status as a business and brand. For the first 77 years of the running of the club, it was owned and run by descendants of the founder of the club, until in 1982 the club was ‘rescued’ by English businessman Ken Bates, who bought the club for only £1, a move which saw the start of the changing face of the club.

Bates revolutionised the club. After taking over the responsibility of the clubs’ current debts, his plan was to develop the club and change it from a family run club, to a business model. Coincidentally, it would be a business model that not many other clubs would follow, due to the ‘complex corporate structure’ of the remodelled club. With the redevelopment of Stamford Bridge stadium, Bates included plans for two hotels, multiple restaurants, two retail stores and a health club with a spa on site, changing ‘Stamford Bridge Stadium’ into ‘Chelsea Village’, again a move which was the butt of a joke by many rival clubs.

After the club had accumulated £80m worth of debt, and had qualified for the Champions League after a strong 2002/03 Premier League season, investment was the next stage, and this investment would be the start of big things for Chelsea Football Club. A move that would take them from just ticking over annually, to becoming a super power in the world of football.

When the move was completed in July 2003, it was heavily frowned upon by those rival fans who referred to Chelsea as a joke club. Suddenly, they were the enemy of everyone. Rightfully envied, but unfairly criticised, due to the financial stature the club now held. With the finances, the outlook of the clubs’ hierarchy changed immediately. Previously, only a top 4 Premier League finish was the aim, but instantaneously, with some investment came the expectation to win trophies. This showed, when at the end of the 2003/04 Premier League season, then manager Claudio Ranieri was sacked for finishing second in the league, only being beaten to the title by the ‘Invincible’ Arsenal side.

Since that moment, the club has gone from strength to strength in every aspect. To many, it is still the same club that they have been going to see for years, and the same club that they have always loved. But to others, it is totally unrecognisable from the same club that took the brunt of the jokes from the opposition supporters for years. And to some extent, they are right. Chelsea is no longer a family run club. It is fast becoming one of the biggest brands in world football.

The investment off the pitch has changed the fortunes on the pitch, with Chelsea winning 4 Premier League titles since the takeover, in comparison to the 1 that had been won prior to that. As well as this, the club won the illustrious Champions League title in 2012 that the latest owner had craved since his takeover in 2003, highlighting the transition from a ‘big’ Premier League club, to one of the world’s elite clubs.

What many don’t realise is that although Chelsea are usually forceful in the transfer window through the owners financing, they’re one of only four clubs that have appeared in the top 10 football clubs globally in the Deloitte Football Money League for the last 16 consecutive years, dating back to 2001 and prior to the takeover.

But now that they’re climbing the ladder and have an increasing revenue stream year on year, is the success of the club and the transition into a global brand all down to the Abramovich takeover? To some degree yes, but only due to decision making and not his finances. Of course, it is natural that his investment has changed the fortunes of the club, and with a brand-new Stamford Bridge stadium on the way, costing Abramovich more than £500m of his personal money, the growth of the club is going to continue.

What is the growth of the club and the development into a global brand down to? Abramovich’s hiring of the correct personnel. Unlike Ken Bates during his reign, Abramovich has made calculated and smart moves, especially with the appointments of Marina Granovskaia, currently responsible for player transactions, with deals such as the sale of Oscar to Shanghai SIPG to £60m and David Luiz to Paris Saint-Germain for £50m amongst her best negotiations, as well as the appointment of Christian Purslow as Managing Director for Chelsea Football Club.

The appointment of Purslow has set the ball rolling for the club in their bid to become of the world’s most desirable clubs, enlisting some of the world’s largest and most desirable brands to get on board with the club’s project.

Before Purslow joined, Chelsea already had a club record 10-year shirt manufacturing deal with Adidas in place worth £300m, but due to the negotiating power and the stature of Purslow, he managed to negotiate a deal with Nike worth £900m for 15 years, doubling the annual shirt manufacturing income, and even allowing the club to take a one off £75m hit on cancelling their deal with Adidas early. Other deals to note include the shirt sponsorship deals, with energy drink Carabao being brought in to sponsor the training kit for 3 years at £10m each year, the first of its kind for the club. Alongside this, Chelsea allowed their long partnership with Samsung to run out to negotiate a new contract with another brand, and secured the finances of Yokohama Tyres to the tune of £40m a year, over double what they were being paid by Samsung, at a mere £18m.

Only a few years ago, shirts were not as lucrative as they are now, but at the start of the 2017/18 Premier League season, Chelsea’s shirt will be bringing them in a minimum of £110m each year.

With the current set up, Chelsea stand at 7^th in the 2016 Forbes Richest Football Clubs list, with a current financial value of $1.66bn (£1.15bn). The growth is phenomenal, but still, if they want to be one of the largest sports clubs in the world, they’ve got a long way to go, with the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys leading the way at $4bn, and Real Madrid being the leading football club at $3.7bn.

It may take it’s time, but the groundwork is in place to make Chelsea a world superpower. The future is bright.

‘Hidden Illnesses’ Badged by TfL (Published on Rising East 3/5/17)

TfL’s new badge encourages passengers to do the right thing.

 A new badge released by Transport for London (TfL) is designed to help those who have special need of a seat on the London public transport network.

The blue badge saying ‘Please Offer Me A Seat’, is now available for passengers who are disabled, or who have illnesses which may be ‘hidden’.

Following on from the ‘Baby On Board’ badge, the decision to make the new badge a permanent fixture, comes after a six-week trial in autumn 2016.

During the trial period, more than 1,200 people reported on their experience of wearing the badge. A total of 72% of journeys were made easier because of the badge, and 86% of respondents felt that the badge made them more confident about making people aware of their needs.

The trial also showed that 98% of those who participated would recommend the badge to someone who might benefit from it.

Not everyone has welcomed it, however. In an interview with BBC Newsbeat, Amy, a 24-year old university student who suffers from lupus, reported that people on the Tube either did not notice the badge, or did not offer her a seat even if they had seen it.

“I’ve only been offered a seat once,” Amy explained. “Lupus is an auto-immune condition where my immune system attacks my body instead of fighting illnesses and infections. On a daily basis, I struggle with fatigue and pain. I take a lot of medication to combat the symptoms, but I also get side-effects from the medications, which are debilitating.”

But Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan insisted that “these blue badges will make a real difference to passengers who need a seat but just haven’t felt confident enough to ask for one.”

London’s transport commissioner, Mike Brown, added: “I hope that its permanent introduction will allow more people to travel with ease and in comfort. As they become more widely recognised, more and more customers will be looking out for the blue badges and I hope offering their seat to fellow passengers with a greater need.”

Badge wearers will not be asked to provide TfL with their medical history or evidence from a doctor. TfL will issue a badge for every applicant. It is not clear what sanctions will be available if anyone is found to have used the badge fraudulently.

Available at – http://risingeast.co.uk/hidden-illnesses-badged-by-tfl/

Apprentice Entrepreneurs Enter A Dragon’s Den (Published on Rising East 6/3/17)

Business hopefuls strut their stuff at UEL’s Knowledge Dock.

East London’s annual E-Factor competition is underway, with budding entrepreneurs pitching their business ideas in the hope of gaining an investment package for their start-up businesses.

This year the competition attracted 84 entrants, up from last year’s total of 68. The Alan Sugar-wannabes have already been cut down to a short list of 21, who have been put through their paces in an entrepreneurial boot camp.

The boot camp ran from Tuesday 15 February to Thursday 17 February, with the entrepreneurs and their teams taking part in exercises designed to test their abilities and finesse their business models, such as marketing and finance workshops, as well as team building tasks.

In the coming weeks, the shortlist of 21 will be required to take part in further exercises to whittle the competition down even further, with the semi-final scheduled to take place in the Knowledge Dock on the University of East London’s Docklands Campus on 30 March.

Once the semi-final has been concluded, the remaining hopefuls will need to present their business plans to an invited audience at the final, which is due to take place on 18 May in Bank Street, Canary Wharf, where the winner will eventually be given the help and investment they require to start their business. The investment package includes a £6,000 grant.

Each hopeful entrepreneur has created a video pitch for the competition, which is available to view on a playlist here.

Available at – http://risingeast.co.uk/apprentice-entrepreneurs-enter-a-dragons-den/

‘Urban Exploring’: Criminal or Crafty? (Published on Rising East 27/2/17)

With One Canada Square as the latest target, should ‘urban exploring’ be a criminal offense? 

In recent months, since the back end of 2016, YouTube especially has seen an influx of ‘Urban Exploring’ videos, also known as UrbEx, uploaded to the site.

Many view the kind of activity featured in these videos, as a criminal offence; and in some regards they’re right. Most recently, YouTuber NightScape jumped a security barrier after hours at One Canada Square, climbed a fire escape, and gained access to the peak of the building through an unlocked door at the top.

Not once did he break his way in.

He didn’t have to distract Security, and he wasn’t chased by them.

The worst thing he did was jump a security barrier. But the video showed that if you jump the barrier the right way, you can avoid the alarm.

Whilst I don’t think it is acceptable to gain access to private property without rightful permission, we wouldn’t even be talking about this if Security has done their job.

If I take you back to September 2016, the same YouTuber, NightScape, gained access to the recently refurbished West Ham United football stadium. Again, this was done by going after hours, and finding an entrance that hadn’t been locked by the Security staff.

Is there a common theme here?

I’m not saying that everyone should go out and try to find entrances to buildings and areas that are off limits, but I am saying that I look at this with an open mind, and I can see the benefits of a few people doing this.

After the West Ham ‘break in’ (as it was reported), they reviewed their Security systems that they had in place, upgraded them, and it is now virtually impossible to enter the stadium unless on an event day, or during a stadium tour. The same sort of upgrade has now been implemented at One Canada Square: Security has been increased and it is now well-nigh impossible to gain unauthorised access.

In the comments section of his YouTube video, NightScape himself said: “This building is completely locked off now, please do not try to attempt this.” Again, by discouraging others from doing the same thing, he’s proving that he’s not doing this to cause problems.

What this has done is put a spotlight on the flaws that need fixing, and in my eyes, it isn’t doing a bad thing.

Also, if you look at the footage and pictures that are released when these YouTube videos are uploaded, you get to see one off shots that you’ll never get to see again, and you will have to admit they are incredible.

How often is it that you get to see someone standing at the peak of the iconic building in Canary Wharf?

I don’t think these actions should be encouraged, but I don’t think that NightScape and others should be made out to be criminals when all they’re doing is climbing buildings that have presented them with an opportunity.

Available at – http://risingeast.co.uk/urban-exploring-criminal-or-crafty/

Help to Buy? In London, That’s a Far Cry (Published on Rising East 20/2/17)

Help To Buy, or no help at all?

Dear Politicians,

In my previous letter, I addressed landlords as well as you, but for this one, I feel it is only right if I leave them out of it.

When the scheme was first introduced in the 2013 Budget by former Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, it was billed as the scheme “to support a new generation in realising the dream of home ownership.” But the latest figures, as revealed in a BBC News investigation, show how far the scheme is falling short for young Londoners.

The scheme seems to have been working quite well outside of London, with the analysis showing that between its introduction in April 2013 and April 2016, it helped first-time buyers purchase 76,559 houses out of the 255,960 new properties built privately, which represents around 30 percent of the total.

In stark contrast, the numbers from the same period in London are poor. Out of the 41,480 privately built new homes in the capital, only 4,483 were purchased using the help to buy scheme for first-time buyers, which means that it was a help to only 11 percent of buyers.

I understand that London is always going to be expensive to live in: I’m not delusional. However, a fair number of jobs are based in London. It’s a city where there is always something happening, and this creates a need for workers.

But I don’t want to be working in London and living somewhere that is ‘affordable’, i.e. miles away. The additional cost of a season ticket would make it a close call whether to stay in London or go to the outer suburbs. Either way I could easily end up joining the third of the UK workforce which takes home an income classified as ‘inadequate’.

According to research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, individuals need to be earning at least £17,300 per annum to get on the rental market OUTSIDE of London and reach the Minimum Income Standard (MIS).

I dread to think of the income needed to make it above that minimum income level in London. To me, at this present moment, it feels nearly impossible.

Of course, wages are on the rise, with a growth of 5.6 percent in the last year, and the introduction of the National Living Wage. But these things aren’t going to help much when the cost of living is rising as well.

New and future graduates need something that is going to work for us, and with these figures, the Help to Buy scheme may work outside of London, but it just isn’t going to help in the capital.

I’m not saying that you should categorically scrap the help to Buy scheme across the UK and create something new. It’s clear to us all that outside of London, it is working well, and has the potential to develop even further.

So please, go back to the drawing board and have a rethink. There must be something you can do to help us get our foot through the door.

Yours,

Drew, BA Journalism 2017 (we hope – Ed)

Available at – http://risingeast.co.uk/help-to-buy-in-london-thats-a-far-cry/

An Open Letter About The Rising Cost of Housing (Published on Rising East 13/2/17)

Price rises make home owning a dream, and renting a nightmare.

DEAR POLITICIANS AND LANDLORDS,

I’ve just seen the news about the continuing rise in the cost of living, renting and buying a new home, and I feel that there are some things that need to be said.

For a start, I’m not sure whether we can call the rising cost of houses news anymore, because each year, it’s always the same. We all know what is coming, it’s just a matter of how much the price will rise by.

All being well, I should be finishing my degree by the end of May this year, and as you can imagine, I don’t want to be living in my parents’ marital home for the rest of my life. But the way housing costs have been rising, I can’t see any other option.

Let me break it down for you. Come June, I’ll have left university with £27,000 debt from tuition fees, and another £8,500 on top of that for maintenance loans through student finance. To a mortgage broker or a landlord there is nothing appealing about a new graduate weighed down with this much debt, especially in the current climate when jobs in journalism are hard to come by, and freelancing can’t offer a reliable income.

The latest predictions from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors are worrying to anyone, but to a student looking beyond graduation, it seems that owning a home is going to be nearly impossible, and renting is going to be made that much more difficult too.

Predicted rent rises of 25% by 2022 makes renting a daunting prospect; and once in the rental market – struggling to keep up with these rates of increase and pay off student debt at the same time, it becomes near impossible to move into the ‘home-owner’ market, especially since property prices are predicted to rise by a fifth over the same period.

Of course, the current government has promised to work with developers to build more flats for private rental, and to devise long term ‘family friendly’ tenancy agreements. But is this any different to what we have heard in the past?

Theresa May has promised to make housing more affordable to everyone, but then again, so did her predecessors, Cameron, Brown, Blair and the like. Not only did they promise more houses nationwide, they also promised that the bulk of these would be ‘affordable’. But affordable for whom? Unless you already own a property, or you work in a job which pays big bonuses, who’s going to be able to afford one of these?

Looking at the previous levels of house prices over the years between 2003 and 2015, apart from 2008 and 2012 which saw house prices go down by 5.6% and 1.11% respectively, there have been continual increases in the cost of housing. The largest increase during that time was in 2003, when the cost of buying a house rose by 14.67%; and on average, they’ve been rising by 4.22% each year since. So again, it is a case of failed and broken promises from politicians.

All I’m asking for is an attractive and affordable market, that will allow me and other graduates to get our foot in the door. We’re ready to work the rest of our lives to pay it off, so is that really too much to ask?

The ‘help to buy’ scheme has obviously been set up to help, but for example, if a first house costs £230,000, I’d still have to find the 5% deposit of £11,500 to make the dream a reality, and let’s be honest here, who has that kind of money sitting around, and how is it possible to save that kind of money when you’ve got Student Finance debts to pay off?

YOURS,

DREW (BA JOURNALISM 2017)
[We hope – Ed]

 Available at – http://risingeast.co.uk/an-open-letter-about-the-rising-cost-of-housing/

Impractical Jokers: No Laughing Matter (Published on Rising East 3/2/17)

At £40 a ticket, it’s not east to laugh off the lack of originality.

 The ‘Santiago Sent Us’ tour was billed as the biggest and best-ever show by comedy quartet, The Impractical Jokers. But in practice, it didn’t reach the heights of its own hype.

Were the Jokers surprised or intimidated by selling out four dates at the O2 Arena? An over-rehearsed script gave the gig a gimmicky feel, almost as if the promotional team had advised a world tour to capitalise on their success in 2016; but without much consideration of how to translate quirky comedy into mainstream venues.

Joe Gatto, Sal Vulcano, James ‘Murr’ Murray and Brian ‘Q’ Quinn had a great stage presence, commanding every inch of the stage. The main failing was the scarcity of new content – although the new stuff that did appear, was the highlight of the evening.

As The Tenderloins they also produce a podcast titled ‘What Say You?’ At this gig, if you shut your eyes and drifted off, it sounded a lot like one of their podcasts, with the stories and gags nothing new for a loyal fan. Also, the atmosphere inside the Dome was little to write home about; many of the audience were fiddling with their phones rather than watching the performance.

At times, it could have been a university lecture: no atmosphere, no laughing, awkward silences (surely some mistake – Ed).

I preferred the warm-up guy to the main act. Owen Benjamin performed comedic songs about Millennials, Starbucks and Millennials stuck in Starbucks, before going to prove that all ‘classic’ Coldplay numbers really do sound the same.

By the end of the night, it had turned into more a promotional appearance. Less gags, more focus on The Impractical Jokers’ upcoming television show and the ‘2017 summer cruise gig’, which you won’t know the price of until you’ve bought a ticket.

Outrageous!

Of course my reaction will not have been improved by having someone sit next to me who was reciting the script, just a second ahead of time, all the time. But how come she had it off pat, anyway? Unless the show itself lacked that unpredictable element which is surely crucial to live comedy.

Maybe the only practical thing is for these Jokers to stick to TV.

 Available at – http://risingeast.co.uk/impractical-jokers-no-laughing-matter/

TfL Plan Will Benefit East London (Published on Rising East 12/12/16)

East London set to benefit from the TfL draft business plan.

Four London Underground lines which run through the heart of East London are to profit from improvements proposed by the Mayor of London in his latest draft business plan.

Due to be abled to the Transport for London (TfL) board at their meeting on Thursday, the plan seeks to create the most efficient and least wasteful transport service ever offered to commuters in London.

The Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has already expressed his intention of increasing the number of tube trains running on the network, including proposals to boost the capacity of the Jubilee line by 17 per cent.

In addition to the Jubilee line capacity increase, Mr Khan plans to increase the capacity on the District and Hammersmith and City lines by around 33 per cent, and the Central line by 60 per cent. The Central Line is set to see new rolling stock by 2023.

Continued rapid growth of the Docklands Light Railway (DLR), will be funded by £301 million investment, boosting passenger capacity on the line by 30 per cent, and adding 43 longer trains. Journeys on the DLR have already increased by 50 per cent over the past five years.

In his introduction Mr Khan wrote: “I am asking TfL to use every ounce of its expertise, creativity and energy to achieve our ambitious Business Plan…I am confident we can deliver my vision for an affordable, accessible and modern transport network.”

The document also considers the planned opening of the Elizabeth line, which is currently scheduled for May 2018. Estimated fare revenues amount to £2 billion in the first five years of operation.

Meanwhile traffic congestion across the capital city has become a chronic problem, with city-wide average speeds dropping to a new low of 7.8mph.

The plan also outlines “cutting flabby waste” and making savings of £800 million per annum. Such efficiencies have already led to job cuts, starting with 49 senior managers whose posts have been cut.

Besides increased public transport capacity, the draft business plan also includes the go-ahead for the £90 million Silvertown tunnel project to go ahead, with the Mayor hoping for a completion date in the early 2020s. The Woolwich Ferry will also be upgraded.

TfL has partnered up with Google to “monitor traffic movements around London”. This will enable TfL to be fed real-time data, informing emergency measures and helping to speed up information flow to the travelling public.

Transport Commissioner Mike Brown has commented that if approved the plan will put into effect “the biggest ever overhaul of our organisation.”

Available at – http://risingeast.co.uk/tfl-plan-will-benefit-east-london/

Paris In The Springtime? (Published on Rising East 9/12/16)

A move to the French capital remains on the agenda for some of the biggest names in finance.

France’s chief financial regulator has admitted that several London-based banks are negotiating to move some of their operations to Paris.

Paris is one among many cities battling for big banks to move there. Frankfurt, Madrid, Luxembourg, Dublin, Valletta (Malta) and Bratislava (Slovakia) are all in the running to become the new European capital of banking, if London loses the crown in the aftermath of the Brexit vote.

Benoit de Juvigny confirmed that “large international banks” have drawn up plans to make the move. But it is not clear whether any of these proposals are already firmed up or if they are contingency plans, to be implemented only if the need arises.

Meanwhile in London there are continuing concerns lest not only banks but “many other companies” take their business elsewhere when the City is locked out of the European Union (EU) and new trading restrictions are enforced.

These fears were first raised in October, with only a minority of banks including HSBC pledging their future to the East London financial district of Canary Wharf.

Britain, once it has left the EU, will not be able to able to offer banks the “passporting rights” which they currently enjoy. London’s post-Brexit position in regard to financial trading across Europe, is yet to be negotiated. If “passporting rights” are lost altogether, more than 5000 London-based financial services companies will be adversely affected.

Noting the competition across Europe to become the new first city of banking, Mr de Juvigny has warned of the dangers of “the race that we could have for a more lenient regulation with a more lenient regulator.” He is fearful in case such leniency leads to a repeat of the financial crisis of 2007-8; instead the financial services sector should “strictly stick to the existing legislation.”

It is believed that Citigroup, currently located in Canary Wharf, has been negotiating a possible move to Frankfurt, Germany. Spokesperson Edwina Frawley-Gangahar could not confirm how far talks have progressed. “We are evaluating our options as negotiations between the EU and UK continue,” she said. “Considerable uncertainty remains over the nature of the UK’s eventual exit from the EU, and therefore we have not taken any decisions at this point.”

Ms Frawley-Gangahar concluded her statement by reiterating that “London is, and will remain, our EMEA [Europe, Middle East and African] headquarters and a global hub for many of our businesses.”

Available at – http://risingeast.co.uk/paris-in-the-springtime/