Jump to content

coda

Recommended Posts

There's a debate in parliament tomorrow and the treatment of Chelsea looks likely to create a storm which will blow nobody any good.

I hope those who welcomed politics into English football, are prepared to accept the consequences.

It seems that every time Villa have made a step forward, the politics change and we are back to where we started.

Once the whataboutism starts tomorrow, it seems unlikely Villa will escape being implicated.

Any owner with any sort of link with a government known to have dubious human rights, or a history of military ambitions, had better look out.

I think we are about to live through some interesting times.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

There's a debate in parliament tomorrow and the treatment of Chelsea looks likely to create a storm which will blow nobody any good.

I hope those who welcomed politics into English football, are prepared to accept the consequences.

It seems that every time Villa have made a step forward, the politics change and we are back to where we started.

Once the whataboutism starts tomorrow, it seems unlikely Villa will escape being implicated.

Any owner with any sort of link with a government known to have dubious human rights, or a history of military ambitions, had better look out.

I think we are about to live through some interesting times.

 

How does that affect Villa and our owners? I'm not aware of any "link with a government known to have dubious human rights, or a history of military ambitions". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I hope those who welcomed politics into English football, are prepared to accept the consequences.

When was the time that you believe that politics wasn't present in English football?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Yay, two Saudi owners competing with the owners from UAE for the title each season 🥳

Two Saudi owners who most definitely don't have any links to the Saudi Government. Despite all the clear evidence that they obviously do. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would absolutely love any reform that got all the obscenely rich out of football. Including our owners if it comes to it. Our relatve moral high horse is only based on the fact we don't really know how they attained their wealth, but just simply aren't through dictators. or associated with murderous regimes. But I don't know how ethical any billoinaire can be. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BleedClaretAndBlue said:

 

I’m Im sure the irony will be lost on this government. 

Edited by av1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Rodders said:

I would absolutely love any reform that got all the obscenely rich out of football. Including our owners if it comes to it. Our relatve moral high horse is only based on the fact we don't really know how they attained their wealth, but just simply aren't through dictators. or associated with murderous regimes. But I don't know how ethical any billoinaire can be. 

The problem being the governing bodies of football are arguably the worse out of the lot, greedy as **** the lot of them 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

The potential for the debt write off doesn't sit particularly well with me.

A sale for £1.5bn would be a market value sale for Chelsea - reflecting the increase in the value of the club through the Abramovich years - the money he's invested over the last twenty years has made Chelsea a club with commercial revenues and a brand that justifies that price.

Abramovich has made a claim that he'd write off the £1.5bn debt they owe him as a gesture of largesse, but he's also priced the club at £3bn - which I think suggests something entirely different. He's no longer in a position to either write off or call in that debt and there's talk of it simply being written off.

Writing off the £1.5bn debt to Abramovich would mean that the buyer gets full value for the club as it is and the benefit of all of that investment, but no responsibility for any of the debt that investment created - there's no price tag for the Abramovich years - essentially the new buyer will have simply stolen that money from Abramovich with the support of the UK government. 

Now I'm not crying into a tissue for poor old Roman Abramovich - he stole that money from the Russian people and he's involved with an absolute nutter of a leader who is currently bombing Ukraine - but from a sporting perspective, that's not a level playing field. Chelsea got £1.5bn free of charge - no debt, no responsibility, just a couple of decades of massive investment that they couldn't support or afford with absolutely no consequence.

I'd like to see the UK government sell Abramovich's debt to a bank with the proceeds going into the public purse and Chelsea still responsible for that debt - for me it wouldn't be right if it simply disappears from their history and balance sheet - it's a massive competitive advantage they'd gain without any justification.

Easy for us to say that, but if nassef wwanted ti waive the debt on us when selling but the government said no and enforced it onus we would be absolutely fuming.

I dislike Chelsea but i dont think that would be a fair move to be honest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Easy for us to say that, but if nassef wwanted ti waive the debt on us when selling but the government said no and enforced it onus we would be absolutely fuming.

I dislike Chelsea but i dont think that would be a fair move to be honest

I'm no expert but I don't believe our owners could just waive that level of debt if they wanted to. It would still have to all fall under FFP and Villa would be liable for that debt. Chelsea would just be getting away with that debt when it's impossible for other clubs to do the same.

Though, my understanding could be incorrect so happy to be corrected if wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PieFacE said:

I'm no expert but I don't believe our owners could just waive that level of debt if they wanted to. It would still have to all fall under FFP and Villa would be liable for that debt. Chelsea would just be getting away with that debt when it's impossible for other clubs to do the same.

Though, my understanding could be incorrect so happy to be corrected if wrong. 

Yeah its very complicated.  I dont know the ins and outs. We must owe NSWE ot of money so if it cant bw written off to them its going to take a very long timw time if ever fir us to pay them back. Chelsea is even worse position so i dont see how they operate if they have to pay roman back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The_Steve said:

FA needs to compensate Middlesbrough as Chelsea have requested closed doors 

chelsea can **** off

why punish boro for chelsea's owner's sanctions?

if i was boro i'd be making the tickets for the away section available for home fans too

"oh we cant sell away tickets so boro shouldn't have fans there either" **** off. if the FA agree to this i'll be surprised

actually, sadly, i wouldn't be surprised

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â