Chelsea

[Lochheads twin]

I think these sanctions are incredibly harsh

Roman should be allowed to take his franchise and move them to play in the Russian League, a bit like an NFL team.

[Talldarkandransome]

Can't buy, can't sell, can't sell new tickets, can't spend much on travelling and on matchdays. Gonna be a tricky situation for them.

Assuming Chelsea fans can't go to away games either as that involves the club buying the tickets first (think that's correct anyway).

An evolving situation that could get much worse for them. 

[Davkaus]

3 hours ago, Pez1974 said:

Personally, because I was referring to where clubs are being used to "sports wash" either money or a regime. I don't count Egypt or a US billionaire as falling into this category. I personally have no issue with the Man City ownership.
If we were still owned by Xia, I would be looking at it differently.

There was a really interesting set of comments by Matthew Syed - link below - on Abramovich from years ago. This hits the nail on the head.

You also get the pleasure of watching Jim White make himself look like a complete knob - basically "yeah the guy was really bad and did bad things, but it helped football in the premier league, so it's OK" type argument.

I know it's a few years old, and they wouldn't be stupid enough to dismiss his background out of hand over the past couple of weeks, but what an absolute embarrassment. It's like one educated adult being forced to debate with children.

[TRO]

17 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

The only sort of similar parallel I can think of is Alaska being sold to the USA by the Russians at some point. I don't think it's a very good parallel - but Hong Kong's situation is very different to that of Yemen and Ukraine.

And on that, I think we all agree.

 

I think we are debating 2 different points.

1. You are focusing how the lands changed hands

2. I am debating why the peoples of those lands are at Loggerheads with the new regimes....In both cases they are resisting persecution and fighting against losing their freedoms.

Only in relatively recent years have the indigenous folk of Alaska been given equal status with American folk....but that has not really received much focus, has it?

but this debate is like war and peace itself.....its very easy to get on the high ground with some scenarios and dismiss others......parts of the world is constantly at war, somewhere.

Edited March 10, 2022 by TRO

[OutByEaster?]

Just now, TRO said:

but this debate is like war and peace itself.....its very easy to get on the high ground with some scenarios and dismiss others......The world is constantly at war, somewhere.

Indeed it is. 

I mean, not in Hong Kong, but somewhere.

 

[TRO]

4 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Indeed it is. 

I mean, not in Hong Kong, but somewhere.

 

Not to labour this point as we are drifting.....but are you saying the people of Hong Kong are happy with their new regime, and their new Government are right to impose it, just because another Sovereign power sold it, to them?

Have they no say, in how they want to live and be treated?

Edited March 10, 2022 by TRO

[NurembergVillan]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

I don't doubt the merit of your claims, but where do you draw the line?.....China have human rights issues, how many chinese owners are there in British football?

There are a few Chinese owners in British football, none of whom are the actual Chinese government.

Abu Dhabi owns Man City, Saudi Arabia owns Newcastle, a Chinese person owns Wolves. It's a massive difference.

[OutByEaster?]

1 minute ago, TRO said:

Not to labour this point as we are drifting.....but are you saying the people of Hong Kong are happy with their new regime, and their new Government are right to impose it, just because another Sovereign power sold it.?

People in all sorts of bits of China are unhappy with their governments, indeed people in all sorts of regions globally are unhappy with their governments. 

They aren't being bombed.

 

[TRO]

Just now, NurembergVillan said:

There are a few Chinese owners in British football, none of whom are the actual Chinese government.

Abu Dhabi owns Man City, Saudi Arabia owns Newcastle, a Chinese person owns Wolves. It's a massive difference.

some whispers have said Xia was representing the Chinese Goverment......just saying.

We simply don't know, do we.

unless we work for MI6

[TRO]

5 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

People in all sorts of bits of China are unhappy with their governments, indeed people in all sorts of regions globally are unhappy with their governments. 

They aren't being bombed.

 

Syria....was flattened.

Well the scenes that I saw in Hong Kong were pretty darn close, and horrific.

Maybe not the same, but similar.....I wouldn't have wanted to be in those skimishes, put it that way.

Edited March 10, 2022 by TRO

[OutByEaster?]

4 minutes ago, TRO said:

Well the scenes that I saw were pretty darn close.

Maybe not the same, but similar.....I wouldn't have wanted to be in those skimishes, put it that way.

I think three people died - less than in Seattle's unrest in the same year.

I think I'll leave it there as we're spamming up the Chelsea thread.

[TheAuthority]

I didn't realize I was in a politics thread !

[Tommo_b]

Ahhh is this the beginning of Chelsea going back to the club they always used to be when I was growing up, pre Ruud Gullit and Ginaluca Vialli times.

[villa89]

18 minutes ago, TRO said:

are you saying the people of Hong Kong are happy with their new regime, and their new Government are right to impose it, just because another Sovereign power sold it, to them?

Have they no say, in how they want to live and be treated?

It was a 99 year lease, Britain didnt sell Hong kong, they just leased it. 

[The Fun Factory]

Annual all  post Abramovich trophies, liquidate the club and let them re start in the isthmian league,  replace them with Bury FC in the football league, demolish Stamford bridge to build social housing for NHS workers and Ukrainian refugees, plow the pitch with salt, and never mention them ever again.

I think that is fair and balanced.

Edited March 10, 2022 by The Fun Factory

[bobzy]

2 hours ago, TRO said:

You say its not about jealousy, I say to a point, it is.......If the New castle owners had a pif fund of 50 million?.....would the same moral outrage be applied?

Yes.

[Panto_Villan]

I'm a bit surprised that the Chelsea sanctions have played out the way they have to be honest.

I sorta expected the government to freeze Abramovich's ownership of Chelsea, give the club a loan to run them for a month or two, then just auction the club off (and recoup their loan from the sale proceeds). All the remaining sale proceeds would then just remain frozen until Abramovich got de-sanctioned or the government decided to sieze it.

The current method seems to screw the club over and also reduce the value of the asset significantly. It's not an asset like a yacht that can sit in storage in a drydock for a couple of years without losing too much value; it won't be worth anything if it has to operate under these conditions until next season.

It is kinda funny to see Chelsea get screwed over but I don't think the government should be destroying football clubs this way. Forcing a sale seems a better outcome for everyone. I guess there would probably be some legal ramifications for doing that though.

[OutByEaster?]

I think the big question mark will be over the £1.5bn debt they owe Abramovich's - I know he said he would write it off, but he then suspiciously priced Chelsea at £1.5bn more than the market value and talked about giving any profits to people who had been in Ukraine - it sounded a bit to me like he was writing off the £1.5bn because he expected to be able to clear it from the money in the sale of the club.

What happens to it now is a complete mystery - I'm to sure if it's treated as a debt for the club, or if it's a (seperate) frozen asset of Abramovich - I'm presuming he can't call it in because it's frozen, but I'm not sure where that leaves Chelsea - if they are sold for a market value, do they still end up owing him the money? Can he call it in? 

It's an enormous sum of money.

[Phil Silvers]

3 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think the big question mark will be over the £1.5bn debt they owe Abramovich's - I know he said he would write it off, but he then suspiciously priced Chelsea at £1.5bn more than the market value and talked about giving any profits to people who had been in Ukraine - it sounded a bit to me like he was writing off the £1.5bn because he expected to be able to clear it from the money in the sale of the club.

What happens to it now is a complete mystery - I'm to sure if it's treated as a debt for the club, or if it's a (seperate) frozen asset of Abramovich - I'm presuming he can't call it in because it's frozen, but I'm not sure where that leaves Chelsea - if they are sold for a market value, do they still end up owing him the money? Can he call it in? 

It's an enormous sum of money.

[HanoiVillan]

18 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

I'm a bit surprised that the Chelsea sanctions have played out the way they have to be honest.

I sorta expected the government to freeze Abramovich's ownership of Chelsea, give the club a loan to run them for a month or two, then just auction the club off (and recoup their loan from the sale proceeds). All the remaining sale proceeds would then just remain frozen until Abramovich got de-sanctioned or the government decided to sieze it.

The current method seems to screw the club over and also reduce the value of the asset significantly. It's not an asset like a yacht that can sit in storage in a drydock for a couple of years without losing too much value; it won't be worth anything if it has to operate under these conditions until next season.

It is kinda funny to see Chelsea get screwed over but I don't think the government should be destroying football clubs this way. Forcing a sale seems a better outcome for everyone. I guess there would probably be some legal ramifications for doing that though.

They're not particularly focused on the type of asset it is, I suppose. If it was a house, you wouldn't just confiscate it off him and sell it and take the proceeds or give it to someone more favoured, because that sort of thing has a really bad track record. The problem is it's easy to put a house on ice for a while as the politics happens elsewhere, but not possible to do that to a football club. The government however won't care about the value of the asset; to them the cheaper the better, especially if it's someone well-connected who is favourite to buy it.