You don't become that rich without being a cnut in some capacity. Fact.
Roman Abramovich plans to sell Chelsea | SOLD for £4.25BN
- Thread starter Ali Dia
- Start date
I think we will get a new owner who not yet drum it up about their intention. This much money involving deal whoever serious about it will go quiet and do it under radar.
Will be surprised if any of boehly consortium,rickett Griffin group,candy and his group or Saudi media group will end up owner of chelsea fc.
Will be surprised if any of boehly consortium,rickett Griffin group,candy and his group or Saudi media group will end up owner of chelsea fc.
An article by the dailymail really....this article is utterly wrong and full of misinformation...in fact most of the fans who were there were posting on twitter about the incident (2 of them are my friends) none of them were chanting RA's name they were just standing outside a bar and singing there are even videos of then cleaning and picking up the rubbish from were they all stood.Well...............
This article even used a picture of 2 people without their permission they even expressed their frustration with that and are seeking an action against the dumb reporter who used it in his article.
Nah, just an error of having to stay up late pointing out the obvious to very strange people
This is not only true for individuals. It applies to Governments and Organisations. In order to stay rich they have to protect their interests in anyway they can.
not really, im not sure theyll win the bid for us. Their bid is the highest, but it may not be decided on that. There'll also be a stack of bids not in the public domain yet which may win.
EDIT: Another bid literally just reported on - this is why i dont think highest bid necessarily wins. I suppose the more PR you spout wont help either
Last edited:
I’d be stunned at this point if we aren’t American owned soon. Of the names that have been actively trying to buy us this Boehly guy seems the best bet. The owner of the Jets and the owner of the Cubs seem like Glazers 2.0. So hopefully they fail in their bids.
So what happens to the proceeds of the sale? Who does it go to? Surely they can’t just write the debt off?
Sorry mate, you're the resident caf Putinista from now on
Whatever get's you through your day.
They don't need their permission, it's an editorial piece.
So this didn't happen then and Chlesea fans were innocent?
And they didn't sing Roman's name?
"But it's just a few, we're not all the same, most of us are not like that, and even the ones that are, aren't actually it's just media tarnishing us"
So I'm guessing we should judge you on the United fans that tried to assault Simeone then?
Of course, it's the same thing.
Taking the moral high ground one second, playing down assault the next!
Difference being, I didn't come on a Man Utd forum and deny it happened and then get proven in seconds it did.
For the record, I don't support anyone, or cheer for anyone that would throw bottles at people, or cheer for those who help fund the odd invasion, that so happens to kill's tens of thousands of innocent people, including women and children.
As per my original intention late last night / early morning, I still say, Chelsea FC have not said a single word about the unjustified invasion of Ukraine, neither have a number of Chelsea fans, who choose to chant the name of Putin's Puppet, who is either directly, or indirectly involved.
The same owner, who has not once said he would help or support the Ukrainian people and is now in fact, hiding in Moscow or Siberia.
So when Chelsea fans, take a moral stance at United fans throwing bottles as a means of deflection, it is really laughable, when they are basically supporting a member of an organisation butchering women and children.
But I am a very fair and rational person, So I will leave you with this agreement:
I promise, as a Man Utd Fan, I won't jay walk, if you promise as a Chelsea fan, not to cheer for the the guy assisting in driving a steamroller into a group of children.
There is no billionaire that is not complicit then, going by this standard. Even American billionaires who would normally get a free pass, have their hands dirty through either trade with said regimes, or lobbying/bribing government officials, or gutting businesses...
If your standard is "no beheadings" and "no oil money" then fair enough. If we are aiming for squeaky clean owners then maybe the solution is fan based ownership similar to what they have in Germany?
Not disagreeing with the bolded, but I'm sure you're aware that the links between major players and the ruling class in autocratic regimes, and what happens in "democracies" (voluntarily putting air quotes there, given the soft power that can be wielded with politicians), is of deliriously differing nature and doesn't put it on the same level, apart from a theoretical debate perspective (which is pretty useless).
Neither did i.
20 k travel restriction lifted for FA Cup game this week. Means team can use plane to travel instead of bus. Well done government and considered the difficulty of 20 k restriction.But it is only for this one game only.
Team Management and government people also working on ticket sales related problems and hope to solve this before international break. Also talks are going on with uefa about closed door matches in quarterfinals.Government and management trying to solve this too.
Hopefully we will get a clearer picture in one week time.
Team Management and government people also working on ticket sales related problems and hope to solve this before international break. Also talks are going on with uefa about closed door matches in quarterfinals.Government and management trying to solve this too.
Hopefully we will get a clearer picture in one week time.
It's different of course but in terms of the conversation we are having, of people "using sports clubs to launder their reputation" (I put it in quotes because I'm not and probably won't be convinced of the validity of that claim but let's proceed as if I am), it doesn't matter whether your passport comes from an autocratic country or democratic country.
If the goal is to prevent sports clubs from being used as reputational laundry machines, then the standard applied should be arbitrarily high, which would again disqualify the vast majority of billionaires, not just oligarchs and Middle Eastern scions.
If the Saudi's have the highest bid, I cannot see them not getting it. The UK govt will welcome them with open arms, they'll pump loads of money into Chelsea/the local area (probably by saving the EC fiasco) and the proceeds will be used as a PR campaign to sportswash further. People thinking this isn't going to the highest bidder when the Government are able to decide what to do with the money are living in fantasy land; especially at a time when we need to get our knee pads on to secure the Saudi oil to avoid a serious inflation crisis.
It also depends on who exactly makes the final decisions? That has never been made clear.
I disagree. The optics would be horrendous and the entire football media world would be slating the “corrupt government who are in bed with the Saudi’s.”
Which they are of course, but I don’t think they’ll have the balls to allow it here.
Hmm they allowed Newcastle…
True. But now there’s much more scrutiny and attention being paid. Which is why I think an American owner is a certainty at this point unless some British multibillionaire jumps in before tomorrows deadline.
They'll hide behind how PIF 'aren't involved', bang on about how the £2.7bn is going to go to "good causes" and then slip in, every now and then, how Saudi Arabia is an "important partner".
https://mixmag.net/read/chelsea-fc-bid-barbara-charone-music-pr-news
Would be good to have a few Chelsea fans on board..
Would be good to have a few Chelsea fans on board..
At least one bid went in what roman asked for. That's £3 bn.Saudis bid reported around £2.7 bn by their PR team. That means minimum two bids more than boehly consortium's supposed £2.5 bn.That's insane.
well, i was on the official website chat and a few on there seem to think Roman still has a choice as to who to sell to? Raine then take his pick to govt for license approval.
Raine will take a max of 4 bids forward to be whittled down to ultimately, 1
Last edited:
goes into a pot, and stays there until decided whether it goes to charity, or indeed to Abramovich once sanctions lift
This thread has some superb whataboutism!
A few plastic bottles thrown at Simeone v financing an army killing women and children during an illegal military conflict
If you didnt laugh you’d cry.
A few plastic bottles thrown at Simeone v financing an army killing women and children during an illegal military conflict
If you didnt laugh you’d cry.
In terms of comparisons that don’t even rank, it’s had it all.
l would hope so, because they shouldn’t be allowed to write off a debt through laundered money. They’ve built a world class infrastructure and youth academy off of it. Considering the source of the money is that supposed to be washed over?
If there's talk about it being used to support Ukraine it's needed sooner, rather than later and the sanctions against Abramovich could be in place for years or even til he dies, if they're waiting for them to lift before deciding how to allocate it.
Surely those horses have bolted already and that's the mess the premier league has got itself into with its blinded by money approach. If the lender writes off the debt, surely it's gone. Not like you can rip up their training pitches and youth academy either. City had Thaksin Shinawatra, who was dodgy as hell and mired in corruption charges, as owner before the current crop, so we know how little the authorities in the UK care about the origins of whoever's billions.
Three guarantees in life. Death, taxes and you twisting things to promote an agenda.
I brought it up because @Rooney in Paris tried to tar us all with the same brush despite the fact the Abramovic chants were drowned out by a significant majority in our last home game. I was merely trying to ask him how would he feel if I tarred and pigeonholed him on a minority he'll never meet. All my life I've had to deal with being branded things am absolutely nothing close to because of a minority I'll never meet, so unless you get the same you're in no position to comment on the matter let alone twist it to the disgusting level you have.
Yep that's exactly what I "tried" to do. You seem very sensitive about this - if you're not part of the general bunch of idiots that have behaved appallingly over the past few weeks, then you shouldn't really care, no?
So you didn't sarcastically quote "were not all the same" then?
When I'm being tarred and accused of stuff I never have nor will do based on a minority on course I'll get "defensive". Whether that's directly (couple of weeks ago actively branded a racist on this site) or it hinted indirectly (your very recent post).