Stadium sponsorship?
Roman Abramovich plans to sell Chelsea | SOLD for £4.25BN
- Thread starter Ali Dia
- Start date
Nah mate, there's a war on and it's Chelsea's fault.The comedy gold of bbc panorama investigative journalism about Roman. Missing file from Russia which is very confidential,can't be disclosed,can't be verified,there was kidnap happened,he was gained from it but no proof of his involvement, investigative officer the witness against roman who involved in sex scandal.
I usually laughed at this kind of propaganda programs from regimes like Russia,Syria,china, saudi. Because they don't need to provide evidence. They can say whatever they want to say about any one to suit their agenda and people have to accept what they say.
I thought democracies are different and people wanted to see evidence before believe things.
I can't believe some Chelsea fans on here, a lot of them in fact, are sticking to their guns weeks into this. There's about 2/3 posters that I'll be able to take seriously after all this is over. It's really quite depressing.
Simply pointing out facts that many of you stubbornly refuse to accept and in fact continue to press. The club was not sanctioned. Roman was sanctioned. Continuing to justify and call for further punishment to the club is completely missing the mark. Chelsea as an organization is a victim of circumstance.
Where every single one of you is going wrong is attempting to put the crimes and alleged crimes of its owner onto the club.I won’t justify his life, outside of football he really doesn’t mean anything to me.
Honestly it’s pathetic and comes across very childish “Your dads bad, so you are too”. If anything that’s the most tragic thing to come out of this, the fact that most of you lack the inability to, or simply refuse, to acknowledge the facts of the situation.
Everything I made in my statement was released via respective state departments and disseminated on news outlets like CNN in the last two days … do you not read or view things aside from Tik tok?The comedy gold of bbc panorama investigative journalism about Roman. Missing file from Russia which is very confidential,can't be disclosed,can't be verified,there was kidnap happened,he was gained from it but no proof of his involvement, investigative officer the witness against roman who involved in sex scandal.
I usually laughed at this kind of propaganda programs from regimes like Russia,Syria,china, saudi. Because they don't need to provide evidence. They can say whatever they want to say about any one to suit their agenda and people have to accept what they say.
I thought democracies are different and people wanted to see evidence before believe things.
Last edited:
For speaking truth? Not one of you complaining is actually answering the legitimate questions Chelsea fans have about the nature of their treatment. You aren’t even attempting to see our viewpoint.
If I told you no United fans would be allowed to attend games in Old Trafford because the person selling your team supplied chemical weapons to Syria, a good portion of your thought wouldn’t want to know if it was true?
And, what if it was then released that your owner never sold those weapons, or anything else? That it was all untrue? And given that information, two Liverpool fans in government said “doesn’t matter; we were already really looking forward to your suffering”.
None of that would bother you? Not in the slightest?
And please don’t give me the the “you get what you deserve” line. RA has never been shown to have “dirty” money. Whatever you think of him, he’s won many court cases to the contrary and was therefore approved for ownership. He made every dime he put into Chelsea more than two decades ago, and has never been charged with breaking a law that I know of.
He hasn’t been sanctioned by the U.S. at the time of typing this.
Chelsea was put in a position where they couldnt even have their team bus gassed based solely on a claim that Evraz built tanks for the Russian army. They didn’t. U.S. and other intelligence agencies have proved it. Your government admitted it was wrong and amended its statement to “could potentially”
And yet, nobody cares. You act like we are crazy for wanting to pay our employees, take proper care of the kids in our academy, address the contracts of our players … just watch our games in person.
It is both ridiculous and just wrong.
“RA has never been shown to have dirty money.”
If you honestly believe that nothing else you say is worth listening to as you’ve obviously drank the kool aid far too thoroughly.
I know quite a few people who are Russian politics specialists by trade and literally every single one of them will tell you that it is a 100% stone cold fact that Putin and Roman were thick as thieves and worked together (along with Berezovsky and others) to steal billions via the privatization and subsequent sale of Rosneft and other schemes.
If you honestly believe that nothing else you say is worth listening to as you’ve obviously drank the kool aid far too thoroughly.
I know quite a few people who are Russian politics specialists by trade and literally every single one of them will tell you that it is a 100% stone cold fact that Putin and Roman were thick as thieves and worked together (along with Berezovsky and others) to steal billions via the privatization and subsequent sale of Rosneft and other schemes.
The phase 'Its a deal, its a steal' has never been more true as when the Oligarchs like Roman stole from the Russian people after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Buying companies that were worth 20-40times its actual value.
"Your dads bad, so you are too”
There you have it in a nutshell.
This pathetic identification with a passive child victim, perfectly demonstrates the infantilising effect that political sportswashing has on grown men. Something similar happens with cult psychology,. Once responsible adults surrender their ethical i.e. subjective agency to the group leader's command.
A child can not choose their dad and can not choose to boycott their family if they find out that the family project is a cover-up for a gangsta blood-money racket. No the vulnerable infant can not choose to take on that ethical responsibility, that ethical refusal.
A grown man or woman, can make the choice of course. They can choose to act in a responsible manner, directed by their own seperate and individual will and they can make the ethically subjective choice of withdrawing their fan support whilst the butcher or human rights abuser, uses the club to sportswash their image.
On the other hand the adult football fan, ( of Cheksea or City) can of course, always cowardly opt out and choose to pretend that they are an innocent passive child victim of this world, and continue to cheer on the owner's sportswashing project, pretending that their active cheering of the oligarch's pet project can be carried out without their being implicated in the implementation of the sportswashing project. In reality, one's cheering of the pet project means one is cheerleading the bloodmoney sports washing. One can only deny this reality by lying to oneself.
The lie is that one doesnt have any choice. The adult fan chooses to shirk responsibility and becomes a baby victim of a bad dad, yet continues to enjoy the plastic tin pots that bad dad brings home. Childlike excitement is chosen over ethical responsibility as reality is disavowed.
" Dad's bad so you are too" meaning 'dads bad but I am a good baby', and sums up the infantile disavowal neatly.
Meanwhile back in the real world, no !, Roman is not your dad. Mansour is not the shameless City fan's dad.
You are responsible for the choices you make in life, including the choice of pretending that you are not implicated proactively in the sportswashing when you cheerlead, like an innocent schoolgirl, the brutally violent oligarch's projects for the glory hunting sake of a few tin pots, purchased for the name of the football club you choose to follow.
Last edited:
Not sure how enforceable this kind of commitment is, but sounds interesting.
I've supported Chelsea for over 40 years and I'm not going to change. Abramovich is gone and the club can now move forward.
It does seem a bit unfair that something as simple and innocent as supporting a football team can be so controversial. You do seem to be using this situation to vent your hatred of Chelsea and thier fans.
It’s impossible. What if nobody agrees to this?
The remaining contenders to buy Chelsea FC have been told they must commit at least £1bn to future investment in the club if they are to succeed in the battle to end Roman Abramovich's two-decade tenure as owner of last season's Champions League-winners.
Sky News can exclusively reveal that the quartet of bidders which were this week approved by bankers to proceed to formal offers will have to give contractual guarantees that at least £1bn of additional funding will be available for the Blues' Stamford Bridge stadium, playing squad and other areas of development.
This deal is getting beyond bad business.
Sky News can exclusively reveal that the quartet of bidders which were this week approved by bankers to proceed to formal offers will have to give contractual guarantees that at least £1bn of additional funding will be available for the Blues' Stamford Bridge stadium, playing squad and other areas of development.
This deal is getting beyond bad business.
Some of the Chelsea fans in here are shameless 
. What hope is there for the world when you have random people defending corrupt billionaires that have fecked over countless people. Look I have some sympathy to Chelsea getting wrapped up in this, but pretending they are entirely innocent is at best naive and at worst fecking mental. This attitude of “I’m alright jack” is what causes so many things to go unpunished.
. What hope is there for the world when you have random people defending corrupt billionaires that have fecked over countless people. Look I have some sympathy to Chelsea getting wrapped up in this, but pretending they are entirely innocent is at best naive and at worst fecking mental. This attitude of “I’m alright jack” is what causes so many things to go unpunished.I think Boehly will with his backing, perhaps Griffin, too given he is individually by far the wealthiest. Not sure of rest tbh. But i cant see how it can enforced no.
But if they plan to develop the ground at all, they'd be looking at a billion ish anyway, minimum
Last edited:
nope, definitely still in the race and arguably 2nd faves, very close behind boehly. I can see some absolute bed wetting on twitter if they win. Some of the hate against them has been way over the top by that cfcdaily weirdo
The father is not in the bid, why has his past got anything to do with them bidding... Its really childish by the twitter mod, and im not surprised they're getting absolutely pelters on the Chelsea chat sites
It’s not even enforcing it. It’s why would anybody agree to it with this when Chelsea are in such a desperate situation? If nobody agrees to this then Chelsea goes under, that’s what it looks like.
it won’t happen since I don’t actually believe the story. It’s absurd
Some of the Chelsea fans in here are shameless
Honestly, if this forum was run properly and not modded on whims, some Chelsea fans on here should have just been removed permanently for their comments and ongoing supporting of Roman and Russias murder of tens of thousands of innocent people, including women and children.
The two are interconnected and it cannot simply be brushed over.
It's blackmail.
Roman, clearly is desperate to look good in the eyes of Chelsea fans by demanding "you give me £3bn and ill waive the £1.5m debt and I'll make so much profit, of which I promise to give to Putin, I mean victims of war oh and you also have to ensure you carry on buying success by investing another £1bn on top.
Cheap as caviar, I mean chips.
Considering this is a bidding war, the leverage Chelsea have here isn't insignificant.
40 years seems to be the stock figure of years of support every Chelsea fan uses.
Even if they're under 40
And even though 25-30 years ago you wouldn't ever hear about a Chelsea supporter. Even down my way, 20 miles from London
Before they started to bark a bit in the mid-to-late 90s, Chelsea were - to me - just another London/greater London club...not that different from, say, Palace, Wimbledon, Watford or Luton *. Clearly not in the same category as Arsenal, Spurs or even West Ham.
They would've been (I imagine, this is hardly scientific) pretty far down the list of the most supported clubs in England.
* They had a more illustrious history than those clubs, of course - but hadn't won anything of note for decades at that point.
But you have to sell. It’s like getting your car repossessed and demanding they pay for a full service before they take it off you.
Where is the money going anyway? Roman owns the club obviously but can't get the money due to sanctions?
If the money goes via Raine Group New York, likelihood money will be going to Roman.
That's an odd analogy. They're many interested parties. It doesn't matter that the club has to be sold. Each bidder is competing against the other bidders. That puts the club in a good position.
But my point is if each bidder says no then what can Chelsea do? It’s unrealistic. You have to be sold, there’s no getting around that.
Of course, that's true, but it's just as likely that the bidders think agreeing to it puts them at an advantage over the competition. The club has to be sold but the club is in high demand. It's a bidding war. You get to make certain stipulations and demands when you have multiple competing bids.
Last edited:
That is their spin. He is a member of the family trust and has the most say as the wealth in that trust was created by him. You don’t even have to make the case against Joe. His son Pete is also in the trust and very active. He is the Governor of Nebraska, very controversial and very outspoken.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-is-nebraska-governor-pete-ricketts-acting-extra-crazy
I'd love to know the criteria for this, what if one bidder says they will do this, but will only go to £2 billion for the club, whilst another says they won't commit that much but will pay £2.5 billion for them, it's been said that RA has a say in things, and he has likely nothing to gain from it going to the highest bidder.
In a league where we accept virtually anyone with money to wash their dirty business clean, or anyone who can somehow leverage their way into a club to then rob them blind, there seems to be alot of morals and concern for who will be Chelsea's next owners all of a sudden.
Last edited:
What level of evidence will result in you accepting it and allowing your mind to change.
I can go and find it for you, if you’re willing to accept that enough evidence will see you accept you’re wrong.
Morals and Chelsea in same sentence.
I'm not sure. It would be interesting to find out. It has been said that it isn't necessarily the highest bid that'll be chosen, so your scenario of a bidder offering less up front but agreeing to invest properly into the various teams (men's and women's teams, the academy etc) and the stadium isn't that far fetched at all.
To be honest, all of this just sounds like it's Chelsea that are trying to tread carefully in the hope of landing the club in the best possible situation, free of politically and morally dubious individuals as much as possible. I think the UK government and the PL would have approved the Saudis if Chelsea had added them to the shortlist.
Saudi Media had a plan of debt financing. They might have made the list if they had as much cash as people assumed they did.
Last edited:
The four contenders vying to buy Chelsea Football Club will submit final bids on April 11, paving the way for a prospective new owner to seek government permission to take over from Roman Abramovich by the end of next month.
Sky News has learnt that the remaining contenders have been notified by Raine Group, the merchant bank handling the Blues' sale, that binding offers must be made on or around that date - which falls the day before the second leg of a Champions League quarter-final against Real Madrid.
Bidders - who include several US sports franchise-owning billionaires - will have the opportunity to improve their offers from the indicative proposals which saw them make it through to the final stages of one of the most extraordinary corporate auctions of recent times.
On Saturday, Sky News revealed that the quartet of contenders had been told by Raine that they must commit at least £1bn to future investment in the club if they are to succeed in the battle to end Mr Abramovich's two-decade tenure.
The additional funding must be made available for the Blues' Stamford Bridge stadium, playing squad and other areas of development.
Sky News has learnt that the remaining contenders have been notified by Raine Group, the merchant bank handling the Blues' sale, that binding offers must be made on or around that date - which falls the day before the second leg of a Champions League quarter-final against Real Madrid.
Bidders - who include several US sports franchise-owning billionaires - will have the opportunity to improve their offers from the indicative proposals which saw them make it through to the final stages of one of the most extraordinary corporate auctions of recent times.
On Saturday, Sky News revealed that the quartet of contenders had been told by Raine that they must commit at least £1bn to future investment in the club if they are to succeed in the battle to end Mr Abramovich's two-decade tenure.
The additional funding must be made available for the Blues' Stamford Bridge stadium, playing squad and other areas of development.
Yeah surprisingly it sounds like the Saudis would have been closest to the Glazers than any of the integrated parties.
You may even find that by April 11th, some of the unsuccessful backers will join one of the 4 shortlisted.
The comedy gold of bbc panorama investigative journalism about Roman. Missing file from Russia which is very confidential,can't be disclosed,can't be verified,there was kidnap happened,he was gained from it but no proof of his involvement, investigative officer the witness against roman who involved in sex scandal.
I usually laughed at this kind of propaganda programs from regimes like Russia,Syria,china, saudi. Because they don't need to provide evidence. They can say whatever they want to say about any one to suit their agenda and people have to accept what they say.
I thought democracies are different and people wanted to see evidence before believe things.
That's their MO
oh and blurred background, closed up sombre moody color filter, sources "believed to be"
Buthcer / Sexually involved / Etc but this allegation is yet to be proven.