Quite possible Roman was trying to poison Zelensky and its gone pear shaped.
Roman Abramovich plans to sell Chelsea | SOLD for £4.25BN
- Thread starter Ali Dia
- Start date
Yeah, all of that.
I am a college professor and have a number of friends who study Russian politics and all of them say some version of the same. Only Chelsea supporters will tell you different.
You’re full on up is down and down is up Reg. Many of the Chelsea fans are. It’s a shame. You’re too close to it and you’re blurring love of your club too much.
The simple test is : If your club was ‘promoted’ to the same degree by Billions from someone palatable, you simply wouldn’t have had your owner painted in a negative light.
- You all think it’s football fans attacking your club.
- Its actually rational humans criticising awful people.
You’re viewing it as a targeted pile on. It’s really just a global magnifying glass being shone on your owner, his connections and his dark history. He is truly awful and should not be your hero.
Mental gymnastics? Who else poisoned him (along with the other members of the Ukrainian delegation)?
I think Abramovich absolutely should be kicked out of football and I am fine with him being forced to sell the club. I also think that this process has been haphazard and seems to have been a flimsy justification for the Tories to line their own pockets - if there were real moral purpose behind the axe falling for Roman then the Saudis and Mansour would be kicked out as well. I certainly am not trying to justify his blood money but I find the hypocrisy immensely distasteful.
In the wake of the news that Abramovich was involved in peace talks, many were pointing out that this was nonsense - evidently it wasn't. Zelensky advocated on Abramovich's behalf - for me that speaks to a good-faith effort by Roman to at least try to help stop the war. I don't particularly think that's a case of mental gymnastics - I'd argue that insinuating that he wasn't poisoned, or that it was some sort of false flag in order to improve his standing, or that he's some sort of mastermind who's intimately involved in the Russian government's decision-making (all of which have been earnestly posted in this thread) are far clearer examples of twisting reality to fit a narrative.
I am not sure how this much resource and intelligence from West never found anything wrong about his activities. His Chelsea chapter was over and I have no need to support for him now but I am firm believer in evidence and also western democracies all about rule of law and justice need to be delivered through law. Not this way.
Its harrassment to an individual at any standards even if he is guilty with evidence he should get his turn to prove his innocence. What's the difference between killing persons in Arab world and treatment to Roman by uk government. Nothing yet you all criticise Saudis but support this uk government despite prove nothing but claiming false narratives about roman and punishing him.
.If any one endorse roman s treatment by this government have no moral right to question Saudis either.
I just have to ignore this thread for my own good. This will be my last post in this thread.
Unfortunately too many people on here (and in general) seem to think things are binary.
Not poisoned. Latest developments are it was environmental, probably chemicals released in the vicinity as a result of the unrelenting barrage from his best mate.
Zelensky has not advocated for him by the way. He simply stated that the US should hold off on sanctioning him during the peace talks to help facilitate the process but has also subsequently stated that Abramovich is solely involved in these talks in an attempt to free himself from sanctions and that so far he has been as much use as a chocolate fireguard.
Source on that? There appears to be nothing from a cursory Google search. Happy to be educated if I'm wrong though.
Zelensky intervened to ask Biden to not sanction Abramovich - that's literally advocacy? And where is the bolded coming from?
Source
Intelligence suggests 'environmental' factor sickened Abramovich, Ukrainian negotiators -U.S. official | Reuters
Information on Abramovich and his role was in the 90 minute interview referenced here, I do not propose tracking down and reading a transcript of the whole thing to find the exact quotes though but if you want to knock yourself out
Zelensky Gives Interview to Russian Journalists. Moscow Orders It Quashed. - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
The quote that Abramovich along with the other Oligarchs chose to become involved to avoid sanctions is included in this article
Roman Abramovich offered support to Ukraine after invasion, says Zelensky | Evening Standard
First, I appreciate your due diligence and patience in helping me learn more - I'd like to express an earnest thanks for your time and effort.
If you'll permit me to push back a bit - I'd seen the reports from the anonymous US official, but is that really more credible than independent investigative journalists like Bellingcat? I haven't seen any other outlets besides Reuters pick up on this story; personally I don't find this small blurb to be sufficient evidence to outweigh reporting that I would consider to be reliable elsewhere.
I see what you're saying as well with regards to oligarchs hoping to avoid sanctions from the Zelensky piece, but how many of them are actively involved in the peace talks? Surely it has to count for something that Abramovich is taking up a role in hopes of ending the conflict - I do know that several oligarchs have offered financial assistance to help rebuild in hopes of mitigating sanctions as you say, but they aren't publicly involved in peace negotiations. Hell, if we can even talk about the lowest of bars, Abramovich is the one oligarch who has refereed to the invasion as a war.
All in all though I don't want to come across as some sort of Roman apologist even if that would be an easy conclusion to come to based on my post - I'd again just reiterate that I believe he and his ilk should be kicked out of football. I suppose I just don't think he's been integral in Russia's war crimes and on that basis I find the narrative pushed by the government to be nonsensical.
I do appreciate the considered response and I get where you are coming from. The actual truth of what happened to Roman will probably never be accurately established so it could be a poisoning or could be something less deliberate. Not easy to gather definitive proof one way or the other in a war zone. Roman may not have been instrumental in the war crimes committed during the invasion but he helped to create Putin and has been an active part of consolidating his power for over 20 years so that cannot easily be waved away.
With regards to the bolded, I agree entirely. I have no issue specifically with the sanctions, there is a war taking place and it is a legitimate strategy that has been used in many conflicts to sanction the assets of the invading nations elite class. The justification given by the UK Government though is preposterous. It is a load of self serving drivel made up of lies and half truths and then presented to us as some sign of great moral character on their part despite their utterly immoral support of dictators all over the globe who don't threaten their interests. I have been consistent in this thread that none of what is happening has anything to do with ethics or morals. Is Roman a bad man? The evidence clearly shows that he is. Is Roman being sanctioned because he is a bad man? Not at all.
Do you know what, the bolded is a great point and I think it's something I haven't weighted heavily enough. I think you are right to point my shortsightedness out in that regard.
Beyond that I think we are very much on the same page - I believe a good thing is happening for the wrong reasons and the wrong people will ultimately benefit.
Really appreciate the discussion mate and again thank you for taking the time to engage with me and for helping to change my perspective! These are the types of interactions that keep me coming back to this forum.
Ricketts apparently and I’m reading they’re the worst of the lot? Only putting in what he thinks he’ll get back etc. Has ties to Buck and the financial institute arranging the sale so it looks like a right carve up.
Supposed to be a proper scumbag to boot
They're being funded by that Citadel bloke though. To what extent, who knows. They're the by far least popular bidder. You're right about his ties to Buck though. There was some controversy about that relationship yesterday.
Planned protest against the Ricketts supposedly for the Brentford match on Saturday. Interesting to see the extent of it.
From what I've read he's even worse than the Ricketts'
From what I've read he's even worse than the Ricketts'
Ricketts wont be funding the club if they take over, it'll be Ken Griffin. He will be the money man, final say on big decisions etc. . Big football fan apparently and used to play the sport, but has never invested before.
Which is why i think the Ricketts involved with us, and Ken Griffin putting the money in, will be completely different to Ricketts running the Cubs with no backing. Plus Im sure i read the father makes the big calls with the Cubs, and gives the yes or no, he isnt involved with us
Ricketts i suspect overseeing day to day stuff, and IF they win, i think Marina will stay on, too, and Buck.
Last edited:
Much as i am team Boehly, its starting to look like the Ricketts have got this in the bag. Suppose it helps when Raine and one of the Ricketts group set up a company together....
So I can see why some may suspect this sale has been nudged towards the Ricketts all along..
Protests will do feck all, if the club and Roman, aswell as Raine's opinion is that they are the best equipped to continue making sure we remain one of the top clubs, then they will get the gig.
Wouldnt at all shock me though if a losing bidder, joined up with the winner
So I can see why some may suspect this sale has been nudged towards the Ricketts all along..
Protests will do feck all, if the club and Roman, aswell as Raine's opinion is that they are the best equipped to continue making sure we remain one of the top clubs, then they will get the gig.
Wouldnt at all shock me though if a losing bidder, joined up with the winner
Last edited:
This is how the glazers run united. Not good
It depends if he's doing it as an investment or if he's doing it for sporting reasons, to win things.
Given how much Griffin is worth already, hopefully it's the latter.
A bit of drama. The other bidders are apparently frustrated that Bruce Buck facilitated a meeting between the Ricketts and Canoville.
Canoville had voiced his disapproval of the Ricketts on twitter and I guess they saw that, a prominent, beloved former player being against their takeover, so they arranged to meet him. Buck arranged the meeting on Chelsea premises and almost immediately after there was a story [Ricketts leak probably] in the Mail about how Canoville felt reassured by them. Canoville has denied endorsing them, saying he just took the meeting to hear them out. Other bidders are upset because they had all been instructed by Raine that under no circumstances would they be allowed to contact any Chelsea executives until we get to that stage in the process, yet here is old Brucey Buck creeping around in the background, doing a lot of leg work to help them "cleanse their image".
Canoville had voiced his disapproval of the Ricketts on twitter and I guess they saw that, a prominent, beloved former player being against their takeover, so they arranged to meet him. Buck arranged the meeting on Chelsea premises and almost immediately after there was a story [Ricketts leak probably] in the Mail about how Canoville felt reassured by them. Canoville has denied endorsing them, saying he just took the meeting to hear them out. Other bidders are upset because they had all been instructed by Raine that under no circumstances would they be allowed to contact any Chelsea executives until we get to that stage in the process, yet here is old Brucey Buck creeping around in the background, doing a lot of leg work to help them "cleanse their image".
It's been repeated over and over since the creation of this thread, when you and your Chelsea pals pushed back on Roman's involvement in the war, when it seemed like only pictures of him wielding an AK47 on a Russian tank entering Ukraine would've been the only satisfactory proof for you guys. It was repeatedly highlighted that he was being punished for his role as an enabler of the Putin regime.
I'm glad you've finally come to your senses but come on, this was pretty clear from the beginning, and has been repeated ad nauseam, both here and in the media.
I just came back to this thread after a while. I cant believe some Chelsea fans are still pro Abramovich! Must also love Trump. That ex Oligarch who was jailed for 10 years (cant remember his name) said if you want to know which Oligarch is still in Putins pocket then see if they have denounced him and the war. Simple really and obvious. If Abramovich is innocent or even if he wasnt but he decided that the war was wrong all he needed to do was say it! He never. He just went back to Putin. That tells you everything you need to know.
This will always be the case. It'll never not the be the case. There'll always be fans pining after Abramovich long, long after he's gone. People aren't finding it easy to separate Abramovich from their love for the club. It's not surprising, nor is it totally impossible to understand either. Talking to some of them you'll soon realise for them it's one and the same and that to denounce him would in some ways be denouncing all the good times they've enjoyed watching this team for 20 years. If Abramovich had been the Chelsea owner for 5 years with moderate success and not 20 years with unbelievable levels of success, his approval rating would almost certainly have plummeted to near zero during the period this illegal war has been going on and the pressure for him sell the club from Chelsea fans would have been huge.
Last edited:
Many have grown up with RA’s period which has
mostly been successful. It’s only natural that some still view him with blue tinted glasses
mostly been successful. It’s only natural that some still view him with blue tinted glasses
Apparently there is a protest against the potential Ricketts ownership planned before the Brentford game this weekend.
Or like myself Grew up with the club in the 80’s when it really wasn’t fashionable or exciting and all your mates at School supported Utd or Spurs.
It’s little wonder that having cup success in the late 90’s gave the fans the taste of what could be. And then the following two decades being like playing championship manger for the first time!
when people talk about long term success or History they forget at this point Chelsea have been winning trophy’s on and off for nearly 30 years which probably makes up the good amount of the match going support.
So will Chelsea fans always be grateful for the investment and success he bought of course. Should we think the owner was a good man, his well published history would probably mean most dont.
The mental gymnastics are your sudden rush to posit Abramovich had been poisoned by Putin as punishment for acting as a peacemaker.
The insanity in writing that. You are making things up and adding them to half truths to give yourself a truly wrong outlook.
1. Neither Zelensky or Ukraine advocated for Roman. At all.
2. He wasn’t poisoned with any degree of certainty.
You’ve created your own reality around two false points. Then adding a twist to your dismount.
Naivety or stupidity (I certainly don’t think you’re the latter)are the only options for anyone to believe Roman Abramovich or any oligarch is involved in peace talks without Putins blessing. He’s part of the Russian delegation.
I’m not talking about false flags or 4d chess or any other weird conspiracy shite that people spout. This is just how the world works. I am not stating he wasn’t poisoned. Nor am I saying he was. But there is no evidence either way.
The news cycle is dominated by things that start at just a few unsourced stories that are picked up and syndicated by so many places and eventually end up in our ‘free’ press. It’s all noise on a day to day basis. The next taxi off the rank is carrying stories of Roman being disowned by Putin and that RTE and will no doubt be everywhere for a week.
Its all horseshit until it’s fact based. If you want to get into the detail, read any number of books on it that take in years and decades of lawyer-verified, double sourced and defended facts. ‘Putins People’ is pretty good. I’ve got it on Kindle. I’d prefer you to give the author money, but if not, I could send you if you like.
In short(!), there is a close to zero percent chance that Roman Abramovich has divorced Vlad and working for Ukraine’s best interests over Russias. And above all else, a 1-49% chance still wouldn’t mean he got the benefit of the doubt.
One of the bidders Stephen Pagluica, the Boston Celtics owner's questionable past was brought up in the House of Lords by Lord Peter Hain.
Then there is stuff concerning Burma coming to light about another bidder Michael Broughton.
What a wonderful cast of characters we have jostling for position to buy Chelsea.
Then there is stuff concerning Burma coming to light about another bidder Michael Broughton.
What a wonderful cast of characters we have jostling for position to buy Chelsea.
By the look of it we will soon become no suitor available and will run by HMG itself.
. Look like boehly consortium wyss also has questionable past. Soon we will be under arbitration and go extinct. Very sad state indeed.If it continue like this our new owner will be JT and his NFT token group.Sure and that's fair enough to point out. I suppose I hadn't fully grasped the direct causality to the extent that I should have.
Cheers for the recommendation - I'll take a look. I've been a bit wary of that book given the author was successfully sued for libel in overstating some things re: Abramovich (e.g. that he was directed to purchase Chelsea at Putin's behest).
I suppose we just may have to disagree regarding the rest. Zelensky literally advocated for Abramovich to Biden - this has been well documented and confirmed by Zelensky himself. Yes, he didn't come out and say that Abramovich is pushing for peace tirelessly and is stabbing Putin in the back or anything, but ultimately Zelensky thinks Abramovich is at least helpful enough to warrant not being sanctioned. I don't disagree with the bolded and I certainly think Abramovich has ulterior motives, but ultimately if Zelensky thinks his involvement is worthwhile I would trust his judgement.
I also think it's more likely than not that he was poisoned - there have been enough corroborating stories from independent investigative journalists with credible track records, plus there were other victims and obviously this is entirely consistent with Putin / Russia's track record.
I appreciate your post and for explaining your position - I can definitely appreciate your perspective. Perhaps I am just being willfully obtuse and/or naive here but I'll definitely make an effort to continue to learn more, cheers!
Very good answer.
Meanwhile Roman continues his best Snape impression (article is Financial Times but this is free to read version):
https://corruptionbuzz.com/2022/04/...ichs-race-to-save-a-fortune-and-stop-the-war/
Dan gilbert is on board too... suspect Ricketts just fronted this bid. Its all just coming across as rigged
“Over the past fortnight, the Ricketts Family has met with several Chelsea supporter groups and carefully listened to all their feedback.
“As we enter the next phase of the process, we are sharing a list of specific commitments that give fans a pivotal role in protecting Chelsea’s heritage and building for future success. We will continue to discuss our ambitions for the club with fans and the wider football community in the coming days. We will:
“1. Make no change to the club’s name, badge and crest, or Chelsea blue, without the consent of supporters.
“2. Never participate in a European Super League and always protect the integrity and heritage of Chelsea F.C.
“3. Commit the resources necessary across all levels of the club to continue winning trophies, including investing in the first team, experienced football leadership and the academy.
“4. Put diversity and inclusion at the heart of the club and fight against any form of discrimination or inequality.
“5. Create an Advisory Committee with diverse representation to ensure our decisions are informed by: a former men’s and women’s first team player, members of the CST and Chelsea Pitch Owners, and influential community leaders.
“6. Explore every option to redevelop Stamford Bridge and do everything in our power to keep playing in this historic stadium.
“7. Match the current commitment to Chelsea F.C. Women and increase the number of women’s matches played at Stamford Bridge.
“8. Continue the vital charitable work of the Chelsea Foundation, seeking to use the power of football and sport to motivate, educate and inspire.”
@UsaBias: After weeks of speculation of who will own Chelsea, we now know today that it’s Brentford.