You can stop Russia, you cannot stop Russian's playing football - there's literally loads of them playing for sides outside of Russia. The UK (EU or US) cannot just seize the assets of anybody just because they're Russian. There needs to be a legally tight justification for doing so or they'll face legal challenges - we've already seen some of the Oligarchs indicate that they're going to challenge the EU sanctions placed on them.
Abramovich & Chelsea + a bit of Everton
- Thread starter BaZ87
- Start date
challenging something and it being illegal can be totally different things
of course they are going to challenge it because its causing a "minor" inconvenience to them not having full access to their billions
USMANOV has had everything frozen by the EU why the hell hasn't abramovich its a joke
Whether they're challenging the sanctions because it's a minor inconvenience or because their lawyers believe they'll be successful, I don't know however no government is just going to sanction somebody without the decision being legally secure, no matter how much you or some 15 year olds on twitter think they should. As I've said, the government have already received threatening letters from lawyers working for these Oligarchs before they've even issued these sanctions.
If and when the believe they have a legally sound case, they'll sanction him. As yet that's not happened, not by the UK or the EU.
Soldato
As Roman Abramovich puts Chelsea up for sale, Newcastle's new owners frantically check to see if they're within the 90-day cooling off period.
Soldato
Now it’s proven that Roman and his money was dirty, will the FA and UEFA be readjusting the history books?
Nothing has been proven. He's not even been sanctioned (yet) and even if he were, that wouldn't prove that his money was dirty - it would simply be that he's close to Putin or the Kremlin in one way or another.For clarity, that's not to say his money isn't dirty as it is but that's always been known. His own lawyers admitted in the High Court that he paid out huge sums in bribes during the scramble to buy state owned businesses at hugely knocked down prices.
I get where you are coming from but it is slightly more nuanced than that. He's said the proceeds from the sale of the club will go towards war victims but that sum might be reduced if the loans were not repaid. i.e. he could sell the club for £y and have the club still owe him £x or he could sell the club for £y-x and have the club owe him nothing. He'd personally be better off with the debt still in place as he's not getting the proceeds from the sale anyway.
Just like his initial statement about handing over stewardship to the Chelsea foundation, this statement leaves just as many questions as answers. He claims that net proceeds from the sale will go into a charity (for who? Russian victims of the war or Ukrainians?) but what does he mean by net proceeds? Is it simply the sale price less any expenses or does he mean the sale price less his investment into Chelsea. If it's the latter then, if as he claims and he turns that £1.5bn into equity, his total investment into Chelsea now climbs to £1.65bn(ish) and therefore there would be no net proceeds for a sale up to that amount.
I cannot see any scenario where a new owner purchases his shares with the debt still attached to the club. After all, he's claiming that this debt won't be repaid so why would it remain on the books? That would be some leap of faith from a potential buyer to buy the club on the promise that RA won't call the debt in but is leaving it on the books.
Once Chelsea is sold that £1.5bn will be gone. If we work on the basis that the value of any sale being £1.5bn, it doesn't matter whether the buyer pays £1.5bn for the shares and RA turns that debt into equity or whether the buyer pays £0 for the shares and the £1.5bn goes to RA to repay the debt. RA still walks away with £1.5bn. It's spin to make him seem like a good guy.
Caporegime
I wouldn't trust Roman and his "generosity" in the slightest. Hes liquidating for his own personal reasons, not for charitable ones.
And I agree with banning Russian national teams from competitions but I don't agree with banning Russian athletes from anything simply for being Russian. There is a difference between representing your country under the flag of your country and simply being from a country.
At least they seemed to get there in the end with banning Russia, even if FIFA wouldn't have done anything if there wasn't massive amounts of pressure on them. God FIFA are utter scum.
And I agree with banning Russian national teams from competitions but I don't agree with banning Russian athletes from anything simply for being Russian. There is a difference between representing your country under the flag of your country and simply being from a country.
At least they seemed to get there in the end with banning Russia, even if FIFA wouldn't have done anything if there wasn't massive amounts of pressure on them. God FIFA are utter scum.
Good on Germany? They didn’t mind taking the money for the boat in the first place or funding all this with the oil pipeline. You didn’t care where the money was coming from when he was funding Arsenal.
Didn’t even Trump predict all this and attack Germany for the oil money they were sending to Russia.
You only have to look at Newcastle fans, bitching and moaning about oil money and state clubs and now they run around with tea towels on their heads. Arsenal fans used to moan about this guy not giving them enough of his dirty money.
Educate me, what has Roman done that is so wrong that he should have all his assets seized? Other than being a sneaky Russian.
roman is basically known for being involved in putins government whether that be financially or otherwise just look at all the videos and imagery of them at meetings etc etc
hes a former governor and put forward putin for presidency,
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2014
- Posts
- 5,109
Didn't he admit in court that he has bribed people for political favours?
So basically nothing then.
Can we seize the assets of everyone that backed a government or made donations for their own profit. The German government have backed Russia financially as much as he has, can we seize Germany. Is it illegal to back someone and then have them invade a country so I’m guilty? What about all the times countries have sold another weapons. Does it matter only when it impacts us?
He, along with many others, were essentially allowed to steal Russia's wealth in return for helping rig the 1996 elections, securing Yelsin's reelection. Although you'll never be able to prove anything concrete, you have to ask questions about his role in the 'aluminum wars' in Russia which he was heavily involved in and resulted in many rivals of his being murdered. You have the issue Random Guy touches on, where he's admitted in the high court that he paid Boris Berezovsky (at the time a higher up, more powerful Oligarch) bribes to protect him during these aluminum wars. Berezovsky tried to sue RA some years back regarding this, claiming he was in fact Abramovich's partner, he lost and died in suspicious circumstances a few years after. It's worth noting that Berezovsky didn't just fall out with Abramovich but also Putin so who knows who was responsible for his questionable suicide.
Now saying all this, the reasons for having assets seized isn't simply for doing something wrong so to speak. Oligarchs are and can be sanctioned if they have close ties to Putin and the Kremlin. Abramovich, according to intelligence that Chris Bryant revealed in parliament is alleged to be the man that handles Putin's personal finances.
Caporegime
So is this Abramovich selling Chelsea to try and protect his wealth or is this Abramovich selling Chelsea because Putin's decided he wants some money and Abramovich doesn't like bullets?
There's two schools of thought in regards to why Abramovich bought Chelsea. One is that he purchased Chelsea as protection from Putin. Putin was going after a number of Oligarchs that made their money during the Yeltsin/rigged election era and by buying Chelsea he became a harder target - random Russian Oligarch dies and it gets a small article in a couple of broadsheets, Chelsea owner mysteriously dies and it's world news. The other is that he purchased Chelsea under orders from the Kremlin - this has been denied by RA and he's sued publishers of a book that claimed this.
Answering your question, I guess it's the same thing. His high profile status protected him from Putin but has made him a huge public target for sanctions. Selling Chelsea is as much to do with turning the club into cash as it is about lowering his profile, hoping that he can avoid sanctions further down the line. Like all Oligarchs, his money is Putins money if Putin wants it. The alternative is usually an unresolved death.
Caporegime
Moshiri has quit in his role as Chairman of USM Group.
Sooooo who knows what that means in practical terms. As we all are aware these sorts don't really play by the books when it comes to money.
Sooooo who knows what that means in practical terms. As we all are aware these sorts don't really play by the books when it comes to money.
Caporegime
Hopefully this leads to reforms in the league.
What happens to Man City and PSG when their nations go to war.
What happens to Man City and PSG when their nations go to war.
Soldato
The weakness of all sporting organisations no real principles, blinded by money, but occasionally the political pressure becomes too much. They would still rather have the money, they have no social conscience.