Most liked posts in thread: Chelsea could be in trouble?

I see that following discussions with the FA, Chelsea have agreed to withdraw their request to play behind closed doors in Middlesbrough. Maybe someone pointed out that they'd probably end up playing in an empty Stamford Bridge for the remainder of the season if they set that precendent?

 

They still see rhemselves as the victims in all this, and their fans act like morons by putting up banners and singing about the reason they are in these sanctions, Roman.

The EU have now issued sanctions on Roman and Chelsea.

 

Abramovich is the best owner they’ve ever had. How can he be to blame for the current conflicts? Laughable

 

Not at all. It’s fascist to persecute everybody from a particular nation, just for being a particular nationality. Have some consideration for the millions of innocent Russian folk, and stop being brainwashed by our biased media.

 

He’s not an international criminal

Why did nobody bat an eyelid to his ownership prior to the Ukraine war then?

So it’s ok to display Roman flags and for him to be instated as owner as long as the country he is from aren’t at war with anyone? It’s strange logic, and one that absolutely screams mainstream media brainwashing.

 

The day after Ken Bates sold Chelsea to Roman Abramovich in 2003, Chelsea fan and former Minister for Sport Tony Banks was quoted as saying "I want to know if this individual is a fit and proper person to be taking over a club like Chelsea and until that question is answered, I'm afraid the jury is out."

Whilst there has undoubtedly been a shift in public opinion on the matter in recent weeks, there has been been plenty of discussion in the mainstream media about Abramovich and his suitability to own a football club for years. It's also worth noting that for all the posturing amongst some commentators that Abramovich is an innocent bystander with no links to Putin, some of the most damning evidence came directly from Abramovich himself when defending a civil case in the UK against a former associate he gave details of a "corrupt payment" (his words) of $2bn he made for political protection and influence.

As for your comment about "strange logic" I'd have to agree. A lot of people are happy to turn a blind eye to the shortcomings of other club owners, Abramovich is no worse than the likes of Mansoor at Man City or the Saudi PIF at Newcastle and others like Alisher Usmanov who had been sniffing around Everton until he was sanctioned a few weeks ago.

 

Yes, sorry. My mistake. It was Yeltsin who sanctioned the rigged auction, not Putin. But that doesn't alter the substance of the case against Abramovitch.

 

@SimonW I've got a little bit of sympathy for the football authorities when it comes to fit and proper owners in relation to foreign owners who, shall we say, are morally dubious because they probably don't have a great deal of power to do much about it without legislation from the government.

I don't think anyone saw the wolf at the door coming pre Abramovich and to a certain extent with the Man City owners coming in but by the time it came to Newcastle it was pretty obvious that we had a bit of an issue, hence all the controversy. Had anyone had the foresight at the formation of the PL that we should have some sort of moral arbiter to judge suitability of owners on non-financial matters then that may have prevented some (or all) of these takeovers but I don't think we can be too critical of the PL not to predict what has come to pass.

As it stands, there's no chance of any meaningful change from the PL/FA now. Firstly, there are 3 clubs who will definitely not agree to a change because they know that it's aimed primarily at them and secondly, there's going to be a large number of other owners who will be against it because it will reduce their chances of a massive payday by not allowing them to sell to the next petro-state that fancies a bit of sportswashing.

 

Now there is talk of them being punished if the loans are written off. The funding was allowed if a loan to be repaid but not as a gift/investment

 

Really? It's not the worst issue that Chelsea are facing at the moment but might be a red flag for a potential new owner. Hopefully, there will be a modicum of good sense involved and no one starts to push for sanctions in a way that jeopardises the sale and puts the future of the club at risk. Whatever the future holds for Chelsea, their finances are going to change dramatically compared with the last 20 years.

 

If the loans are wiped off then it would push them massively over all spending restrictions. Only similarity I can think of is the way Saracens used financial dealings over years, they ended up relegated due to it all, not sure if they had their titles taken off them