chara

Roman Abramovich and Chelsea FC : Sanctions

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, CarefreeMuratcan said:

Fan groups, Twitter, the media etc. need to be utilised to amplify the discriminatory comments made about Muslims by the Ricketts family patriarch. If enough **** is stirred with regards to that, perhaps this potential disaster could be averted, since the government (presumably?) has final veto and they won't like this kind of bad PR from the situation. 

This and this ...

2 hours ago, Bison said:

We have several Muslim players including Kante, Rudiger, Ziyech, Sarr to name a few. Imagine playing for people who consider you an enemy.

If Abramovich paying for Israeli settlers wasn't an issue, would racist comments be? Don't mistake me, I think what Ricketts said is disgusting and I don't want him here (admittedly more to do with what I understand of the family as sport club owners), but this is a dilemma at the very heart of football owners being billionaires. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ruudboy   
33 minutes ago, McCreadie said:

Bad sign. Probably means they feel confident they are on the shortlist.

Nah ... just American hubris. Seen it before in business - "act like you'll win, and it might influence matters". A bit like taking your girl to a friend's wedding.

Anyhow, how's the presence of Marleen Ricketts going to reassure me that her hubby is a nice guy, let alone the presence of his family? Wikipedia says this of them: Pete (pro-Trump, death penalty, anti-cannabis, pro-oil), Thomas (unknown political activity), Laura (liberal, LGBTQ, pro-Obama/Clinton/Biden), and Todd (Republican, pro-Trump) - I bet their family dinners are fun, but at least Laura will tick a few boxes with the selection panel, who I presume are a bit right-on?

I found this quote of his more reassuring - well, that and the Cubs winning the World Series after a 108-year drought: "Our substance of choice was beer. Beer, whatever its drawbacks, is not dope. Marlene generally did not come out for drinks on Friday at the Rookery. She went home and got supper ready for the children. Often, I did not get home in time to eat with them. I might have had twelve beers on a Friday evening. I might have had more. I'm sure there were a few nights that it was only by the grace of God that I didn't have a car accident. But it was only beer and it helped me get rid of all my pent-up stress. I got myself home, and our family and our business could press on together." We'd better warn the Butcher's Hook and the Chelsea Pensioner.

Although I do agree that his anti-Union, racist and anti-Islamic stance might pose a slight problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

This and this ...

If Abramovich paying for Israeli settlers wasn't an issue, would racist comments be? Don't mistake me, I think what Ricketts said is disgusting and I don't want him here (admittedly more to do with what I understand of the family as sport club owners), but this is a dilemma at the very heart of football owners being billionaires. 

I think the distinction might be that it's just a case that Roman paying for settlements in Palestine isn't directly discrimination against Muslims, he is Jewish and is helping his people set up communities in the Palestine desert. It's more of an Israel-Palestine issue, nothing against Muslims in general. Ricketts' comments are straight up throwing discrimination towards Muslims. However in reality I think players will just get on with it no matter what, as it won't be the Ricketts patriarch directly being involved with the Club. 

I'll qualify all this by saying, while I am from an ethnic group that is traditionally Muslim, I myself am Atheist and actually have quite strong feelings and opinions against Islamism and Islam. Though there is a difference between a nuanced critical argument I would make, and the trash that Ricketts spouted that is clearly racist (I know Muslims aren't a race of course, being a Turk especially with many European passing people among us, but the way Ricketts sees it is as a race for sure) and isn't a nuanced argument in any way, because Ricketts clearly wouldn't scrutinise Christianity in the same way.  

Edited by CarefreeMuratcan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/03/2022 at 4:42 PM, McCreadie said:

The Centricus bid is 4 UK-based long time Chelsea season ticket holders controlling funds of £40bn, so not sure I understand your argument against them. It would be naive to think that anyone investing £3bn is not going to want to see some return - we have to accept that there is a balance to be had. At least this lot understand football in as much as they have witnessed every mistake we have made in the last 20 years at 1st hand (and every trophy won).

My point was US takeovers of British clubs have never worked. I think Martin Samuel was making a similar point in todays Mail. I'd welcome a successful UK bid and also not anti the Saudi bid either. If it is good enough for ownership of Newcastle and the British Govt for oil and arms, then it is ok for Chelsea.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

I can't speak for anyone on Twitter, but I am not positive about Nick Candy, at all. He's notorious for "mafia-style" business practices, noted in court as lying and misleading business associates for financial gain, and has never been able to shake allegations of tax evasion. Add to that his associations with the Tory Party and government and flouting on lockdown restrictions and it isn't hard to see why some don't like him.

Much less concrete, but I simply do not get a good feeling from him. I am suspicious of anyone who talks and promises as much as he does. The thing about the Spurs supporter associated with the Boehly bid strikes me as cynical pandering. 

I'd not trust him as far as I could throw him, and the fact that he supports Chelsea doesn't change that for me.

We only know so much about Candy as he is from the UK and most of his dealings have been too. We know next to nothing of the other bidders professional lives and most will have negative stories attached to them from dealings with competitors and hostile elements in the press.

Donations to a political party is not a good reason to cast a shadow on his fronting a bid. Personally I'd be much more worried if he had donated to the Labour party over the last few years, but would only look at what his plans are for the club, ratther than any political affiliation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now