chara

Roman Abramovich and Chelsea FC : Sanctions

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Sciatika said:

I thought there would be some kind of announcement today. So, in the absence of that, let me summarise ...
No to Candy because he supports the wrong political party and is thought to be a "bit of a weasel". Presumably, on this basis, we don't want people with the wrong hair colour or a retroussé nose.

lol, amazed that so many people here really struggle with basic comprehension. I'm not a Candy fan and I've said why, really clearly, a few times now. It is not because he is a "weasel" or Tory.

Edit: bit combatative of me, but I stand behind the sentiment. For me, my wariness of Candy is specifically that we know about him suggests to me he would be a bad owner, so it is weird to have it framed as a moral objection. But then I don't understand why people have issues with any of the moral objections being raised about other potential buyers, anyway. None of us have any say whatsoever, so what is so wrong with any individual thinking they'd rather than not have a domestic abuser or someone who supports the death penalty associated with their club? Really cannot fathom why anyone would have issue with anyone having those preferences.

Edited by thevelourfog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

lol, amazed that so many people here really struggle with basic comprehension. I'm not a Candy fan and I've said why, really clearly, a few times now. It is not because he is a "weasel" or Tory.

Edit: bit combatative of me, but I stand behind the sentiment. For me, my wariness of Candy is specifically that we know about him suggests to me he would be a bad owner, so it is weird to have it framed as a moral objection. But then I don't understand why people have issues with any of the moral objections being raised about other potential buyers, anyway. None of us have any say whatsoever, so what is so wrong with any individual thinking they'd rather than not have a domestic abuser or someone who supports the death penalty associated with their club? Really cannot fathom why anyone would have issue with anyone having those preferences.

Candy is as much aTory, As Trump was a Democrat between being a Republican and Robert Maxwell was Labour, Political affinity just a flag  of  convenience to these types, and I use the word Types to avoid giving offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, asvaberg said:

Who is the Norwegian guy you are referring to who used to own a club here in Norway? 

My apologies - genuine mistake. Danish not Norwegian. One of the Centrius 4, Bob Finch, was major shareholder in Nordsjaelland for a few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, paulw66 said:

Could you imagine the uproar

Sanctions revoked

Chelsea sale off

Meltdown

I think the biggest meltdown would come from Chris Bryant MP and the rest of the EPL !!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bison   
25 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

lol, amazed that so many people here really struggle with basic comprehension. I'm not a Candy fan and I've said why, really clearly, a few times now. It is not because he is a "weasel" or Tory.

Edit: bit combatative of me, but I stand behind the sentiment. For me, my wariness of Candy is specifically that we know about him suggests to me he would be a bad owner, so it is weird to have it framed as a moral objection. But then I don't understand why people have issues with any of the moral objections being raised about other potential buyers, anyway. None of us have any say whatsoever, so what is so wrong with any individual thinking they'd rather than not have a domestic abuser or someone who supports the death penalty associated with their club? Really cannot fathom why anyone would have issue with anyone having those preferences.

Steady, you'll be accused of being too woke for not wanting your club owned by such people.

Seriously though, I cannot understand the reaction either. Just caught up with the thread and it seems like some people are falling over themselves to excuse potential owners like the Ricketts. Sad state of affairs really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bison said:

Steady, you'll be accused of being too woke for not wanting your club owned by such people.

Seriously though, I cannot understand the reaction either. Just caught up with the thread and it seems like some people are falling over themselves to excuse potential owners like the Ricketts. Sad state of affairs really. 

I don't think anyone has done that.

What exactly have they done that's so bad? It's a bit like all the imbeciles that gave JT stick because of things his Dad did. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bison   

How is this allowed? Why are they taking the club's money rather than holding the funds in an account until new owners are in place? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bison said:

How is this allowed? Why are they taking the club's money rather than holding the funds in an account until new owners are in place? 

You'd assume the club have been willing to agree to it just to get fans in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asvaberg   
20 minutes ago, McCreadie said:

My apologies - genuine mistake. Danish not Norwegian. One of the Centrius 4, Bob Finch, was major shareholder in Nordsjaelland for a few years.

Thanks. Makes more sense.

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