chara

Roman Abramovich and Chelsea FC : Sanctions

Recommended Posts

As I said previously , this bid is exactly why the Daily Mail decided Saudi investment of Newcastle was bad , so they can gear up to kicking Chelsea about for the next twenty years .

Don't mention the war in Yemen , I did once but I think I got away with it. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingus   
21 minutes ago, Diddymen said:

would this be made public if it was a real bid?

If he has the knowledge that it’s a legit bid then naturally given the landscape he’s going to report it. As would any other journo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

Russians - bad

Saudis - good.

This is the world we live in. 

The ball is rolling now on acceptable ownership. 

I will bet City and Newcastle will be looking for new owners within the next year 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

26 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

The ball is rolling now on acceptable ownership. 

I will bet City and Newcastle will be looking for new owners within the next year 

If the Saudi bid is true but, rejected by the government then certainly City and Newcastle will be looking for new owners too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bert19   
1 minute ago, Erland Johnson said:

 

If the Saudi bid is true but, rejected by the government then certainly City and Newcastle will be looking for new owners too.

I bet our government will be doing every single thing they can to make sure they don't upset the Saudis, Qataris or the Abu Dhabi guys any time soon given we'll need even more of their oil than usual. 

Share this post


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

The ball is rolling now on acceptable ownership. 

I will bet City and Newcastle will be looking for new owners within the next year 

I very much doubt that. For all the '"tough talk" in the media regarding looking closer at who owns what, the fact is that it's not in the government's interest to dig too deep. You never know what you might find!

Margaret Thatcher's vision for the UK was as a service economy; banking, accountancy, legal services, PR, etc.  That IS the very essence of "Londongrad" 

Accountancy firms and solicitors have helped set up shell companies and organise accounts in tax havens such as the BVI, Jersey, Isle of Man, etc. Banks have allowed dirty money to enter the country in order to be laundered. PR people have pushed out puff-pieces to tame journos to place their reprehensible clients in a good light. Should another journo ask awkward questions, legal firms like Carter-Ruck fire off threatening letters knowing that the billions their clients own are enough to shut down anyone through fear of bankruptcy. Estate agents have bent over backwards to accommodate (in more than one sense) the kleptocrats, drugs lords, tax dodgers and oligarchs who want to hide their now "clean" money in high-end property, no questions asked. [When I bought my current home almost 4 years ago to the day, I had to jump through hoops because I was a cash buyer... a different surname and a different price bracket and I would have been aided rather than hindered]

Add to this the reliance of much of Europe on either Russian oil & gas or Middle East oil & gas, and you'll not find many people at the top to willingly rock the boat. Johnson is currently preparing to meet senior Saudis to ask them to increase oil production - in the hope of both lowering prices AND providing an alternative to Russian oil - and while he may raise the question of the executions the other day, he's not going full-on Jeremy Paxman with them. He certainly won't want to annoy an "ally" on whom we are heavily reliant for arms export revenue!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RDCW   
1 hour ago, Mark Kelly said:

As I said previously , this bid is exactly why the Daily Mail decided Saudi investment of Newcastle was bad , so they can gear up to kicking Chelsea about for the next twenty years .

Don't mention the war in Yemen , I did once but I think I got away with it. 

And that's why you lead the league table! Keep em coming Mark. We need cheering up.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

I very much doubt that. For all the '"tough talk" in the media regarding looking closer at who owns what, the fact is that it's not in the government's interest to dig too deep. You never know what you might find!

Margaret Thatcher's vision for the UK was as a service economy; banking, accountancy, legal services, PR, etc.  That IS the very essence of "Londongrad" 

Accountancy firms and solicitors have helped set up shell companies and organise accounts in tax havens such as the BVI, Jersey, Isle of Man, etc. Banks have allowed dirty money to enter the country in order to be laundered. PR people have pushed out puff-pieces to tame journos to place their reprehensible clients in a good light. Should another journo ask awkward questions, legal firms like Carter-Ruck fire off threatening letters knowing that the billions their clients own are enough to shut down anyone through fear of bankruptcy. Estate agents have bent over backwards to accommodate (in more than one sense) the kleptocrats, drugs lords, tax dodgers and oligarchs who want to hide their now "clean" money in high-end property, no questions asked. [When I bought my current home almost 4 years ago to the day, I had to jump through hoops because I was a cash buyer... a different surname and a different price bracket and I would have been aided rather than hindered]

Add to this the reliance of much of Europe on either Russian oil & gas or Middle East oil & gas, and you'll not find many people at the top to willingly rock the boat. Johnson is currently preparing to meet senior Saudis to ask them to increase oil production - in the hope of both lowering prices AND providing an alternative to Russian oil - and while he may raise the question of the executions the other day, he's not going full-on Jeremy Paxman with them. He certainly won't want to annoy an "ally" on whom we are heavily reliant for arms export revenue!

 

What's happening might starting tainting the entire image of the Premier League, not just Chelsea.

Chelsea already having problems with their sponsors. This could spread and if it does then the Premier League would face massive problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chara   
4 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

 

What's happening might starting tainting the entire image of the Premier League, not just Chelsea.

Chelsea already having problems with their sponsors. This could spread and if it does then the Premier League would face massive problems.

I suspect, with no evidence just gut feel, that the 3 people were glad of an excuse to pull out of the deal unrelated to "outrage optics"....from what I read on here the service they provide is less than stellar.

Just a thought as the pull out was aimed at CFC not RA.

As the dust clears somewhat looking from a distance, often misleading, it looks as if more people are beginning to feel a bit uneasy at the attack on Chelsea as a surrogate for RA..... any views?

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