OhForAGreavsie

One of the other two couples has, I'm told, spoken of their relationship on social media so, although I have not seen it myself, they are out. The other couple have chosen not to be public about their relationship but it's the least well kept 'secret' around the team and everybody knows they are a couple.

Just for the record there are known to be at least three couples in the CFCW squad.

Thank you for this long, detailed and entirely accurate summary of the situation. 🙂 When I've heard ex footballers parroting nonsense on this subject I've been able to calm myself down by remembering that they are idiots. What is Samuel's excuse?

Not this fan. 😒

Presumably there will be an investigation and the findings will be made public then we can decide what to make of this. Assuming of course that investigation is not itself acqused of having been corrupted.

This was one of the results when I searched YouTube for Emma Hayes's post-game thoughts from yesterday's CFCW win over Aston Villa. I'm glad there is some sense somewhere amid all the madness. I stand against war. I stand against any attempt to redraw national boundaries by force of arms. I stand against the targeting of civilians in pursuit of military objectives. I stand against Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I stand against anyone who does not also stand against this invasion. I will condemn Roman Abramovich when, and only when, I see evidence of his culpability or complicity with the things we all stand against.

Although I wouldn't use the daily mail to wipe up after myself, I've always liked Martin Samuels independence of thought. When the pack is running off in one direction he has often been looking for a different angle. This pile of twaddle however is just another contribution to my growing anger about the way this issue is playing out. Let's leave aside the fact that Roman is a minority shareholder in the company Samuels is referencing. Let's leave aside the company denies selling to the Russian armaments industry. Let's leave aside that British businessmen who own British companies that supply Britain's arms trade are liable to get knighted not sanctioned. Let's leave aside that Roman's money with which he bought Chelsea, and with which he invested in Chelsea, came in large part (at least) from other sources. Let's leave all that aside and ask where is the detail? Yet again we have an anti Roman article based around an assertion with no evidence. Show us first that the company supplies Russia's arms industry. Show us examples of UK businessman being held morally responsible when products made by companies they own are used to make weapons which then kill innocents. Show us a direct link between income from that company and investment in Chelsea Football club. Show us your working Samuels or shut your gob.

I'd be strongly against that idea. 18 would be my baseline minimum but I'd vote for 20 before I'd vote for 16.

There was an interview with this bloke linked earlier in this thread and another 30-minute one linked from that. In both of those, plus the two snippets linked here, I find Boehly to be impressive. That said I don't interpret what he says about the super League to mean that he is against it. My take is that he is against trying to do anything without taking the fans, the customers, along with you. These comments therefore would not rule out his being part of attempts to sell a repackaged version of the super League to European football fans at some point in the future. If the bid by his consortium moves forward then we can expect media outlets to follow up on his ideas about the super League and other matters. It will be interesting to read more about his thinking.

Whoever created that cartoon needs to gen up on their history. 🙂

Emma Hayes won pundit of the year a week/ten days ago.

As is commonly known. In fact the bulk of the money Roman used to fund his purchase came from a $100m bank loan comfortably secured on the shares he would be purchasing. Yeltsin wanted to transition Russia's economy away from the planned soviet model towards a market driven capitalist system. This required: - Moving ownership of the means of production out of public hands into private ones. Creating wealthy individuals 'overnight' with money to invest and kick start the new market economy. Ensure, as far as possible, that these newly created capitalists knew to whom they should be grateful and that they would use their wealth to back him. When Putin ousted Yeltsin, Roman had the good sense to switch his allegiance. Those that did not found themselves being stripped of their wealth. Some tried to take Putin on, some tried to run and hide but, whether he served as President or Prime minister, Putin had gathered the leavers of power into his hands and taking him on was not a successful strategy. Roman just went with the flow. Vitesse because of the links with Roman/CFC perhaps. I'm not sure of the status of that relationship now or if it still exists at all. I vaguely remember that a few years back uefa tightened the regulations and that the ties had to be rowed back as a result. At the start of the war the UK government took a pretty bizarre view of things. They refused to bomb privately owned factories because they were not organs of the German state. That didn't last but it wasn't entirely without some thinking behind it. The hope was to divorce the German people, a majority of whom always voted against the Nazis after all*, from the regime. They aimed to send the message, "We're against Hitler, not against you." In hindsight it was a naïve policy but there was some method in the madness. More generally, there was some internment of German nationals but this was not limited to wealthy or connected individuals only. If you were German you were liable to detention and that was perhaps understandable. The nations were at war after all.

To Be clear, I am not claiming that Roman is not a legitimate target for sanctions. I'm just saying that the condemnations in the media, or even in Parliament, do not give any evidence on which the sanctions can be justified. What we have in this article therefore is probably just more bollocks. The closest thing it contains to a substantiated accusation of wrong doing is this: - "The government claims his more measurable part in the war effort is owning 29% of a firm that may have supplied steel for Russian tanks. The firm denies it." So, owning a minority stake in a company which may or may not sell steel to a tank manufacturer is grounds for being sanctioned? How many shareholders in the steel making businesses which supplied steel used in the illegal war against Iraq have been sanctioned? We stand firmly against war and with peace. We condemn Putin's war but if you want us to condemn the owner of our club too then show us your evidence.

I need to clarify. The fact that the 'charges' against Roman are being supported only by assertions, not by evidence, is bollocks. I do not mean that the post to which I replied is bollocks. The banking situation is just an item of detail that fell through the cracks between the intentions of the license and the practicalities of making it work. It's a non issue which will quickly resolve itself. Indeed according to some reports already has resolved itself. I have some sympathy for Three who found themselves in a difficult situation. I'm ok with giving them a little time to sort out their final position on this.

This is all bollocks and I am fuming. Where is the transparency? Everywhere we turn, including the article quoted here, we are told Roman has links with Putin but no report EVER mention's what those links are and why they are such as to warrant the measures taken against him, against Chelsea and against us. I don't claim that there are no links, nor that Roman shouldn't be sanctioned if they do exist, but all I ever see are assertions, never any specific descriptions of the links and never any evidence to back up the assertions. Without substantiation of the charges what we are witnessing is a modern day witch hunt.

Agreed. By far the best.

CPO stand firm but Roman really should have forgiven their debt while he could.

Wenger does talk sense some of the time, and here is such an example. What Wenger says may allow some readers to get an exaggerated impression of how much Roman invested in team building at the beginning, and he glosses over the numerous transfer mistakes which were made during Roman's tenure, but his general point is correct I believe. Arsene Wenger warns potential Chelsea owners with Roman Abramovich "respect" comments (msn.com) Arsene Wenger has given his thoughts on how Chelsea will fare without Roman Abramovich as owner and provided some advice for whoever succeeds the Russian oligarch. The billionaire announced that he was putting the Blues up for sale last week as the scrutiny surrounding his relationship with Russian president Vladimir Putin intensifies in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine. It is thought that Abramovich has set his asking price for the club at £3billion, though Wenger has admitted he feels that is slightly above market value. Speaking to beIN Sports, Wenger was surprisingly full of praise for Abramovich despite the fact there is an argument his arrival in English football led to Arsenal eventually being left behind in the race for league titles. "I would say he was the first big investor [before] the Glazers to come in, at a golden period for a guy that was a billionaire. There was no Financial Fair Play, you could put as much money in as you wanted,’ the Frenchman explained. "Today, with the FFP, I would not necessarily advise somebody to come in to fight against Manchester City, Chelsea, Liverpool, who are lightyears ahead of them, to build a good team – because you cannot invest the money you want to invest. "So it is much more difficult today. But he came in at the golden period and I give him credit. "He understood quickly what to do, put competent people in charge who managed the club very well and put him to a level that is absolutely outstanding. I have a lot of respect for what he did." Wenger admitted he doubts that whoever succeeds the Russian will be able to match his spending power. "You cannot. Today you cannot put that money in, privately, that is impossible. "It is limited to, I think, £200m over three years. At that time you could put a billion in. "I always advised people who wanted to buy football clubs, instead of putting £100m in every year, put £500m in in the first year and buy the right players, then you have a team. "He could do that and he did very well and today I think the club is managed very well and is at a top level." The former Arsenal manager did issue a warning that the next owner will have to have a number of attributes if the Blues are to continue on their current trajectory of success. "It is still sustainable as a football club today because they are at a good level. But after that when you come in it is down to money and good decisions. Sometimes people have good decisions but no money, sometimes they have money but they make bad decisions. So you have to put the two together."

Wrong thread.

I'll keep an eye out. My feeling is that many categories reflect no knowledge or skill so it only takes a couple such to turn the thing into a lottery where success is based on luck and luck alone. That doesn't seem interesting or worthwhile to me.

Only if you can realise it. I remain strongly in favour of a new build away from SB if a location can be found: - Cheaper since at least some of the cost can be offset by development of the SB site. A larger site, with fewer restrictions e.g. line of sight issues, allows more freedom of design as well as an opportunity to benefit from improved transport links. As implied in the post I'm quoting. potential stadium sponsors prefer new build over legacy venues which resist adoption of the rights name. Chelsea also have no debt or at least won't have if this sale goes through on the terms Roman advertised.

Has anyone read any comment on CFC's situation from 3, Hyundai, Trivago, or other club sponsors?

The fewer categories being predicted, the more interested I'd be. With the categories listed I would be a spectator.

Everyone acknowledges that in his role as owner of Chelsea Roman's performance has been exemplary. I won't bore everyone with a list of examples because I think everyone knows them. On the other hand, even when speaking with the cast iron protection of Parliamentary Privilege, the best that MP Chris Bryant can say against Roman is that he [Bryant] has seen a mention in an unpublished report that Roman has been involved with illicit activities. If this is so then throw the book at him but is it so. The report does not contain fresh information. If its supposed claims can be substantiated then action against Romain is warranted and indicated. Yet, nothing. Roman knowingly paid $100,000,000 for an asset worth $billions. This was a crime against the Russian people but that crime was committed by Yeltsin not Abramovich. It maybe that I have been too complacent to look into Roman's dealings so I genuinely want to know what it is he has done to make him worthy of the toxicity you describe?

List your reasons please.