OhForAGreavsie

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.

Would you argue that these two wishes are mutually exclusive?

They are of course going to swear black and white that Newcastle was, and would have been, their first choice but few will doubt that given a chance they'd have come over to the Blue side.

Reece had not yet played in the Championship five years ago. 🙂

No. One of the first things he did.

The government don't actually want to do anything to damage those Russians who fund them. They just want to do things which will hit the headlines and make it look like they are doing something. Hence they announce the legislation needed to act against the wealth of Putin's oligarchs will take 18 months to get through Parliament and, when the opposition offered to cooperate to see that the legislation gets passed in a few days they refused..

And yet the Glaziers had to have their arms very severely twisted to persuade them to restart United's women's team. Even then the support was shoddy and they lost one of the WSL's best coaches as a result.

Are you talking about the consortium involving the Swiss banker Wyss? If so, I liked the interviews I've seen with Todd Boehly. He's an impressive bloke. He isn't Roman but we've been spoilt. We are never going to find another Roman.

Don't want to sign Mbappe.

Ditto the women's team Deal breaker for me.

And his lack of interest in football. We've had an owner with a football fan's dream approach to running the club. Whatever we get now must be less and is going to feel awful. We've lived with less before however so, even if it might feel like the end of the world, it really won't be.

It's good take and I hope that you're right. I may be dumb and criminally under informed but I don't see why Roman is such a pariah other than that people don't like Chelsea and he's a Russian they've actually heard of. Yes he was allowed to buy state assets at a price which amounted to theft but the guilty one for me is the one who sold the assets. If it can be shown that Roman has been delivering kick-backs, monetary or otherwise, in return for benefitting from the giveaway then he would be corrupt and I would turn against him. I've heard such kick-backs alleged however I've never seen the claims substantiated.

I'm not a hypocrite and I won't ever pretend I saw a world class performer in Mas but, if that's how he develops, I will be as pleased as the rest of us for him and for Chelsea.

That, in my opinion, is because he isn't anything else either. At least not quite at the required level.

Yes, I agree with this. If our other attackers were more efficient Mason could more easily find a role in the side. The solution I advocate for however is that we find a player who can make those key moments work for his side more often than Mas does. Also, thanks for digging some sense out of what I wrote. I've re-read it and it is so badly written it amounts to gibberish. Don't know how that happened. Must try harder. 😖