Vesper

College Backtracks on Banning Teaching Dostoevsky Because He's Russian https://www.newsweek.com/college-backtracks-banning-teaching-dostoevsky-russian-1684080 A university in Italy has backtracked on a decision to postpone a course about the work of Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky following a backlash. Italian writer Paolo Nori posted a video on Instagram on Tuesday saying he had received an email from officials at the University of Milano-Bicocca, in Milan, informing him of the decision to postpone his course following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. "Dear Professor, the Vice Rector for Didactics has informed me of a decision taken with the rector to postpone the course on Dostoevsky," the email said, according to Nori's video. "This is to avoid any controversy, especially internally, during a time of strong tensions." https://www.instagram.com/tv/CakmLRqguxO/ Nori said he had been invited by the university to deliver the four-session course on Dostoevsky, whose novels include Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, Demons and The Brothers Karamazov, starting from next Wednesday. "They invited me. Each lesson was 90-minutes long. They were free and open to everyone," he said. Nori went on: "I realize what is happening in Ukraine is horrible, and I feel like crying just thinking about it. But what is happening in Italy is ridiculous." "Not only is being a living Russian wrong in Italy today, but also being a dead Russian, who was sentenced to death in 1849 because he read a forbidden thing. That an Italian university would ban a course on an author like Dostoevsky is unbelievable," he said. Nori's video sparked an outcry, with several notable figures criticizing the university's decision. Matteo Renzi, Italy's former prime minister who is now a senator for Florence, tweeted that it was "insane" to prohibit studying Dostoevsky because of the actions of Russian President Vladimir Putin. "In this time we need to study more, not less: in the university we need teachers, not incapable bureaucrats," Renzi wrote. On Wednesday, the university released a statement on its social media accounts confirming the course would go ahead. "The University of Milano-Bicocca is a university open to dialogue and listening even in this very difficult period that sees us dismayed at the escalation of the conflict," the statement said. "The course of the writer Paolo Nori is part of the writing course aimed at students and citizens who aim to develop transversal skills through forms of writing. The university confirms that this course will take place in the established groups and will deal with the contents already agreed with the writer. In addition, the rector of the university will meet Paolo Nori next week for a moment of reflection," it said. Newsweek has contacted Nori and the university for additional comment. Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, accompanied by Culture Minister Olga Lyubimova, visits the Moscow's Dostoevsky House museum on the day of Russian novelist's 200th birthday in Moscow on November 11, 2021. The University of Milano-Bicocca in Milan, Italy, reversed a decision to ban a course on Dostoevsky on March 2, 2022, following Russia's invasion of Ukraine seven days earlier.

Roman Abramovich confirms Chelsea are for sale and writes off £1.5bn loans https://theathletic.com/news/roman-abramovich-confirms-Chelsea-are-for-sale-and-writes-off-15bn-loans/33NLbNbnl3bV/

Explained: Chelsea’s debt to Abramovich passes £1.5 billion https://theathletic.com/3047181/2022/01/05/Chelsea-debt-abramovich-passes-1-5-billion/ Chelsea’s debt to Roman Abramovich now exceeds £1.5 billion, spanning the Russian’s 18-year ownership of the Premier League club. Annual accounts for Fordstam Limited for the financial year ending June 30, 2021 confirm that the oligarch poured a further £19.9 million of interest-free loans into Chelsea FC plc’s parent company last season, underlying the club’s continued reliance upon the Russian’s backing. Chelsea, hampered by the financial ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic which largely condemned football behind closed doors throughout last season, recorded a pre-tax loss of £155.9 million for the year, despite being crowned European champions for the second time in their history in May. So what is Fordstam? Fordstam Limited, with its registered address of Stamford Bridge, is owned by Abramovich and serves as Chelsea FC plc’s parent company. Its funding is ploughed into Chelsea FC plc as equity, and then on to the football club itself — Chelsea Limited — again as equity, to cover any cash losses sustained. Fordstam’s latest accounts note that funding “is provided by the ultimate controlling party, Mr R Abramovich” in the form of an interest-free loan. The accounts add: “The Group (Fordstam’s subsidiary undertakings) has received an increase in funding of £19.9 million during the last financial year”. That is mirrored in Chelsea FC plc’s accounts. Abramovich bought Chelsea in 2003 and has since overseen unprecedented success at the club. His money has helped them to claim five Premier League titles, five FA Cups, three League Cups, two Europa Leagues and two European Cups in that period. The team have already won the UEFA Super Cup this season and are still involved in five competitions, including the FIFA Club World Cup that will take place next month in Abu Dhabi. That success has been bankrolled by Abramovich’s money. Note 22, on creditors, in the financial statements in Fordstam’s 44-page annual report confirms that the balance “on all related party loans at 30 June, 2021 was £1,514.4 million”, up from £1,494.5 million the previous year. The loans are theoretically repayable on 18 months’ notice to Camberley International Investments Limited, a company that is understood to be controlled by Abramovich. Yet, as the loans are provided by the owner himself — the oligarch would have to repay himself from the proceeds if he ever sold the club — Chelsea can refer to themselves as being effectively debt-free. Chelsea FC plc made clear in their annual report that the company is “reliant on Fordstam Limited for its continued financial support”, adding: “The company has received confirmation from its parent undertaking that sufficient funds will be provided to finance the business for the foreseeable future”. What did Chelsea’s own accounts reveal? Chelsea’s accounts were published on December 29, 2021 and laid bare the cost of COVID-19 and a season of heavy transfer spending at Stamford Bridge. A pre-tax profit of £35.7 million had been transformed into that £155.9 million loss, with match-day revenues (down from £46.8 million to £7.7 million) and commercial income (down £16.8 million) seriously impacted by football behind closed doors. The club’s turnover actually increased from £407.4 million to £434.9 million, largely driven by an increase in broadcasting revenue stemming from the late finish to the 2019-20 Premier League season after Project Restart, but also the team’s success in winning the Champions League for a second time. The Chelsea hierarchy, who opted against making use of the government job retention scheme through the 2020-21 financial year, believed the club’s turnover would have exceeded £500 million for the first time had it not been for the pandemic. What was the damage in terms of transfer spending and the wage bill? The club’s accounts, as well as those of Fordstam, detail the heavy investment in the team when Chelsea re-entered the market with a vengeance after their FIFA transfer ban to reinvigorate the playing staff in the summer of 2020. The club spent £222.2 million on the playing squad over the 2020-21 financial year — adding Kai Havertz, Timo Werner, Hakim Ziyech, Ben Chilwell, Edouard Mendy and Thiago Silva to their ranks — with that figure also including existing player contract renegotiations. The outlay will be amortised — the accounting principle of gradually writing off what it cost you to buy an asset over time — over the length of the respective players’ contracts. They raised £27.9 million in sales, principally those of Victor Moses to Spartak Moscow and midfielder Nathan to Atletico Mineiro. The Brazil youth international had joined Chelsea in 2015 but never played for the club. Chelsea’s annual wage bill rose by 17.5 per cent to £333 million — only Manchester City, who paid £351 million in salaries over the 2019-20 season, boast higher in the Premier League — and includes incentive payments and bonuses to players linked to their Champions League success. However, the club continues to comply with UEFA’s break-even criteria under the governing body’s financial fair play regulations. Since the reporting date, both sets of accounts note that “the Group has acquired the registration of three football players at an initial cost of £109.7 million and disposed of the registration of 13 players at a profit of £103.7 million”. They could also receive a further £16.4 million if outstanding clauses in previous transfers are all met. The three new arrivals last summer were Romelu Lukaku — for a club-record fee, making up the vast majority of that outlay — Marcus Bettinelli and the loanee from Atletico Madrid, Saul Niguez. Again, though, the figure will be amortised (spread out over a number of years) meaning the club will record a healthy profit in terms of player trading in their next accounts. What did Chelsea say when releasing their accounts? The board of Chelsea FC plc acknowledged their continued reliance on Abramovich in a difficult economic climate and pointed to the European Cup triumph as having helped offset the impact of the pandemic on revenues. “Throughout this period we have continued to receive the full commitment and support of the owner across the entire business allowing us to continue to invest in our playing squad during this period,” said the chairman, Bruce Buck. “This is, of course, while working within the regulatory framework and constraints with which we must operate. “The strength, stability and long-term approach of our financial operation means our revenue streams remain strong, however, COVID-19 will continue to have an impact going into the next financial year as our commercial operations resume normal activities.”

surely some rich as shit (20 billion or more net worth) person sees this as huge bargain buy Roman is NOT demanding payment back of the £1.5 billion in loans (per his official statement, which is fairly binding) the only truly global European clubs are the big 15 Real Barca AM PSG Bayern Dortmund Juve AC Milan Inter Milan Chelsea Manure Pool Citeh Arsenal Spuds

or one of dozens of tech billionaires worth more than Roman

"No substance" to reports of Ratcliffe bidding for Chelsea, says spokesman https://www.reuters.com/business/no-substance-reports-ratcliffe-bidding-Chelsea-says-spokesman-2022-03-03/ fuck

Mou was right

I do NOT like consortium owners fuck

they listed it, and it IS a legit trophy, no remotely major (and likely none, period) league or club on the planet doen't count domestic super cups as trophies. Barca, Real, Juve, Bayern, PSG, Inter, AC Milan, AM, Dortmund, etc etc ALL certainly do. The CS is one of the hardest trophies to win, as just to qualify you have to either win the league (by far the hardest domestic league on the planet) or win the FA Cup, the hardest domestic cup to win THEN after all that, you have to (normally, and especially if you did not win the EPL) beat one of the best teams on the planets to win it only people who downplay it are Manure and Pool fanbois, and then only when it comes to us, which is so stupid as we are HORRIFIC in it, (2 wins, 7 losses under Roman) but they hate adding the 2 more (and again, they are legit, they MUST be added) trophies to our totals

Part of that graph is wrong. It is 21 trophies total, not 19. They even list all 21, but then post wrong total.

delete

😭

Ukraine invasion: Everton cuts ties with Russian sponsors, including firm owned by oligarch Alisher Usmanov The club says it is providing full support to Ukrainian full-back Vitalii Mykolenko, who joined club in January from Dynamo Kyiv. Meanwhile, Russian and Belarusian licensed drivers have been banned from motorsport events in the UK. https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-invasion-everton-cuts-ties-with-russian-sponsors-including-firm-owned-by-oligarch-alisher-usmanov-12555498

Germany seizes Oligarchs $600 million mega-yacht https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2022/03/02/germans-seize-russian-billionaire-alisher-usmanovs-mega-yacht/ Russian billionaire Alisher Usmanov was sanctioned by the European Union on Monday. Two days later, Forbes has learned from three sources in the yacht industry that one of his prized possessions—the 512-foot yacht Dilbar, valued at nearly $600 million—has been seized by German authorities in the northern city of Hamburg. Usmanov purchased Dilbar in 2016 for a reported cost of $600 million from German shipbuilder Lürssen, which custom-built it for him over 52 months. The firm calls it "one of the most complex and challenging yachts ever built, in terms of both dimensions and technology." At 15,917 tons, it's the world's largest motor yacht by gross tonnage, and is typically manned by a crew of 96 people. Dilbar boasts the largest swimming pool ever installed on a yacht as well as two helicopter pads, a sauna, a beauty salon, and a gym. Its plush interiors have more than 1,000 sofa cushions and it can host up to 24 people in 12 suites.

From shock therapy to Putin’s war Putin is alone responsible for the war in Ukraine but prominent westerners played a key role in Russia’s post-Soviet trajectory. https://socialeurope.eu/from-shock-therapy-to-putins-war As Russian tanks battle through Ukraine on the orders of an authoritarian president, it is worth noting that Ukrainians are not the only ones who crave democracy. Russians, too, have taken to the streets—at great personal risk—to protest against Vladimir Putin’s outrageous act of aggression. But they are fighting an uphill battle in a country which has never been given a chance to become democratic. When such an opportunity was available, it was subverted not by Putin and his kleptocratic milieu but by the west. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union 30 years ago, American economic advisers convinced Russia’s leaders to focus on economic reforms and put democracy on the back burner—where Putin could easily extinguish it when the time came. This is no trivial historical contingency. Had Russia become a democracy, there would have been no need to talk about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and its eastward expansion, no invasion of Ukraine and no debates about whether the west owed Russia’s civilisation greater respect. (As a German, I recoil at that last proposition, which has clear echoes of Adolf Hitler and his self-proclaimed leadership over a ‘civilization’.) Extraordinary powers Let us recount the sequence of events. In November 1991, the Russian Supreme Soviet (parliament) gave the then Russian president, Boris Yeltsin, extraordinary powers and a 13-month mandate to launch reforms. Then, in December 1991, the Soviet Union was officially dissolved by the Belovezh accords, which created the Commonwealth of Independent States. Russia, Belarus and Ukraine declared respect for one another’s independence. Surrounded by a small group of Russian reformers and western advisers, Yeltsin used this unique historical moment to launch an unprecedented programme of economic ‘shock therapy’. Prices were liberalised, borders were opened and rapid privatisation began—all by presidential decree. Nobody in Yeltsin’s circle bothered to ask whether this was what Russia’s citizens wanted. And nobody paused to consider that Russians might first want a chance to develop a sound constitutional foundation for their country, or to express through an election their preference for who should govern them. The reformers and their western advisers simply decided—and then insisted—that market reforms should precede constitutional reforms. Democratic niceties would delay or even undermine economic policy-making. Only by moving fast—cutting the dog’s tail with one blow of the axe—would Russia be put on a path to economic prosperity and the Communists be kept out of power for good. With radical market reforms, the Russian people would see tangible returns and become enamoured of democracy automatically. Unmitigated disaster It was not to be. The Yeltsin presidency turned out to be an unmitigated disaster—economically, socially, legally and politically. Overhauling a Soviet-style centrally-planned economy in the space of just 13 months proved to be impossible. Price and trade liberalisation on their own did not create markets. That would have required legal institutions but there was no time to establish them. Yes, extreme shortages disappeared and street markets sprang up everywhere. But that is a far cry from nurturing the kind of markets needed to facilitate the allocation of resources on which companies and households rely. Moreover, the shock therapy unleashed such severe and sudden social and economic disruptions that it turned the public against the reforms and the reformers. The Supreme Soviet refused to extend Yeltsin’s extraordinary powers and what happened next would set the stage for the rise of authoritarian presidentialism in Russia. Yeltsin and his allies refused to give up. They declared the existing Russian constitution of 1977 illegitimate and Yeltsin proceeded to assume power unilaterally, while calling for a referendum to legitimise the move. But the constitutional court and the parliament refused to budge and a deep political crisis ensued. In the end, the standoff was resolved by tanks, which Yeltsin called in to dissolve the Russian parliament in October 1993, leaving 147 people dead. To be sure, many members of parliament were opponents of Yeltsin and his team and perhaps wanted to turn back the clock. But it was Yeltsin who set a dangerous new precedent for how disputes over the country’s future would be resolved. Tanks, not votes, would decide. And Yeltsin and his team didn’t stop there. They also rammed through a constitution which enshrined a powerful president with strong decree and veto powers, and with no serious checks and balances. Revealing conversation I still recall a revealing conversation that I, a student of Russia’s reforms at the time, had with Dmitry Vasiliev, a top member of Yeltsin’s privatisation team. When I pointed out the shortcomings of the draft constitution, he said they would simply fix it if the wrong person ascended to power. They never did, of course—nor could they have. Vasiliev’s statement fully encapsulated how the economic reformers thought about constitutional democracy. In December 1993, the new constitution was adopted through a referendum, which was held jointly with elections to the new parliament. Yeltsin’s candidates suffered a stunning defeat, but with the president’s new constitutional powers secured the economic reforms continued. Yeltsin was ‘re-elected’ in 1996 through a manipulated process which had been planned in Davos and orchestrated by the newly-minted Russian oligarchs. Three years later, Yeltsin made Putin prime minister and anointed him as his successor. Democratising Russia may always have been a long shot, given the country’s history of centralised power. But it would have been worth a try. The ill-advised prioritisation of economic goals over democratic processes holds lessons well beyond Russia. By choosing capitalism over democracy as the foundation for the post-cold-war world, the west jeopardised stability, prosperity and, as we now see again in Ukraine, peace and democracy—and not only in eastern Europe.

Broja scored a great goal again for SOTON

Mount was FAR better he as all over the place like vanilla Kante, lol just wish he had a better shot on him we should have walked away 2 nil winners versus the scouser vermin

I still have faith call me crazy

OFF OUR TEAM!!!!! one man destruction of Blue Hope

what a difference Reece makes when he plays RLC was actually really good so was Saul glad to see Werner and Rom score Vale looked sharp Kenedy was invisible and it would have been (literally) a clean sheet if not for SARR Sarr NEVER should see the pitch again he is horrific worst CB in a decade or more for us

I was gutted when Jim Ratcliffe backed out of buying us the stadium was the deal breaker

yes, but we always have too many injuries and we will have so many games this season, especially if we pull thsi out and go deep and then deep in the CL

I fucking warned that we needed a CB for cover over and over and over 🤬

Lukaku is going sorta oki, Werner is aimless

It is an absolute JOKE that we are fielding Sarr and Kenedy, and playing bloody RLC at CB wtf