Roman Abramovich Thread

[Superblue 6,331]

Everyone loves a mystery bidder 😂

[ZAPHOD2319 3,873]

You beat me by a minute! 
 

ooooo la la, the plot thickens.

[Vesper 27,310]

15 minutes ago, Superblue_1986 said:

Everyone loves a mystery bidder 😂

[Pizy 17,860]

Mystery bidder is Bezos. 🤣

[ZAPHOD2319 3,873]

Obnoxiously wealthy people try to avoid the limelight. 

[Vesper 27,310]

theme song for waiting

 

[chelsea_4_eva 1,142]

Its Musk and our sponsor next season will be Tesla, fck 3 lol

[Blues Forever 1,232]

2 minutes ago, chelsea_4_eva said:

Its Musk and our sponsor next season will be Tesla, fck 3 lol

Or Space X🙃

[Superblue 6,331]

9 minutes ago, ZAPHOD2319 said:

You beat me by a minute! 
 

ooooo la la, the plot thickens.

There was talk at the end of last week, I think from a report in the Athletic, that somebody had made an offer who had access to one of the largest wealth reserves available so it would back that up.

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[Pizy 17,860]

Ricketts must have been mighty convincing in their sales pitch, sadly. Probably because of their experience with stadium renovation. 

Having the atmosphere and feeling around the club in a toxic state from day 1 under a new owner would just be depressing. Really hope these people choosing realize this.

[Magic Lamps 11,449]

If Musk was in it you bet he would  have told everyone and their dog a year ago

[Laylabelle 9,296]

17 minutes ago, Pizy said:

Ricketts must have been mighty convincing in their sales pitch, sadly. Probably because of their experience with stadium renovation. 

Having the atmosphere and feeling around the club in a toxic state from day 1 under a new owner would just be depressing. Really hope these people choosing realize this.

And rival fans are like muhahaha...

This better not happen but can easily see it heading that way! 

 

[Pizy 17,860]

So the fourth “mystery bidder” is Steven Pagliuca who co-owns the Boston Celtics and is chairman at Bain Capital. I don’t know much about him but I am a little familiar with Bain who are a colossal investment firm. And of course, another with a connection to right wing politicians here in America… 😒

 

[milka 3,308]

So the final 4 is set : 

- Boehly/Wyss

- Harris/Blitzer

- Pagliuca/Hain

- Ricketts/Griffin 

 

[Vesper 27,310]

5 minutes ago, Pizy said:

So the fourth “mystery bidder” is Steven Pagliuca who co-owns the Boston Celtics and is chairman at Bain Capital. I don’t know much about him but I am a little familiar with Bain who are a colossal investment firm. And of course, another with a connection to right wing politicians here in America… 😒

 

but Pagliuca has been talked about for days, so how much of 'mystery' can it be??

 

lol

these RW cunts are just coming out of the woodwork like the termites they are

Bain is a NOTORIOUS 'strip and sell' acid bath private equity firm

they are hated AF by anyone who cares about labour/unions/workers rights

In his 2009 book The Buyout of America: How Private Equity Is Destroying Jobs and Killing the American Economy, Josh Kosman described Bain Capital as "notorious for its failure to plough profits back into its businesses," being the first large private-equity firm to derive a large fraction of its revenues from corporate dividends and other distributions. The revenue potential of this strategy, which may "starve" a company of capital.

 

PLUS he is a major shareholder in Atalanta

On 19 February 2022, Pagliuca, together with a number of other investors, acquired a 55% stake of Italian Serie A association football club Atalanta. Under the new agreement, Pagliuca was named co-chairman of the club.

 

https://www.danielgeey.com/post/multiple-football-club-ownership-disparities-between-rules/

European club ownership: ENIC and beyond

Ownership issues have arisen when one company has had a shareholding in more than one European football club competing in the same UEFA competition. The seminal example is the CAS decision in the ENIC case[1]. ENIC at the time had a minority shareholding in AEK Athens FC (42.8%) and a majority shareholding in Slavia Prague (96.7%), and both clubs qualified for the UEFA Cup competition in the same season.

The CAS decision signalled the intention of the football authorities to take measures to ensure that conflicts of interest do not occur between commonly owned clubs. The rule which was subsequently brought into effect by UEFA (‘the UEFA Rule’) effectively prohibited clubs in which ENIC had an ownership stake from competing in the same UEFA competition. However, as the UEFA Rule had only been added after the clubs had already qualified for the following season’s European club competitions (the 1999/2000 season), it only became effective for the 2000/1 season[2].

The ENIC decision stated that a company or a person has an ‘Interest’ in a club when it has:

1. the majority of the shareholders’ voting rights in another club in the same UEFA club competition;
2. the right to appoint or remove a majority of the directors in another club in the same UEFA club competition; or
3. the majority of the shareholders’ voting rights (through a Shareholders’ Agreement) in another club in the same UEFA club competition.

The decision prohibited two clubs in which a person or company had an Interest from being admitted into the same UEFA club competition. The CAS stressed the need for transparency and legitimacy in all UEFA competitions. The supporters’ perception of a particular game could be damaged by the differing business aims of two clubs in the same competition in which the same person or company had an Interest.

The CAS ruled that, for these purposes, a shareholding of 50.1% or more in two clubs competing in the same UEFA club competition would potentially breach Article 2 of the UEFA Rules on Integrity of Competition[3] (‘the UEFA Integrity Rules’) under the first bullet point, above.

Additionally, after the CAS cleared the UEFA Rule in time for the 2000/1 season, a further stipulation was added to the UEFA Integrity Rules. It is now prohibited for a company or person to have an Interest in a club when it has the ability to exercise a ‘decisive influence’ in the decision-making of another club in the same UEFA club competition.

In analysing the ENIC decision, it could be suggested that one person or company having an Interest in two clubs could face two significant conflicts, which UEFA was keen to nullify. One interesting situation could arise if a person or company had a 100% ownership stake in a non-PL European club (Team A) competing in the Champions League and had a 49% shareholding (but not an Interest) in a PL club (Team B). That person or company would have a significant shareholding, as defined under the PL Rules (as it is greater than 30%), and would be required to pass the PL FPPT, but the 49% shareholding would not breach the UEFA Integrity Rules. Both teams would be allowed to play in the same competition. The contrast that such a situation presents to the transparent and fair competition rationale espoused in the ENIC decision is a matter of degree.

Such questions relating to the integrity of the competition would be heightened, for example, if Team A needed to win a match against Team B to qualify for the next round, whilst Team B was not in a position to qualify for the next stage. Accusations of match fixing and footballing impropriety would almost certainly follow if Team B fielded a weakened team.

Definition of ‘control’: the PL v UEFA disparity

An anomaly exists between the PL Rules and UEFA Integrity Rules. The PL Rules define control as having a shareholding of 30% or greater. Indeed, PL Rule D.2.2 stipulates that no Individual can have a 10% stake in more than one PL club.

Conversely, the UEFA Integrity Rules would suggest that one person or company could have a 100% shareholding in one club and a ‘non-decisive influence’ shareholding in another club competing in the same competition, without breaching the UEFA Integrity Rules. Interestingly, when the CAS upheld the legality of the UEFA Rule in time for the 2000/1 season, the stipulation concerning ‘decisive influence’ was not part of the original UEFA Rule. The ‘decisive influence’ stipulation was added after the decision by UEFA to ensure there was a catch all provision to prevent common ownership under the 50.1% threshold. To some extent, this partially alleviates the fear that a company or person can have a 100% and a 49% shareholding in two clubs in the same UEFA competition. This is still not as prescriptive as the relevant Spanish or PL regulations.

In Spain, for example, the shareholding threshold is 5% under Article 17 paragraph (2) of the Royal Decree on Sport Corporations[4]. The rule is even more stringent than the PL 10% stake obligation, but the scope of the Statute only includes the Spanish first and second divisions.

It is clear that both the PL and Spanish Rules are stricter than UEFA’s Rules. The PL has put additional mechanisms in place to protect the interests of fair play and competition. The PL should be commended for going above and beyond what UEFA deem necessary to ensure transparency and accountability in order to actively regulate ownership issues. The PL are seemingly taking the lead on this front. It may therefore be an appropriate time to champion a scheme to promote transparency, accountability and fair play in the field of player ownership (described in Part 1 of this two part article) by confronting any sporting conflicts that may arise.

 

[Vesper 27,310]

If François-Henri Pinault (£50 billion net worth) and CEO/chairman of Kering

owner of 

Gucci    
Yves Saint Laurent    
Boucheron   
Bottega Veneta   
Balenciaga  
Alexander McQueen   
Brioni    
Girard-Perregaux 
Ulysse Nardin 

bought us

then............

Gucci kits!

🤣

[Vesper 27,310]

24 minutes ago, milka said:

So the final 4 is set : 

- Boehly/Wyss

- Harris/Blitzer

- Pagliuca/Hain

- Ricketts/Griffin 

 

SO fucked up

this is a septic inside job

almost all the major backing money is US

as is the firm handling the sale

WTF