Initially he didn't, he just wrapped it up in words that made it sound like he had.
Now he seems to be willing to walk away from everything, but I can't quite believe it'll be as simple as that.
Roman Abramovich plans to sell Chelsea | SOLD for £4.25BN
- Thread starter Ali Dia
- Start date
Now he seems to be willing to walk away from everything, but I can't quite believe it'll be as simple as that.
I’m a bit skeptical he’s going to write all that debt off and then walk away from the sale without a penny or a fight?
Seems far fetched. I mean he might do but still..
Isn’t that then considered a gift? I’m pretty sure you can’t make it disappear without repercussions
Even being a billionaire not sure he can afford to lose that sort of money, especially not knowing what state the Russian economy might end up in.
Yes even more so when he remains sanctioned across the world and all his monies frozen.
Can he even write off a debt when he’s sanctioned? Isn’t that debt an asset of sorts?
Precisely. Think he wrote the loan off when he transferred it all into the charitable trust, now all the other sanctions have happened he might just want that money back off the new owners.
Roman Abramovich has been disqualified as a director of Chelsea by the Premier League.
All unknown really so will be interesting to see how it plays out in the end.
Genuinely don’t think it’s as straightforward as getting a quick sale for nothing, writing all debts off and disappearing into the sunset without a penny
Reckon he'll have a few million stashed away in a shoe box under his floorboards. I wouldn't worry about him struggling to pay the utility bills let's put it that way
The UK government is doing the right things so far. We have a war and the guy imposed it is a bestie of a guy running a big football club. Doesn’t need intelligence to uncover the links and where those money is being pumped into.
The fans are very disappointed because they enjoyed 20 years of success and buying players for fun, remember when Roman bought chelsea there were no FFP rules and in my memory I remember they spent crazy amount of money on strikers itself whereas we chased sancho for 2 years and landed him on 3rd year.
If we just see the history, chelsea was not successful in european competitions prior to 2003 takeover but since then they have matched UCL trophies equal to some of the most successful clubs in Europe which is ridiculous in terms of buying success.
Yes billionaires mostly accumulate their wealth through illegal ways but there are lines between them. Imagine if Jeff bezos buys chelsea tomorrow, no one is going to complain.
The fans can only hope someone with a decent (not another oil moneyor blood money) background buy them and maintain them as a consistent top 4 team. But the days are over for Roman & Chelsea’ success!
The fans are very disappointed because they enjoyed 20 years of success and buying players for fun, remember when Roman bought chelsea there were no FFP rules and in my memory I remember they spent crazy amount of money on strikers itself whereas we chased sancho for 2 years and landed him on 3rd year.
If we just see the history, chelsea was not successful in european competitions prior to 2003 takeover but since then they have matched UCL trophies equal to some of the most successful clubs in Europe which is ridiculous in terms of buying success.
Yes billionaires mostly accumulate their wealth through illegal ways but there are lines between them. Imagine if Jeff bezos buys chelsea tomorrow, no one is going to complain.
The fans can only hope someone with a decent (not another oil moneyor blood money) background buy them and maintain them as a consistent top 4 team. But the days are over for Roman & Chelsea’ success!
They’re serious about this aren’t they
Was this something that a likely option?
Thanks. Yeah I have no doubts about that. We see it with Newcastle fans. Visit their message boards at any time before 2021 and you would find very principled arguments against the Abramovich ownership and the City ownership. It's a very different story now. City fans are even weirder because they've convinced themselves that their ownership is all sunshine and roses.
First point is definitely debatable. No one knows the extent of their relationship. There’s no point saying more on it as this has been discussed to death.
Second point is wrong. We had won 3 European trophies prior. Granted we were not a consistent team but we have trophies and a history long before 2003.
Last point is a total contradiction by yourself. You say there’s shades of grey to all rich people but then say we should hope for a decent rich person. Corruption at the top exists in money and politics, it’s unavoidable at this point. Who we end up with is completely irrelevant. As long as they aren’t parasites like the Glazers.
It's one of the ugly traits about humans. When something directly benefits you or something you care about it suddenly becomes easy to ignore the moral implications, or even try to twist things to in an effort to convince yourself it's fine. But then it's easy to preach to others about wrong doings when you have no stake in it.
They won't have gone through the trouble of sanctioning him, removing him as a director, barring him from the country and then give him billions of quid, will they?
If the powers that be do give him the money "owed" to him, what was the point of any of this (given he was trying to sell up anyway)?
he did? I thought it was reported he wouldn’t ask for the money which is very different. A business is separate to the individual, I doubt he’ll directly ask.
But that’s what I’m saying. That debt is an asset. If he’s sanctioned then he hasnt the power to alter Chelsea’s financial situation?
Hopefully the other oil rich sponsors of terror are up next.
I have no idea. They're kinda making it up as they go along (which is understandable).
I don't disagree but the selective outrage typifies so much of the narcissism of the west. Will have an lgbt support game week while the league is being bought year on year by Abu Dhabi. Don't get me started on Newcastle
Feels refreshing waking up knowing there are other clubs in a worse state than yours. Really puts things in perspective.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Moved up to the 1st class carriage
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Excellent point. What is it about City that they are not called out as a sportswashing toy for the dispicably oppressive and brutal regime that is the UAE.
Yesterday's Guardian had an article on Saudi and the Yemen war calling out Newcastle owners without even mentioning that the UAE, their equal coalition partners in the war, are responsible for some of the most brutal murder of Yemeni innocents.
Yet Barney Ronay's article doesnt even mention them. Any mention of the UAE sportswashing in Guardian messages below the line gets deleted by mods and accounts banned.
I know they are weary of the UAE legal team but it doesn't really add up as surely the Saudi regime have their high paid legal eagle beady eyes on UK media too.
The hypocrisy is stunning. The UAE sportswashing team pretending to be all about peace whilst their owners are mass-murdering Yemen, they wear rainbow laces to promote lgbt rights whilst imprisoning their own lgbt community.
Owning City allows them 'perform' all the rituals that refer to western liberal democracy such as human rights, tolerance, equality and freedom of speech, for the benefit of a ready made global audience, they proclaim to be anti racist and anti sexist, whilst in reality at home they are 'diasppearing' and torturing human rights abuses protesters and imprisoning pro democracy advocates, the regime allows for the confiscation of passports and allows fot the racist, systemic sexual abuse of female migrant domestic workers.
The Guardian's deleting of any mention of the UAE's human rights abuses and sportswashing does not only make them complicit with the human rights abuses of the UAE but makes them pro active operators and defenders of the human rights abuses.
That's the bit I don't understand. They're supposed to be an independent leftist liberal newslaper.
Why call out Saudi and Newcastle but no mention of the war crimes and domestic brutality of the City owners.
Last edited:
Newcastle fans, en masse , cheering on the saudi takeover has to be one of the most pathetic things in PL history.
So who exactly foots the bill for that? Does it come out of Chelsea's pocket? Last I heard they had £14 million in the bank.
Well, when he first announced he was selling the club he said he was not collecting any debt - though perhaps you're right that he intended to account for that via the sale price.
Hard to say really - if you take him at his word (a dubious proposition) then he truly loves the club and wants to do what's best for it. Clearly that would be walking away with nothing - but as you say that would be beyond generous.
Hah good point! I've no idea but then again I don't think anyone does - we are pretty firmly in uncharted waters here. I could be wrong but I think the nature of the way it was set up (i.e. via a holding company) shields the club from some of these issues but that's mostly speculation on my part.
The 14M number was how much they had that was not frozen because it was considered Roman’s asset that he could access. Yesterday they looked at what funds that were frozen could be used by the club. Im not sure what the new amount is?
What’s the implication of this?
Agreed.
Genuinely made me quite depressed to see how little anyone gave a shit about literal murderers taking over their club because it got them Tripier.
"The beautiful game"
The news about Broughton's possible involvement reminds me of when Liverpool's future was uncertain around 2010 time and despite having no love lost for that club (especially back then) I absolutely didn't want anything bad to happen to them and was almost as happy as Liverpool fans when the situation was resolved.@Zaphod2319 is having a total meltdown here constantly trying to belittle utd fans on a utd forum. Didn't know that we aren't allowed to make banters if we are going through a poor season.
Keep em coming for all the entertainment
Up until now I kind of assumed it was an unwritten rule in football that "banter" had it's limits, clearly not.
Fergie and The Glazers aswell.
This isn't isn't argument of whether Tuchel is/will be as great as either (he most certainly isn't in Fergie's case) but he is clearly a good enough coach to somewhat counter a change in transfer policy, especially with the players we've got coming through and the squad we already have.
Also did the Suarez money really help Liverpool finance their ascend to the top? IIRC that kitty was spunked up the wall by Rodgers.
It doesn't mean anything, just political grandstanding. He's literally never even been a director.
Gotta laugh at the Prem suddenly taking the high road
Don't get me wrong I'm delighted Chelsea are getting what's long overdue and I hope they are forced to give all their trophies to their rightful owners, but how can the PL say Abramovich isn't fit to be a director but they have no problem whatsoever with the Emiratis and Saudis? 
There's obviously a difference between wanting a club to go bust or just banter and having fun at the expense of a rival club. I'd never want Arsenal or Spurs to go bust because I'd never any club to go bust, but additionally because they're our rivals and football would be a less interesting sport to follow if our rivals weren't around to compete against. I don't mind rival fans sticking the boot in right now because the likelihood of us going bust is close to zero so its just banter at the expense of our misfortune. Trust me, if Arsenal or Spurs were in this situation, I'd be dancing on their graves.
Well, rivalry aside, Liverpool didn't really deserve it. In your case, the chickens have come home to roost I'm afraid.