Jolly Red Giant
Well-known member
- Jul 11, 2015
- 2,615
If it's 'legal' - then you ask - who made up the laws and in whose interest?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Chelsea end of ?
- Thread starter South west gull
- Start date
If it's 'legal' - then you ask - who made up the laws and in whose interest?
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
There is infinite whataboutery when it comes to the murky finances of certain individuals who acquire blue-tooth assets such as prominent (and not so prominent) football clubs. This war has shone a light on the grubby dealings of how Abramovich acquired his fortune, and it is also putting into ever sharper focus the medieval filth that now owns Newcastle. And how this money pervades through every upper level of the British establishment, right through to Whitehall.
You'd wish for a complete purge, but sadly there are too many vested interests. The poison runs too deep for that to happen.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,014
the state, in their interest. they were desperate for investment so privatised assets and state run business twice in the 90's (because didnt work first time). people with incentive and backing built companies up from third world disorder to first world corporations. the state then brought back some under their control as it suited them.
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,876
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,876
No it doesn't, not on that scale.
There are criminals and greedy people in every country who will manipulate any system.
Many of these individuals were ducker and divers under Communism, it creates them. The system bred them in the same way it bred those waiting for the great leap forward.
When the system collapsed they moved in and manipulated the others, but they are children of Communism one and all.
They hadn't been away doing an MBA in the West, that in itself may have taught them some ethics.
Unlike you I visited a Communist country in the late 80s and met some. He had a ball point pen factory which paid for his wife's implants, but that's another story.
What has happened there is Karl Marx unreleased third album, where Communism itself breaks down and descends into a dictatorship run by the ex-KGB propped up by a "charitable" super rich.
You can call that "Capitalism" all you like, but you'd be a fool. It's something else.
Last edited:
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,014
please go on. is there some legal action in Russia to recover the stolen proceeds of the Sibneft sale, or have we in the west decide we dont really like all this messy business? in fact his business partner had to come to UK courts to try and say he'd been swindled, which was rejected. it was certainly all rather vulgar and obviously corrupt around the margins, but like i say thats their business. countries have been merrily buying their "stolen" oil and gas, funding whoever or whatever the Russian state wants to do.
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,876
Are you kidding ?
These individuals have been "taxed" ever since to keep the administration sweet.
Just to iterate, you claimed everything was legal.
The whole basis of the documentary tonight (you haven't watched) was Russian Law was broken and you have to ask the question why he wasn't prosecuted.
Last edited:
AmexRuislip
Retired Spy 🕵️♂️
[tweet]1503016366424608784[/tweet]
For as long as I can remember, successive British governments have been "raising human rights issues" with Saudi Arabia.
Have they? Have they really? Of course not. It's bollocks. We have sold over £8bn in arms to Saudi since 2015 so they can bomb Yemen and suppress their own people.
Have they? Have they really? Of course not. It's bollocks. We have sold over £8bn in arms to Saudi since 2015 so they can bomb Yemen and suppress their own people.
portlock seagull
Well-known member
- Jul 28, 2003
- 17,777
Thank god we’ve got an arms industry though.
Dick Swiveller
Well-known member
- Sep 9, 2011
- 9,524
They now want their cup tie at Middlesborough to be behind closed doors. Read the room, scumbags.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60747640
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60747640
Bloody hell! Chelsea have already sold 600 tickets so they will ahve some fans there. Also if they are so skint then by being played behind closed doors means they lose out on their 45% of gate receipts at some point in the future.
FA have ****ed up though, could easily have sold the tickets on Chelsea behalf to fans - or agreed some escrow type arrangement for the ticket money you'd think
FA have ****ed up though, could easily have sold the tickets on Chelsea behalf to fans - or agreed some escrow type arrangement for the ticket money you'd think
Just read this. Ridiculous. Also if away fans are no longer going to be allowed at Stamford Bridge (not sure what the status on this is), then will all Chelsea home games switch to behind closed doors.
That would be the logical conclusion, and why I agree with Chelsea's request even though it seems unfair.
As a football family we should all except the consequences of allowing corrupt owners into our game, then perhaps the FA would do something about it. Perhaps they would then say no to directors who really should be nowhere near our clubs.
If I was told that I could not attend a game (as a home or away fan) because of the actions of an owner then I might start to get properly angry.
jakarta
Well-known member
I think the time Chelsea Fans should have got Properly Angry was when their Club was bought by a Criminal?
Personally hope they implode and spiral down the leagues.
portslade seagull
Well-known member
Poor little Chelsea trying to spread the pain. Gell them to stick it
That is the bit that just sounds too logical for me. Sell the tickets to Chelsea fans but the money goes into Escrow or perhaps charity for Ukranians affected by the war....?
But, presumably Chelsea have to manage the sales and this incurs some costs for them. And if their funding stream has been switched off they might have to be very careful when it comes to costs.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
They are un-fuc-king-believable. If they had any sympathy, think it's going to run out very quickly with PR like this.
The end of the BBC article now includes the following:
Within government I am told by one senior source that there is "exasperation" at what was described to me as a "tin-eared request" by Chelsea to play the match behind closed doors.
Officials feel they are bending over backwards to allow Chelsea to play with a special license when other businesses in similar circumstances would not have received such assistance, and that they have been listening to the club's concerns.
But the feeling within Whitehall is that Chelsea are now trying to penalise other clubs for the predicament that they are in, and are mystified they are prioritising tickets and travel arrangements.
I am told Chelsea wanted more than 4,000 fans at Middlesbrough rather than the 500 they were due to have, and that this is seen as "throwing their toys out of the pram" at the first opportunity.
Within government I am told by one senior source that there is "exasperation" at what was described to me as a "tin-eared request" by Chelsea to play the match behind closed doors.
Officials feel they are bending over backwards to allow Chelsea to play with a special license when other businesses in similar circumstances would not have received such assistance, and that they have been listening to the club's concerns.
But the feeling within Whitehall is that Chelsea are now trying to penalise other clubs for the predicament that they are in, and are mystified they are prioritising tickets and travel arrangements.
I am told Chelsea wanted more than 4,000 fans at Middlesbrough rather than the 500 they were due to have, and that this is seen as "throwing their toys out of the pram" at the first opportunity.