[Politics] Chelsea FC - should they be allowed to continue?

[Comrade Sam]

That's capitalism. Should Saudi money be used whilst they destroy the Yemen and sponsor terrorism, should Thai money be used when democracy was overthrown by the military, should money made from gambling be used. It's all dirty money and football powers that be lost the any right to challenge when Newcastle's new regime was approved.

 

[Bold Seagull]

No, no it isn’t, of course not.

I’m angry about Ukraine, I really am, but……….

That big message you speak of………..Putin could not give a flying fxxk.

And to be honest I don’t really have any beef with Abramovich. There is a saying about keeping your friends close, and your enemies closer. Maybe that is exactly what RA has done, who knows?

Dominic Grieve has just been on and wrote a very good article over the weekend - it's not about Putin giving a flying fxxk, it's about those in his orbit and his outer orbit giving a flying fxxk. Julius Caesar may not have given a flying fxxk but it was Brutus his friend that stabbed him first.

 

[Bold Seagull]

A bit unfair. It’s understandable to focus on the most high profile example. Someone else could start a thread on Max Demin if they wish. Personally I would ban both along with the Arab states and anyone else who does not pass a properly run fit and proper owner test.

Agreed. There is a bit of whataboutery going on here. It is not a defence to say, but this club, that club are owned by this person or that person and it's too late to do anything. The cat is out of the bag unfortunately in terms of football club ownership and a system / regulation of proper tests and due diligence, but that is not a reason NOT to try to row back and correct these wrongs. You often need a crisis or tragedy to instigate change, and this is a time to do it. Enough is enough because the only outcome for football is all our clubs owned by dirty money with the only real criteria being the success money brings.

If Abramovich is still in de-facto charge of Chelsea and funding them and they win the Champions League again in the summer - it will be a bitter bitter pill for Europe to swallow.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Agreed. There is a bit of whataboutery going on here. It is not a defence to say, but this club, that club are owned by this person or that person and it's too late to do anything. The cat is out of the bag unfortunately in terms of football club ownership and a system / regulation of proper tests and due diligence, but that is not a reason NOT to try to row back and correct these wrongs. You often need a crisis or tragedy to instigate change, and this is a time to do it. Enough is enough because the only outcome for football is all our clubs owned by dirty money with the only real criteria being the success money brings.

If Abramovich is still in de-facto charge of Chelsea and funding them and they win the Champions League again in the summer - it will be a bitter bitter pill for Europe to swallow.

Its the absolute opposite of 'whataboutery'.

That is to seek to divert attention form one wrongdoing, with false equivalence. I'm just highlighting the wider-ranging implications of your suggestion, by pointing out that if Chelsea should 'not be allowed to continue', then for the exact same reasons, nor should Bournemouth, and nor arguably should Everton.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Its the absolute opposite of 'whataboutery'.

That is to seek to divert attention form one wrongdoing, with false equivalence. I'm just highlighting the wider-ranging implications of your suggestion, by pointing out that if Chelsea should 'not be allowed to continue', then for the exact same reasons, nor should Bournemouth, and nor arguably should Everton.

Well, we could get into the etymology of whataboutery, but I think you'll find it is a lot more than just false equivalence, and is a tool for reversal of an accusation. Should Chelsea be sanctioned? To be answered, 'what about Bournemouth, Everton etc.?" is to give an answer that returns a question back to the proposer. You haven't answered whether Chelsea should be sanctioned, all you have done is asked me what should then be done about other clubs - to which I have answered so you can pick up on that too.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Well, we could get into the etymology of whataboutery, but I think you'll find it is a lot more than just false equivalence, and is a tool for reversal of an accusation. Should Chelsea be sanctioned? To be answered, 'what about Bournemouth, Everton etc.?" is to give an answer that returns a question back to the proposer. You haven't answered whether Chelsea should be sanctioned, all you have done is asked me what should then be done about other clubs - to which I have answered so you can pick up on that too.

Well, I did post "I agree with you", that Chelsea's current status should be challenged.

But you simply can't ignore the wider context, because without addressing it, what you are proposing cannot work.

Sanction Chelsea for 'being bankrolled by Russian money', and ignore Bournemouth and Everton, then Chelsea immediately appeal, citing that they are being singled out unfairly, and inevitably win.

Its a knee-jerk proposal to a demonstrably unpalatable status-quo. I'd 100% back any proposals to sanction clubs whose ownership can be proven to fail to meet acceptable criteria - but first you've got to actually put those criteria into statute, and then rigorously apply them - evenly across all clubs.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Well, I did post "I agree with you", that Chelsea's current status should be challenged.

But you simply can't ignore the wider context, because without addressing it, what you are proposing cannot work.

Sanction Chelsea for 'being bankrolled by Russian money', and ignore Bournemouth and Everton, then Chelsea immediately appeal, citing that they are being singled out unfairly, and inevitably win.

Its a knee-jerk proposal to a demonstrably unpalatable status-quo. I'd 100% back any proposals to sanction clubs whose ownership can be proven to fail to meet acceptable criteria - but first you've got to actually put those criteria into statute, and then rigorously apply them - evenly across all clubs.

Perhaps I don't understand the details of sanctions well enough tbh. If the UK government sanctioned Abramovich, it may well have the effect of crippling Chelsea FC if the cash flow Chelsea needs is subject to that sanction. I guess I picked out Chelsea because yesterday on the world stage was the chance a Russian funded sports team wins a prominent trophy in a European country while another European country is being invaded by the country through which Chelsea's funding originates. Felt very uncomfortable to me watching.

I hadn't previously seen [MENTION=34242]Neville's Breakfast[/MENTION] poll, so if any mod wanted to merge the 2 threads, as they are much the same subject, might be a good idea.

I suppose in reading up on this you don't need to do anything to the clubs as such, but freezing the money that comes into them if that is available to the UK government should be considered. The shadow of say Chelsea winning the CL again is on the horizon for me. I just don't think that should be allowed to happen in whatever shape or form prevention of it should take.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Well, I did post "I agree with you", that Chelsea's current status should be challenged.

But you simply can't ignore the wider context, because without addressing it, what you are proposing cannot work.

Sanction Chelsea for 'being bankrolled by Russian money', and ignore Bournemouth and Everton, then Chelsea immediately appeal, citing that they are being singled out unfairly, and inevitably win.

Its a knee-jerk proposal to a demonstrably unpalatable status-quo. I'd 100% back any proposals to sanction clubs whose ownership can be proven to fail to meet acceptable criteria - but first you've got to actually put those criteria into statute, and then rigorously apply them - evenly across all clubs.

I don’t think sanctioning Chelsea for being bankrolled by Russian money would ever be on the table. Rather it is Abramovich that could be sanctioned and that would have financial disastrous consequences for Chelsea and any other businesses he is involved with. There is no court that Bournemouth or Everton could appeal to because such sanctions can be issued by any Government without any requirement for justification.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Yes.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I suppose in reading up on this you don't need to do anything to the clubs as such, but freezing the money that comes into them if that is available to the UK government should be considered. The shadow of say Chelsea winning the CL again is on the horizon for me. I just don't think that should be allowed to happen in whatever shape or form prevention of it should take.

I don’t think sanctioning Chelsea for being bankrolled by Russian money would ever be on the table. Rather it is Abramovich that could be sanctioned and that would have financial disastrous consequences for Chelsea and any other businesses he is involved with. There is no court that Bournemouth or Everton could appeal to because such sanctions can be issued by any Government without any requirement for justification.

Hooray - we're finally getting somewhere.

The thread title, and the discussion I responded to, is "Should Chelsea be allowed to continue?".

Clearly, the football club cannot be sanctioned, as they have broken no rules, which has been my stance all along.

If Roman Abramovic is sanctioned by European / UK governments, for whatever reason, that is entirely a different matter, and what would play out, would play out, with regards to the knock on effect on Chelsea's cash-flow. Whether other individuals also deserve attention, is also not for us to know.

The government agencies involved would have a lot more information available to make decisions on connections / culpability of the individuals concerned, after all.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Actually seems like Roman is trying to do something to stop this madness, at least encourage it to stop as quickly as possible.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Hooray - we're finally getting somewhere.

The thread title, and the discussion I responded to, is "Should Chelsea be allowed to continue?".

Clearly, the football club cannot be sanctioned, as they have broken no rules, which has been my stance all along.

If Roman Abramovic is sanctioned by European / UK governments, for whatever reason, that is entirely a different matter, and what would play out, would play out, with regards to the knock on effect on Chelsea's cash-flow. Whether other individuals also deserve attention, is also not for us to know.

The government agencies involved would have a lot more information available to make decisions on connections / culpability of the individuals concerned, after all.

It’s not that ‘we are getting somewhere.’ More that we are consecutively responding to a particular part of each other’s and other people’s posts. It’s a function of internet (as opposed to real life) chat. Causes no end of problems !

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

What's been the reaction from Chelsea fans to all this? (I'm going to bet that they've adopted the Newcastle fan position of partisan blindness).

I'd certainly like to hear strong anti Putin sentiment from the fan organisations, and it would also be great to get some of the players breaking ranks

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

What's been the reaction from Chelsea fans to all this? (I'm going to bet that they've adopted the Newcastle fan position of partisan blindness).

I'd certainly like to hear strong anti Putin sentiment from the fan organisations, and it would also be great to get some of the players breaking ranks

It certainly would be interesting to gauge the reaction of Singaporean and Chinese Premier League soccer fans

 

[Bold Seagull]

UEFA bans all Russian teams from their competitions - big step forwards. Why not ban any team funded by Russian money while they are at it?

 

[Weststander]

What's been the reaction from Chelsea fans to all this? (I'm going to bet that they've adopted the Newcastle fan position of partisan blindness).

I'd certainly like to hear strong anti Putin sentiment from the fan organisations, and it would also be great to get some of the players breaking ranks

Scathing of the rest of the UK footballing public and media for having a view on Abramovich and Chavski.

Wanting us to mind our fkn business and not be hypocrites (ManC, Everton’s real owner and Newcastle).

 

[clapham_gull]

Everton looking more exposed than Chelsea at the moment.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60565945

 

[Perfidious Albion]

By all means freeze the assets of Russian Oligarchs and if that affects the businesses and sporting interests they have, so be it.
But Chelsea FC are a big club , they will be o k without his money for a bit. The club was here long before he came and will be after he is gone . He has transferred the ownership away from himself. I see no reason to object to their presence, only of plenty of football related dislikes and prejudices........

 

[dazzer6666]

Being reported that some of the Trustees might not accept the trusteeship role……..

 

[Bold Seagull]

By all means freeze the assets of Russian Oligarchs and if that affects the businesses and sporting interests they have, so be it.

So that should happen to all clubs funded through Russain money. Russian clubs haven't invaded Ukraine anymore than Abramovich or Chelsea have, but UEFA have kicked them out of European competitions for this season. Is it going to be a great look to have a Russian funded team lift a European trophy in a couple of months time?

He has transferred the ownership away from himself.

No he hasn't, he still owns and bankrolls Chelsea. All he said was he was going to sign over 'the running of the football business' to the trustees of the charitable foundation. They've refused because a charitable foundation cannot be involved in a commercial business unless it meets a whole set of criteria. So it was just a PR exercise, much like the news stories that Roman is 'trying to help Ukraine'.

Right now the objection isn't the existence of Chelsea or other clubs, it's simply their success being funded by Russian money, they are Russian assets on European soil.

Do the West keep out of any conflict situation but f**k with everything they possibly can that is Russian owned or controlled? It might not be the oligarch's fault, or they have only but tenuous connections, but if Russia can fire missiles into residential areas, then I think we can kick say a Russian backed club out of a competition - just for this season. Perhaps Chelsea and Everton at this point should both be kicked out of the FA Cup and Chelsea out of the CL? It's completely unfair on the fans and the competition, but so what given what is happening.