Euro: Chelsea for sale

[Chimaera]

I assumed it was just the migration of the server. If my posts were trimmed for political reasons while some of these others were left, that would be disappointing...though ultimately not too surprising...

I think you would have gotten notice. I know that I got a lengthy segment of pruning.

I completely agree that some of the discussion had veered a lot further than mods obviously want. But I do think that's it's quite hard to have a discussion about this and not veer ANYWHERE in the political realm. Then again, I'm watching a leading hockey player try and claim that as well. Ostrich in the sand and all.

 

[cgf]

I think you would have gotten notice. I know that I got a lengthy segment of pruning.

I completely agree that some of the discussion had veered a lot further than mods obviously want. But I do think that's it's quite hard to have a discussion about this and not veer ANYWHERE in the political realm. Then again, I'm watching a leading hockey player try and claim that as well. Ostrich in the sand and all.

Yeah, I get it. I'm mostly just griping that my post taking a shot at the UK's shady banking practices is gone. It's just too much fun to tease them about their role in global corruption, whenever they start to even look at that highhorse

 

[Evilo]

Some Saoudis want to buy Chelsea
Good thing Saudi Arabia is not bombing Yemen because UEFA and UK would totally be on their ass and freeze Newcastle and all.

 

[NyQuil]

Some Saoudis want to buy Chelsea
Good thing Saudi Arabia is not bombing Yemen because UEFA and UK would totally be on their ass and freeze Newcastle and all.

Well, if Yemen was in Europe you might see something happen.

I don't understand the outrage when this particular conflict is occurring in Europe's backyard so of course the reactions are going to be different.

I expect Saudi Arabia was more vested in the Iraq War than they are with the Ukrainian invasion.

It's not like anything happened to Russia when they were bombing Syria.

 

[Evilo]

Nor to others.

 

[AlanHUK]

not sure where this will be viewable globally, but thought people in this thread might be interested in it

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

not sure where this will be viewable globally, but thought people in this thread might be interested in it

It's difficult to feel pity for a Russian oligarch billionaire, but it sure feels a bit like a campaign orchestrated by someone. I mean Roman's money wasn't any cleaner a year, 5 years or indeed 19 years ago.

 

[bleedblue1223]

It's sort of the define illegal position where in the post Soviet collapse where it was basically the wild west. It's like cycling where everyone was doing illegal stuff to gain their wealth. I don't think anyone has claimed that Roman gained his wealth through purely legal means.

 

[Bringer of Jollity]

It's difficult to feel pity for a Russian oligarch billionaire, but it sure feels a bit like a campaign orchestrated by someone. I mean Roman's money wasn't any cleaner a year, 5 years or indeed 19 years ago.

Nope, nor will it be 5 years from now when this war will be in the past and he would be a perfectly "acceptable" owner again.

 

[cgf]

It's sort of the define illegal position where in the post Soviet collapse where it was basically the wild west. It's like cycling where everyone was doing illegal stuff to gain their wealth. I don't think anyone has claimed that Roman gained his wealth through purely legal means.

Hard to overstate how wild it was and the way everything got stolen unless under constant armed guard. That's why anyone saying that any of those 90s oligarchs was just given their wealth & depends on the russian state for it misses the point. Enforcing the paperwork was the hardest part of stealing a fortune at that time, and those oligarchs still have the castle walls that they built up back then if Putin turns on them.

 

[Jersey Fresh]

They weren't "given" their wealth and I don't think anyone has made that case. It's much worse than that...

Any oligarch during that time would have intimate connections to the Russian mafia, both for protection and muscle. Not to mention his participation in the aluminum wars, which almost assuredly included some level of involvement in extortion, if not more outright violence. I don't think paperwork was his biggest issue, certainly not in the acquisition of his wealth. Maybe to spend it, but once you have the money, what difference does it make.

And the Khodorkovsky case makes it very plain that they do, in fact, depend on the regime to keep that wealth.

That's why you can trace any asset Abramovich has acquired to some level of criminality and corruption. And it's better late than never as far as Chelsea goes. But it would be so PL to kick Roman to the curb and get some other sect of the Saudi royal family in the tent.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

They weren't "given" their wealth and I don't think anyone has made that case. It's much worse than that...

Any oligarch during that time would have intimate connections to the Russian mafia, both for protection and muscle. Not to mention his participation in the aluminum wars, which almost assuredly included some level of involvement in extortion, if not more outright violence. I don't think paperwork was his biggest issue, certainly not in the acquisition of his wealth. Maybe to spend it, but once you have the money, what difference does it make.

And the Khodorkovsky case makes it very plain that they do, in fact, depend on the regime to keep that wealth.

That's why you can trace any asset Abramovich has acquired to some level of criminality and corruption. And it's better late than never as far as Chelsea goes. But it would be so PL to kick Roman to the curb and get some other sect of the Saudi royal family in the tent.

Well, they might just not be able to foresee any circumstance ever under which the West would actually turn on the Saudis in earnest, and to be fair, that might be an astute observation.

 

[Jersey Fresh]

Well, they might just not be able to foresee any circumstance ever under which the West would actually turn on the Saudis in earnest, and to be fair, that might be an astute observation.

I think that's probably true. Is the PL forcing the sale to conform to the UK sanctions regime or is it just their "I'm helping" PR kind of thing? Not actually clear on that.

 

[Chimaera]

It will be a bit rich if you can’t have Roman, but you can have two Saudis.

 

[cgf]

They weren't "given" their wealth and I don't think anyone has made that case. It's much worse than that...

Any oligarch during that time would have intimate connections to the Russian mafia, both for protection and muscle. Not to mention his participation in the aluminum wars, which almost assuredly included some level of involvement in extortion, if not more outright violence. I don't think paperwork was his biggest issue, certainly not in the acquisition of his wealth. Maybe to spend it, but once you have the money, what difference does it make.

And the Khodorkovsky case makes it very plain that they do, in fact, depend on the regime to keep that wealth.

That's why you can trace any asset Abramovich has acquired to some level of criminality and corruption. And it's better late than never as far as Chelsea goes. But it would be so PL to kick Roman to the curb and get some other sect of the Saudi royal family in the tent.

An individual oligarch who has rubbed enough of the others the wrong way can still be cut out...but the regime couldn't turn against the lot of them. Especially not with the way they've funneled their money out of the country since Khodorkovsky.

I think that's probably true. Is the PL forcing the sale to conform to the UK sanctions regime or is it just their "I'm helping" PR kind of thing? Not actually clear on that.

In either scenario it's the public outcry that is driving their action, no?

 

[cgf]

It will be a bit rich if you can’t have Roman, but you can have two Saudis.

EPL gunna EPL

 

[Chimaera]

I imagine there’s a club for Pol Pot and Kim Jong Un

 

[Savant]

It will be a bit rich if you can’t have Roman, but you can have two Saudis.

Especially when the Prospective Chelsea owners work for the Newcastle owners. Stevie Wonder could see the conflict of interest there.

 

[bleedblue1223]

It's interesting following some of the Chelsea accounts, professional and fan, for the prospective owners. Still a pretty solid chance that the buyer is someone we publicly don't know about, so I think speculation is kind of dumb too. Some fan accounts are highlighting how Ricketts and Woody Johnson should be disqualified because of racism, sexism, and donations to Trump Super PAC. While, I disagree with them and don't want them as owners, lets just be honest that we don't want them as owners because we think they'd be a bad owner for the on-field product. We don't actually care that much about the type of person the owner is, especially after we just had Roman as the owner.

The only thing that will really irritate me as a fan is if it goes to some other billionaire that is very clearly dirty and this whole thing was done mostly for show. Don't force Roman to sell and then approve Saudi dirty money.

 

[cgf]

It's interesting following some of the Chelsea accounts, professional and fan, for the prospective owners. Still a pretty solid chance that the buyer is someone we publicly don't know about, so I think speculation is kind of dumb too. Some fan accounts are highlighting how Ricketts and Woody Johnson should be disqualified because of racism, sexism, and donations to Trump Super PAC. While, I disagree with them and don't want them as owners, lets just be honest that we don't want them as owners because we think they'd be a bad owner for the on-field product. We don't actually care that much about the type of person the owner is, especially after we just had Roman as the owner.

The only thing that will really irritate me as a fan is if it goes to some other billionaire that is very clearly dirty and this whole thing was done mostly for show. Don't force Roman to sell and then approve Saudi dirty money.

...

 

[bleedblue1223]

...

Are you going with the all billionaires are dirty and equally bad argument?

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Most of the fans of any club want an owner with fantasy money who doesn't care if he gets it back. How could that be a conventional businessman who's made his money the conventional way? Fans hate American owners because they're trying to make a buck with the teams, but obviously the same would apply to a typical British owner. If you want the Man City, Chelsea, PSG experience, your options pretty much are the dirty money Bond villain types and foreign despots.

I think every Chelsea fan realizes that with a British or American consortium they're unlikely to be able to keep competing at the very top, and would likely fall into sort of a Spurs-like position where they're not poor, but are also not going to be regularly challenging for the league or the CL.

 

[Jersey Fresh]

Most of the fans of any club want an owner with fantasy money who doesn't care if he gets it back. How could that be a conventional businessman who's made his money the conventional way? Fans hate American owners because they're trying to make a buck with the teams, but obviously the same would apply to a typical British owner. If you want the Man City, Chelsea, PSG experience, your options pretty much are the dirty money Bond villain types and foreign despots.

I think every Chelsea fan realizes that with a British or American consortium they're unlikely to be able to keep competing at the very top, and would likely fall into sort of a Spurs-like position where they're not poor, but are also not going to be regularly challenging for the league or the CL.

Your general premise isn't wrong, but Liverpool is owned by an American consortium and is competing just fine. It's the difference between doing it easy/fun (i.e., money and outlay mean absolutely nothing) and just being well-run.

In general, from what I've seen, Chelsea supporters have kind of adopted this bunker mentality where they see themselves as victims and resorted to a lot of whataboutism (some of it justified, some of it outrageous). They were on easy street for 20 years, now they may have to live in the top 15/20%, not the top 1%. Boo hoo.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Your general premise isn't wrong, but Liverpool is owned by an American consortium and is competing just fine. It's the difference between doing it easy/fun (i.e., money and outlay mean absolutely nothing) and just being well-run.

In general, from what I've seen, Chelsea supporters have kind of adopted this bunker mentality where they see themselves as victims and resorted to a lot of whataboutism (some of it justified, some of it outrageous). They were on easy street for 20 years, now they may have to live in the top 15/20%, not the top 1%. Boo hoo.

Well, that's the thing. A team like Liverpool will have down cycles that teams with blood money owners likely won't. Same for Arsenal.

They will spend when it makes sense to and they will try to have maximize their competitive windows. Then, they will "rebuild" and try again. I think LFC is very close to that point while Arsenal is more at a "okay, we are close and should invest more" stage. Chelsea should be that type of club with a US/UK owner. It is a little drop from Roman, but not that much. It is not as if Chelsea was operating like City or PSG.

City and PSG will just sign ready-made star after ready-made star no matter the cost and will always be a threat.

 

[cgf]

Are you going with the all billionaires are dirty and equally bad argument?

Nah, more the "you have a lot more faith in the EPL than I do" route.

...but don't let that stop you from putting words in my mouth again ;-)