AndyinLiverpool Posted February 27, 2022 Share Posted February 27, 2022 Can he even do this? Charities have certain rules and laws to follow, don't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaspode Posted February 28, 2022 Share Posted February 28, 2022 12 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said: Err, ok... https://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/chelsea-free-from-debt-as-abramovich-writes-off-340m-loan-26595291.html In their financial results for the 12 months to June 30, 2009, the club announced that Abramovich has converted his outstanding £340m interest-free loan in Chelsea into equity, leaving them effectively debt-free. Converted to equity and transferred to the Trust... ?♀️ Always good to support your case with a 13 year old article - which conveniently doesn’t cover all of the money he’s loaned them since 2009…..if you really must, then knock yourself out trying to find more proof to support your point - however we’re all basing our comments in guess work until the various implications of his decision are made public. Personally I’m not fussed one way or the other and really can’t be arsed to keep this level of petty argument going when there are bigger things to be concerned about….. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade 86 Posted February 28, 2022 Share Posted February 28, 2022 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Gaspode said: Always good to support your case with a 13 year old article - which conveniently doesn’t cover all of the money he’s loaned them since 2009…..if you really must, then knock yourself out trying to find more proof to support your point - however we’re all basing our comments in guess work until the various implications of his decision are made public. Personally I’m not fussed one way or the other and really can’t be arsed to keep this level of petty argument going when there are bigger things to be concerned about….. Wow, chill your tits mate! Was just chatting. No need for the above at all. Was just trying to illustrate the means by which Abramovic has always funded Chelsea and is being widely reported as doing in this instance; ie. when is a gift a gift? Quite why you need to resort to post like the above I've no idea ?♀️ It's a forum mate; folk post stuff, folk respond. If you're so insecure you feel you need to launch at everyone who sees things differently to you then that's your issue not mine. February 27th 2022 The Chelsea Supporters' Trust said it was "seeking urgent clarification" on what Abramovich's statement on Saturday means for the running of the club. It is not known yet if Abramovich will be sanctioned as part of the UK government's measures against Russia. BBC Sport understands Chelsea are not for sale, and the £1.5bn loan their owner gave to the club is not being called in. Edited February 28, 2022 by 86 Hair Islands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted February 28, 2022 Share Posted February 28, 2022 14 hours ago, AndyinLiverpool said: Can he even do this? Charities have certain rules and laws to follow, don't they? I was thinking much the same - this is like MM handing the keys of DCFC over the the Derby County Community Trust guys and by "certain rules and laws" - are you alluding to the fact that Charities aren't subject to income tax? That would have been one way for us to have avoided that HMRC bill! But seriously - in terms of Chelsea, how does a community trust charity have any idea of how to run a football club. This is like the Department of Health being handed over to some St John's Ambulance men Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angieram Posted March 2, 2022 Share Posted March 2, 2022 His mother was Ukrainian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angieram Posted March 2, 2022 Share Posted March 2, 2022 Here's the statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van der MoodHoover Posted March 2, 2022 Share Posted March 2, 2022 He's writing off the loans but asking £3bn for Chelsea. And what is meant by "all net proceeds...." Net of what, if he's written off the debt? Anyhow, just seen kieran Maguire wheeled out on BBC news to explain why he's unlikely to get the asking price... ? ThePrisoner 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted March 2, 2022 Share Posted March 2, 2022 13 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said: He's writing off the loans but asking £3bn for Chelsea. And what is meant by "all net proceeds...." Net of what, if he's written off the debt? Anyhow, just seen kieran Maguire wheeled out on BBC news to explain why he's unlikely to get the asking price... ? Some people claim it was RA who suggested to Yeltsin that Putin should succeed him. Putin might have seen RA’s statement before it was released. Key point is the sale will not be “fast tracked”. So RA reduced the chance of being sanctioned, by appearing to distance himself from Putin and by promising the ‘net proceeds’ would go to charities. And he may well be calculating that before a sale is lined up, the Ukraine situation will have stabilised. wouldn’t rule out that he will still own Chelski in 10 years time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted March 6, 2022 Share Posted March 6, 2022 Just a reminder than no matter how nice he was to Chelsea staff and players and fans etc, no one who got rich in 90s russia did it by being nice. archram, Crewton, Highgate and 1 other 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crewton Posted March 6, 2022 Share Posted March 6, 2022 When his main London house was in Belgravia, he installed his then mistress in a flat in the neighbouring square, thinking perhaps that his wife wouldn't notice. He then proceeded to buy up every other flat in the block over time, with the plan to turn it into his new mansion with mistress in-situ. Unfortunately for him, Mrs A did of course find out and started divorce proceedings which cost him the original house and allot more besides, though small beer to him. Eventually, he bought another house in the old diplomatic enclave of Kensington Palace Gardens. This house has been totally refurbished by its previous private owner (a Hedge-Fund manager) who had purchased it from the Crown Estate after it had been vacated by its tenants, the Russian Federation, for whom it served as a "diplomatic residence". What it actually was was the old London HQ of the KGB, so perhaps it felt like home? RadioactiveWaste 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crewton Posted March 9, 2022 Share Posted March 9, 2022 I see that Nicholas, the "poor half" of the Candy Brothers, property magnates/used car salesmen, is expressing an interest in putting together a consortium to buy Chelsea. HMRC will no doubt be very interested to see him described in reports this morning as "worth £1.5Bn" since he claimed in a legal case against a former employee back in 2015 that he had a fraction of his brother's wealth and was merely the Design director of their company. The Candys have some very, erm, "interesting" business connections, so it will be intriguing to see what the PL's 'fit and proper person' test makes of him should it get that far. Of course, if they can wave through the Saudi take-over of Newcastle, anything is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerTedd Posted March 9, 2022 Share Posted March 9, 2022 12 minutes ago, Crewton said: I see that Nicholas, the "poor half" of the Candy Brothers, property magnates/used car salesmen, is expressing an interest in putting together a consortium to buy Chelsea. HMRC will no doubt be very interested to see him described in reports this morning as "worth £1.5Bn" since he claimed in a legal case against a former employee back in 2015 that he had a fraction of his brother's wealth and was merely the Design director of their company. The Candys have some very, erm, "interesting" business connections, so it will be intriguing to see what the PL's 'fit and proper person' test makes of him should it get that far. Of course, if they can wave through the Saudi take-over of Newcastle, anything is possible. At the end of the day, if you can afford a premier league football club, there is almost no chance you got there without bending a few rules and stepping on a few people along the way. Nice guys rarely get rich. Crewton 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nottingram Posted March 10, 2022 Share Posted March 10, 2022 Yikes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BucksRam Posted March 10, 2022 Share Posted March 10, 2022 All UK Assets frozen CONSOLIDATED LIST OF FINANCIAL SANCTIONS TARGETS IN THE UK https://t.co/1bsvp8OUhU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LazloW Posted March 10, 2022 Share Posted March 10, 2022 1 minute ago, nottingram said: Yikes No doubt there will be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth from Chelsea fans and sports media saying that fans shouldn’t suffer because of their owners…. Funny that very few have come out in support of our fans and the cascade of ? brought down on us from our owner, over which we had no control. RadioactiveWaste 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JfR Posted March 10, 2022 Share Posted March 10, 2022 Welcome to the club Chelsea The Scarlet Pimpernel, EtoileSportiveDeDerby, Wolfie and 12 others 2 13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCFC Kicks Posted March 10, 2022 Share Posted March 10, 2022 It was incredibly depressing hearing Chelsea fans chant Abramovich's name the other day. Integrity and morals are non-existent in football today. As long as your team is winning and your owner has a lot of money he's a hero and nothing else matters. Where the money comes from doesn't matter. The morally correct thing would be for all Chelsea fans to refuse to support their team in any way until they have a new owner (they won't). All broadcasters, Sky, BBC etc. should refuse to show any Chelsea games (they haven't), and Sky continue to make money off showing their games, and no one is criticising them for doing this. All Chelsea players should refuse to play or get their dirty money wages (obviously they won't). Yet Sky, Chelsea fans/players continue with the empty gestures, like holding up a Ukrainian flag before games, then everyone feels better about themselves and just continue on. RadioactiveWaste, Ram-Alf and Chris_Martin 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted March 10, 2022 Share Posted March 10, 2022 Feel for the staff and fans at Chelsea, as we know football is more than a game, so many will be impacted by those sanctions even down to the local suppliers to the concourses and hospitality suites. ariotofmyown, archram and angieram 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted March 10, 2022 Share Posted March 10, 2022 1 minute ago, DCFC Kicks said: It was incredibly depressing hearing Chelsea fans chant Abramovich's name the other day. Integrity and morals are non-existent in football today. As long as your team is winning and your owner has a lot of money he's a hero and nothing else matters. Where the money comes from doesn't matter. The morally correct thing would be for all Chelsea fans to refuse to support their team in any way until they have a new owner (they won't). All broadcasters, Sky, BBC etc. should refuse to show any Chelsea games (they haven't), and Sky continue to make money off showing their games, and no one is criticising them for doing this. All Chelsea players should refuse to play or get their dirty money wages (obviously they won't). Yet Sky, Chelsea fans/players continue with the empty gestures, like holding up a Ukrainian flag before games, then everyone feels better about themselves and just continue on. I imagine that now the assets have been frozen, they can't acquire money through TV, so in effect can't be on the telly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted March 10, 2022 Share Posted March 10, 2022 4 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said: I imagine that now the assets have been frozen, they can't acquire money through TV, so in effect can't be on the telly. The bbc saying broadcasters can show any Chelsea game. Presumeably for free? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account.
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now