Cheatski are still scum

[Legohamster]

Barclays suspend Chelsea bank accounts

 

[Denmark Spur]

Chelsea’s bank accounts have been frozen, leaving the club facing financial ruin after the government sanctioned Roman Abramovich, The Times has been told.
The government yesterday gave Chelsea a licence to continue with football-related activities after Abramovich, the club’s owner, was sanctioned over his links to Vladimir Putin, the Russian president.
Sources at the club have warned that despite the licence several of the club’s corporate accounts, including credit cards, have been frozen because banks are being “risk-averse”.
“The licence allows the club to continue with day-to-day activities but the banks don’t have the risk appetite for it,” a source said. “They’ve frozen some of the corporate credit cards. It’s put a lot more pressure on the club.”
A senior source at Chelsea confirmed that the situation was causing grave concern. “It’s making it even more difficult to run our day-to-day operations,” the source explained.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1502334221477728258

 

[90sSpursBook]

Vulgar, arrogant, crass, financially irresponsible. These are the words that immediately come to mind when I think of Chelsea and apart from the club employees I have zero sympathy for any potential damaging implications.

There are a small section of their fanbase who were about pre 2000 and who weren't NF members but this probably equates to the levels of West Ham or Crystal Palace core support.

Nothing that they have won in the Abramovic era has been won through anything that grotesque financial doping. Even the Harding era of success (2 x FA Cup, 1 league cup and ECWC) smacks of leeds united levels of unsustainable overspending.

fudge them - they get everything they deserve.

 

[Lilbaz]

That's not the same thing. I'm talking about players who are contracted to Chelsea past the summer but currently on loan.

Any of those loans that end this summer will leave Chelsea liable for their wages and only increase an already massively inflated wage bill.

True.

 

[Baleforce]

It's important to remember the horrible actions in Ukraine that have moved the club to this situation, and that a lot of Chelsea FC staff will probably lose their job.

But, a lot of absolute scumbags are getting what they deserve.

 

[Lilbaz]

Chelsea’s bank accounts have been frozen, leaving the club facing financial ruin after the government sanctioned Roman Abramovich, The Times has been told.
The government yesterday gave Chelsea a licence to continue with football-related activities after Abramovich, the club’s owner, was sanctioned over his links to Vladimir Putin, the Russian president.
Sources at the club have warned that despite the licence several of the club’s corporate accounts, including credit cards, have been frozen because banks are being “risk-averse”.
“The licence allows the club to continue with day-to-day activities but the banks don’t have the risk appetite for it,” a source said. “They’ve frozen some of the corporate credit cards. It’s put a lot more pressure on the club.”
A senior source at Chelsea confirmed that the situation was causing grave concern. “It’s making it even more difficult to run our day-to-day operations,” the source explained.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1502334221477728258

Credit is basically the banks loaning chelsea money. Which they can't legally do. Risk appetite has nothing to do with it.

 

[Baleforce]

Reminds me of when RBS could have pulled the plug on Liverpool, I'll never forgive them for wasting that opportunity.

 

[monkeybarry]

That's not the same thing. I'm talking about players who are contracted to Chelsea past the summer but currently on loan.

Any of those loans that end this summer will leave Chelsea liable for their wages and only increase an already massively inflated wage bill.

And surely the players are now zero rated assets so can't be amortised across the terms of their contracts.
If that's right it could seriously fudge them up with FFP.

 

[SteveAWOL]

 

[monkeybarry]

Chelsea’s bank accounts have been frozen, leaving the club facing financial ruin after the government sanctioned Roman Abramovich, The Times has been told.
The government yesterday gave Chelsea a licence to continue with football-related activities after Abramovich, the club’s owner, was sanctioned over his links to Vladimir Putin, the Russian president.
Sources at the club have warned that despite the licence several of the club’s corporate accounts, including credit cards, have been frozen because banks are being “risk-averse”.
“The licence allows the club to continue with day-to-day activities but the banks don’t have the risk appetite for it,” a source said. “They’ve frozen some of the corporate credit cards. It’s put a lot more pressure on the club.”
A senior source at Chelsea confirmed that the situation was causing grave concern. “It’s making it even more difficult to run our day-to-day operations,” the source explained.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1502334221477728258

Happy Friday y'all!!!

Dance with the devil......

 

[monkeybarry]

Credit is basically the banks loaning chelsea money. Which they can't legally do. Risk appetite has nothing to do with it.

Not quite. This sounds like it's existing accounts being frozen, not applications for new lines of credit.
So the bank wouldn't be lending them money; they've already lent them the money. The credit line will appear as a liability on the balance sheet, with the expectation of payment of used. Barclays have decided the risk of any spending not being paid back is now too great; that is risk management.

 

[Baleforce]

Not quite. This sounds like it's existing accounts being frozen, not applications for new lines of credit.
So the bank wouldn't be lending them money; they've already lent them the money. The credit line will appear as a liability on the balance sheet, with the expectation of payment of used. Barclays have decided the risk of any spending not being paid back is now too great; that is risk management.

does this mean they won't be paying wages to staff, invoices of suppliers etc etc?

 

[Lilbaz]

Not quite. This sounds like it's existing accounts being frozen, not applications for new lines of credit.
So the bank wouldn't be lending them money; they've already lent them the money. The credit line will appear as a liability on the balance sheet, with the expectation of payment of used. Barclays have decided the risk of any spending not being paid back is now too great; that is risk management.

They mentioned credit cards being frozen. Which they will be. The banks can't give them any lines of credit. They can give them their own money (if they've got any).

Otherwise someone who is sanctioned could just buy a load of stuff on their credit card. Sell it for bitcoin/cash and do a runner.

 

[monkeybarry]

I'm curious as to where this puts their players - surely by having the ability to sell them removed it removes the players right to freedom of employment. I wonder if this could be used as a breach of contract; it's not dissimilar to the situation Bosman was in.

 

[Lilbaz]

I'm curious as to where this puts their players - surely by having the ability to sell them removed it removes the players right to freedom of employment. I wonder if this could be used as a breach of contract; it's not dissimilar to the situation Bosman was in.

They can do what they want. They would just be breaching their contract with chelsea and could be sued.

 

[monkeybarry]

does this mean they won't be paying wages to staff, invoices of suppliers etc etc?

I think there is ambiguity around that at the moment.
From what I understand it will have to come from cash reserves.
But there were reports that they will still be able to receive incoming funds to service bills.
So not entirely sure.
If it's the former, they won't see the season out.
£330m p/a wage bill on its own!
I imagine it'll be the latter so third party suppliers don't get hit hard. The govt won't want that on their watch.

 

[monkeybarry]

They can do what they want. They would just be breaching their contract with chelsea and could be sued.

Only if Chelsea are eligible for legal aid. They certainly can't pay a lawyer!

But in reality they can't just do what they want. Moving to a different club would require being registered with that club. That won't happen whilst they are contracted elsewhere. So a mechanism to cease the contract will be needed.

 

[Robbo]

Chelsea’s bank accounts have been frozen, leaving the club facing financial ruin after the government sanctioned Roman Abramovich, The Times has been told.
The government yesterday gave Chelsea a licence to continue with football-related activities after Abramovich, the club’s owner, was sanctioned over his links to Vladimir Putin, the Russian president.
Sources at the club have warned that despite the licence several of the club’s corporate accounts, including credit cards, have been frozen because banks are being “risk-averse”.
“The licence allows the club to continue with day-to-day activities but the banks don’t have the risk appetite for it,” a source said. “They’ve frozen some of the corporate credit cards. It’s put a lot more pressure on the club.”
A senior source at Chelsea confirmed that the situation was causing grave concern. “It’s making it even more difficult to run our day-to-day operations,” the source explained.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1502334221477728258

Chelsea facing financial ruin AGAIN - just as they did when Roman bailed them out. Hopefully this time they'll crash and burn spectacularly.

Kids are sick and I really need an early night and a good night's sleep, but I'm seriously contemplating a beer or three in celebration of that headline.

 

[monkeybarry]

They mentioned credit cards being frozen. Which they will be. The banks can't give them any lines of credit. They can give them their own money (if they've got any).

Otherwise someone who is sanctioned could just buy a load of stuff on their credit card. Sell it for bitcoin/cash and do a runner.

That's exactly the point. If they were RAs credit cards you'd be right.
They are not, they are Chelsea's and for the use with daily operations - which they are allowed to continue.
So the bank could leave them unfrozen if they choose. Just not offer new credit.
It seems the back have, sensibly, decided there is too much risk of not seeing the money again.

That is a huge statement. Barclays would be very high up the creditors list and have the clout to get as much as they can if administration happens. And they still consider the risk too high to honour existing credit lines!!!

 

[tw12yid]

I'm curious as to where this puts their players - surely by having the ability to sell them removed it removes the players right to freedom of employment. I wonder if this could be used as a breach of contract; it's not dissimilar to the situation Bosman was in.

With the bank accounts frozen, surely more likely a lack of pay might come into play with Breach of contract.