Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Re: The Official Oh F*** Chelsea Destroyed Footie Thread now featuring The Special On
Appreciate you posting that. Thanks.
Appreciate you posting that. Thanks.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Cheatski are still scum
- Thread starter NewYorkSpurs
- Start date
clownfoot
Goran Bunjevcevic
Re: The Official Oh F*** Chelsea Destroyed Footie Thread now featuring The Special On
Think it is Tony Cascarino, played for Chelsea in the late 80s or early 90s
Think it is Tony Cascarino, played for Chelsea in the late 80s or early 90s
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Re: The Official Oh F*** Chelsea Destroyed Footie Thread now featuring The Special On
It is. And to be fair he's an ex-pro so you don't expect particularly insightful comments from him, but the other two airheads are really laughable.
It is. And to be fair he's an ex-pro so you don't expect particularly insightful comments from him, but the other two airheads are really laughable.
greatwhitenorf
Edgar Davids
Re: The Official Oh F*** Chelsea Destroyed Footie Thread now featuring The Special On
Love to think some enterprising young underling working the tech side of Sky's production has already pocketed a recording of what the director is saying into their earpieces - yelling, probably - to Jim, Tony and the wingwench. And what was said afterward.
"...Erm, Jim, let's get him talking football, not ownership! Now! Get this interview back on course!... ...SHOUT HIM DOWN! Talk football, FFS! Tony! Jump in, dammit! Say something about playing the game!
To be leaked at some opportune moment.
Love to think some enterprising young underling working the tech side of Sky's production has already pocketed a recording of what the director is saying into their earpieces - yelling, probably - to Jim, Tony and the wingwench. And what was said afterward.
"...Erm, Jim, let's get him talking football, not ownership! Now! Get this interview back on course!... ...SHOUT HIM DOWN! Talk football, FFS! Tony! Jump in, dammit! Say something about playing the game!
To be leaked at some opportune moment.
Re: The Official Oh F*** Chelsea Destroyed Footie Thread now featuring The Special On
thanks for posting the article mate
id be surprised if SSN had him on knowing the angle he was planning to take - would be interesting to know what Syed said to them in order to get a guest slot, was probably fairly liberal with the truth :lol:
whilst it's good to see someone bring focus to the negative aspect of the origins/motivation of Abramovich and the political reasons behind his acquisition of Chelsea FC, it'd also be nice if he spent a bit more time talking about the negative in footballing terms as well.
thanks for posting the article mate
id be surprised if SSN had him on knowing the angle he was planning to take - would be interesting to know what Syed said to them in order to get a guest slot, was probably fairly liberal with the truth :lol:
whilst it's good to see someone bring focus to the negative aspect of the origins/motivation of Abramovich and the political reasons behind his acquisition of Chelsea FC, it'd also be nice if he spent a bit more time talking about the negative in footballing terms as well.
Asked if Chelsea can keep pace with City, given their spending, Mourinho said: "We think that we are not very far from having a squad that allows us to compete face to face with every club, doesn't matter how much the investment is, doesn't matter how much the financial play is 'fair' or 'dodgy'."
http://www.teamtalk.com/news/2483/9146924/Chelsea-boss-Jose-Mourinho-believes-Manchester-City-have-underachieved
http://www.teamtalk.com/news/2483/9146924/Chelsea-boss-Jose-Mourinho-believes-Manchester-City-have-underachieved
markysimmo
Johnny nice-tits
Brilliant, I mean its not liked they have financial doped for the past 10 years is it, ****ing clutz, I hope Emirates Marketing Project smash them tonight
Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho believes it will be "impossible" for clubs to compete with Emirates Marketing Project if Financial Fair Play is not enforced.
City's vast spending in an era of Financial Fair Play has come in for repeated veiled criticism from Mourinho, who is keen to see how the economic regulations are explained and enforced by UEFA.
"If they (football's authorities) want to make it impossible to compete with City, it's impossible," he said.
"Chelsea are not competing outside what is important for us, the 'fair' Financial Fair Play.
"We are working, thinking and believing that Financial Fair Play is going to be in practice.
"So there are things that are impossible for us (to do)."
Sports lawyer Adam Morallee, of law firm Mischon de Reya believes UEFA need to "lay down the law" regarding their rules on Financial Fair Play.
"It's a real acid test to see how UEFA look at things like income and expenditure and what it classifies as allowable income," he said.
"Many of the clubs have been given an exemption where they're allowed to take off wages from previous years but when you look at City's books and see they've managed to get another £50m of income from things like intellectual property and image rights, they will only show losses of around £40 or £50 million - which may be acceptable.
"But ultimately, if you're spending too much, you will be found out - and it's up to UEFA to lay down the law.
"They should be looking at the profit and loss columns and saying - 'is that really genuine income or is that from a related third party?"
Mourinho, whose Chelsea team face City in a crucial top-of-the-table battle on Monday night, speaks from experience after recruiting many players for large sums during his first spell as Chelsea boss at the start of Roman Abramovich's Russian revolution.
When Mourinho first worked in England he admits "it was a free world".
He added: "There was no Financial Fair Play. If your club was a rich one, your owner a rich one, there were no rules. It was an open situation."
It meant Chelsea were unpopular, but City are attracting admirers with their attacking brand of football.
Mourinho said: "In my time we were accused of buying the title, no? Because our owner was Mr Abramovich, just arrived in the country. Maybe now people see City in a different way.
"Times change. Maybe 10 years ago a huge investment in the club was something that people hated and in this moment it's something people accept in a different way.
"Probably, if UEFA goes with Financial Fair Play until the last consequence and they explain really to the people what Financial Fair Play means, maybe in that moment people will realise that some teams are different to other teams.
"But it's something I don't think about at this moment."
Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho believes it will be "impossible" for clubs to compete with Emirates Marketing Project if Financial Fair Play is not enforced.
City's vast spending in an era of Financial Fair Play has come in for repeated veiled criticism from Mourinho, who is keen to see how the economic regulations are explained and enforced by UEFA.
"If they (football's authorities) want to make it impossible to compete with City, it's impossible," he said.
"Chelsea are not competing outside what is important for us, the 'fair' Financial Fair Play.
"We are working, thinking and believing that Financial Fair Play is going to be in practice.
"So there are things that are impossible for us (to do)."
Sports lawyer Adam Morallee, of law firm Mischon de Reya believes UEFA need to "lay down the law" regarding their rules on Financial Fair Play.
"It's a real acid test to see how UEFA look at things like income and expenditure and what it classifies as allowable income," he said.
"Many of the clubs have been given an exemption where they're allowed to take off wages from previous years but when you look at City's books and see they've managed to get another £50m of income from things like intellectual property and image rights, they will only show losses of around £40 or £50 million - which may be acceptable.
"But ultimately, if you're spending too much, you will be found out - and it's up to UEFA to lay down the law.
"They should be looking at the profit and loss columns and saying - 'is that really genuine income or is that from a related third party?"
Mourinho, whose Chelsea team face City in a crucial top-of-the-table battle on Monday night, speaks from experience after recruiting many players for large sums during his first spell as Chelsea boss at the start of Roman Abramovich's Russian revolution.
When Mourinho first worked in England he admits "it was a free world".
He added: "There was no Financial Fair Play. If your club was a rich one, your owner a rich one, there were no rules. It was an open situation."
It meant Chelsea were unpopular, but City are attracting admirers with their attacking brand of football.
Mourinho said: "In my time we were accused of buying the title, no? Because our owner was Mr Abramovich, just arrived in the country. Maybe now people see City in a different way.
"Times change. Maybe 10 years ago a huge investment in the club was something that people hated and in this moment it's something people accept in a different way.
"Probably, if UEFA goes with Financial Fair Play until the last consequence and they explain really to the people what Financial Fair Play means, maybe in that moment people will realise that some teams are different to other teams.
"But it's something I don't think about at this moment."
markysimmo
Johnny nice-tits
He really is an uber bell-end
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
He sure is. I used to think he was funny and amusing to certain extent, but now I think he's just a parody of an early version of himself.
It is bizarre that anyone from Chelsea should say such things considering how they have distorted football's financial landscape to such a disgusting level, but on the other hand I'd love these two to go at each other in the courts if that is what it came to. I don't see anyone from UEFA ever having the inclination to take on a club with the financial firepower of Emirates Marketing Project but just maybe Abramovich's ego and vanity might prompt him into a ****ing contest with city.
markysimmo
Johnny nice-tits
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ace-sanctions-says-Vladimir-Putin-critic.html
David Cameron and Barack Obama were facing calls on Thursday night to take financial action against Roman Abramovich, the Chelsea FC owner, over Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
A prominent Russian opposition politician said Western governments’ response to the Crimean crisis should include seizing the assets of wealthy Russian businessmen, including Mr Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, a major shareholder in Arsenal FC.
So far, Western sanctions imposed in protest at Russian aggression in Ukraine have fallen on Russian politicians and officials.
But Alexei Navalny, a leading critic of Vladimir Putin, said the sanctions should be aimed at billionaire “oligarchs” with close links to the Russian president
Mr Navalny said the West should take action including “freezing the oligarchs’ financial assets and seizing their property”.
In an article in the New York Times, he called for action against a list of businessmen including Mr Abramovich and Mr Usmanov.
Neither man has any public connection to Mr Putin or the Russian government.
Mr Abramovich declined to comment. He is understood to consider himself a private citizen with no connection to the Russian government, meaning there should be no question of sanctions being applied to him.
The White House on Thursday night imposed sanctions on at least half the names on Mr Navalny’s list – including Mr Putin’s right-hand man, Sergei Ivanov. However, neither Mr Abramovich nor Mr Usmanov faces any action from US authorities. Nor has Britain taken any action against them so far.
Government sources said there was no question of sanctions against the pair. Britain is targeting action solely on people involved in fomenting trouble in Ukraine, a source said.
Brooks Newmark, a Conservative MP, said Russian oligarchs should be included in an expanded sanctions regime.
“It is better to focus on the money men around Putin,” he said. “That would hurt Putin far more than attacking a bunch of politicians. The oligarchs are where the real power lies.”
Parliamentary support for targeting the oligarchs is growing, Mr Newmark said.
“There is a general feeling that we should be tightening the noose around those closest to Putin.”
Dr Andrew Foxall, director of the Russian Studies Centre at the Henry Jackson Society think tank, said there was a “legitimate case” for sanctions against Mr Abramovich and other oligarchs because they help keep Mr Putin in power.
“We know that Abramovich is part of Putin’s inner circle,” he said. “There is a case to argue that, like Crimea was Ukraine’s soft underbelly, the oligarchs are Putin’s soft underbelly.
“London is where they have their property, where their assets are, where their wives shop and their children go to school. Without the support the oligarchs give to Putin he would not be in power.”
David Cameron and Barack Obama were facing calls on Thursday night to take financial action against Roman Abramovich, the Chelsea FC owner, over Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
A prominent Russian opposition politician said Western governments’ response to the Crimean crisis should include seizing the assets of wealthy Russian businessmen, including Mr Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, a major shareholder in Arsenal FC.
So far, Western sanctions imposed in protest at Russian aggression in Ukraine have fallen on Russian politicians and officials.
But Alexei Navalny, a leading critic of Vladimir Putin, said the sanctions should be aimed at billionaire “oligarchs” with close links to the Russian president
Mr Navalny said the West should take action including “freezing the oligarchs’ financial assets and seizing their property”.
In an article in the New York Times, he called for action against a list of businessmen including Mr Abramovich and Mr Usmanov.
Neither man has any public connection to Mr Putin or the Russian government.
Mr Abramovich declined to comment. He is understood to consider himself a private citizen with no connection to the Russian government, meaning there should be no question of sanctions being applied to him.
The White House on Thursday night imposed sanctions on at least half the names on Mr Navalny’s list – including Mr Putin’s right-hand man, Sergei Ivanov. However, neither Mr Abramovich nor Mr Usmanov faces any action from US authorities. Nor has Britain taken any action against them so far.
Government sources said there was no question of sanctions against the pair. Britain is targeting action solely on people involved in fomenting trouble in Ukraine, a source said.
Brooks Newmark, a Conservative MP, said Russian oligarchs should be included in an expanded sanctions regime.
“It is better to focus on the money men around Putin,” he said. “That would hurt Putin far more than attacking a bunch of politicians. The oligarchs are where the real power lies.”
Parliamentary support for targeting the oligarchs is growing, Mr Newmark said.
“There is a general feeling that we should be tightening the noose around those closest to Putin.”
Dr Andrew Foxall, director of the Russian Studies Centre at the Henry Jackson Society think tank, said there was a “legitimate case” for sanctions against Mr Abramovich and other oligarchs because they help keep Mr Putin in power.
“We know that Abramovich is part of Putin’s inner circle,” he said. “There is a case to argue that, like Crimea was Ukraine’s soft underbelly, the oligarchs are Putin’s soft underbelly.
“London is where they have their property, where their assets are, where their wives shop and their children go to school. Without the support the oligarchs give to Putin he would not be in power.”
spurs' magna carter
Ronnie Rosenthal
Nothing will happen, stop trying to make out something will. Embarrassing.
Modric THFC
Jimmy McCormick
It could happen. The sanction are decided by the EU not by Cameron etc.
The EU would have no problem freezing his assets.
And he is really close to Putin.
This will happen only is Russia does something to escalate this. Which probably isnt far off.
The EU would have no problem freezing his assets.
And he is really close to Putin.
This will happen only is Russia does something to escalate this. Which probably isnt far off.