• 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

dingdongo said:
What does the fans owning the pitch stop the owners from doing? Renovating it without their approval etc..
Can't an owner just build a new stadium somewhere else, like the Battersea deal they were working on? Or can those fans veto any move away?
Click to expand...

The club will no longer be able to call itself chelsea if it moved. The fans own the name aswell.

The main thing is the sale of stamford bridge would help pay to build the new stadium.
 
Robbo said:
We should put together a consortium of wealthyish Spurs fans, buy the club and ravage it. Hell, I'm not rich, but I would happily donate £500 to end Chelski. I'm surely not alone.

With the help of the crypto fortune of @Danishfurniturelover and the millions @scaramanga surely makes from this forum, plus the fortunes of a few other wealthy and vindictive Spurs fans, this could be doable.

Sell those 800 Chelski loanees, plus a few big name players, and I'm sure we could recoup most of what we bought the club for.

Now someone just start a Gofundme camping... :D
Click to expand...

I would start up dog racing at their stadium. The needs to be a place in central London to watch greyhounds racing again.

Was at hove greyhound stadium last night.
3 winners, had lamb shanks and beer with my brother in law.
 
Lot of bs coming from chelsea fans regarding sanctions. Think they are confusing them with a court freezing someone assets. This is different and comes under The Sanctions and Anti Money Laundering Act 2018. There is no time limit. A review must occur within three years of a qualifying designation being made. After this initial review, a further review must be conducted within three years of the preceding review, for as long as the designation remains in place.

The government don't have to prove that he did anything wrong. Just show parliament that it is reasonable to suspect him of having done so.
Abramovich to get out of it would have to apply to have it revoked. If the government refuses he would have to go to the high court and prove that he didn't do anything wrong.

Good breakdown here.
https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/guide/the-guide-sanctions/second-edition/article/uk-sanctions
 
Last edited:
JerusalemMan said:
No, they managed to get that sorted

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...r-stamford-bridge-redevelopment-36706571.html
Click to expand...

I don’t think they had everything resolved regarding planning/appeals. But the main point I remember is they announced that the stadium plans were on hold shortly after RA withdrew his renewal for his investor visa. At the time I believe this was because the process changed which meant he would have to explain his origins of wealth.

The Chelsea statement at the time even mentions “unfavourable investment climate”

Why he didn’t sell before now is quite surprising.


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44332603

https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2018/5/31/stadium-plans-on-hold
 
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/spor...-asked-to-take-in-chelsea-fans-20220311218341

THE sanctions on my beloved Chelsea FC are deeply unfair and an abuse of process. Spending hundreds of millions on the best players for 20 years is different. Here’s how:

We deserved it

Our critics know nothing about football history, but Chelsea had a rough time before Roman. No more than a few FA Cups and the lesser European Cups in 10 years before he bought us and we achieved our title destiny. It’s a classic underdog story. Sending us back down? Vicious. There’s no classic overdog story, is there?

You can’t buy success

Look at Paris Saint-Germain. Spending millions and winning f**k all except frog titles that don’t matter. We didn’t win because we spent £121m on players in the first season after Roman, £92m the next and a billion and a half total since he arrived. We won because we’re Chelsea and Chelsea are winners. Anyone who says otherwise is jealous.

He really supports the club

Abramovich wasn’t some mercenary. He really loves the club and the cover it provided for subverting British democracy. Cut him and he’d bleed blue-and-white before having you killed. Sure, he’s an associate of a warlord threatening a nuclear holocaust, but is it ever right to punish a man for loving his team?

It’s the anti-Chelsea agenda

If they’re honest with themselves, every football fan knows about the anti-Chelsea agenda in the FA, the media and world geopolitics. They’re always looking to bring Chelsea down. It wouldn’t surprise me if they kicked off this war just to have an excuse. That’s how much they hate us.

Other clubs are doing it

Qatar own PSG, Abu Dhabi owns City, the Saudis own Saudi Sportswashing Machine, Delia Smith owns Norwich. None of their hands are clean. If those blood-soaked genocidal bastards – you think she made that money from cookbooks? Dream on – are fine, why not poor Roman? He never pulls the trigger himself. He’s got a strong ethical line about that.

We’re a great bunch of guys

Ask any football fan: Chelsea supporters are really solid dudes. We’ll always give you a bump of our coke and we leave business cards on anyone we kick the brick out of so they don’t wake up all confused. You wouldn’t want to see us suffer, right? Right?
 
Lilbaz said:
Lot of bs coming from chelsea fans regarding sanctions. Think they are confusing them with a court freezing someone assets. This is different and comes under The Sanctions and Anti Money Laundering Act 2018. There is no time limit. A review must occur within three years of a qualifying designation being made. After this initial review, a further review must be conducted within three years of the preceding review, for as long as the designation remains in place.

The government don't have to prove that he did anything wrong. Just show parliament that it is reasonable to suspect him of having done so.
Abramovich to get out of it would have to apply to have it revoked. If the government refuses he would have to go to the high court and prove that he didn't do anything wrong.

Good breakdown here.
https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/guide/the-guide-sanctions/second-edition/article/uk-sanctions
Click to expand...


Interesting. Under the licence section it says:
  • OFSI confirms that generally frozen funds, and any profits from frozen funds, cannot be invested. The OFSI General Guidance states that exceptions or licensing grounds are unlikely to allow for such activity. However, the OFSI General Guidance does note that in certain circumstances ‘some asset management may be permitted, under the “basic needs” licensing ground, to ensure that the existence of the business or the frozen assets is not imperilled’. Such an application will be considered by OFSI on a case-by-case basis.
So if chelsea are facing bankruptcy, they may sell players, or other assets to keep their heads above water.
 
Lilbaz said:
Interesting. Under the licence section it says:
  • OFSI confirms that generally frozen funds, and any profits from frozen funds, cannot be invested. The OFSI General Guidance states that exceptions or licensing grounds are unlikely to allow for such activity. However, the OFSI General Guidance does note that in certain circumstances ‘some asset management may be permitted, under the “basic needs” licensing ground, to ensure that the existence of the business or the frozen assets is not imperilled’. Such an application will be considered by OFSI on a case-by-case basis.
So if chelsea are facing bankruptcy, they may sell players, or other assets to keep their heads above water.
Click to expand...
I hope they can't.

I assume a few hundred of their loan farm players will have their loans ending in the summer and Chelsea will be liable for their salaries if they can't loan them out again.
 
Lilbaz said:
Interesting. Under the licence section it says:
  • OFSI confirms that generally frozen funds, and any profits from frozen funds, cannot be invested. The OFSI General Guidance states that exceptions or licensing grounds are unlikely to allow for such activity. However, the OFSI General Guidance does note that in certain circumstances ‘some asset management may be permitted, under the “basic needs” licensing ground, to ensure that the existence of the business or the frozen assets is not imperilled’. Such an application will be considered by OFSI on a case-by-case basis.
So if chelsea are facing bankruptcy, they may sell players, or other assets to keep their heads above water.
Click to expand...

Which is fair enough.
I don't want to go bankrupt.
I want them to slowly and painfully decline by the money bleeding out of the club, much like how they went from nothing to everything all because an (alleged) criminal decided to (allegedly) use it as a money laundering vehicle
 
scaramanga said:
I hope they can't.

I assume a few hundred of their loan farm players will have their loans ending in the summer and Chelsea will be liable for their salaries if they can't loan them out again.
Click to expand...

That's only if bankruptcy threat falls within the transfer window.
Also pretty good leverage for anyone wanting their players - desperation is a poor negotiating position
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back