Can someone explain to me this? If Chelsea can still be sold, as long as the money won't go into Roman's pocket, who will get that money? Is it UK government?
Apparently the governed will give the proceeds to charities for the victims in Ukraine.
*Looks up how many Tory party donors have set up charities for the victims of the invasion in the last two weeks.*
comment by red_evils (U19878)
posted 16 minutes ago
Can someone explain to me this? If Chelsea can still be sold, as long as the money won't go into Roman's pocket, who will get that money? Is it UK government?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably yes, but that would then be poured into a charitable initiative, most likely to support the Ukrainian victims of the conflict
comment by red_evils (U19878)
posted 15 minutes ago
Can someone explain to me this? If Chelsea can still be sold, as long as the money won't go into Roman's pocket, who will get that money? Is it UK government?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was reading the c£1.5b owed to RA is by CFC's holding company. Which has been frozen, and RA also can't simply write it off either in light of FFP rules.
As such it is unlikely the club will be sold with that hanging over it, and the club could go into administration.
Info from Ed Thompson btw, (financialfairplay.co.uk) who in the past has had a good source of info regarding finance in football.
In answer to your question, yes I believe sales proceeds would go to the treasury and HMRC.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by red_evils (U19878)
posted 15 minutes ago
Can someone explain to me this? If Chelsea can still be sold, as long as the money won't go into Roman's pocket, who will get that money? Is it UK government?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was reading the c£1.5b owed to RA is by CFC's holding company. Which has been frozen, and RA also can't simply write it off either in light of FFP rules.
As such it is unlikely the club will be sold with that hanging over it, and the club could go into administration.
Info from Ed Thompson btw, (financialfairplay.co.uk) who in the past has had a good source of info regarding finance in football.
In answer to your question, yes I believe sales proceeds would go to the treasury and HMRC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, so let's say I buy Chelsea, all the money will go to treasury. I now have 1.5bn in debt which I can't pay as it is frozen. Should simply just ignore it then? Yes it is a debt but who cares because Roman cannot be paid anyway
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 57 minutes ago
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Roy's Keane (U11635)
posted 42 seconds ago
Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said Mr Abramovich and the other Russian oligarchs sanctioned are "complicit" in Putin's aggression.
"The blood of the Ukrainian people is on their hands. They should hang their heads in shame," she said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, but so should she for being in the most corrupt government I can think we’ve had for many a year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Truss should keep her mouth shut, she's handled the whole build up to the invasion terribly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a bit unfair. She has engineered some really impressive photo-shoots cosplaying Maggie Thatcher since day one of this crisis. I particularly enjoyed the fur-hat-despite-unseasonably-warm-temperatures-in-Moscow pictures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by red_evils (U19878)
posted 15 minutes ago
Can someone explain to me this? If Chelsea can still be sold, as long as the money won't go into Roman's pocket, who will get that money? Is it UK government?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was reading the c£1.5b owed to RA is by CFC's holding company. Which has been frozen, and RA also can't simply write it off either in light of FFP rules.
As such it is unlikely the club will be sold with that hanging over it, and the club could go into administration.
Info from Ed Thompson btw, (financialfairplay.co.uk) who in the past has had a good source of info regarding finance in football.
In answer to your question, yes I believe sales proceeds would go to the treasury and HMRC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roman is not looking for the 1.5b back, according to press reports, so he has written that off, so to speak?
comment by (U22816)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by red_evils (U19878)
posted 15 minutes ago
Can someone explain to me this? If Chelsea can still be sold, as long as the money won't go into Roman's pocket, who will get that money? Is it UK government?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was reading the c£1.5b owed to RA is by CFC's holding company. Which has been frozen, and RA also can't simply write it off either in light of FFP rules.
As such it is unlikely the club will be sold with that hanging over it, and the club could go into administration.
Info from Ed Thompson btw, (financialfairplay.co.uk) who in the past has had a good source of info regarding finance in football.
In answer to your question, yes I believe sales proceeds would go to the treasury and HMRC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roman is not looking for the 1.5b back, according to press reports, so he has written that off, so to speak?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He might want to, but it basically pump 1.5 bn into the club, which is not allowed due to FFP
comment by red_evils (U19878)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by (U22816)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by red_evils (U19878)
posted 15 minutes ago
Can someone explain to me this? If Chelsea can still be sold, as long as the money won't go into Roman's pocket, who will get that money? Is it UK government?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was reading the c£1.5b owed to RA is by CFC's holding company. Which has been frozen, and RA also can't simply write it off either in light of FFP rules.
As such it is unlikely the club will be sold with that hanging over it, and the club could go into administration.
Info from Ed Thompson btw, (financialfairplay.co.uk) who in the past has had a good source of info regarding finance in football.
In answer to your question, yes I believe sales proceeds would go to the treasury and HMRC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roman is not looking for the 1.5b back, according to press reports, so he has written that off, so to speak?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He might want to, but it basically pump 1.5 bn into the club, which is not allowed due to FFP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the sanctions report, all of his UK assets have been frozen.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/abramovich-and-deripaska-among-seven-oligarchs-targeted-in-estimated-15bn-sanction-hit
All commercial activity by CFC has in effect been closed down. The club can't sell tickets for games, merchandise sales shut and it can't buy or sell players on the transfer market.
That said it is believed RA could apply for a licence to sell, providing he can prove he would not benefit from the sale.
Also understand Three (sponsor) is to review it's relationship with CFC. In short the sooner the club can get rid of RA the better.
There will no doubt be an update in foreseeable future
comment by red_evils (U19878)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by (U22816)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by red_evils (U19878)
posted 15 minutes ago
Can someone explain to me this? If Chelsea can still be sold, as long as the money won't go into Roman's pocket, who will get that money? Is it UK government?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was reading the c£1.5b owed to RA is by CFC's holding company. Which has been frozen, and RA also can't simply write it off either in light of FFP rules.
As such it is unlikely the club will be sold with that hanging over it, and the club could go into administration.
Info from Ed Thompson btw, (financialfairplay.co.uk) who in the past has had a good source of info regarding finance in football.
In answer to your question, yes I believe sales proceeds would go to the treasury and HMRC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roman is not looking for the 1.5b back, according to press reports, so he has written that off, so to speak?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He might want to, but it basically pump 1.5 bn into the club, which is not allowed due to FFP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
👍
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by red_evils (U19878)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by (U22816)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by red_evils (U19878)
posted 15 minutes ago
Can someone explain to me this? If Chelsea can still be sold, as long as the money won't go into Roman's pocket, who will get that money? Is it UK government?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was reading the c£1.5b owed to RA is by CFC's holding company. Which has been frozen, and RA also can't simply write it off either in light of FFP rules.
As such it is unlikely the club will be sold with that hanging over it, and the club could go into administration.
Info from Ed Thompson btw, (financialfairplay.co.uk) who in the past has had a good source of info regarding finance in football.
In answer to your question, yes I believe sales proceeds would go to the treasury and HMRC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roman is not looking for the 1.5b back, according to press reports, so he has written that off, so to speak?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He might want to, but it basically pump 1.5 bn into the club, which is not allowed due to FFP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the sanctions report, all of his UK assets have been frozen.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/abramovich-and-deripaska-among-seven-oligarchs-targeted-in-estimated-15bn-sanction-hit
All commercial activity by CFC has in effect been closed down. The club can't sell tickets for games, merchandise sales shut and it can't buy or sell players on the transfer market.
That said it is believed RA could apply for a licence to sell, providing he can prove he would not benefit from the sale.
Also understand Three (sponsor) is to review it's relationship with CFC. In short the sooner the club can get rid of RA the better.
There will no doubt be an update in foreseeable future
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I blame Wenger
And Romans out😉
Is being frozen the same as it becomes our money?
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
Is being frozen the same as it becomes our money?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roman just need to Let it go
So all the living wage earners in UK that will lose a big chunk or their whole income because of a link to CFC deserve it. You lovely COMRADE🍾
Have Chelsea laid off all their employees?
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 26 seconds ago
Have Chelsea laid off all their employees?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not yet but why shouldn't they?
Because the club is still operational.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 23 minutes ago
Is being frozen the same as it becomes our money?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Bojo will send you 20 francs in the mail.
comment by Kante's Dad-Heavy Jumbo (U20563)
posted 2 minutes ago
So all the living wage earners in UK that will lose a big chunk or their whole income because of a link to CFC deserve it. You lovely COMRADE🍾
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you walk us through this? Who are the low wage people who are going to lose their income because Abramovich is being sanctioned? Chelsea as an asset will remain valuable and will continue to generate employment whatever the ownership.
But aside from that, where do the ethics of this stance take us? If an individual or company generates employment, their economic activities shouldn't be interfered with regardless of the other consequences? Politics is fundamentally about mediating clashing interests: e.g. the interests of the capital owning class vs the wage earning class. Sometimes it comes down to ethical choices. For instance, you might apply your rationale to a situation where we have to decide whether to privilege the interests of those who can profit from the export of torture instruments and those who earn salaries in the manufacture of said torture equipment or the interests of those individuals they will be used upon. In my view, in the current situation where a vicious kleptocracy is bombing maternity wards and opening 'humanitarian evacuation corridors' and then mining or shelling them, theoretically creating job insecurity for some Abramovich employees is a lesser evil. But I also believe in a politics emphasising the common good, in which the state provides a generous safety net for those made unemployed and invests to stimulate the creation of plenty of well-paying jobs for the population in sectors that are societally useful. In such a world our economy would be less reliant on providing service industries to billionaires parking their wealth in London.
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 30 seconds ago
Because the club is still operational.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Megastore ain't. The geezer who sells burgers is gonna lose half his profits. Middlesboro is getting facked for 5000 paying punters etc
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Kante's Dad-Heavy Jumbo (U20563)
posted 2 minutes ago
So all the living wage earners in UK that will lose a big chunk or their whole income because of a link to CFC deserve it. You lovely COMRADE🍾
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you walk us through this? Who are the low wage people who are going to lose their income because Abramovich is being sanctioned? Chelsea as an asset will remain valuable and will continue to generate employment whatever the ownership.
But aside from that, where do the ethics of this stance take us? If an individual or company generates employment, their economic activities shouldn't be interfered with regardless of the other consequences? Politics is fundamentally about mediating clashing interests: e.g. the interests of the capital owning class vs the wage earning class. Sometimes it comes down to ethical choices. For instance, you might apply your rationale to a situation where we have to decide whether to privilege the interests of those who can profit from the export of torture instruments and those who earn salaries in the manufacture of said torture equipment or the interests of those individuals they will be used upon. In my view, in the current situation where a vicious kleptocracy is bombing maternity wards and opening 'humanitarian evacuation corridors' and then mining or shelling them, theoretically creating job insecurity for some Abramovich employees is a lesser evil. But I also believe in a politics emphasising the common good, in which the state provides a generous safety net for those made unemployed and invests to stimulate the creation of plenty of well-paying jobs for the population in sectors that are societally useful. In such a world our economy would be less reliant on providing service industries to billionaires parking their wealth in London.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone that has an investment in a thriving football club existing in the area?
comment by Kante's Dad-Heavy Jumbo (U20563)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Kante's Dad-Heavy Jumbo (U20563)
posted 2 minutes ago
So all the living wage earners in UK that will lose a big chunk or their whole income because of a link to CFC deserve it. You lovely COMRADE🍾
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you walk us through this? Who are the low wage people who are going to lose their income because Abramovich is being sanctioned? Chelsea as an asset will remain valuable and will continue to generate employment whatever the ownership.
But aside from that, where do the ethics of this stance take us? If an individual or company generates employment, their economic activities shouldn't be interfered with regardless of the other consequences? Politics is fundamentally about mediating clashing interests: e.g. the interests of the capital owning class vs the wage earning class. Sometimes it comes down to ethical choices. For instance, you might apply your rationale to a situation where we have to decide whether to privilege the interests of those who can profit from the export of torture instruments and those who earn salaries in the manufacture of said torture equipment or the interests of those individuals they will be used upon. In my view, in the current situation where a vicious kleptocracy is bombing maternity wards and opening 'humanitarian evacuation corridors' and then mining or shelling them, theoretically creating job insecurity for some Abramovich employees is a lesser evil. But I also believe in a politics emphasising the common good, in which the state provides a generous safety net for those made unemployed and invests to stimulate the creation of plenty of well-paying jobs for the population in sectors that are societally useful. In such a world our economy would be less reliant on providing service industries to billionaires parking their wealth in London.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone that has an investment in a thriving football club existing in the area?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn't read the rest of your typically verbose response because it was too obvious
That isn’t all their employees. It’s unfortunate for the ones that may be laid off, but ultimately this is all on your owner. It’s in his court to get this issue sorted as quickly as he can so that the club can be sold and these people can keep their job.
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 13 seconds ago
That isn’t all their employees. It’s unfortunate for the ones that may be laid off, but ultimately this is all on your owner. It’s in his court to get this issue sorted as quickly as he can so that the club can be sold and these people can keep their job.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isnt. It's about a restriction of trade for UK citizens/tax payers.
Sign in if you want to comment
Abramovich
Page 3 of 5
posted on 10/3/22
Can someone explain to me this? If Chelsea can still be sold, as long as the money won't go into Roman's pocket, who will get that money? Is it UK government?
posted on 10/3/22
Apparently the governed will give the proceeds to charities for the victims in Ukraine.
*Looks up how many Tory party donors have set up charities for the victims of the invasion in the last two weeks.*
posted on 10/3/22
comment by red_evils (U19878)
posted 16 minutes ago
Can someone explain to me this? If Chelsea can still be sold, as long as the money won't go into Roman's pocket, who will get that money? Is it UK government?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably yes, but that would then be poured into a charitable initiative, most likely to support the Ukrainian victims of the conflict
posted on 10/3/22
comment by red_evils (U19878)
posted 15 minutes ago
Can someone explain to me this? If Chelsea can still be sold, as long as the money won't go into Roman's pocket, who will get that money? Is it UK government?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was reading the c£1.5b owed to RA is by CFC's holding company. Which has been frozen, and RA also can't simply write it off either in light of FFP rules.
As such it is unlikely the club will be sold with that hanging over it, and the club could go into administration.
Info from Ed Thompson btw, (financialfairplay.co.uk) who in the past has had a good source of info regarding finance in football.
In answer to your question, yes I believe sales proceeds would go to the treasury and HMRC.
posted on 10/3/22
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by red_evils (U19878)
posted 15 minutes ago
Can someone explain to me this? If Chelsea can still be sold, as long as the money won't go into Roman's pocket, who will get that money? Is it UK government?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was reading the c£1.5b owed to RA is by CFC's holding company. Which has been frozen, and RA also can't simply write it off either in light of FFP rules.
As such it is unlikely the club will be sold with that hanging over it, and the club could go into administration.
Info from Ed Thompson btw, (financialfairplay.co.uk) who in the past has had a good source of info regarding finance in football.
In answer to your question, yes I believe sales proceeds would go to the treasury and HMRC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, so let's say I buy Chelsea, all the money will go to treasury. I now have 1.5bn in debt which I can't pay as it is frozen. Should simply just ignore it then? Yes it is a debt but who cares because Roman cannot be paid anyway
posted on 10/3/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 57 minutes ago
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Roy's Keane (U11635)
posted 42 seconds ago
Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said Mr Abramovich and the other Russian oligarchs sanctioned are "complicit" in Putin's aggression.
"The blood of the Ukrainian people is on their hands. They should hang their heads in shame," she said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, but so should she for being in the most corrupt government I can think we’ve had for many a year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Truss should keep her mouth shut, she's handled the whole build up to the invasion terribly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a bit unfair. She has engineered some really impressive photo-shoots cosplaying Maggie Thatcher since day one of this crisis. I particularly enjoyed the fur-hat-despite-unseasonably-warm-temperatures-in-Moscow pictures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 10/3/22
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by red_evils (U19878)
posted 15 minutes ago
Can someone explain to me this? If Chelsea can still be sold, as long as the money won't go into Roman's pocket, who will get that money? Is it UK government?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was reading the c£1.5b owed to RA is by CFC's holding company. Which has been frozen, and RA also can't simply write it off either in light of FFP rules.
As such it is unlikely the club will be sold with that hanging over it, and the club could go into administration.
Info from Ed Thompson btw, (financialfairplay.co.uk) who in the past has had a good source of info regarding finance in football.
In answer to your question, yes I believe sales proceeds would go to the treasury and HMRC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roman is not looking for the 1.5b back, according to press reports, so he has written that off, so to speak?
posted on 10/3/22
comment by (U22816)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by red_evils (U19878)
posted 15 minutes ago
Can someone explain to me this? If Chelsea can still be sold, as long as the money won't go into Roman's pocket, who will get that money? Is it UK government?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was reading the c£1.5b owed to RA is by CFC's holding company. Which has been frozen, and RA also can't simply write it off either in light of FFP rules.
As such it is unlikely the club will be sold with that hanging over it, and the club could go into administration.
Info from Ed Thompson btw, (financialfairplay.co.uk) who in the past has had a good source of info regarding finance in football.
In answer to your question, yes I believe sales proceeds would go to the treasury and HMRC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roman is not looking for the 1.5b back, according to press reports, so he has written that off, so to speak?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He might want to, but it basically pump 1.5 bn into the club, which is not allowed due to FFP
posted on 10/3/22
comment by red_evils (U19878)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by (U22816)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by red_evils (U19878)
posted 15 minutes ago
Can someone explain to me this? If Chelsea can still be sold, as long as the money won't go into Roman's pocket, who will get that money? Is it UK government?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was reading the c£1.5b owed to RA is by CFC's holding company. Which has been frozen, and RA also can't simply write it off either in light of FFP rules.
As such it is unlikely the club will be sold with that hanging over it, and the club could go into administration.
Info from Ed Thompson btw, (financialfairplay.co.uk) who in the past has had a good source of info regarding finance in football.
In answer to your question, yes I believe sales proceeds would go to the treasury and HMRC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roman is not looking for the 1.5b back, according to press reports, so he has written that off, so to speak?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He might want to, but it basically pump 1.5 bn into the club, which is not allowed due to FFP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the sanctions report, all of his UK assets have been frozen.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/abramovich-and-deripaska-among-seven-oligarchs-targeted-in-estimated-15bn-sanction-hit
All commercial activity by CFC has in effect been closed down. The club can't sell tickets for games, merchandise sales shut and it can't buy or sell players on the transfer market.
That said it is believed RA could apply for a licence to sell, providing he can prove he would not benefit from the sale.
Also understand Three (sponsor) is to review it's relationship with CFC. In short the sooner the club can get rid of RA the better.
There will no doubt be an update in foreseeable future
posted on 10/3/22
comment by red_evils (U19878)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by (U22816)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by red_evils (U19878)
posted 15 minutes ago
Can someone explain to me this? If Chelsea can still be sold, as long as the money won't go into Roman's pocket, who will get that money? Is it UK government?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was reading the c£1.5b owed to RA is by CFC's holding company. Which has been frozen, and RA also can't simply write it off either in light of FFP rules.
As such it is unlikely the club will be sold with that hanging over it, and the club could go into administration.
Info from Ed Thompson btw, (financialfairplay.co.uk) who in the past has had a good source of info regarding finance in football.
In answer to your question, yes I believe sales proceeds would go to the treasury and HMRC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roman is not looking for the 1.5b back, according to press reports, so he has written that off, so to speak?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He might want to, but it basically pump 1.5 bn into the club, which is not allowed due to FFP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
👍
posted on 10/3/22
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by red_evils (U19878)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by (U22816)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by red_evils (U19878)
posted 15 minutes ago
Can someone explain to me this? If Chelsea can still be sold, as long as the money won't go into Roman's pocket, who will get that money? Is it UK government?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was reading the c£1.5b owed to RA is by CFC's holding company. Which has been frozen, and RA also can't simply write it off either in light of FFP rules.
As such it is unlikely the club will be sold with that hanging over it, and the club could go into administration.
Info from Ed Thompson btw, (financialfairplay.co.uk) who in the past has had a good source of info regarding finance in football.
In answer to your question, yes I believe sales proceeds would go to the treasury and HMRC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roman is not looking for the 1.5b back, according to press reports, so he has written that off, so to speak?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He might want to, but it basically pump 1.5 bn into the club, which is not allowed due to FFP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the sanctions report, all of his UK assets have been frozen.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/abramovich-and-deripaska-among-seven-oligarchs-targeted-in-estimated-15bn-sanction-hit
All commercial activity by CFC has in effect been closed down. The club can't sell tickets for games, merchandise sales shut and it can't buy or sell players on the transfer market.
That said it is believed RA could apply for a licence to sell, providing he can prove he would not benefit from the sale.
Also understand Three (sponsor) is to review it's relationship with CFC. In short the sooner the club can get rid of RA the better.
There will no doubt be an update in foreseeable future
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I blame Wenger
And Romans out😉
posted on 10/3/22
Is being frozen the same as it becomes our money?
posted on 10/3/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
Is being frozen the same as it becomes our money?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roman just need to Let it go
posted on 10/3/22
So all the living wage earners in UK that will lose a big chunk or their whole income because of a link to CFC deserve it. You lovely COMRADE🍾
posted on 10/3/22
Have Chelsea laid off all their employees?
posted on 10/3/22
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 26 seconds ago
Have Chelsea laid off all their employees?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not yet but why shouldn't they?
posted on 10/3/22
Because the club is still operational.
posted on 10/3/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 23 minutes ago
Is being frozen the same as it becomes our money?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Bojo will send you 20 francs in the mail.
posted on 10/3/22
comment by Kante's Dad-Heavy Jumbo (U20563)
posted 2 minutes ago
So all the living wage earners in UK that will lose a big chunk or their whole income because of a link to CFC deserve it. You lovely COMRADE🍾
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you walk us through this? Who are the low wage people who are going to lose their income because Abramovich is being sanctioned? Chelsea as an asset will remain valuable and will continue to generate employment whatever the ownership.
But aside from that, where do the ethics of this stance take us? If an individual or company generates employment, their economic activities shouldn't be interfered with regardless of the other consequences? Politics is fundamentally about mediating clashing interests: e.g. the interests of the capital owning class vs the wage earning class. Sometimes it comes down to ethical choices. For instance, you might apply your rationale to a situation where we have to decide whether to privilege the interests of those who can profit from the export of torture instruments and those who earn salaries in the manufacture of said torture equipment or the interests of those individuals they will be used upon. In my view, in the current situation where a vicious kleptocracy is bombing maternity wards and opening 'humanitarian evacuation corridors' and then mining or shelling them, theoretically creating job insecurity for some Abramovich employees is a lesser evil. But I also believe in a politics emphasising the common good, in which the state provides a generous safety net for those made unemployed and invests to stimulate the creation of plenty of well-paying jobs for the population in sectors that are societally useful. In such a world our economy would be less reliant on providing service industries to billionaires parking their wealth in London.
posted on 10/3/22
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 30 seconds ago
Because the club is still operational.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Megastore ain't. The geezer who sells burgers is gonna lose half his profits. Middlesboro is getting facked for 5000 paying punters etc
posted on 10/3/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Kante's Dad-Heavy Jumbo (U20563)
posted 2 minutes ago
So all the living wage earners in UK that will lose a big chunk or their whole income because of a link to CFC deserve it. You lovely COMRADE🍾
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you walk us through this? Who are the low wage people who are going to lose their income because Abramovich is being sanctioned? Chelsea as an asset will remain valuable and will continue to generate employment whatever the ownership.
But aside from that, where do the ethics of this stance take us? If an individual or company generates employment, their economic activities shouldn't be interfered with regardless of the other consequences? Politics is fundamentally about mediating clashing interests: e.g. the interests of the capital owning class vs the wage earning class. Sometimes it comes down to ethical choices. For instance, you might apply your rationale to a situation where we have to decide whether to privilege the interests of those who can profit from the export of torture instruments and those who earn salaries in the manufacture of said torture equipment or the interests of those individuals they will be used upon. In my view, in the current situation where a vicious kleptocracy is bombing maternity wards and opening 'humanitarian evacuation corridors' and then mining or shelling them, theoretically creating job insecurity for some Abramovich employees is a lesser evil. But I also believe in a politics emphasising the common good, in which the state provides a generous safety net for those made unemployed and invests to stimulate the creation of plenty of well-paying jobs for the population in sectors that are societally useful. In such a world our economy would be less reliant on providing service industries to billionaires parking their wealth in London.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone that has an investment in a thriving football club existing in the area?
posted on 10/3/22
comment by Kante's Dad-Heavy Jumbo (U20563)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Kante's Dad-Heavy Jumbo (U20563)
posted 2 minutes ago
So all the living wage earners in UK that will lose a big chunk or their whole income because of a link to CFC deserve it. You lovely COMRADE🍾
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you walk us through this? Who are the low wage people who are going to lose their income because Abramovich is being sanctioned? Chelsea as an asset will remain valuable and will continue to generate employment whatever the ownership.
But aside from that, where do the ethics of this stance take us? If an individual or company generates employment, their economic activities shouldn't be interfered with regardless of the other consequences? Politics is fundamentally about mediating clashing interests: e.g. the interests of the capital owning class vs the wage earning class. Sometimes it comes down to ethical choices. For instance, you might apply your rationale to a situation where we have to decide whether to privilege the interests of those who can profit from the export of torture instruments and those who earn salaries in the manufacture of said torture equipment or the interests of those individuals they will be used upon. In my view, in the current situation where a vicious kleptocracy is bombing maternity wards and opening 'humanitarian evacuation corridors' and then mining or shelling them, theoretically creating job insecurity for some Abramovich employees is a lesser evil. But I also believe in a politics emphasising the common good, in which the state provides a generous safety net for those made unemployed and invests to stimulate the creation of plenty of well-paying jobs for the population in sectors that are societally useful. In such a world our economy would be less reliant on providing service industries to billionaires parking their wealth in London.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone that has an investment in a thriving football club existing in the area?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn't read the rest of your typically verbose response because it was too obvious
posted on 10/3/22
That isn’t all their employees. It’s unfortunate for the ones that may be laid off, but ultimately this is all on your owner. It’s in his court to get this issue sorted as quickly as he can so that the club can be sold and these people can keep their job.
posted on 10/3/22
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 13 seconds ago
That isn’t all their employees. It’s unfortunate for the ones that may be laid off, but ultimately this is all on your owner. It’s in his court to get this issue sorted as quickly as he can so that the club can be sold and these people can keep their job.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isnt. It's about a restriction of trade for UK citizens/tax payers.
posted on 10/3/22
No what isn’t?
Page 3 of 5