OTHER FOOTBALL - News and Views.

Strange one this. There has never been a clamour from the Leeds fans for his dismissal. 

Not sure this guy is the right man to replace him.

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1572764/Leeds-news-Jesse-Marsch-RB-Leipzig-admission-worry-Leeds-Marcelo-Bielsa-Premier-League

Whitesince63 wrote:So murderball didn’t work after all then? Wasn’t Bielsa one of Evatt’s role models?

That's fitness training White.
He probably uses Jane Fonda workout videos as well.

boltonbonce wrote:Strange one this. There has never been a clamour from the Leeds fans for his dismissal. 

Not sure this guy is the right man to replace him.

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1572764/Leeds-news-Jesse-Marsch-RB-Leipzig-admission-worry-Leeds-Marcelo-Bielsa-Premier-League

I think it's because Leeds have bet the house on staying up and with the spine of the team out through injury, they haven't got the quality left to play the way Bielsa wants without getting hammered.
I imagine Bielsa wanted out too.
If Phillipps, Bamford and their main CB had stayed fit throughout the season I don't think they'd be in this position, but they didn't and they are.

I had the same problem with Evatt i.e. to play that style of expansive football you have to have high quality and superfit players - now we have something approaching the required quality for League 1 but Leeds are way off Prem standard without their key players.

Marsch has done well in the RB set up - and will have access to a lot of players through it - but moreover won't be as dogmatic in the playing style as Bielsa was. Whether or not he can change it around and survive with the current squad is another story.

Thoughts on Abramovich?

I was never happy with the way he changed the financial landscape of the Premiership or it's knock on effects for teams further down the pyramid but....
...notwithstanding the pressure he was facing in the public eye and in Parliament albeit for a war he didn't want and it was inevitable he would have to go, I don't think he could have done any more to make his exit as graceful as possible.

He handed over control of Chelsea
He responded to the Ukranian request to try to broker a peaceful solution.
He wrote off a whopping £1.5 billion pounds of debt
He put a condition in the sale that all profits from the sale should go to helping the victims of war
In his statement, he actually called it "a war" - which in itself is significant

Everyone suspects his motives, but whatever way you stack it up he has at least tried to help both Chelsea and the war victims - at considerable personal expense - and I applaud him for that.

wanderlust wrote:Thoughts on Abramovich?

I was never happy with the way he changed the financial landscape of the Premiership or it's knock on effects for teams further down the pyramid but....
...notwithstanding the pressure he was facing in the public eye and in Parliament albeit for a war he didn't want and it was inevitable he would have to go, I don't think he could have done any more to make his exit as graceful as possible.

He handed over control of Chelsea
He responded to the Ukranian request to try to broker a peaceful solution.
He wrote off a whopping £1.5 billion pounds of debt
He put a condition in the sale that all profits from the sale should go to helping the victims of war
In his statement, he actually called it "a war" - which in itself is significant

Everyone suspects his motives, but whatever way you stack it up he has at least tried to help both Chelsea and the war victims - at considerable personal expense - and I applaud him for that.

I'm not sure that most of that is right, in fact I think most of it is completely wrong!

I don't believe he has handed over control of the club, the last I read was that the charity trustees hadn't accepted the offer?

Anyway he's only handing over control and NOT ownership, he still retains ownership of the club through the company he owns (I think jointly with another Russian oligarch?).

He's not written off the debt as such either I don't believe(?) or at least it's certainly not clear, as his statement says HE won't be asking for any loans to be repaid but the vast bulk of the loans have come from a company - does he mean his company won't be seeking repayment of its loans?

Also if you think about it, his offer is meaningless anyway!

What I mean is that the club is being valued at £3bn. So he can either sell assets of the club to get his £1.5bn loan back before he sells the club - which then now values the club remaining assets at £1.5bn, or he can simply sell it for £3bn by leaving his loan in the club - either way he leaves the club with £3bn in his pocket - so he 'does' get his £1.5bn loan back whichever way he chooses to do it - if you see what I mean?

He also talks about net proceeds of the sale going to a charity foundation HE is setting up - net of what?  What he paid for the club 20 years ago, net of what his sale price he is asking is, and what happens if he sells at a loss?  Why not give the TOTAL proceeds to an existing charity like the Red Cross or something  completely independent of him rather than set one up himself?

He probably could normally waive the £1.5bn or whatever it is that his company is owed and still be stupidly rich but I've also heard something about him selling his 'villas' in the UK too - which sounds as though he's liquifying his assets urgently - he must be thinking they are going to be frozen and maybe he doesn't think his roubles in the Russian bank are going to be worth much if the Russian economy collapses?

Maybe I'm doing the bloke an injustice here but if money wasn't his objective then why not just GIVE the club to Chelsea's Supporters Trust or something like that rather than look for a billionaire buyer like he seemingly has?

I wouldn't be too hasty to praise the man just yet, I'd rather see how things pan out first as - actions speak louder than words and all that...

(He did call it a war in his statement though to be fair).

wanderlust wrote:Thoughts on Abramovich?

I was never happy with the way he changed the financial landscape of the Premiership or it's knock on effects for teams further down the pyramid but....
...notwithstanding the pressure he was facing in the public eye and in Parliament albeit for a war he didn't want and it was inevitable he would have to go, I don't think he could have done any more to make his exit as graceful as possible.

He handed over control of Chelsea
He responded to the Ukranian request to try to broker a peaceful solution.
He wrote off a whopping £1.5 billion pounds of debt
He put a condition in the sale that all profits from the sale should go to helping the victims of war
In his statement, he actually called it "a war" - which in itself is significant

Everyone suspects his motives, but whatever way you stack it up he has at least tried to help both Chelsea and the war victims - at considerable personal expense - and I applaud him for that.

But he has not condemned or criticised Putin...

okocha wrote:
But he has not condemned or criticised Putin...

And why would he? If he is trying to help negotiate a peace settlement it would be totally inappropriate and unconstructive. The very fact that he publicly described it as a war is a criticism in itself, albeit backhanded.
Anyway, do you know for sure that the Ukranians weren't committing genocide against the Russian speakers in the south of the country? I don't and I wouldn't preempt the ICC findings. Not that Putin isn't an asshole anyway.

Look - I'm not suggesting he's a great guy but given the position he is in, what more could he do?

By rights he could have been an asshole about the whole thing and called in the loans, effectively closing Chelsea down - but he didn't.
He could have refused to help the Ukranians - but he didn't
He could have pocketed the money from the sale of the club but instead he offered the net after sales costs for war relief. Just saying.

wanderlust wrote:
By rights he could have been an asshole about the whole thing and
1 - called in the loans, effectively closing Chelsea down - but he didn't.
2 - He could have refused to help the Ukranians - but he didn't
3 - He could have pocketed the money from the sale of the club but instead he,
4 -offered the net after sales costs for war relief. Just saying.

1 - If he wants an immediate sale to avoid possible sanctions then it would simply take far to long to liquidate £1.5bn of Chelsea'a assets to get his money back (and fwiw if he did do that he would still leave the club debt free with £1.5bn worth of assets which certainly would NOT result in the club "effectively closing down").

2 - We don't know what if anything he's done to help the Ukrainians.  He's reported to have believed to have been in Belarus - as far as I know, that is all?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10559941/Abramovich-trying-peaceful-resolution-Ukraine-crisis-allies-say.html

3 - He IS going to pocket the money from the sale of the club, or at least the company he owns, that owns Chelsea will - the money will not go directly to him.

4 - I await to see what if anything actually happens first.

Sluffy wrote:

1 - If he wants an immediate sale to avoid possible sanctions then it would simply take far to long to liquidate £1.5bn of Chelsea'a assets to get his money back (and fwiw if he did do that he would still leave the club debt free with £1.5bn worth of assets which certainly would NOT result in the club "effectively closing down").

2 - We don't know what if anything he's done to help the Ukrainians.  He's reported to have believed to have been in Belarus - as far as I know, that is all?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10559941/Abramovich-trying-peaceful-resolution-Ukraine-crisis-allies-say.html

3 - He IS going to pocket the money from the sale of the club, or at least the company he owns, that owns Chelsea will - the money will not go directly to him.

4 - I await to see what if anything actually happens first.

I don't get it. The question I asked was what more could he do and whilst all this is very interesting albeit speculative, it doesn't answer the question.

wanderlust wrote:I don't get it. The question I asked was what more could he do and whilst all this is very interesting albeit speculative, it doesn't answer the question.

You probably don't "get it" because you didn't ask the question "what more could he do", what you actually did was to give your own opinions then asked for "thoughts" upon them.

I've merely pointed out that nearly all the opinions you gave were flawed or factually wrong.

Roman Abramovich sanctioned by UK

Chelsea FC owner Roman Abramovich has been sanctioned by the UK government as part of its response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

He is one of seven oligarchs to be hit with fresh sanctions, including asset freezes and travel bans.

The list also includes billionaires Igor Sechin and Oleg Deripaska, both seen as allies of Vladimir Putin.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson said "there can be no safe havens" for those who have supported the invasion.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60690362

Massive news: Roman Abramovich sanctioned. All UK assets frozen. Chelsea can still operate under a special licence but sale now on hold. Club will not be allowed to sell any more tickets - only season ticket holders can go to games for the foreseeable future.

— Martyn Ziegler (@martynziegler) March 10, 2022

Wow! That's going to cause Chelsea a few issues! They can't sell any merchandise either. Will he be able to sell it now or wil he have to wait till sanctions are lifted?

Norpig wrote:Wow! That's going to cause Chelsea a few issues! They can't sell any merchandise either. Will he be able to sell it now or wil he have to wait till sanctions are lifted?

Not for now - they're in limbo.

Chelsea is wholly owned by Roman Abramovich through a company called Fordstam Ltd, a UK registered company.

The funding comes from a company called Camberley International Investments Ltd which presumably is registered offshore somewhere. It was owed £1.4billion at the last balance sheet date.

Fordstam has only one director, Eugene Tenenbaum, a Canadian financier resident in Jersey. Tenenbaum was born in Kyiv.

https://www.chelseafc.com/en/about-chelsea/about-the-club/club-personnel/eugene-tenenbaum

Where's the money going to come from to keep paying the monthly wage bill of c.£30million, I wonder?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Chelsea is wholly owned by Roman Abramovich through a company called Fordstam Ltd, a UK registered company.

The funding comes from a company called Camberley International Investments Ltd which presumably is registered offshore somewhere. It was owed £1.4billion at the last balance sheet date.

Fordstam has only one director, Eugene Tenenbaum, a Canadian financier resident in Jersey. Tenenbaum was born in Kyiv.

https://www.chelseafc.com/en/about-chelsea/about-the-club/club-personnel/eugene-tenenbaum

Where's the money going to come from to keep paying the monthly wage bill of c.£30million, I wonder?

I found this from Maguire dating back to Jan 2019...

The club’s financial structure is complicated, Chelsea Football Club Limited is owned by Chelsea FC plc, which is owned by Fordstam Limited, which is funded by Lindeza Worldwide Limited (based in the British Virgin Islands) and Camberley Investments Limited (based in Middlesex), which are owned by Roman Abramovich.

[Note he states Camberley Investments Ltd - and I'm not sure that it is one and the same as Camberley International Investments Ltd?]

http://priceoffootball.com/chelsea-2017-18-the-lion-sleeps-tonight/

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Chelsea is wholly owned by Roman Abramovich through a company called Fordstam Ltd, a UK registered company.

The funding comes from a company called Camberley International Investments Ltd which presumably is registered offshore somewhere. It was owed £1.4billion at the last balance sheet date.

Fordstam has only one director, Eugene Tenenbaum, a Canadian financier resident in Jersey. Tenenbaum was born in Kyiv.

https://www.chelseafc.com/en/about-chelsea/about-the-club/club-personnel/eugene-tenenbaum

Where's the money going to come from to keep paying the monthly wage bill of c.£30million, I wonder?

Also Eugene seems to have a number of companies whose address is Stamford Bridge!

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/EBRrKWawSez1yoDst6pQBL3lQLQ/appointments

Fwiw I googled British Virgin Isle leaks Abramovitch and found this Israeli article that links Abramovitch to four other companies based there and seemingly pouring money into some right wing Jewish group.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-companies-linked-to-roman-abramovich-donated-100-million-to-right-wing-group-1.9173187

I bet Roman's butler has been out to buy him a big supply of tena pants.

Sluffy wrote:



[Note he states Camberley Investments Ltd - and I'm not sure that it is one and the same as Camberley International Investments Ltd?]

http://priceoffootball.com/chelsea-2017-18-the-lion-sleeps-tonight/

I agree. I think Maguire's got that wrong.

On the face of it, Abramovich was asking twice what he'd paid for it. I can't see anyone paying that or anything like it but what do I know.

Must be difficult for Tenenbaum. Being born in Kyiv, he's quite likely to have relatives there.

Sluffy wrote:

Also Eugene seems to have a number of companies whose address is Stamford Bridge!

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/EBRrKWawSez1yoDst6pQBL3lQLQ/appointments

One or two loss making companies. I wonder if any of them got funding from the 'Innovation Fund'.