• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chelsea FC owner Roman Abramovich hands direct control of club to trustees amid Russia's Ukraine invasion (1 Viewer)

Eh. He’s still the owner.
 
He is still the owner and I bet the main man behind the so called charity. He is just giving Boris an excuse not seize the club.
 
If he's a Russian oligarch where we can reach him why is he free?

What would you charge him with?
The UK isn't in the habit of locking people up without charge.
 
What would you charge him with?
The UK isn't in the habit of locking people up without charge.
The oligarchs are in charge in Russia. Charge him with war crimes.
 
The oligarchs are in charge in Russia. Charge him with war crimes.

You'd have to have actual evidence that he has control of the Russian military.
You can't just lock people up because they happen to be rich and Russian.

I want Russia to be punished for this just like most people but you have to still follow the law.
 
You'd have to have actual evidence that he has control of the Russian military.
You can't just lock people up because they happen to be rich and Russian.

I want Russia to be punished for this just like most people but you have to still follow the law.
We sanctioned him, right? What's the difference? And if we did it to a few more they might hand over Putin and get outta countries that aren't theirs.
 
We sanctioned him, right? What's the difference? And if we did it to a few more they might hand over Putin and get outta countries that aren't theirs.

Sanctions are about money and as far as I know he hasn't broken any actual laws.
If he does then by all means throw him in the slammer but until then he's free just like any other Russian.
 
Well now the club is technically near insolvency and the most indebted in the world.
 
Whole thing is a bit of a joke to be honest. If the source of his funds was an issue why was he ever allowed to buy Chelsea to begin with?
Do we also seize Man City since they are owned by the State of Qatar who have killed thousands of people to build their stadiums? What about Newcastle United who are owned by Saudi Arabia who have committed war crimes in neighbouring Yemen and have a disgraceful human rights record?
 
Whole thing is a bit of a joke to be honest. If the source of his funds was an issue why was he ever allowed to buy Chelsea to begin with?
LOL welcome to 2003... it has always been an issue, but English football is too powerful due Rupert Murdochs Sky deal.

Do we also seize Man City since they are owned by the State of Qatar who have killed thousands of people to build their stadiums?
That is PSG. Man City is owned by UAE.

What about Newcastle United who are owned by Saudi Arabia who have committed war crimes in neighbouring Yemen and have a disgraceful human rights record?
Well they allowed Chelsea, and Man U and Man City... hell Liverpool as well and many others... so why not someone from Saudi Arabia. What is hypocritical is that there was even an issue with the Saudis taking over.

But the reality is, that the UK has imposed sanctions against Russia and key Russians. Abramovich has always been close to Putin, even though the British government has been in total denial about the wealthy Russians buying up half of London. So if the UK government was at all serious in their sanctions (which they have not been), then they should have seized the club and all Abramovichs assets in the UK over 10 days ago. But no, they gave him and others plenty of time to liquidate some assets and move others. They allowed their planes to land and take off and so on.

It has been done now, and Chealski is in de facto insolvent, especially after their main sponsor cancelled their contract. And here in lies the next problem...if a club is insolvent, then that means points deduction at best.. but in reality they have no income to meet the inflated wages, which means bankruptcy. And that means being kicked down to the conference league.

The next problem is it is technically a Russian owned club, and they have been kicked out of European competitions.. so................
 
LOL welcome to 2003... it has always been an issue, but English football is too powerful due Rupert Murdochs Sky deal.


That is PSG. Man City is owned by UAE.


Well they allowed Chelsea, and Man U and Man City... hell Liverpool as well and many others... so why not someone from Saudi Arabia. What is hypocritical is that there was even an issue with the Saudis taking over.

But the reality is, that the UK has imposed sanctions against Russia and key Russians. Abramovich has always been close to Putin, even though the British government has been in total denial about the wealthy Russians buying up half of London. So if the UK government was at all serious in their sanctions (which they have not been), then they should have seized the club and all Abramovichs assets in the UK over 10 days ago. But no, they gave him and others plenty of time to liquidate some assets and move others. They allowed their planes to land and take off and so on.

It has been done now, and Chealski is in de facto insolvent, especially after their main sponsor cancelled their contract. And here in lies the next problem...if a club is insolvent, then that means points deduction at best.. but in reality they have no income to meet the inflated wages, which means bankruptcy. And that means being kicked down to the conference league.

The next problem is it is technically a Russian owned club, and they have been kicked out of European competitions.. so................


United and Liverpool were not bought by the Saudi Royal family. In fact United's purchase actually put them in debt and Liverpool's purchase by FSG was above board as well.
 
United and Liverpool were not bought by the Saudi Royal family. In fact United's purchase actually put them in debt and Liverpool's purchase by FSG was above board as well.
United and Liverpool were bought by rich Americans and you can't claim that the US is clean when it comes to invading countries and bombing civilians... Just saying.
 
United and Liverpool were bought by rich Americans and you can't claim that the US is clean when it comes to invading countries and bombing civilians... Just saying.

If the US government bought a stake in United then it would be a fair point.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom