44 minutes ago, ducavis said:

Hopefully he is right.

Win it tomorrow for Roman lads?

16 minutes ago, Zola said:

How do you know for that fact that it was "dubious" ?

Was impossible to acquire anything by other means in Russia at the time:). Read about the loans-for-shares in the mid 90s by which he got control of sibneft and the many bribes etc he had to pay to keep control 

7 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/30964/12552691/roman-abramovich-hands-chelsea-stewardship-to-clubs-charity-trust-following-russia-invasion-of-ukraine

Micah Richard's first I'm the media to criticize the statement. Saying it says nothing.

f**k that Man City c**t. We have to know that a lot of folks in the media don't like us. What does he want Roman to do " Come on TV and denounce Putin". If he is not smart enough to understand that statement from Roman then sucks for him.

7 minutes ago, Dean said:

Just to clarify a couple of bits here azpi. Sorry if a bit pedantic. Abramovich through a combination of moves  (accumulating ownership vouchers issued to workers in early 1990s and then the big one - loans-for shares scheme mid-90s) got control of a bunch of Siberian oil assets that became sibneft, of which he owned 90%, the rest freefloat. In the mid-00s he was tapped on the shoulder and forced to sell Sibneft to Gazprom at a price which was actually ok for him but of course better for Gazprom. That company then changed its name to Gazpromneft. Back to the question of dubious means, it’s certainly true but doesn’t have a bearing on the current situation 

He could only obtain Sibneft because he was close to Yeltsin. He had an appartment in the Kremlin 

11 minutes ago, Dean said:

Just to clarify a couple of bits here azpi. Sorry if a bit pedantic. Abramovich through a combination of moves  (accumulating ownership vouchers issued to workers in early 1990s and then the big one - loans-for shares scheme mid-90s) got control of a bunch of Siberian oil assets that became sibneft, of which he owned 90%, the rest freefloat. In the mid-00s he was tapped on the shoulder and forced to sell Sibneft to Gazprom at a price which was actually ok for him but of course better for Gazprom. That company then changed its name to Gazpromneft. Back to the question of dubious means, it’s certainly true but doesn’t have a bearing on the current situation 

just trying to understand this background myself - judging by Wikipedia he has been a close confidante of Putin for a long time. for all we know he could be up to his neck in the Russian regime / alternatively he might spend his time floating around the Med on his yacht and not really give a toss for politics anymore. who's to know?

I'm still of the opinion tonight that his statement appears to place the club in a special category but doesn't really exempt it from being seized if that's what the govt decide to do 

Edited February 26, 20224 yr by azpi28

Rival fans coming out in full force now. Made the mistake of going on Facebook.

"Ban them thier success is all blood money"

"If he does not sell up chuck Chelsea out of the league"

"And who owns this charity? Roman no doubt"

"Strip them of everything the got with his blood money"

"Chelsea and their fans are a disgrace supporting this man"

"Chelsea fans care more about this Putin lapdog than they do innocent people being killed" 

Etc etc.

Many different club supporters coming together in their mutual hatred of us. And they keep coming in shesh.

https://www.forbes.com/2005/10/12/russia-sibneft-abramovich-cz_hb_1012abramovich.html?sh=988adec7ce23
 

 

1 minute ago, axman2526 said:

Rival fans coming out in full force now. Made the mistake of going on Facebook.

"Ban them thier success is all blood money"

"If he does not sell up chuck Chelsea out of the league"

"And who owns this charity? Roman no doubt"

"Strip them of everything the got with his blood money"

"Chelsea and their fans are a disgrace supporting this man"

"Chelsea fans care more about this Putin lapdog than they do innocent people being killed" 

Etc etc.

Many different club supporters coming together in their mutual hatred of us. And they keep coming in shesh.

I love it f**k them all, even if we get put back to league 2 and stripped of all Abramovich era trophies 

we are the Machiavellian club everyone hates

Edited February 26, 20224 yr by azpi28

13 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Rival fans coming out in full force now. Made the mistake of going on Facebook.

"Ban them thier success is all blood money"

"If he does not sell up chuck Chelsea out of the league"

"And who owns this charity? Roman no doubt"

"Strip them of everything the got with his blood money"

"Chelsea and their fans are a disgrace supporting this man"

"Chelsea fans care more about this Putin lapdog than they do innocent people being killed" 

Etc etc.

Many different club supporters coming together in their mutual hatred of us. And they keep coming in shesh.

Bunch of hypocrites. Most of their owners are linked with states and governments breaking human rights in their own countries and elsewhere.

26 minutes ago, carrickblue said:

just trying to understand this background myself - judging by Wikipedia he has been a close confidante of Putin for a long time. for all we know he could be up to his neck in the Russian regime / alternatively he might spend his time floating around the Med on his yacht and not really give a toss for politics anymore. who's to know?

I'm still of the opinion tonight that his statement appears to place the club in a special category but doesn't really exempt it from being seized if that's what the govt decide to do 

I think he’s done what he had to do to retain his wealth and not fall foul. He saw what happened to Khodorkovsky and thought fxck that for a laugh. But I wouldn’t say he’s a close confidant of Putin. If he was he would have got to keep Sibneft for example, and accumulate other assets in Russia. Instead a new wave of Putin-appointed oligarchs came to the fore and took control. Guys like Rotenberg, Timchenko, Kovalchuk, Sechin…

7 minutes ago, Dean said:

I think he’s done what he had to do to retain his wealth and not fall foul. He saw what happened to Khodorkovsky and thought fxck that for a laugh. But I wouldn’t say he’s a close confidant of Putin. If he was he would have got to keep Sibneft for example, and accumulate other assets in Russia. Instead a new wave of Putin-appointed oligarchs came to the fore and took control. Guys like Rotenberg, Timchenko, Kovalchuk, Sechin…

that's true. the court case here might be relevant the judge apparently found no evidence that he had any influence with Putin or Russian strategy

Interesting article on our situation

https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddawkins/2022/02/24/roman-abramovich-has-sanction-insurance-a-2-billion-loan-to-chelsea-fc/?sh=13e3546e1be7&utm_source=ForbesMainTwitter&utm_campaign=socialflowForbesMainTwitter&utm_medium=social

I hope Roman Abramovich stays as owner of Chelsea. All of these "experts" on Ukrainian politics? Iga Swiatek now. Where were they when NATO bombed Serbia in 1999? Where have they been for the last 8 years when there's been thousands of deaths in conflict in Donbass? People are giving opinions on things they know very little about, they're in no position to be able to give an opinion. I don't know enough about the situation in Ukraine to be able to give an opinion on social media. 

 

3 minutes ago, LlanCFC said:

All of these "experts" on Ukrainian politics? Iga Swiatek now. Where were they when NATO bombed Serbia in 1999? 

 

Iga Swiatek wasn't even born until 2001. Check your facts.

I'm not on about Swiatek saying anything in 1999, but other professional sports people, and profesional people being so vocal, which they haven't been about other situations around the world, there seems to have been cultural cleansing going on in Donbass over the last few years. 

I thought the decision was definitely very Roman. Swift and decisive.

I hope the charity gives the club the very best.

F*ck Putin for the war and for robbing us of the best owner in the Prem

2 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Rival fans coming out in full force now. Made the mistake of going on Facebook.

"Ban them thier success is all blood money"

"If he does not sell up chuck Chelsea out of the league"

"And who owns this charity? Roman no doubt"

"Strip them of everything the got with his blood money"

"Chelsea and their fans are a disgrace supporting this man"

"Chelsea fans care more about this Putin lapdog than they do innocent people being killed" 

Etc etc.

Many different club supporters coming together in their mutual hatred of us. And they keep coming in shesh.

The same tripe that's been said for years. I'm sure their owners are perfect, upstanding gentlemen. 

1 hour ago, carrickblue said:

Interesting article on our situation

https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddawkins/2022/02/24/roman-abramovich-has-sanction-insurance-a-2-billion-loan-to-chelsea-fc/?sh=13e3546e1be7&utm_source=ForbesMainTwitter&utm_campaign=socialflowForbesMainTwitter&utm_medium=social

So Roman understands that the witch hunt on him is not going away and decides to protect the image of the club at least since he can't protect his own by handing over the keys to the Chelsea Foundation. He could absolutely demand 2 billion from Chelsea and call it a day but he loves the club. But apparently some in the UK parliament don't think that he should be allowed to have a house in England let alone to be the owner of Chelsea, the suggestion openly put out is to seize his house. Opportunistic racism at its finest, I wonder how would the world react if it was the opposite, the Russian government openly talking about seizing all property from someone that is from the western world...? Amazing the world we live in.

Kieran Maguire, a soccer-finance lecturer at the University of Liverpool, says it gives Abramovich no shortage of leverage in the U.K., depending on how deep sanctions might go. The worst-case scenario for Chelsea fans is now on the table. “If he wants to get his own back, he could call in the loan from Chelsea,” Maguire says. “That means Chelsea goes out of business, and Putin will be able to say, ‘Well, you started it.’”

The most significant attack came today from Labour’s Chris Bryant, who told the house—while he was protected from defamation lawsuits by parliamentary privilege—that Abramovich “should no longer be able to own a [soccer] club in this country,” adding that the U.K. “should be looking at seizing some of his assets, including his £152 million ($200 million) home.

Edited February 27, 20224 yr by Gol15

"He's a fantastic owner of a football club in the sense that he just cares about winning, but what he does away from the pitch is just as important to talk about, and the sinister stuff you quickly brushed over is actually really fecking evil and it's why I won't shed a tear if he is forced to sell the club. In fact I'll be relieved briefly until the next wealthy deeply unethical person takes over and I go back to feeling conflicted about my football club."

 

User on RedCafe named WeePat Chelsea fan.  Virtue seeking f**ker.  

 

"Wont shed a tear if he is forced to sell"  Just remember where we'd be without him, aswell as criticising his murky background.   Weren't complaining about his dodgy background when we were trophies though was you?  Twat

He wont be forced to sell, or be bought out.  He has moved his assets in order to keep Chelsea away from sanctions, or from being impacted.  He will continue to bankroll the club and Marina will run it from London.  I can almost guarantee some decisions will still go through him using some form of communication.

 

It wont affect anything that would have been planned prior to this Russia/Ukraine tragedy.   He'll probably retake everything back within 6 months

Hopefully the situation in the Ukraine will be over in a week, I've heard a couple of guys say that on TV today, ppl who know more about these things than me. There will have to be compromise as there was during the Cuban missile crisis, Donbass and Crimea will have to be recognised as independent states from Kiev etc. As has been said on here, the hypocrisy, dear me. It's not a big surprise to me, the hypocrisy that is.