4 hours ago, Clown Lake said:

Chelsea turned down an offer worth up to £59.5million for Santos. Santos confirmed this himself.

These owners don't sell key players unless they want to leave (Santos is not even a key player yet). They have proven this. They are committed toward building a great squad first and foremost. The profit on the Santos sale would have been phenomenal but that means nothing if he is able to be an addition of strength to our squad.

Or they turned it down because they think he’s worth more or certainly will be in the future.

4 hours ago, Clown Lake said:

Chelsea turned down an offer worth up to £59.5million for Santos. Santos confirmed this himself.

These owners don't sell key players unless they want to leave (Santos is not even a key player yet). They have proven this. They are committed toward building a great squad first and foremost. The profit on the Santos sale would have been phenomenal but that means nothing if he is able to be an addition of strength to our squad.

They are commited to destroying the club and sending us down into the National League.

The evidence I have for that is the same as the evidence you have for your predictions of our great future ......NONE

20 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

They are commited to destroying the club and sending us down into the National League.

The evidence I have for that is the same as the evidence you have for your predictions of our great future ......NONE

I love the optimism. My prediction is: something between your guess and best club in the world.

In other words: we both just wasted some good kilobytes posting this horrible nonsense.

4 minutes ago, evissy said:

I love the optimism. My prediction is: something between your guess and best club in the world.

In other words: we both just wasted some good kilobytes posting this horrible nonsense.

No , I don't believe for one second that my guess is true. . Whereas you are convinced that your guess IS true !!

Take care , a beer or two is a calling !

10 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

No , I don't believe for one second that my guess is true. . Whereas you are convinced that your guess IS true !!

Take care , a beer or two is a calling !

I am sure of my guess! Have you heard something else?

9 minutes ago, evissy said:

I love the optimism. My prediction is: something between your guess and best club in the world.

In other words: we both just wasted some good kilobytes posting this horrible nonsense.

The thing is my comment was direct to Clownlake, with his original post evident

And you, Evissy have replied to it directly as if it had been sent it to YOU !!

It's been obvious for ages , good to have it confirmed.

5 minutes ago, evissy said:

I am sure of my guess! Have you heard something else?

Have you heard anything to confirm your guess ?? Clownlake ?? 😂

1 hour ago, The Rising Sun said:

Have you heard anything to confirm your guess ?? Clownlake ?? 😂

Such a comedian. At this point I would say The Rising Sun > Ricky Gervais > Bill Burr. My thighs are red as Ferrari.

2 hours ago, evissy said:

Such a comedian. At this point I would say The Rising Sun > Ricky Gervais > Bill Burr. My thighs are red as Ferrari.

I don't know why you replied to what I wrote in a comment to Clownlake, forgetting that you were still in your Evissy costume !!

Evissy is not Clownlake!

19 minutes ago, Mod said:

Evissy is not Clownlake!

He’s Batman!

Do you remember when Vitesse was basically a Chelsea subsidiary? Everyone called them “Chelsea B” back then, because Roman Abramovich was pulling the strings in the background. Officially, the owner was Merab Jordania, later Valery Oyf, but the money was always flowing through Abramovich’s channels. All kinds of Chelsea talents started moving to Vitesse… It looked like a perfect deal – Vitesse got players they could never afford themselves, and Chelsea had a safe place to develop their youngsters.

On the pitch, that era was the most successful in the club’s history. In 2017 they won the KNVB Cup – their first ever major trophy in 125 years. They regularly played in Europe, and in the league they were consistently finishing around 4th–6th. For a club that used to be a “perennial mid-table side,” it was like a dream rebirth.

But all of it stood on shaky foundations. The club didn’t live off sponsors, ticket sales, or normal business operations – it was fueled by Abramovich’s loans and “gifts” routed through offshore companies. Everything was wrapped in secrecy, with official denials that Roman had anything to do with the club. But later, journalists uncovered that over €100 million had been funneled into Vitesse from his funds. Without that money, they could never have afforded the players they had in their squad.

When the war in Ukraine broke out and Abramovich got hit by sanctions, the money tap was shut off overnight. The club was left with practically no income, debts started piling up, and the KNVB launched investigations. That led to a points deduction which cost them their place in the Eredivisie – their first relegation in over 30 years. In the end, the club even lost its license and was on the verge of bankruptcy. Recently they’ve managed to get some kind of license back, but when that was approved they only had 9 registered players – right now Transfermarkt shows exactly 11.

For the fans, it’s bittersweet. On one hand they witnessed the greatest moments in the club’s history – a trophy and European football. On the other hand, they now see it was all built on the artificial money of one man. And when that man fell out of favour, the whole construction collapsed.

So if you sum it up – Roman took Vitesse higher than they ever could have gone on their own, but when he left, the fall was lower than anyone thought possible. Today the club is trying to recover from a brutal crash, and it’s an open question whether they’ll ever play an important role again like they did in the Abramovich era.

Why i posted this in the Todd Boehly topic? I actually started digging into Vitesse’s story again after seeing that our directors tried to buy into Brazilian side Santos (just like they have a part in Strasbourg) – but apparently they got flat-out rejected.

Edited September 9, 2025Sep 9 by CFC_SLO

Multi club ownership goes way back, Italian clubs have done it for years, Arsenal had some Belgian team they used to park African and South American players at, until UEFA (or FIFA?) made them stop the link up.

1 hour ago, CFC_SLO said:

Do you remember when Vitesse was basically a Chelsea subsidiary? Everyone called them “Chelsea B” back then, because Roman Abramovich was pulling the strings in the background. Officially, the owner was Merab Jordania, later Valery Oyf, but the money was always flowing through Abramovich’s channels. All kinds of Chelsea talents started moving to Vitesse… It looked like a perfect deal – Vitesse got players they could never afford themselves, and Chelsea had a safe place to develop their youngsters.

On the pitch, that era was the most successful in the club’s history. In 2017 they won the KNVB Cup – their first ever major trophy in 125 years. They regularly played in Europe, and in the league they were consistently finishing around 4th–6th. For a club that used to be a “perennial mid-table side,” it was like a dream rebirth.

But all of it stood on shaky foundations. The club didn’t live off sponsors, ticket sales, or normal business operations – it was fueled by Abramovich’s loans and “gifts” routed through offshore companies. Everything was wrapped in secrecy, with official denials that Roman had anything to do with the club. But later, journalists uncovered that over €100 million had been funneled into Vitesse from his funds. Without that money, they could never have afforded the players they had in their squad.

When the war in Ukraine broke out and Abramovich got hit by sanctions, the money tap was shut off overnight. The club was left with practically no income, debts started piling up, and the KNVB launched investigations. That led to a points deduction which cost them their place in the Eredivisie – their first relegation in over 30 years. In the end, the club even lost its license and was on the verge of bankruptcy. Recently they’ve managed to get some kind of license back, but when that was approved they only had 9 registered players – right now Transfermarkt shows exactly 11.

For the fans, it’s bittersweet. On one hand they witnessed the greatest moments in the club’s history – a trophy and European football. On the other hand, they now see it was all built on the artificial money of one man. And when that man fell out of favour, the whole construction collapsed.

So if you sum it up – Roman took Vitesse higher than they ever could have gone on their own, but when he left, the fall was lower than anyone thought possible. Today the club is trying to recover from a brutal crash, and it’s an open question whether they’ll ever play an important role again like they did in the Abramovich era.

Why i posted this in the Todd Boehly topic? I actually started digging into Vitesse’s story again after seeing that our directors tried to buy into Brazilian side Santos (just like they have a part in Strasbourg) – but apparently they got flat-out rejected.

Multi club ownership works if the rules are followed properly.

What Roman did wasn't in the rules, and for good reason.

Because if we decide to sell Strasbourg, then we will be selling an asset with finances that they are in control of, not finances propped up by backdoor loans.

4 hours ago, dkw said:

Multi club ownership goes way back, Italian clubs have done it for years, Arsenal had some Belgian team they used to park African and South American players at, until UEFA (or FIFA?) made them stop the link up.

Standard Liege?

2 hours ago, WhiteWall said:

Standard Liege?

No, Beveren I think it was. They gave them loans and all kinds of shenanigans.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2006/jun/02/newsstory.sport4

7 hours ago, dkw said:

Multi club ownership goes way back, Italian clubs have done it for years, Arsenal had some Belgian team they used to park African and South American players at, until UEFA (or FIFA?) made them stop the link up.

In the day English Senior Clubs in effect owned clubs at lower levels but in the day they weren’t said to be under one ownership umbrella but for all purposes they were. Arsenals nursery club in the 1930s was Margate.

In the 1930s the school leaving age was 14 but youngsters couldn’t sign a contract until they were 17.

So what Arsenal did was sign 14-17 year olds but on amateur terms and “ farmed” them out on loan to Margate where they would play as amateurs. Cough Cough!

What also is interesting yet many ignore is that KSE who own 100% of Arsenal also own Colorado Rapids in the MLS.

Edited September 9, 2025Sep 9 by terraloon

there will be news about a new potential Chelsea sleeve sponsor.

Still now FOS sponsor a month into the season, expect another media drop about the competitive process.

21 hours ago, dkw said:

Multi club ownership goes way back, Italian clubs have done it for years, Arsenal had some Belgian team they used to park African and South American players at, until UEFA (or FIFA?) made them stop the link up.

ENIC, ie. the group that own Spurs, were among the original instigators of multi-club ownership, being the first company to challenge UEFA's restriction of MCO some 25 years ago. They lost, and the decision stands as one that affirms the responsibility of UEFA to ensure fair competition on a sporting basis.

FIFA investigated Arsenal and Beveren in 2006, but it was even murkier as there was potentially money-laundering involved.

It is telling that UEFA have since relaxed their standards with regards to MCO, despite having a strong legal basis that they can rely on. In other words, it's entirely by UEFA's choice and design that the situation has become what it has. Arsenal and Chelsea seemingly made the mistake of trying to hide the relationship instead of doing what Red Bull and CFG have done since.

Interestingly the proposed super-league intends to ban multi-club ownership.

I know that we fondly remember Roman's time here as we rightfully should, but we need to stop the revisionist history that everything was fantastically ran. Another set of sanctions because do the way we were doing business during his time here.

I guess credit to the new board who don’t want any skeletons in their closets, from what I gathered a lot of these were things that would most likely not have ever been found out if not self reported.

16 minutes ago, timetowaste said:

I know that we fondly remember Roman's time here as we rightfully should, but we need to stop the revisionist history that everything was fantastically ran. Another set of sanctions because do the way we were doing business during his time here.

Quite unusual for the PL to pass something like this to the FA to resolve. In the City case the PL not only took on the investigation but they were the regulatory body that charged the club.Is that key or am I clutching at straws?

Richard Masters the PLs CEO never once suggested it wasn’t the PL that were going to take it forward indeed all the indicators were that it would be the PL and not the FA.

Of course it could be that the PL rule book doesn’t cover the matters but that I find difficult to believe.Its even possible that we will get hit with further charges from the PL.

If you read the clubs statement it comes over as almost a thanks to the FA. It’s simply not the sort of response you usually see.

The club have till the 19th to respond I can’t see that there is any way the club will deny or try and defend so the process will very quickly reach the sanction stage.

It’s possible again that the two parties have already agreed those sanctions. If that’s correct we will know pretty quickly. If it’s not an IC will move to a sanctions hearing where the club will throw everything in trying to mitigate. In other words some of the points already made about these matters wouldn’t have come to light, under a previous regime etc.

The club will be hoping that the final sanction will only be a fine but we need to brace ourselves for a bumpy ride.

UEFA only gave the club a fine because the whole scope of the malpractice throughout that 10-12 year period came to around £10m. Paying physios through an offshore account and other mundane charges. The big one obviously was paying Hazard's agent.

8 hours ago, Remodez said:

I guess credit to the new board who don’t want any skeletons in their closets, from what I gathered a lot of these were things that would most likely not have ever been found out if not self reported.

"That evil Russian did it, you know what that lot are like. We private equity people are beyond reproach"

19 hours ago, terraloon said:

Quite unusual for the PL to pass something like this to the FA to resolve. In the City case the PL not only took on the investigation but they were the regulatory body that charged the club.Is that key or am I clutching at straws?

Richard Masters the PLs CEO never once suggested it wasn’t the PL that were going to take it forward indeed all the indicators were that it would be the PL and not the FA.

Of course it could be that the PL rule book doesn’t cover the matters but that I find difficult to believe.Its even possible that we will get hit with further charges from the PL.

If you read the clubs statement it comes over as almost a thanks to the FA. It’s simply not the sort of response you usually see.

The club have till the 19th to respond I can’t see that there is any way the club will deny or try and defend so the process will very quickly reach the sanction stage.

It’s possible again that the two parties have already agreed those sanctions. If that’s correct we will know pretty quickly. If it’s not an IC will move to a sanctions hearing where the club will throw everything in trying to mitigate. In other words some of the points already made about these matters wouldn’t have come to light, under a previous regime etc.

The club will be hoping that the final sanction will only be a fine but we need to brace ourselves for a bumpy ride.

Player registration and agent rules are matters for national associations, not the league. These are administrative breaches not necessarily competitive ones and that's probably why the club is confident there will no sporting sanctions. Paying inducements to agents or intermediaries is unethical, but it's not a competitive issue.