6 minutes ago, Munkworth said:

Canners is having some fun on Twitter, one victim in particular has taken the bait. 

I look forward to Carraghers reply.

Looks like Carragher is the victim there.

1 hour ago, Upsetter said:

Well the club have withdrawn their request to play the Boro tie behind closed doors.

And more importantly, breaking news on Sky is: ‘Ukraine latest as President Zelenskyy says "pretty good" peace talks were held - and hints he could drop ambition to join NATO’

God I hope this is the beginning of the end of the war/conflict/invasion, call it what you will.

Sadly that is not happening. I think he said that more because he is pissed off that NATO haven’t gone crashing in to fight and start the apocalypse. He’s been asking in Canada today, what would they do if cruise missiles were being fired at them. But he doesn’t mention that if a Canadian shot down a Russian over Ukraine that there would be ICBMs raining down in Canada and the rest of North America and Europe. And I really can’t see how that would help Ukraine in the slightest.

13 minutes ago, evissy said:

Looks like Carragher is the victim there.

In a scousers mindset they could spit on someone and abuse them and claim they were provoked and are the victim for sure.

2 hours ago, coco said:

No because of the ownership rules for the Saudis and Candy and co not enough dollar.

In terms of a bid from a Saudi consortium the government and yes to a degree the PL fave painted themselves into a corner.

If the bis from such a group is perceived as being the  best offer what would be the grounds for refusing it ( and I don’t 5hink they would be the best choice ) ?

The Saudis are our trading partners, allies and above all we need them. So what message would it send if they were told to bugger off ?

2 hours ago, KonaKai Blue said:

We've just effed ourselves with that Boro request.

I think everybody is massively overreacting in all honesty. We made a stupid request, but that is all it was. I can't take the outrage about it seriously.

12 minutes ago, terraloon said:

In terms of a bid from a Saudi consortium the government and yes to a degree the PL fave painted themselves into a corner.

If the bis from such a group is perceived as being the  best offer what would be the grounds for refusing it ( and I don’t 5hink they would be the best choice ) ?

The Saudis are our trading partners, allies and above all we need them. So what message would it send if they were told to bugger off ?

Especially if they bid 2.7bill and the next best is 2bill. That is 700mill less for the war victims.

Just seen a clip from some committee at Parliament with a nobody of an MP demanding of the FA Chief Exec that Chelsea are told to put their boots on and play the game. 

Ar*ehole

Edited March 15, 20224 yr by carrickblue
Typo

11 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

I think everybody is massively overreacting in all honesty. We made a stupid request, but that is all it was. I can't take the outrage about it seriously.

Some of the reactions have been blown way out of proportion and some talk like Chelsea are supplying a regiment of mercenaries or something. 

11 minutes ago, carrickblue said:

Just seen a clip from some committee at Parliament with a nobody of an MP demanding of the FA Chief Exec that Chelsea are told to put their boots on and play the game. 

Ar*ehole

Play what game? We have shown up for all our games and continue to do so

Listened to MNF last night and Gary Neville who does generally make good and honest observations, said that he would be “amazed” if the government and PL allowed another Saudi’s group to buy us. He said the spotlight is already heavily on City and Newcastle and they don’t know what to do with the issue. 
 

I have to agree - unless the Saudi’s make a deal with UK govt with oil “give us Chelsea and we’ll give you oil”, I dont see it happening. 

34 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

I think everybody is massively overreacting in all honesty. We made a stupid request, but that is all it was. I can't take the outrage about it seriously.

Exactly, people are thick to see what this is. 

It's posturing to prevent west ham demanding the same thing in a few weeks. 

We've highlighted to the govt that it's ridiculous to prevent fans attending the game from both sets. This is just putting a blocker in to stop our home fans being f**ked

21 minutes ago, carrickblue said:

Just seen a clip from some committee at Parliament with a nobody of an MP demanding of the FA Chief Exec that Chelsea are told to put their boots on and play the game. 

Ar*ehole

These pricks don't care about the club, they are using our situation to score points and claim future votes. The worst thing about it is that people are fooled by these people every time. This is why when it comes to a general election, I either don't vote at all or vote for a party I know won't win. I don't want to feel responsible for playing a part in the same 2 parties f**king people over time and time again.

3 hours ago, coco said:

A quick sale is a must, 3 serious US bids, i think it would be a lot quicker to deal with US owners.

Surely the trip of our acting director, Boris Johnson, to Saudi Arabia is to negotiate the sale to the Saudis….

My bet is once the sale is agreed which will highly likely be before we play Brentford, the govt will allow sale of tickets again and it will be a non-issue. 

Exclusive : UK government will NOT decide who buys Chelsea, Raine Group who are acting on behalf of Roman Abramovich will chose the preferred bidder after the Friday Deadline. ( @Football_LDN )

7 minutes ago, JM7 said:

Exclusive : UK government will NOT decide who buys Chelsea, Raine Group who are acting on behalf of Roman Abramovich will chose the preferred bidder after the Friday Deadline. ( @Football_LDN )

8 minutes ago, JM7 said:

Exclusive : UK government will NOT decide who buys Chelsea, Raine Group who are acting on behalf of Roman Abramovich will chose the preferred bidder after the Friday Deadline. ( @Football_LDN )

This be why a former MP wants us seized.

Labour former minister Chris Bryant told the House of Commons: "We should not just be freezing, we should be seizing assets. I don't think the Government has the power to do that, in normal times you wouldn't want the Government to be able to seize assets, but we need to have that power now.

 

I don't really care about football very much.

"What I do care about is the asset should be seized by the Government so that it can be spent on reconstruction in Ukraine. If the Government doesn't take that power, it's not going to be able to do that."

9 minutes ago, JM7 said:

Exclusive : UK government will NOT decide who buys Chelsea, Raine Group who are acting on behalf of Roman Abramovich will chose the preferred bidder after the Friday Deadline. ( @Football_LDN )

Unless Chelsea (Raine Group) make the decision that the gov't doesn't like, then it will step in

38 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Play what game? We have shown up for all our games and continue to do so

Have read on the BBC that Chelsea didn't expect to be allowed to play behind closed doors but brought the FA into it in hope they might get govt. to relax on ticket sales. Article points out if we play extra FA Cup rounds or go further in the CL, it'll cost Chelsea millions if we can't sell tickets. 

14 minutes ago, JM7 said:

Exclusive : UK government will NOT decide who buys Chelsea, Raine Group who are acting on behalf of Roman Abramovich will chose the preferred bidder after the Friday Deadline. ( @Football_LDN )

Football.london is not a trustworthy source.

3 hours ago, Valpo said:

 

I hope so but I don't think Ukraine should drop their ambition to join NATO.  Russia wants to leave them vulnerable to future attacks. 

This is not about Ukraine really, it's much bigger than that. It's about Russia pushing back against NATO eastward expansion. That's been going on for over 30 years now,  since even before the fall of Soviet Union when the US gave guarantees to Gorbachev that should the Soviets allow the reunification of Germany, NATO wouldn't move an inch further. Then Soviet Union fell apart and NATO, while ignoring Russia's protestations, kept absorbing eastern European countries, then Baltic states and eventually it got to Ukraine and that's when all hell broke loose.

I'm not trying to justify the war, just pointing out that what's happening is more than just Putin's crazy obsession with Ukraine.

Edited March 15, 20224 yr by abramovich

21 minutes ago, carrickblue said:

Have read on the BBC that Chelsea didn't expect to be allowed to play behind closed doors but brought the FA into it in hope they might get govt. to relax on ticket sales. Article points out if we play extra FA Cup rounds or go further in the CL, it'll cost Chelsea millions if we can't sell tickets. 

In the case of FA Cup it technically costs whoever we play too. Gate receipts are shared between 2 clubs.  Not sure what happens to our share in this case? Does it go to the government?

49 minutes ago, JM7 said:

Listened to MNF last night and Gary Neville who does generally make good and honest observations, said that he would be “amazed” if the government and PL allowed another Saudi’s group to buy us. He said the spotlight is already heavily on City and Newcastle and they don’t know what to do with the issue. 
 

I have to agree - unless the Saudi’s make a deal with UK govt with oil “give us Chelsea and we’ll give you oil”, I dont see it happening. 

Nor do I but what would be the grounds for refusing? 
 

The UK have to keep the Saudis on board for a variety of reasons so if they put in the best offer, make the best business case how do they say no ?

Government/ politics and sport should be kept a million miles apart

Government made a mess of this and more difficult than needed. What is the difference of Chelsea taking money for tickets that’s not allowed but in the same accounts it taking food and drink on match days. Still goes into a bank acc?