8 hours ago, Simplymo said:

 

I can imagine if some of the leaked info involved emails or private comms between owners and members of the board which include ppl with titles like His Royal Highness or His Royal Excellency then the FCO (what it was called when I was there and it mattered) and GOV. would definitely have to be involved.

Private comms of Members of the Royal Families (UK, UAE, Etc...) are an extremely sensitive matter when it comes to what can or can't be reported by the press.

I wouldn't be surprised if certain emails or bits of info is removed, especially in rgds to a country that is an ally and "partner", also tbh puts a fk load into the UK economy. Tourism alone brings in around 8bil into the UK every summer (last time I checked). That's just tourism, so you can imagine everything else...so yeah I'm not surprised they got in touch tbh and maybe it may be more than that depending what's in the comms.

 

 

 

 

Exactly...I don't see Roman, marina or even Czech filling in the blanks for them in statements or interviews. Lol

They have all the info they will ever get...is it enough? That's the real question of all this hoo-ha.

If info is incomplete or there's lots of question marks they can't assume guilt/wrongdoing/etc...

Well we know the Government held a meeting with the EPL that refusing the sale of Newcastle to the Saudi's could harm the relationship between us.

The lucrative arms trade was on their minds no doubt.

No doubt any punishment would have to be designed with that in mind ?

6 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Well we know the Government held a meeting with the EPL that refusing the sale of Newcastle to the Saudi's could harm the relationship between us.

The lucrative arms trade was on their minds no doubt.

No doubt any punishment would have to be designed with that in mind ?

Yep, same as Saudi...Gov won't jeopardise any diplomatic relations with the UAE.

 

Tbh, I've met the owner (Shk. Mansour) many times, he's actually a really decent bloke. It really does depend what's in the comms/emails tbh.

 

Edit: it's no just arms too...lots of reasons to have friends/allies in the Middle East, especially the Gulf.

Edited August 16, 20241 yr by Simplymo

Not a fan of this chap but thought this was interesting 

 

https://www.footballinsider247.com/chelsea-points-deduction-keith-wyness-reacts-to-roman-abramovich-news/

Mehhh.....nearly there. Don't know what all the fuss and worry was about. Lol

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c0rwy2z7d2eo

Oh and be ready for all the bo**ocks from the media, other clubs and their fans, etc.

 

Omg, they will be livid.  😂 

So Blue Co is selling the hotels to Blue Co? I bet they get a sweet deal for them. 

We got away with it because they paid market value. Gives is an option to get £1m for  Mudryk.

On 23/08/2024 at 02:35, terraloon said:

Not a fan of this chap but thought this was interesting 

 

https://www.footballinsider247.com/chelsea-points-deduction-keith-wyness-reacts-to-roman-abramovich-news/

What that story tells me is that what’s on their mind is the 2.3B or whatever locked in limbo from the sale:

PL: ”Excuse us your honor, we know you have this whole dispute over whether the funds can go to organizations outside Ukraine, what type of charities and entities it can go to, etc….. but you see, Chelsea may have broken a rule … a decade ago… so we feel we should have a nice big slice of it. It will go to teams that are in distress”

Bank Exec: “The only team listed here is Man United”

PL: “Well, like with the Covid money, we feel it’s more efficient that way…”

23 minutes ago, Bluelion7 said:

What that story tells me is that what’s on their mind is the 2.3B or whatever locked in limbo from the sale:

PL: ”Excuse us your honor, we know you have this whole dispute over whether the funds can go to organizations outside Ukraine, what type of charities and entities it can go to, etc….. but you see, Chelsea may have broken a rule … a decade ago… so we feel we should have a nice big slice of it. It will go to teams that are in distress”

Bank Exec: “The only team listed here is Man United”

PL: “Well, like with the Covid money, we feel it’s more efficient that way…”

It would be so blatant if they took that money to build man utd a stadium but weirdly I wouldn't be surprised.

Hahahaha

9 hours ago, Bluelion7 said:

What that story tells me is that what’s on their mind is the 2.3B or whatever locked in limbo from the sale:

PL: ”Excuse us your honor, we know you have this whole dispute over whether the funds can go to organizations outside Ukraine, what type of charities and entities it can go to, etc….. but you see, Chelsea may have broken a rule … a decade ago… so we feel we should have a nice big slice of it. It will go to teams that are in distress”

Bank Exec: “The only team listed here is Man United”

PL: “Well, like with the Covid money, we feel it’s more efficient that way…”

🤣That money was in a frozen bank account. Dunno if it's been used, but it's nothing to do with the PL or Chelsea.

Don't think we're going to get off with a slap. I suppose we will appeal? 

When is the decision due mate ?

The bulk of the money currently sits in a government account, supposedly.

£100 m was kept back to cover any problems expected to arise from any dodgy dealings that occured, prior to the sale.

I'm sure the EPL is aiming for what they see as the current balance of said account.

2 hours ago, Ajbod said:

The bulk of the money currently sits in a government account, supposedly.

£100 m was kept back to cover any problems expected to arise from any dodgy dealings that occured, prior to the sale.

I'm sure the EPL is aiming for what they see as the current balance of said account.

The last time I looked at this, the money was held in  Abramovich's Chelsea Fordstam company, in a frozen bank account..

The article I read ( about a year ago ) actually said that the government nearly got their hands on it because Fordstam had been late in filing accounts.

Dunno how it stands now, depends which article you read or believe.!

We had a forced rushed sale of the club and yet the proceeds seem to be stuck in a bank account years later .

 

Re. The Money..

Just read a piece from the Charity Commission from June this year...

The money is still in a bank account and NONE of it has been released to help victims of the war. They complain about a lack of transparency.

Looks like it's tied up because of technical and legal issues.

Maybe we could convince them that by having our club sanctioned and sold, we are victims too !!!!

 

If we're talking about the proceeds of the club sale, the money is held in escrow, an account under the control of a third party. In this case the government. The hold up in disbursement was the result of a squabble over the money's destination. Abramovich intended it for all victims of the Ukraine war. Which could be taken to include Russian victims. The government insisted it should only apply to Ukrainian victims.

1 hour ago, dermott said:

If we're talking about the proceeds of the club sale, the money is held in escrow, an account under the control of a third party. In this case the government. The hold up in disbursement was the result of a squabble over the money's destination. Abramovich intended it for all victims of the Ukraine war. Which could be taken to include Russian victims. The government insisted it should only apply to Ukrainian victims.

Yes this is it and raises all sorts of legal issues, perhaps they could release half for Ukrainians and keep the rest to comply with the Russian victims if they can be validated at a later time.

I did watch Oliver Stone's video on Ukraine and the events leading to war which suggested this was a shades of grey rather than being black and white yet it was quickly removed from social media.

it looks like Abramovich has played it very clever.

 

 

1 hour ago, dermott said:

If we're talking about the proceeds of the club sale, the money is held in escrow, an account under the control of a third party. In this case the government. The hold up in disbursement was the result of a squabble over the money's destination. Abramovich intended it for all victims of the Ukraine war. Which could be taken to include Russian victims. The government insisted it should only apply to Ukrainian victims.

The bulk of the £2+ billion proceeds from sale are as has been said held in an Escrow that is outside any of the past or indeed current owners control . There will be squabbles over that for years to come .

Companies house made an application to wind up the Fordstam due to non submission of a basic company document called a confirmation statement that has now been filed but the company is still behind of filing company accounts.

 

Moving on this little snippet re Newcastle is interesting 

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/30277292/newcastle-news-hmrc-mike-ashley-public-investment-fund/amp/

 

It is relevant to us simply because the settlement is due seemingly to the way in which Newcastle paid and accounted for payments to agents .  If my reading of it is correct Newcastle will now have to pay tax and nic so my guess( which may be wrong of course) is that then tracks back to benefits in kind to players  not being reported correctly.

 Now think back to the revelations re us

 

 

7 hours ago, dermott said:

If we're talking about the proceeds of the club sale, the money is held in escrow, an account under the control of a third party. In this case the government. The hold up in disbursement was the result of a squabble over the money's destination. Abramovich intended it for all victims of the Ukraine war. Which could be taken to include Russian victims. The government insisted it should only apply to Ukrainian victims.

African charities point out that parts of Africa are suffering famine as a result of the war 

90% of their grain was imported from Russia and Ukraine 

 

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, terraloon said:

The bulk of the £2+ billion proceeds from sale are as has been said held in an Escrow that is outside any of the past or indeed current owners control . There will be squabbles over that for years to come .

Companies house made an application to wind up the Fordstam due to non submission of a basic company document called a confirmation statement that has now been filed but the company is still behind of filing company accounts.

 

Moving on this little snippet re Newcastle is interesting 

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/30277292/newcastle-news-hmrc-mike-ashley-public-investment-fund/amp/

 

It is relevant to us simply because the settlement is due seemingly to the way in which Newcastle paid and accounted for payments to agents .  If my reading of it is correct Newcastle will now have to pay tax and nic so my guess( which may be wrong of course) is that then tracks back to benefits in kind to players  not being reported correctly.

 Now think back to the revelations re us

 

 

Hi Terra mate

There a legal issue that I read,think was in the FT.

Apparently there is a centuries old legal precedent in English law that means that forfeiture of property before conviction is illegal .

The UK has a reputation for upholding property rights and makes us an attractive destination for international investors.

Shredding that centuries old reputation is something that our Governments are wary of. So to get round the fact that they did seize and sell  Roman's property before any conviction they would now need Roman's permission to use his money

Also they don't want any donations to embarrass Britain if it ends up in the wrong hands.

Also it's not just Ukraine and Russia bidding for money, African charities are in the mix too because of hunger and famine caused by the disruption to their grain imports from Russia and Ukraine.

You always seem to be clued up on legal matters, what dya reckon to that property rights thing ?

Cheers mate 

 

 

Edited September 6, 20241 yr by The Rising Sun
Info

26 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Hi Terra mate

There a legal issue that I read,think was in the FT.

Apparently there is a centuries old legal precedent in English law that means that forfeiture of property before conviction is illegal .

The UK has a reputation for upholding property rights and makes us an attractive destination for international investors.

Shredding that centuries old reputation is something that our Governments are wary of. So to get round the fact that they did seize and sell  Roman's property before any conviction they would now need Roman's permission to use his money

Also they don't want any donations to embarrass Britain if it ends up in the wrong hands.

Also it's not just Ukraine and Russia bidding for money, African charities are in the mix too because of hunger and famine caused by the disruption to their grain imports from Russia and Ukraine.

You always seem to be clued up on legal matters, what dya reckon to that property rights thing ?

Cheers mate 

Edit 

It was in Politico.EU

 

 

I started to watch a YouTube video on Abramovich and Chelsea.

I switched it off when some clown said " how was he (Roman) able to take a team from the bottom of the league to the very top"?

f**king no nothing eejit

 

34 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Hi Terra mate

There a legal issue that I read,think was in the FT.

Apparently there is a centuries old legal precedent in English law that means that forfeiture of property before conviction is illegal .

So therefore our reputation for upholding property rights makes the UK an attractive destination for international investment.

Shredding that centuries old reputation is something that our Governments are wary of.

Also they don't want any donations to embarrass Britain if it ends up in the wrong hands.

Also it's not just Ukraine and Russia bidding for money, African charities are in the mix too because of hunger and famine caused by the disruption to their grain imports from Russia and Ukraine.

You always seem to be clued up on legal matters, what dya reckon to that property rights thing ?

Cheers mate 

 

W

Haven’t seen that 

There clearly is an issue re how the proceeds can be used but my limited understanding is that the club was sold under a legal licence and the UKs stance is that all proceeds had been spent in the borders of Ukraine.

Everything I have seen is that the sale was conducted under an enforceable order  but as we know nothing is ever as clear cut as it would appear 

 

22 minutes ago, terraloon said:

Haven’t seen that 

There clearly is an issue re how the proceeds can be used but my limited understanding is that the club was sold under a legal licence and the UKs stance is that all proceeds had been spent in the borders of Ukraine.

Everything I have seen is that the sale was conducted under an enforceable order  but as we know nothing is ever as clear cut as it would appear 

 

Cheers mate. I think we would have heard long ago if there was any illegality concerning the sale.

Not defining who exactly the " victims" are is tying everyone in knots.. The lawyers are probably making a mint out of it.

Cheers 

6 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

 

Not defining who exactly the " victims" are is tying everyone in knots.. The lawyers are probably making a mint out of it.

 

If it will travel up the courts then maybe that's the idea...by the time they're finished there's nothing left to dish out. Lol 

*Before anyone says, I know it doesn't work that way. Hahahaha.

Edited September 7, 20241 yr by Simplymo

Doesn't it depend on the wording of the sale?

Does it say "all victims" or "just victims in the ukraine"? Because tbh regardless of how long it goes if it gets to the high courts wouldn't that be winning factor?

Like finances I hate law! But it's a bit more tolerable and I don't mind reading up on it.

So thank you guys for keeping us updated.

14 hours ago, Simplymo said:

Doesn't it depend on the wording of the sale?

Does it say "all victims" or "just victims in the ukraine"? Because tbh regardless of how long it goes if it gets to the high courts wouldn't that be winning factor?

Like finances I hate law! But it's a bit more tolerable and I don't mind reading up on it.

So thank you guys for keeping us updated.

I think it says it's for the victims of the war .It didn't define who the victims are, because Russians and famine hit Africans are.  Another thing i read is that they don't want to be seen negotiating with a Russian Oligarch to get funds released.

Which doesn't make sense to me unless it's still held in Roman's Fordstam bank account.

Dunno, but it's been stuck somewhere for years while everyone argues about it.

So much for the Government rushing through our sale.