Chelsea up for sale?

[Fordy62]

7 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Then why doesn't the Government state its evidence and badis of claim?

I suppose for the same reason I’m not telling you my current bank balance… I don’t need to. 

[BS2 Red]

39 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Fascinating stuff.

A sale could be allowed under licence, with one term possibly being that all proceeds are held in escrow.

Usmanov at Everton next? Not sure how close he is to Putin, but scope there for a relegated Everton operating under sanctions in the Championship next season?

Usmanov isn't the owner of Everton.

It's very murky there though. Their majority owner is Moshiri, who is the chairman of USM, which is Usmanov's company. USM also have (or had) sponsorship deals with Everton.

It doesn't look great for them, but the complicated nature of the ownership and finances might see them getting away with it.

It's much easier with Chelsea and Abramovic to see who owned/paid for what.

[handsofclay]

The imposition of these restrictions upon Chelsea possibly goes some way to explaining why Lukaku only touched the ball 7 times in an entire match recently.

[BTRFTG]

46 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

The sanctions are taking place under the The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/855/contents/made).

It requires that the Secretary of State "has reasonable grounds to suspect that that person is an involved person" and "considers that the designation of that person is appropriate". The full definition of an "involved person" is defined in Regulation 6 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/855/regulation/6/made)

The valid criticism of these measures is they're an unfalsifiable blanket measure that permits The Government to accuse pretty much anybody of anything without having first to front evidence substantiating either claim or designation. The only truth in the Act is it's purpose, which is to place pressure on Putin. I'd argue measures taken today are likely to have the exact opposite on those designated.

If any of those designated today have breached any of the specifics listed in the Act (other than the meaningless 'being known to somebody') then The Government should say so, in explicit terms. That they haven't and are unable so to do, go figure?

I get The Government wants to show arms-length support but this Act and it's present implementation is nothing shy of Big Brother  enforcement, exactly the dictatorial behaviour it professes it seeks to address.

[ExiledAjax]

1 minute ago, BS2 Red said:

Usmanov isn't the owner of Everton.

It's very murky there though. Their majority owner is Moshiri, who is the chairman of USM, which is Usmanov's company. USM also have (or had) sponsorship deals with Everton.

It doesn't look great for them, but the complicated nature of the ownership and finances might see them getting away with it.

It's much easier with Chelsea and Abramovic to see who owned/paid for what.

Right, thanks. I'd not got the details of his involvement there.

Like I say though, the definitions being applied here are broad, include indirect and direct involvement, and need to be technically applied.

[chinapig]

18 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Then why doesn't the Government state its evidence and badis of claim?

The Foreign Office initial briefing:

Roman Abramovich has stakes in steel giant Evraz, Norilsk Nickel and owns Chelsea FC. He sold a 73% stake in Russian oil firm Sibneft to state-owned gas titan Gazprom for £9.87bn in 2005. His net worth is an estimated £9.4bn. He is one of the few oligarchs from the 1990s to maintain prominence under Putin. 

I imagine more detail will have to be put before Parliament in due course.

[View from the Dolman]

6 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

The valid criticism of these measures is they're an unfalsifiable blanket measure that permits The Government to accuse pretty much anybody of anything without having first to front evidence substantiating either claim or designation. The only truth in the Act is it's purpose, which is to place pressure on Putin. I'd argue measures taken today are likely to have the exact opposite on those designated.

If any of those designated today have breached any of the specifics listed in the Act (other than the meaningless 'being known to somebody') then The Government should say so, in explicit terms. That they haven't and are unable so to do, go figure?

I get The Government wants to show arms-length support but this Act and it's present implementation is nothing shy of Big Brother  enforcement, exactly the dictatorial behaviour it professes it seeks to address.

Their is also the statement of reasons that forms part of the Sanctions List (https://ofsistorage.blob.core.windows.net/publishlive/UKSL/UKSanctionsList.html):

"Roman Arkadyevich ABRAMOVICH (hereafter ABRAMOVICH) is a prominent Russian businessman and pro-Kremlin oligarch. ABRAMOVICH is associated with a person who is or has been involved in destabilising Ukraine and undermining and threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, namely Vladimir Putin, with whom ABRAMOVICH has had a close relationship for decades. This association has included obtaining a financial benefit or other material benefit from Putin and the Government of Russia. This includes tax breaks received by companies linked to ABRAMOVICH, buying and selling shares from and to the state at favourable rates, and the contracts received in the run up to the FIFA 2018 World Cup. Therefore, ABRAMOVICH has received preferential treatment and concessions from Putin and the Government of Russia. ABRAMOVICH is also associated with a person who is or has been involved in obtaining a benefit from or supporting the Government of Russia, namely: former First Deputy Prime Minister, and current Chairman of the Management Board for VEB, Igor Shuvalov; former General Director of Gazprom Investment Holdings, Alisher Usmanov, both of whom were sanctioned on 3 March 2022 for being involved persons in obtaining a benefit from or supporting the Russian government through carrying on business in a sector of strategic significance to the Russian government. ABRAMOVICH is associated with these individuals through close business relationships and mutual assistance, including ABRAMOVICH financing Shuvalov's trust and the subsequent loans from Shuvalov to enable Usmanov's purchase of a British mill. Furthermore, ABRAMOVICH is or has been involved in destabilising Ukraine and undermining and threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, via Evraz PLC, a steel manufacturing and mining company in which ABRAMOVICH has a significant shareholding and over which ABRAMOVICH exercises effective control. Evraz PLC is or has been involved in providing financial services, or making available funds, economic resources, goods or technology that could contribute to destabilising Ukraine or undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty or independence of Ukraine – which includes potentially supplying steel to the Russian military which may have been used in the production of tanks. ABRAMOVICH exercises effective control of Evraz PLC given his significant shareholding and the shareholdings of his close associates who it is reasonable to expect ABRAMOVICH could direct through his close ties with Abramov and Shvidler, as well as his power to nominate directors of the board. ABRAMOVICH is or has been involved in obtaining a benefit from or supporting the Government of Russia, as ABRAMOVICH and Evraz PLC carry on business in sectors of strategic significance to the Government of Russia – namely the construction, defence and extractive sectors."

[SecretSam]

Oh dear, how sad, never mind 

 

Abramovitch frozen, Chelski sale on hold

[chinapig]

Some more background on RA from David Conn from last week:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/03/roman-empire-rise-fall-abramovich-reign-chelsea-fc

[BTRFTG]

9 minutes ago, chinapig said:

The Foreign Office initial briefing:

Roman Abramovich has stakes in steel giant Evraz, Norilsk Nickel and owns Chelsea FC. He sold a 73% stake in Russian oil firm Sibneft to state-owned gas titan Gazprom for £9.87bn in 2005. His net worth is an estimated £9.4bn. He is one of the few oligarchs from the 1990s to maintain prominence under Putin. 

I imagine more detail will have to be put before Parliament in due course.

Doubtless many with pensions on this forum have some investment in Russian companies. What's missing is where he personally breaches any of the blanket terms prescribed in The Act  i.e. Is he destabalising Ukraine and, if so, how?

In respect of Chelsea he's already stated his intention to dispose of the asset and offer all profit to charities seeking to assist Ukraine. 

He's wealthy, he made his money in Russia. Exactly the folks successive Governments have been falling over themselves to get in bed with these past decades.

 

[Yellow&Blue&Red]

22 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

The valid criticism of these measures is they're an unfalsifiable blanket measure that permits The Government to accuse pretty much anybody of anything without having first to front evidence substantiating either claim or designation. [...]is nothing shy of Big Brother  enforcement, exactly the dictatorial behaviour it professes it seeks to address.

It's not realistic to imagine this act might be misused in that way. Firstly the optics would be impossibly bad. And secondly any such ministerial decision would be subject to JR. They can't just go round saying you or I have links to Putin - it's just not doable.

[View from the Dolman]

3 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

In respect of Chelsea he's already stated his intention to dispose of the asset and offer all profit to charities seeking to assist Ukraine. 

That would appear to be a generous interpretation of the statement. 

The Guardian reported "The phrasing left open the possibility of the money not being entirely reserved for Ukrainians hurt, bereaved or otherwise affected by the Russian invasion of their country. ... The Guardian sought to clarify that statement by asking sources close to the process whether there was a chance that the charitable fund could be used to help Russian soldiers hurt in the war or the families of Russian soldiers. A key figure explained that the fund is intended for all victims of the war and will not be connected to origin." (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/mar/03/roman-abramovich-funds-for-war-victims-not-only-to-ukrainians)

Edited March 10, 2022 by View from the Dolman

[BS2 Red]

1 minute ago, BTRFTG said:

Doubtless many with pensions on this forum have some investment in Russian companies. What's missing is where he personally breaches any of the blanket terms prescribed in The Act  i.e. Is he destabalising Ukraine and, if so, how?

In respect of Chelsea he's already stated his intention to dispose of the asset and offer all profit to charities seeking to assist Ukraine. 

He's wealthy, he made his money in Russia. Exactly the folks successive Governments have been falling over themselves to get in bed with these past decades.

 

I doubt many people with pension funds control those Russian companies though....

He's a very close friend/associate of Putin. From the Daily Mail in case the Guardian link above is too lefty.

His fortune boomed when he linked up with Boris Berezovsky, who run the national car dealer firm Lada, but who was also close with President Boris Yeltsin. It gave the rising businessman key access, which was pivotal to making huge sums in post-Soviet Russia, and he even lived in a flat in the Kremlin.

It is even said that Abramovich was the man who first recommended Vladimir Putin to Yeltsin as his successor as Russia's president. When Putin first formed his cabinet as Prime Minister in 1999, Abramovich interviewed all the candidates before they were given approval.

In the following years, he would remain one of Putin's closest allies, and in 2007, Putin consulted with Abramovich on who should be his own successor. Dmitry Medvedev - who served as president from 2008 to 2012 before Putin returned to the role - was also personally recommended by Abramovich.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10575341/amp/How-Roman-Abramovich-went-penniless-orphan-billionaire-oligarch.html

[chinapig]

1 minute ago, BTRFTG said:

Doubtless many with pensions on this forum have some investment in Russian companies. What's missing is where he personally breaches any of the blanket terms prescribed in The Act  i.e. Is he destabalising Ukraine and, if so, how?

In respect of Chelsea he's already stated his intention to dispose of the asset and offer all profit to charities seeking to assist Ukraine. 

He's wealthy, he made his money in Russia. Exactly the folks successive Governments have been falling over themselves to get in bed with these past decades.

 

I think @View from the Dolmananswers your main points above. David Conn's article is also informative.

But yes, politicians are tainted by dirty money. Any oligarch, crooked African politician and so on could use London to launder their money with impunity. Or even buy a game of tennis with the Prime Minister.

But better late than never I suppose.

[Pezo]

13 minutes ago, Yellow&Blue&Red said:

It's not realistic to imagine this act might be misused in that way. Firstly the optics would be impossibly bad. And secondly any such ministerial decision would be subject to JR. They can't just go round saying you or I have links to Putin - it's just not doable.

I remember the terrorism act was only ever going to be used to hold the most dangerous terrorists for an unspecified amount of time without conviction.

The optics of that wouldn't be acceptable, the free press wouldn't allow it they all said, that was all bullshit.

[Bristol Rob]

Could the same happen to Bournemouth?

[Silvio Dante]

 

[Yellow&Blue&Red]

12 minutes ago, Pezo said:

I remember the terrorism act was only ever going to be used to hold the most dangerous terrorists for an unspecified amount of time without conviction.

The optics of that wouldn't be acceptable, the free press wouldn't allow it they all said, that was all bullshit.

I guess what I was really trying to say is that I'm pleased they're doing this.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Very interesting times now.

Unsure what can and can't be put on open forums but there were certainly questions prior to Putin about Russian oligarchs, indeed some of their 1990s excesses were a reason why Putin gained power. Putin of 2000 was very different to the current version but I digress, the Russian State in the 1990s..the oligarchs didn't exactly seem a positive force?! 

[Pezo]

Just now, Yellow&Blue&Red said:

I guess what I was really trying to say is that I'm pleased they're doing this.

I guess all I'm trying to say is be careful what you wish for because you might be next (not hopefully about Putin, I assume you don't have ties to him ).

[Red-Robbo]

15 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Could the same happen to Bournemouth?

 

I suggested that on the other Chelski thread, but subsequently read that Demin is a full UK citizen and is apolitical, so - sadly - it seems unlikely. 

[Show Me The Money!]

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

The valid criticism of these measures is they're an unfalsifiable blanket measure that permits The Government to accuse pretty much anybody of anything without having first to front evidence substantiating either claim or designation. The only truth in the Act is it's purpose, which is to place pressure on Putin. I'd argue measures taken today are likely to have the exact opposite on those designated.

If any of those designated today have breached any of the specifics listed in the Act (other than the meaningless 'being known to somebody') then The Government should say so, in explicit terms. That they haven't and are unable so to do, go figure?

I get The Government wants to show arms-length support but this Act and it's present implementation is nothing shy of Big Brother  enforcement, exactly the dictatorial behaviour it professes it seeks to address.

The government are secretly loving this as it deflects everything away from there pants management of covid and the whole party gate palava.

 They’re  all in with this sanctions and rattling sabres stuff but not so keen on actually helping Ukrainians fleeing there country

Edited March 10, 2022 by Show Me The Money!

[chinapig]

3 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

I suggested that on the other Chelski thread, but subsequently read that Demin is a full UK citizen and is apolitical, so - sadly - it seems unlikely. 

Was he one of those who were allowed to buy citizenship, no questions asked as to the source of his wealth?

[Red-Robbo]

5 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Was he one of those who were allowed to buy citizenship, no questions asked as to the source of his wealth?

 

Possibly, but unlike Abramovitch I think much of his fortune comes as a trader in derivatives. As such, London was his natural base and I'm not even sure he owns property in Russia.

I'd love to see that cheating club brought to account, but I don't think it'll happen. 

[Ring]

1 hour ago, BS2 Red said:

Usmanov isn't the owner of Everton.

It's very murky there though. Their majority owner is Moshiri, who is the chairman of USM, which is Usmanov's company. USM also have (or had) sponsorship deals with Everton.

It doesn't look great for them, but the complicated nature of the ownership and finances might see them getting away with it.

It's much easier with Chelsea and Abramovic to see who owned/paid for what.

Moshiri the Unstoppable Sex Machine?

[Silvio Dante]

6 minutes ago, Ring said:

Moshiri the Unstoppable Sex Machine?

Apparently derived his wealth from unusual means - he started out in business as a granny farmer, was infamous for 15 minutes and then appeared on Panorama.

Not sure if that means he can be sanctioned.

[BS2 Red]

2 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Apparently derived his wealth from unusual means - he started out in business as a granny farmer, was infamous for 15 minutes and then appeared on Panorama.

Not sure if that means he can be sanctioned.

Not for that, but his butcher shop in Leigh-on-Sea is masterful.

[GrahamC]

1 hour ago, BS2 Red said:

Usmanov isn't the owner of Everton.

It's very murky there though. Their majority owner is Moshiri, who is the chairman of USM, which is Usmanov's company. USM also have (or had) sponsorship deals with Everton.

It doesn't look great for them, but the complicated nature of the ownership and finances might see them getting away with it.

It's much easier with Chelsea and Abramovic to see who owned/paid for what.

Moshiri broke his ties with Usmanov as soon as the war started, all his sponsorships were ended & he was removed as an investor.

I’m cynical about this but it means Everton are in the clear.

52 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Could the same happen to Bournemouth?

Demim is Swiss based & I believe made a lot of his wealth through steel & suppling Russian Navy submarines…

I would be absolutely amazed if he’s squeaky clean & personally find the whole Bournemouth fairytale story utterly nauseating (they cheated FFP, dodgy Russian money) but expect he is a long way down any list, if on it at all.

[BS2 Red]

5 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Moshiri broke his ties with Usmanov as soon as the war started, all his sponsorships were ended & he was removed as an investor.

I’m cynical about this but it means Everton are in the clear.

You're right, he did. Clever move!

[Red-Robbo]

1 hour ago, BS2 Red said:

Usmanov isn't the owner of Everton.

It's very murky there though. Their majority owner is Moshiri, who is the chairman of USM, which is Usmanov's company. USM also have (or had) sponsorship deals with Everton.

It doesn't look great for them, but the complicated nature of the ownership and finances might see them getting away with it.

It's much easier with Chelsea and Abramovic to see who owned/paid for what.

 

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

Right, thanks. I'd not got the details of his involvement there.

Like I say though, the definitions being applied here are broad, include indirect and direct involvement, and need to be technically applied.

 

It certainly is murky. But the fact that Moshiri isn't Russian and doesn't live there may not protect him - or Everton. 

Moshiri derives all of his wealth, and is a direct employee of, Usmanov. Although he's sometimes referred to as his "business partner", he is in fact the CEO of his holding company and is effectively his "front man" while Usmanov sails about in his super-yacht. Or he used to, before the German's seized it.

Usmanov is sanctioned as he's a key Putin ally and almost as dodgy as Abramovitch. He served 6 years for fraud and theft in the 80s, but was pardoned in the 90s by the corrupt Uzbek president after money from drug trafficking sources changed hands. See Craig Murray on his background. 

Being the CEO of a sanctioned company suggests you derive your wealth from said company and should surely be in consideration for sanctioning yourself.

Either way, it doesn't look like Everton are going to receive any more funding either directly (via sponsorship) or indirectly (via Moshiri) from USM.