Jump to content
IGNORED

Chelsea up for sale?

exAtyeoMax

By exAtyeoMax
in Football Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, BS2 Red said:

Have they ever found anybody to not be fit and proper? Looking at the scumbags that have owned football clubs over the last few years, I don't think the guidelines are anywhere close to being fit and proper.

Indeed, what is 'fit and proper'.

Think from memory the basic tests have been something like:

*"Do you have lots of money"? Yes? Good..!

*"Can you finance the clubs needs in reliable manner"? Yes? That's what we want to hear!

*"Do you have a relevant unspent criminal conviction?" No? Good!

*Have you been involved in Insolvency events, in particular football related? Even then maybe it has to have been twice.

Sure that there has been more to it, but it's certainly not about ethics or competence, here or abroad. Never has been- it's neutral or has been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Colemanballs

Colemanballs

Posted
Posted

The assets have been frozen, not confiscated. This is about preserving the status quo pending eventual legal proceedings so that justice can be done.  Without the freezing of assets, there is a high probability that they will be moved out of the jurisdiction avoiding justice. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bcfc01

bcfc01

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

Has he still got his kin gert massive yacht?

He has two valued at 1bn.

Both legged it, one in the Med somewhere and the other off the coast of west Africa.

Edited by bcfc01
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Colemanballs said:

The assets have been frozen, not confiscated. This is about preserving the status quo pending eventual legal proceedings so that justice can be done.  Without the freezing of assets, there is a high probability that they will be moved out of the jurisdiction avoiding justice. 

I'm no lawyer so that's my first disclaimer.

What theoretically speaking, would have been to stop Abramovich signing ownership or control over to someone unconnected to his family, unsanctioned, ownership of the club in say January and how might that have affected a freezing order?

Trying to think of a workable example, his daughter or wife would be far too obvious and presumably captured by the sanctions or the sanctions adjusted to do so. That said it'd thinking about it- fall foul probably of football related ownership rules!

Probably just a mere detail but it doesn't go:

Chelsea-Abramovich

It goes:

Chelsea FC-Chelsea FC PLC-Fordstam-Abramovich

Well maybe that 2nd structure isn't entirely right but Fordstam sits between Chelsea and Abramovich.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Indeed, what is 'fit and proper'.

Think from memory the basic tests have been something like:

*"Do you have lots of money"? Yes? Good..!

*"Can you finance the clubs needs in reliable manner"? Yes? That's what we want to hear!

*"Do you have a relevant unspent criminal conviction?" No? Good!

*Have you been involved in Insolvency events, in particular football related? Even then maybe it has to have been twice.

Sure that there has been more to it, but it's certainly not about ethics or competence, here or abroad. Never has been- it's neutral or has been.

The full text of the current Premier League test is in Section F of the PL Handbook. https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2022/02/28/9c575d37-a162-4710-9b24-0b2a066c1db9/PL_Handbook_2021_22_DIGITAL_27-02-22.pdf. The main bulk of the tests are aimed at the directors of at club, the owners test is much lighter touch.

A limited summary of the current tests is provided in the Crouch Report.

"Currently, there are three Owners’ and Directors’ Tests in English football. The Premier League and EFL separately administer an Owners’ and Directors’ Test for clubs in their own leagues. The FA administers an Owners’ and Directors’ Test to clubs in the National League, the three leagues below, the Women’s Super League (WSL) and the Women’s Championship.

Though varied, the three tests in operation today broadly cover objective factors that disqualify individuals from being an owner or director of a football club. These include past involvement with club bankruptcies, dishonest dealings with the football authorities, control or influence at multiple clubs, criminal convictions (including overseas), personal insolvencies, suspension or ban from another sport, being barred from entry to the UK, and being a football agent. These are assessed at the point that the individual seeks to become an owner or director of a club, and the individual is required to sign an annual statement lodged with the relevant authority that they remain free from any of the disqualifying factors."

Presumably at some point Chelsea will need to file their annual update. That could be an issue unless they are given some sort of exemption or further 'special licence'.

This is new ground for everyone involved. No lawyer, accountant, director, government minister, regulator or fan has ever been involved with managing the operation of a living football club that is, by virtue of its UBO's historical involvement with a warmongering despot, under sanctions that effectively render it a dormant company. It is completely new ground, and so I think we need to excuse, forgive, and allow a few delays, u-turns, or frankly cock-ups as we go along here.

  • Like 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, redapple said:

I don’t know if this has been mentioned previously but should City have any outstanding debt to Chelsea re Kalas,Palmer and Dasilva would it still have to be repaid currently or ever ? 

My expectation would be that:

  1. such a debt would still be owed as Abramovich's sanctioning does not void any contract entered into prior to him being sanctioned; but
  2. any payment due now or in the coming months would still need to be paid per the terms of such contract; however
    1. Chelsea could not, I believe, use the money received for anything bar the few things permitted in the exemption; and
    2. if the bank account into which that should be paid is either frozen or otherwise inaccessible, then practically we would likely to be able to hold off paying it; but
  3. we can't go spending that money, as it is still technically owed to Chelsea and they could very well call it in at some point - for example should they enter administration or be sold.

So basically yes we should still assume that at some point we would need to pay that money. 

That is all without knowing the details of any transfer contracts.

Edited by ExiledAjax
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60714952

Apologies if this has already been posted.

Wage bill 28mil a month. Wow.

They are in a huge cashflow hole. No one knows for sure, but I heard Athletic reporter Matt Slater estimating that they may have 'only' £40-60m cash in the bank. So essentially they probably have enough cash to get to the end of this season, but beyond that who knows.

The start of next season is a huge date for other reasons as well. I've looked at the PL handbook and a few things jump out. Although RA is not a registered director of Chelsea Football Club Ltd, or its parent Chelsea FC plc, or its parent company Fordstam Ltd which is the company in which RA directly holds 100% of the shares. However, he could potentially be classed as a "Director" for the purposes of the PL handbook. Note the definition:

image.png.3977b48889bf48e8fb6f1998d0c7ba82.png

Rule A.1.71 applies only to Rules H1 to H9, and those only apply to Director's Reports. They essentially exclude a person who is deemed equivalent to a director from needing to bother with the nitty gritty of financial reports and the like.

"Control" is a bigger definition that I won't copy here, but essentially RA comfortably meets the definition of having 'Control' because he owns 100% of Fordstam Ltd, which owns 100% of Chelsea FC plc, which owns 100% of Chelsea Football Club Ltd.

So, in my opinion, RA is a 'Director' of Chelsea Football Club Ltd for the purposes of the PL handbook.

This is important because if you then look at section F of the handbook (in particular F.1.13) you see that the happenings of the past few days mean that if this isn't resolved by the start of next season (ie the first game of the PL on 6 August), the PL could feasibly suspend Chelsea from its competitions, and also from 'Approved Competitions', which include the Champions League. Now, it is unlikely that the PL will exercise those powers given that Chelsea are such a prominent member of their organisation, but it goes to show just how serious this could be for the Club. Also, 5 months feels like a long time, but tell that to Derby fans.

Essentially this is why I think RA originally wanted to hand over "Control" to the charitable trust. He needed to remove the accusation that he had 'Control' over the club as he anticipated the sanctions, and knows that they put Chelsea onto a sticky wicket regarding the 2022/23 season.

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Homer

Red Homer

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Oh Louie louie said:

Cant think of any other clubs russian owned, here, hull had a connection i think, i recent times?

 

Bournemouth? Don't want Demin sanctioned just yet though, they need to be able to sell Kelly in the summer for the sell on fee!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BTRFTG

BTRFTG

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, chinapig said:

I think we may share a dislike for the authoritarian streak in the current government. But my concern is more to do with it trying to give itself powers to remove citizenship from ordinary people without notice or recourse, to restrict the right to protest on the grounds that somebody might be upset by any given protest, to limit judicial review to prevent citizens from challenging the government in court and so on.

As to this case, from the Foreign Office:

An asset freeze prevents any UK citizen, or any business in the UK, from dealing with any funds or economic resources which are owned, held or controlled by the designated person and which are held in the UK. It will also prevent funds or economic resources being provided to or for the benefit of the designated person.

I mustn't drag this out as it's bad netiquette but we are both at least free to defend Abramovich or not as the case may be.

I'm not defending RA as I'm uncertain whether he has anything for which to apologise, but he's already been adjudged 'guilty by association' without punished evidence. That has to be troubling for all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Waconda

Waconda

Posted
Posted
On 11/03/2022 at 06:38, swanker said:

Obviously the blokes gifted at making money. 

Not gifted, he is a gangster of the highest order. Nothing to to with skill and hard work.

If it only took hard work and endeavour to become rich then every woman in Africa would be a millionaire.

Landed Gentry in this country didn't "earn" their wealth and lands , they took it, surrounded themselves with paid sycophants and enforced their will with violence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BTRFTG

BTRFTG

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, View from the Dolman said:

What is the "knee-jerk legislation" you refer to?

Specifically The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) ( Amendment) Regulations 2022 which delivered nebulous and wide ranging powers many of which do not appear to accord with basic principles of UK Law. Some of these difficulties will be closed out under the Economic Crime (Enforcement & Transparency) Bill ( if enacted,) but that's cart before horse and many of the measures it delivers are already available via other legislation.

As with the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021 this Government has shown how it makes use a brief, emotive and minority swell of public opinion to drive through totalitarian measures without proper consideration. "We could use these powers as you suggest but we wouldn't...." And you'd trust a politician and their word?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ivorguy

Ivorguy

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

I'm not defending RA as I'm uncertain whether he has anything for which to apologise, but he's already been adjudged 'guilty by association' without punished evidence. That has to be troubling for all.

I understand, from Press, his steel plant provides steel for Russian Armed Forces

Link to comment
Share on other sites
swanker

swanker

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, VT05763 said:

Not gifted, he is a gangster of the highest order. Nothing to to with skill and hard work.

If it only took hard work and endeavour to become rich then every woman in Africa would be a millionaire.

Landed Gentry in this country didn't "earn" their wealth and lands , they took it, surrounded themselves with paid sycophants and enforced their will with violence. 

Just in this country? Things like that have always gone on and in every corner of the earth. 
As long as there are extremely wealthy people there’ll always be a string of people willing to kiss their backsides. 

Edited by swanker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...