Jump to content
IGNORED

Chelsea up for sale?

exAtyeoMax

By exAtyeoMax
in Football Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

swanker

swanker

Posted
Posted
Just now, swanker said:

Is that right!

 

2 minutes ago, VT05763 said:

Who owns England? History of England's land ownership and how much is privately owned today - Countryfile.com

 

Apparently the church of English owns quite a bit of land. They’ll still go around with their collection plates asking for money to fix a church roof. 
People are happy to give as well!

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red-Robbo

Red-Robbo

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, swanker said:

 

Apparently the church of English owns quite a bit of land. They’ll still go around with their collection plates asking for money to fix a church roof. 
People are happy to give as well!

 

Thing is, the vast majority of their land is churchyards and cemeteries. Unsuitable for development.

You only have to think how many parishes there are in England and think the C of E has churchyards in each one, often multiple churchyards, and you soon get to a huge total acreage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chinapig

chinapig

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

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.

So we now know that he is, or was, a Director as defined:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60720343

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, chinapig said:

So we now know that he is, or was, a Director as defined:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60720343

Interesting. Supports my analysis (if I do say I do say myself). However  the BBC don't quite get it right as they don't quite distinguish between a statutory director under the Companies Act 2006, and the wider definition of Director that the PL use in their handbook.

The paragraph "Removing an owner from a board would usually trigger the sale of the shares, a process that Abramovich had instigated on 2 March after after the threat of sanctions was raised in Parliament."

Is not quite correct as RA was not on "the board" per the Companies Act 2006 (although he could potentially be deemed a shadow director, but that would likley need court determination). I'd need to check the handbook to see why removing one "director" would "usually trigger the sale of the shares" as that wouldn't be the case under the Companies Act 2006. EDIT: I've checked the handbook, I honestly don't know what basis the BBC are using for this statement. If anyone else can think of a reason why the removal of a shadow director would trigger a sale of shares in a standard company then please say.*

Regardless, this is the PL enforcing their handbook, EDIT (having re-read the handbook): and if Chelsea and RA accept this disqualification then it removes the threat of Chelsea being penalised further at the start of next season.

*there could be items in the articles of association, but that would be surprising and unusual.

 

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

daored

Posted
Posted

A BBC investigation has uncovered new evidence about the corrupt deals that made Roman Abramovich's fortune.

The Chelsea owner made billions after buying an oil company from the Russian government in a rigged auction in 1995.

Mr Abramovich paid around $250m (£190m) for Sibneft, before selling it back to the Russian government for $13bn in 2005.

His lawyers say there is no basis for alleging he has amassed very substantial wealth through criminality.

The Russian billionaire was sanctioned by the UK government last week because of his links to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Mr Abramovich's assets have been frozen and he has been disqualified as a director of Chelsea Football Club.
 

The Russian billionaire has already admitted in a UK court that he made corrupt payments to help get the Sibneft deal off the ground.

He was being sued in London by his former business associate Boris Berezovsky in 2012.

Mr Abramovich won the case, but he described in court how the original Sibneft auction was rigged in his favour and how he gave Mr Berezovsky $10m to pay off a Kremlin official.

BBC Panorama has obtained a document that is thought to have been smuggled out of Russia.

The information was given to the programme by a confidential source, who says it was secretly copied from files held on Mr Abramovich by Russian law enforcement agencies.

The BBC cannot verify that, but checks with other sources in Russia have backed up many of the details in the five-page document.

The document says that the Russian government was cheated out of $2.7bn in the Sibneft deal - a claim supported by a 1997 Russian parliamentary investigation. The document also says that the Russian authorities wanted to charge Mr Abramovich with fraud.

It says: "The Dept. of Economic Crimes investigators came to the conclusion that if Abramovich could be brought to trial he would have faced accusations of fraud… by an organised criminal group."

line

Watch Panorama

Roman Abramovich's Dirty Money is on BBC One, Monday 14 March, at 20:00 GMT and on BBCiPlayer afterwards

line

Panorama tracked down Russia's former chief prosecutor, who investigated the deal in the 1990s. 

Yuri Skuratov did not know about the secret document, but he independently confirmed many of the details about the Sibneft sale.

Mr Skuratov told the programme: "Basically, it was a fraudulent scheme, where those who took part in the privatisation formed one criminal group that allowed Abramovich and Berezovsky to trick the government and not pay the money that this company was really worth."

The document also suggests Mr Abramovich was protected by former Russian President Boris Yeltsin. 

It says law enforcement files on Mr Abramovich were moved to the Kremlin and that an investigation by Mr Skuratov was stopped by the president.

The document says: "Skuratov was preparing a criminal case for the confiscation of Sibneft on the basis of the investigation of its privatisation. The investigation was stopped by President Yeltsin … Skuratov was dismissed from his office."

Mr Skuratov was sacked after the release of a sex tape in 1999. He says it was a stitch-up to discredit him and his investigation.

He said: "This whole thing was obviously political, because in my investigations I came very close to the family of Boris Yeltsin, including via this investigation of the Sibneft privatisation."

Mr Abramovich remained in the Kremlin inner circle when Vladimir Putin came to power in 2000. 

The document contains details of another rigged auction two years later, involving a Russian oil company called Slavneft.

Mr Abramovich formed a partnership with another firm to buy Slavneft, but a rival Chinese company was planning to bid almost twice as much.

Many powerful people - from the Kremlin to the Russian parliament - would have stood to lose out if the Chinese won the auction.

The document says that a member of the Chinese delegation was kidnapped when they arrived in Moscow for the auction.

"CNPC, Chinese company, a very strong competitor, had to withdraw from the auction after one of its representatives was kidnapped upon arrival at Moscow Airport and was released only after the company declared its withdrawal."

The kidnapping story is backed up by independent sources who did not know about the document.

Vladimir Milov was Russia's deputy energy minister in the run up to the Slavneft sale. He didn't comment on the kidnapping story, but he said senior political figures had already decided that Mr Abramovich's partnership would win the auction.

"I said, look, the Chinese want to come in and they want to pay a much bigger price. They say it doesn't matter, shut up, none of your business. It's already decided. Slavneft goes to Abramovich, the price is agreed. The Chinese will be dragged out somehow."

There is no suggestion that Mr Abramovich knew anything about the kidnapping plot, or played any part in it.

His lawyers told the BBC the kidnap claim "is entirely unsubstantiated" and he has "no knowledge of such incident".

Different factions had been fighting for control of Slavneft and there was widespread opposition to the Chinese bid.

Whatever the reason for the Chinese withdrawal, Mr Abramovich's partnership had the only bid left on the table. And they bought Slavneft at a knockdown price.

Mr Abramovich's lawyers say allegations of corruption in the Slavneft and Sibneft deals are false, and he denies he was protected by Mr Yeltsin.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red-Robbo

Red-Robbo

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, daored said:

A BBC investigation has uncovered new evidence about the corrupt deals that made Roman Abramovich's fortune.

The Chelsea owner made billions after buying an oil company from the Russian government in a rigged auction in 1995.

Mr Abramovich paid around $250m (£190m) for Sibneft, before selling it back to the Russian government for $13bn in 2005.

His lawyers say there is no basis for alleging he has amassed very substantial wealth through criminality.

The Russian billionaire was sanctioned by the UK government last week because of his links to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Mr Abramovich's assets have been frozen and he has been disqualified as a director of Chelsea Football Club.
 

The Russian billionaire has already admitted in a UK court that he made corrupt payments to help get the Sibneft deal off the ground.

He was being sued in London by his former business associate Boris Berezovsky in 2012.

Mr Abramovich won the case, but he described in court how the original Sibneft auction was rigged in his favour and how he gave Mr Berezovsky $10m to pay off a Kremlin official.

BBC Panorama has obtained a document that is thought to have been smuggled out of Russia.

The information was given to the programme by a confidential source, who says it was secretly copied from files held on Mr Abramovich by Russian law enforcement agencies.

The BBC cannot verify that, but checks with other sources in Russia have backed up many of the details in the five-page document.

The document says that the Russian government was cheated out of $2.7bn in the Sibneft deal - a claim supported by a 1997 Russian parliamentary investigation. The document also says that the Russian authorities wanted to charge Mr Abramovich with fraud.

It says: "The Dept. of Economic Crimes investigators came to the conclusion that if Abramovich could be brought to trial he would have faced accusations of fraud… by an organised criminal group."

line

Watch Panorama

Roman Abramovich's Dirty Money is on BBC One, Monday 14 March, at 20:00 GMT and on BBCiPlayer afterwards

line

Panorama tracked down Russia's former chief prosecutor, who investigated the deal in the 1990s. 

Yuri Skuratov did not know about the secret document, but he independently confirmed many of the details about the Sibneft sale.

Mr Skuratov told the programme: "Basically, it was a fraudulent scheme, where those who took part in the privatisation formed one criminal group that allowed Abramovich and Berezovsky to trick the government and not pay the money that this company was really worth."

The document also suggests Mr Abramovich was protected by former Russian President Boris Yeltsin. 

It says law enforcement files on Mr Abramovich were moved to the Kremlin and that an investigation by Mr Skuratov was stopped by the president.

The document says: "Skuratov was preparing a criminal case for the confiscation of Sibneft on the basis of the investigation of its privatisation. The investigation was stopped by President Yeltsin … Skuratov was dismissed from his office."

Mr Skuratov was sacked after the release of a sex tape in 1999. He says it was a stitch-up to discredit him and his investigation.

He said: "This whole thing was obviously political, because in my investigations I came very close to the family of Boris Yeltsin, including via this investigation of the Sibneft privatisation."

Mr Abramovich remained in the Kremlin inner circle when Vladimir Putin came to power in 2000. 

The document contains details of another rigged auction two years later, involving a Russian oil company called Slavneft.

Mr Abramovich formed a partnership with another firm to buy Slavneft, but a rival Chinese company was planning to bid almost twice as much.

Many powerful people - from the Kremlin to the Russian parliament - would have stood to lose out if the Chinese won the auction.

The document says that a member of the Chinese delegation was kidnapped when they arrived in Moscow for the auction.

"CNPC, Chinese company, a very strong competitor, had to withdraw from the auction after one of its representatives was kidnapped upon arrival at Moscow Airport and was released only after the company declared its withdrawal."

The kidnapping story is backed up by independent sources who did not know about the document.

Vladimir Milov was Russia's deputy energy minister in the run up to the Slavneft sale. He didn't comment on the kidnapping story, but he said senior political figures had already decided that Mr Abramovich's partnership would win the auction.

"I said, look, the Chinese want to come in and they want to pay a much bigger price. They say it doesn't matter, shut up, none of your business. It's already decided. Slavneft goes to Abramovich, the price is agreed. The Chinese will be dragged out somehow."

There is no suggestion that Mr Abramovich knew anything about the kidnapping plot, or played any part in it.

His lawyers told the BBC the kidnap claim "is entirely unsubstantiated" and he has "no knowledge of such incident".

Different factions had been fighting for control of Slavneft and there was widespread opposition to the Chinese bid.

Whatever the reason for the Chinese withdrawal, Mr Abramovich's partnership had the only bid left on the table. And they bought Slavneft at a knockdown price.

Mr Abramovich's lawyers say allegations of corruption in the Slavneft and Sibneft deals are false, and he denies he was protected by Mr Yeltsin.

 

A little bit more here on how Abramovich used crooked deals and criminal connections to emerge victorious from Russia's "aluminium wars", which killed an estimated 100 people. Also on how his connections to Putin allowed him to "acquire" assets from other oligarchs. https://www.europeanceo.com/profiles/oleg-deripaska-and-the-russian-aluminium-wars/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

A little bit more here on how Abramovich used crooked deals and criminal connections to emerge victorious from Russia's "aluminium wars", which killed an estimated 100 people. Also on how his connections to Putin allowed him to "acquire" assets from other oligarchs. https://www.europeanceo.com/profiles/oleg-deripaska-and-the-russian-aluminium-wars/

Yeltsin- and the oligarchs- predated Putin. Something that gets glossed over at times (not suggesting you are).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
East Londoner

East Londoner

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Think it's more a case of where does the revenue go.

Chelsea could - I would imagine - donate their share, meaning Boro and the FA still get their cut. 

Who knows.

I did see on twitter also that Boro would have to take responsibility for the away fans it sold tickets to and wouldn’t have access to who was banned etc 

Theres no chance of it being behind closed doors though 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedM

RedM

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, daored said:

Chelsea today asking for cup game against Boro to be played behind closed doors as can’t sell tickets to their fans l. 

Why should the Boro fans miss out? Playbthe game and let Boro keep all the gate money.

 Chelsea are unbelievable! 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Watts

Steve Watts

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bristol Rob said:

Think it's more a case of where does the revenue go.

Chelsea could - I would imagine - donate their share, meaning Boro and the FA still get their cut. 

Who knows.

It shouldn't make any difference.  Competition rules split the gate revenues 45/45/10 between the club and the FA. So whether Chelsea fans are there or if Boro sell out the entire ground just to themselves the same money would make it's way to Stamford Bridge....or whereever the FA decide it should go.  The decision to not allow them to sell tickets makes it all very murky when cup competitions come into play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Watts

Steve Watts

Posted
Posted

Just read that Chelsea have already sold a handful of tickets before the sanction was placed on them.  Meaning the tickets were there to to buy and the fans simply....didn't! Many "big" clubs will sell out their allocation very quickly.  The fact that Chelsea didn't says a lot more about there fanbase than anything else.  

"Play it behind closed doors because our fans can't be arsed!"

Following that pattern, the Chelsea loving owner up the road could apply for all games at Milletts Memorial Stadium to be played behind closed doors!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silvio Dante

Silvio Dante

Posted
Posted

The “behind closed doors” aspect (which I’d flagged as likely on cup games when sanctions were announced) was always going to happen. There are a couple of aspects here though…

- Boro sold tickets before the sanctions were announced. Therefore they act as a “pre sanction” revenue stream for Chelsea under the split Steve identified, and are perfectly allowable under the sanctions regime. It’s the same as Chelsea being allowed to admit season ticket holders to all intents and purposes

- And here’s the rub.  If Chelsea are successful in their representation, it naturally follows that any pre existing tickets sold should not be honoured as away fans can’t buy tickets to provide revenue to Chelsea (thereby reducing sporting integrity). So they would be duty bound to play any game behind closed doors. Thereby refusing to admit any season ticket holders.

Not very bright these cockernees….

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Betty Swallocks

Betty Swallocks

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:

Just read that Chelsea have already sold a handful of tickets before the sanction was placed on them.  Meaning the tickets were there to to buy and the fans simply....didn't! Many "big" clubs will sell out their allocation very quickly.  The fact that Chelsea didn't says a lot more about there fanbase than anything else.  

"Play it behind closed doors because our fans can't be arsed!"

Following that pattern, the Chelsea loving owner up the road could apply for all games at Milletts Memorial Stadium to be played behind closed doors!

Chelsea would have had staggered sales priority much like we had for the Bournemouth game, only with more levels. I’d imagine they were only at the start of priority sales when the sanctions got placed. They would have sold the game out easily. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChippenhamRed

ChippenhamRed

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, daored said:

Chelsea today asking for cup game against Boro to be played behind closed doors as can’t sell tickets to their fans l. 

I had 0.01% sympathy for Chelsea. That’s now dropped to 0.

Great response from Boro though - having absolutely none of it!

https://www.mfc.co.uk/news/a-statement-from-middlesbrough-fc

  • Like 3
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...