chinapig

Who will be marking Andy Carroll at corners??

The centre performsvery well. It's the people in it who are the problem.?

But will we be any better?

Yes, it's the little touches you can easily miss that make him so funny.

Yes, I love Squires' stuff. Ross Barkley fridge magnets!? Shame comments aren't open to see Chelsea fans outraged and tying themselves in knots defending their hero.

The Chelsea Supporters’ Trust have at least urged the club to withdraw their request. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/mar/15/chelsea-want-middlesbrough-fa-cup-tie-behind-closed-doors-roman-abramovich

Yes, but let's not forget he is part of the conspiracy against poor innocent little Derby, alongside the EFL and Steve Gibson. And @Mr Popodopolous.?

I don't think Maguire would mention it if he didn't think it had some merit. He did say he would say more at a later date so it is doubtless with m'learned friends. We shall see

A juicy hint in today's Price of Football podcast from Kieran Maguire. We may find out more if and when the lawyers agree but he said he had spoken to somebody who had recently been made redundant and it seems some senior people at the club and at the Administrators have been guilty of some scandalous (his word) behaviour. Watch this space.

Good piece on this from Barney Ronay: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/mar/11/shouldnt-someone-in-football-also-care-about-the-war-in-yemen-just-a-little

He is certainly a good player but Nigel said on Thursday that he hasn't been at his best. So no guarantee he gets his place back immediately.

I thought the same but it seems not.

So we now know that he is, or was, a Director as defined: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60720343

Just said on 5 Live that a club cannot start successive seasons in administration so Derby could in theory start next season still in admin and not get a further points deduction. This is allegedly what the EFL advised them. They would still need to raise money to fund the club for another season of course but it does seem absurd.

Left Barcelona, last I read was sailing past Sicily yesterday.

You are correct where the criminal law is concerned of course but that doesn't apply to civil matters. Official bodies make all sorts of decisions all the time. So e.g. if you claim benefits the courts don't decide the claim DWP does on the basis of social security law. If you believe the decision to be wrong in law you can appeal to a tribunal and from there, if granted leave, can appeal to the upper tribunal and so on up the hierarchy.

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 doubt he is now so poor that he would require legal aid. Nor is he likely to need to be a litigant in person because he can't afford representation. Only his assets in this country are frozen. The likes of us are extremely unlikely to get legal aid for a civil case. Indeed cuts in legal aid have led to increasing numbers of ordinary citizens having to be litigants in person. So I don't have much sympathy on that front. The court would certainly not stand in the way of him being represented. Being a civil case there is a lower burden proof of course and it would be a matter for judicial review. That would not require him to appear in person but if he so chooses he can do so via video from anywhere. Even his superyacht.? He will have received a detailed decision no doubt though whether he would want that in the public domain is a moot point. So he would likely use one of the London law firms with experience of representing oligarchs to make his case. Though the speed with which he announced the sale of Chelsea before being sanctioned suggests he won't pursue the matter. Much as he didn't challenge the removal of his visa in the courts iirc. I suspect a deal will be done in due course to allow the sale of Chelsea and he will go quietly.

Nigel also said he hasn't been in his best form so I doubt he would come back in. Academic since we are unlikely to keep a clean sheet.?

The government has applied the law. RA is free to challenge the decision in the courts. So there is a separation of powers.

So, on the one hand the Binnies believe there are no other bids on the table and on the other Rooney seems to have been told something might happen in the next 4 or 5 days. Don't hold your breath Wayne. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60694665

Two wrongs don't make a right. From the court judgement: It was also Mr Abramovich’s case that the lobbying activities of Mr Berezovsky, as a protector providing political krysha for Mr Abramovich, were inherently corrupt; and that, likewise, the deal between the two men, whereby Mr Abramovich agreed to pay Mr Berezovsky for his krysha services, was also corrupt. Mr Sumption accepted that Mr Abramovich was privy to that corruption but submitted that the reality was that that was how business was done in Russia in those times. “Mr Abramovich enjoyed very good relations with President Putin and others in power at the Kremlin,” the judgment recorded. “It was also clear that Mr Abramovich had privileged access to President Putin, in the sense that he could arrange meetings and discuss matters with him.”

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

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.

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