Chelsea up for sale?

[Bristol Rob]

Also read that Chelsea are believed to have under 30,000 season ticket holders, so I assume gates will be down once those who haven't yet bought tickets are unable to do so.

[Lrrr]

3 minutes ago, Super said:

As long as RA doesn't benefit from the sale it won't be stopped. He saw this coming a mile off.

Sounds like they can be sold however they have to apply for license to do so. Now whether they want to allow that license is another question. 

[BS2 Red]

10 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Also read that Chelsea are believed to have under 30,000 season ticket holders, so I assume gates will be down once those who haven't yet bought tickets are unable to do so.

I assume they will not be allowed to sell season tickets for next season. If the club isn't sold, then Rovers will be able to claim they have bigger attendances than Chelsea. 

[cidered abroad]

24 minutes ago, CHIPLEY RED said:

Good.

I feel sorry for Chelsea fans and would hate for this to happen to Bristol City but there is a horrible war going on and football cannot be treated as a special case. I know we all think football is special but while Ukrainian hospitals are being bombed its not. If it hurts Russia and puts pressure on Putin to stop then shut the club down.

Report i read was no

Do I feel sorry for Chelsea and their fans? Like hell I do.

They were a First Division club that had only won a couple of trophies before the Oligarch arrived!

Where were they in 1975? Division Two finishing below the promoted Sunderland, Bristol City and WBA.

They can rot for all I care and if someone says that he's no different to SL, my response is.

SL has put £150 million into City including a stadium rebuild. In his home city.

Abramovic has put in a minimum of £1.5 billion. Subtle difference.

Edited March 10, 2022 by cidered abroad

[EmissionImpossible]

What a joke that it took 2 weeks to impose this. I wonder why…..

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, EmissionImpossible said:

What a joke that it took 2 weeks to impose this. I wonder why…..

Suspect Chelsea FC is the tip of the iceberg of the money he had in this country.  He will have already been moving that out.  Using Chelsea as a good-PR piece, when he’s anything but.

[Fordy62]

This has brightened my morning. 

[GrahamC]

8 minutes ago, EmissionImpossible said:

What a joke that it took 2 weeks to impose this. I wonder why…..

It’s like ******* hide & seek with this Government.

We know you are Putin’s mate but you have given us loads of money, so you have a fortnight to get everything out & then we’ll come for you.

Completely corrupt.

[Lrrr]

Wonder if all the Chelsea scholars have signed contracts yet, given Chelsea can’t renew contracts now 

[BTRFTG]

As one who worked under Patel at the HO it's no surprise she and her Government continue to excel in crass ineptitude. If only they'd expended effort in ensuring Ukrainian refugees had an expedite and safe passage to these shores instead of her hiding behind self-imposed red tape. But little changes.

As for RA and Chelsea. I've yet to see any reasoned, legal explanation as to how the Government believes it has the right to act as it has? There's a raft of legislation to handle breach of financial regulation, proceeds of crime et al yet, so far as I'm aware , RA hasn't been charged with any offence in this country or any with which we have reciprocal arrangements. I've seen no suggestion that Chelsea is implicated in such practice. RA is an Israeli citizen who holds Portuguese nationality, so whilst it's easy to decline him entry here if he's commited no crime (as charged) what right has the UK Government to sanction him as an individual for assets wholly held in the UK? From first hand account he, his ex-wife and family come across as quiet, reserved, considerate types. Maybe he isn't, but I've  no evidence to suggest otherwise. To claims he 'stole' or benefitted from the denationalization of Russian state institutions, I've no doubt he did the latter but the former, where's the evidence? Much as with Bill Gates he exploited a naive market and became abundantly rich in the process. As one who regularly travelled to Russia in those days there were many 'opportunities' proffered by state officials looking to feather their own nests (I personally was requested to 'broker' several deals involving substantial bits of 'missing' military hardware on the basis if I was expert at shifting newspapers how difficult could it be for me to offload attack helicopters and munitions?)

The 'Special Licence' fiasco this morning is straight from the script of 'Yes Minister' or 'The Thick Of It'. Sledgehammer, knee-jerk policy. Rapid realization of ill-thought and unintended consequence and more reverse ferrets than found on a Mendips coursing expedition.

For a Government that's bent over backwards to favour Derby and its corrupt administration, quite how they square their attitude to Chelsea today God only knows?

 

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by BTRFTG

[Fordy62]

4 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

As one who worked under Patel at the HO it's no surprise she and her Government continue to excel in crass ineptitude. If only they'd expended effort in ensuring Ukrainian refugees had an expedite and safe passage to these shores instead of her hiding behind self-imposed red tape. But little changes.

As for RA and Chelsea. I've yet to see any reasoned, legal explanation as to how the Government believes it has the right to act as it has? There's a raft of legislation to handle breach of financial regulation, proceeds of crime et al yet, so far as I'm aware , RA hasn't been charged with any offence in this country or any with which we have reciprocal arrangements. I've seen no suggestion that Chelsea is implicated in such practice. RA is an Israeli citizen who holds Portuguese nationality, so whilst it's easy to decline him entry here if he's commited no crime (as charged) what right has the UK Government to sanction him as an individual for assets wholly held in the UK? From first hand account he, his ex-wife and family come across as quiet, reserved, considerate types. Maybe he isn't, but I've  no evidence to suggest otherwise. To claims he 'stole' or benefitted from the denationalization of Russian state institutions, I've no doubt he did the latter but the former, where's the evidence? Much as with Bill Gates he exploited a naive market and became abundantly rich in the process. As one who regularly travelled to Russia in those days there were many 'opportunities' proffered by state officials looking to feather their own nests (I personally was requested to 'broker' several deals involving substantial bits of 'missing' military hardware on the basis if I was expert at shifting newspapers how difficult could it be for me to offload attack helicopters and munitions?)

The 'Special Licence' fiasco this morning is straight from the script of 'Yes Minister' or 'The Thick Of It'. Sledgehammer, knee-jerk policy. Rapid realization of ill-thought and unintended consequence and more reverse ferrets than found on a Mendips coursing expedition.

For a Government that's bent over backwards to favour Derby and its corrupt administration, quite how they square their attitude to Chelsea today God only knows?

 

 

I would suspect there’s a lot you don’t know. I wouldn’t have thought this will be without basis. 

[chucky]

1 hour ago, Super said:

He'll still be able to sell the club though.

Apparently not.  The licence is for the club being able to continue running.

From the BBC;

"The football club is among the assets frozen as part of the sanctions against Mr Abramovich and its sale is now on hold"

[View from the Dolman]

12 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

As for RA and Chelsea. I've yet to see any reasoned, legal explanation as to how the Government believes it has the right to act as it has? There's a raft of legislation to handle breach of financial regulation, proceeds of crime et al yet, so far as I'm aware , RA hasn't been charged with any offence in this country or any with which we have reciprocal arrangements.

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)

[ExiledAjax]

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?

[Red-Robbo]

24 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?

 

Maybe Demin at Bournemouth? He's the majority owner now. Be interesting for our division. 

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Maybe Demin at Bournemouth? He's the majority owner now. Be interesting for our division. 

Yeh, couldn't remember his name. Abramovich is the highest profile Russian owner, but he's far from the only one. All depends on  how each individual fits into the legal definitions being applied.

[Northern Red]

 

[phantom]

By MARTIN LIPTON

CHELSEA’S future has been plunged into doubt after Roman Abramovich was accused of being involved in funding and equipping Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and placed on the Uk sanctions list.

 

The move freezes Abramovich’s assets, including Chelsea.

And while the club will be allowed to continue to operate and play matches under a special licence, it can only do so under onerous conditions that also prevent the sale of the Blues.

 

Are Chelsea able to keep playing?

Yes, even though all other assets owned by Abramovich have been “frozen immediately” by the Government. Chelsea is one of those assets but “General Licence INT/2022/1327076” ensures the club can remain active. The licence “allows Chelsea Football Club to undertake activities that would otherwise be prohibited by financial sanctions, meaning the club can fulfil its fixtures and carry out football business, without undermining the impact of sanctions”.

 

What does that mean?

The club remains allowed transactions relating to the “reasonable costs necessary to host fixtures”, including providing security, catering and stewards. Wages of all employees can be met and paid, along with the costs of travelling to matches and pre-existing contractual payments regarding previous transfer and loan dealings.

 

And what about the fans?

The advice from the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation says that the sanctions order means Chelsea cannot take any more money “at the gate” or for future tickets that have not been purchased already. 

In simple terms, that allows season ticket holders or those who have already bought tickets for games to attend fixtures - but nobody else. They can buy food and drink at the game, too.

 

Hang on, that’s unfair - how can away fans attend for games where the tickets haven’t been on sale?

Prem chiefs are already seeking a solution. The most likely solution would be for Chelsea to give away their away fan allocation - 3,000 tickets per match - to their opponents for free, with any proceeds of £30 per ticket sale going direct to the Premier League. That money might then be sent to Ukraine-based humanitarian relief.

 

But the club Megastore - that’s been shut down?

Probably, although maybe not. The licence “permits parties who purchased or produced club merchandise prior to 10 March 2022 to continue selling that merchandise” but none of that money can go to Chelsea or, directly or indirectly, Abramovich. Unless there is a whole new bank account separate from the club for Megastore revenues - and that applies to ALL of the club’s High Street stores as well - they cannot trade with immediate effect.

 

And the games due to be on TV - starting with Newcastle on Sunday?

The ongoing TV contracts, domestic and overseas, can continue as normal. The OFSI says broadcasters are “permitted” to screen games “under pre-existing arrangements” and that contractually-agreed broadcast payments “related to any fixtures” can be paid. 

 

But does that mean no prize money from the Prem - or Uefa?

Again, a strict reading of the regulations could mean that happening as those payments would not be “related to any fixtures”. It’s going to be an interesting time for the Prem lawyers, too.

 

Okay - but Abramovich was looking to sell. Is that out of the window?

For now, yes. The freezing of Abramovich’s assets also preclude ANY financial dealings from which he might benefit. And a sale would mean money into his bank accounts, soi that’s a no-no. That deadline of interest due on Tuesday has suddenly been rendered redundant.

 

And how does it impact the summer? Chelsea would normally have been active in the market….is that off the agenda now?

Not entirely clear - but, probably, yes. The sanctioning means, in the first place, that there can be no funding of the club’s activities from the owner or his related companies.

But any player sales would, normally, mean money going into an Abramovich-owned entity, which would be breaking the Law. And it is equally an offence to receive money from an Abramovich company.

 

Any bank or lawyer facilitating a transaction would be liable to prosecution, too.

Theoretically, it means Chelsea cannot offer any new contracts to current players either 

Of course, the Premier League may seek to intervene to grant a further loophole at the end of the season. But, for now, Chelsea are in total transfer limbo

1 minute ago, Northern Red said:

 

Trust that shit publication to spin a story on the back of all this 

[Red-Robbo]

Currently sourcing the world's smallest violin just for the Chelsea fans....

[BTRFTG]

52 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

I would suspect there’s a lot you don’t know. I wouldn’t have thought this will be without basis. 

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

[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. 

[BanburyRed]

Nadine Dorries rattling on about protecting 'the integrity of the game' with these sanctions against Chelsea and Abramovich - ..........hmmm, really?

[BTRFTG]

1 hour 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.

Save that's what they have just fine to certain individuals. So where to draw the line?

[BTRFTG]

2 hours ago, View from the Dolman said:

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."

Lots of coulda, woulda, shoulda but where's the evidence?

Huge step from stating RA part owns a steel company to arguing it's products are used to destabalise Ukraine via weaponry. If it is he should be held to task, but is that the case? I own shares in tech companies some of whose products almost certainly are deployed in Russian munitions. Should I too be sanctioned because, if so, most on this forum hold likewise via their pensions?

Of the measures now sought imagine these were applied to members of the House of Commons who deliberately acted to destabalise Iraq, or who preferentially let contracts with UK arms suppliers, or who grant export licences for weaponry used in wars around the world. Unlike RA the latter are proven matters of fact. Or take Greensill. Those politicians who sought private sector benefit from public influence whilst in office. Those who continue to take discounted benefit from influence they hold? What difference they and RA as I don't see them being held to account?

Using the same logic I suppose we'll expect to see City suspend Massengo with immediate effect as thousands remind each week how his predilection for quaffing vodka presumably bolsters Russia's coffers?

[exAtyeoMax]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

 

Bloody hell. "Oligarch Taskforce" ?! 

[BS2 Red]

9 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

where's the evidence?

Edited March 10, 2022 by BS2 Red

[Sheltons Army]

2 hours 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.

 

Uhmmmmmm

He actually said to benefit the victims of the war in Ukraine (He didn’t specify who or which side , or both)

And as for his ‘stated intention’ , if his truthfulness has any likeness to his friend in the Kremlin......

The UK Govt can take control and ensure his wishes are met , and can be used to help the victims of this attack , namely Ukrainians

[BTRFTG]

5 minutes ago, BS2 Red said:

Jeez, what world celebrity hasn't had their photo taken with Putin?

[Sheltons Army]

7 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Jeez, what world celebrity hasn't had their photo taken with Putin?

Abramovich is vulnerable to British retaliation because of his proximity to President Putin. Their relationship goes back a long way. Abramovich was one of Putin’s early supporters. He recommended him for the top Kremlin job to Boris Yeltsin, when Russia’s ailing leader was looking for a successor.

According to the late oligarch Boris Berezovsky in evidence to the high court in London, Abramovich enjoyed significant political influence in Moscow from the second half of the 1990s. In October 1999, he attended Putin’s birthday party. Soon afterwards, Abramovich allegedly bought Putin, then the prime minister, a $50m yacht. “The request came from Mr Putin,” Berezovsky said in evidence.

By the time Putin became president in 2000, Abramovich played a key role in shaping the new government, Berezovsky added in his evidence. Abramovich selected members of Putin’s cabinet, he claimed. Abramovich had the power to open and shut criminal cases and to initiate investigations and arrests. it was alleged. He was, in short, a big Kremlin player, albeit one who operated behind the scenes.

[BS2 Red]

8 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Jeez, what world celebrity hasn't had their photo taken with Putin?

I'm sure plenty have.

But how many of those celebrities made billions in the oligarch takeover of an entire country, recommended Putin as Yeltsin's successor, interviewed Putin's cabinet and also held the governorship of a Russian province?

[BTRFTG]

7 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

He actually said to benefit the victims of the war in Ukraine (He didn’t specify who or which side , or both)

Would that make a difference? I was told a tale the other day by somebody whose son regularly played some online game or other with mates around the world and had done so for years. Two of those mates, from Russia, are now dead. Sent as conscripted cannon-fodder in an ill-equipped attempt to 'protect' Ukrainian citizens, or at least that what they were told.

Metropolitan Russians neither believe in Putin's rhetoric nor support his warmongering. We shouldn't lose sight of that fact.

[BTRFTG]

6 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

Abramovich is vulnerable to British retaliation because of his proximity to President Putin. Their relationship goes back a long way. Abramovich was one of Putin’s early supporters. He recommended him for the top Kremlin job to Boris Yeltsin, when Russia’s ailing leader was looking for a successor.

According to the late oligarch Boris Berezovsky in evidence to the high court in London, Abramovich enjoyed significant political influence in Moscow from the second half of the 1990s. In October 1999, he attended Putin’s birthday party. Soon afterwards, Abramovich allegedly bought Putin, then the prime minister, a $50m yacht. “The request came from Mr Putin,” Berezovsky said in evidence.

By the time Putin became president in 2000, Abramovich played a key role in shaping the new government, Berezovsky added in his evidence. Abramovich selected members of Putin’s cabinet, he claimed. Abramovich had the power to open and shut criminal cases and to initiate investigations and arrests. it was alleged. He was, in short, a big Kremlin player, albeit one who operated behind the scenes.

Remind the circumstance of Berezovsky's comments? Remind The Judge's scathing comments as to Berezovsky's character and standing (akin a political Pulis,)? Remind the finding of The High Court?

Clearly RA became a significant player in Russian politics. As with the world over the under the counter intertwining of commerce and politics is barely hidden, but folks are taking a leap in inferring RA and Putin are in each other's pockets. They may be, but where's the evidence? 

[downendcity]

3 hours ago, handsofclay said:

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.

You mean he’s got an “8 touch” bonus, that he knew couldn't be paid under Govt. sanctions?

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

Save that's what they have just fine to certain individuals. So where to draw the line?

Sounds like they need to bring in VAR to make that judgement.

[Sitrom]

They look like a bunch of super villains.

Well maybe just villains..

[Sheltons Army]

1 minute ago, Sitrom said:

They look like a bunch of super villains.

Well maybe just villains..

Is that also. Alan Gilzean I see there

[Super]

Shirt sponsor hasn't wasted any time!

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

Remind the circumstance of Berezovsky's comments? Remind The Judge's scathing comments as to Berezovsky's character and standing (akin a political Pulis,)? Remind the finding of The High Court?

Clearly RA became a significant player in Russian politics. As with the world over the under the counter intertwining of commerce and politics is barely hidden, but folks are taking a leap in inferring RA and Putin are in each other's pockets. They may be, but where's the evidence? 

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.”

[Red-Robbo]

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

Remind the circumstance of Berezovsky's comments? Remind The Judge's scathing comments as to Berezovsky's character and standing (akin a political Pulis,)? Remind the finding of The High Court?

Clearly RA became a significant player in Russian politics. As with the world over the under the counter intertwining of commerce and politics is barely hidden, but folks are taking a leap in inferring RA and Putin are in each other's pockets. They may be, but where's the evidence? 

 

It's OK mate. Present your question to the Foreign Office, MI6, the International Crime Bureau etc if you think the UK has been unfair to poor Roman.

I'm sure they have evidence. They may not be able to disclose it to you for state security reasons, but I'm sure he wasn't selected at random.  There are somewhere between 75,000 and 150,000 Russians in the UK.  Only a couple of hundred worldwide have been sanctioned. 

The broad reasons for sanctioning are detailed on the government website. They are much more significant than "owning shares in a weapon company". 

If RA thinks he has been unfairly treated, there is an appeals procedure. 

[Sheltons Army]

Amazing that there are posters on here who have little good to say about our football club , or our country

[Paulton Red]

4 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

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?! 

Really good book ‘once upon a time in Russia’ covers this period and is a good read. Only 99p for kindle version on Amazon