Roman Abramovich splits the Mailbox between Chelsea fans and everybody else. Send your views on this or anything else to theeditor@football365.com
Do trophies trump dead children?
If you find yourself compelled to defend a billionaire thief, take a moment to pause, reflect, then f**k off.
If your defence is ‘well of course he was never critical of Putin, that’s dangerous’ then recognise that’s pathetic. You are literally defending the ‘every man for himself’ position, on behalf of a billionaire. Meanwhile ordinary people get disappeared on a daily basis for fighting for what is right. Your argument only shows your own lack of spine when it comes to things that matter. The man has power that 99.9999% of people will never know. And you excuse what is at best rampant cowardice, at worst corrupt and evil participation in a dangerous and brutal regime.
Gary Neville’s words on the matter are an embarrassment. Tell the people of Yemen that Saudi Arabia’s investment In Newcastle is a good thing for them, because now Saudi Arabia will be influenced by Britain. How that works is unclear, as is why that would be in any way beneficial to anyone. But don’t worry, I’m obviously being facetious. By the time the Saudi blood money wins the league Yemenis won’t even exist, and Sky will explain why that’s actually a good thing because it freed up space for the new Newcastle-upon-Yemen megadome.
Hero-worshipping billionaires is the new writing to serial killers. Pathetic weasels chasing psychopaths.
thayden
…Abramovich has never been decent in any way shape or form.
The chap has been funding settlers in Palestine for years. To the tune of a 100 mill – displacing people from their homes – according to the BBC.
Lets not get this twisted, it’s good he is going. Now all Chelsea need is a cleanse of the last vestiges of their horrific racist, thuggy fanbase.
A general comment on football and media coverage of Ukraine – it is amazingly tone deaf for the people reading it who aren’t blue eyed and blond haired. Remarkable.
Big Shmoo (brain teaser – is Roman cleaner for getting rid of Chelsea or vice versa?)
…Just a quick qualifier to Tim Colyer’s email. Roman didn’t say he was giving away all the money from the sale. He said he was giving away “net proceeds”. That word “net” is crucial, because it means money is being held back.
Does that mean he’s going to hold back the £140m he paid Bates and give away the rest? Does it mean he’s only going to give away any profit if the sale price covers the cost of his loans (which I know he’s not “calling in”, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t a factor in fixing the sale price)? Does it mean he’s going to fix an arbitrary value for the club and give away any profit he makes on that number – £4bn for example, the ludicrously big figure Roman is apparently asking for that would value Chelsea – a club incapable of operating at its current level without enormous loans feom its owner- as the most valuable club in world sport according to Forbes.
When it comes down to it, I wouldn’t be surprised if his Ukraine relief fund is worth less than the yacht he gave to his bestie Vladimir as a present that one time (allegedly).
We don’t know, because it’s deliberately vague language designed to sound magnanimous that doesn’t actually mean much. That offer is no more compelling than his paper thin “stewardship of the trustees” nonsense. It is just posturing to look good in the hope that he can avoid sanctions or, if he can’t, buy enough time to get his cash out of the UK before they hit him.
Roman is going to sell Chelsea for a sum in the low billions along with the rest of his London property portfolio, pocket most of it, send a nice gift basket to the Ukranians who’ve been bombed, and retire to Isreal in obscene luxury. And, while the Germans are off confiscating Alisher Usmanov’s yacht, our government are inexplicably going to let him do it.
Andy (MUFC)
…Over the past few seasons, it was oft repeated, that Chelsea is now a self-sustaining club. Which made me wonder at the out-pouring of grief with the club’s sale by Abramovich.
You lucked into lottery money, then have the gall to say the success was earned by selling youth players. When losing your sugar daddy, you start crying about the injustice of it all and praising a horrible person who funds an evil regime. The description of “A decent man” (Tim Colyer) and “totally innocent” (Alex) when glorifying Abramovich made me throw up so much, the Exorcist crosses the street when it saw me coming.
The lack of self-awareness and basic human decency puts Chelsea fans in a category of one – people who’d do anything to be associated with success. And no, it’s not special, Chelsea fans. Any other club can do it, there is no special sauce, no winning formula. It’s just money.
I hope you will be irrelevant in three years, going down the path of Leeds Utd or Blackburn and looking to Big Sam to save you from relegation.
Vinnie Pee
The Chelsea view
Well, it’s certainly been an “interesting” time to be a Chelsea supporter in the last few days. It seems that supporters of many sides who have seen their teams slump into mediocrity from the heights of mediocrity they previously inhabited have decided it was all Chelsea’s fault.
If anyone has a genuine gripe it could possibly be Arsenal but the rest? Not having it.
It was also interesting to see the views of Alan Shearer and Micah Richards as they poured scorn on Abramovich’s pledge to sell the club and donate the net proceeds of the sale to a Charity to look after the victims of the war in Ukraine , just wait until they figure out it’s “the Victims” not just the Ukrainian ones, that on air debate at half time in a football match should be a doozy .
I’m glad that those protectors of a nations moral compass are happy to support Newcastle’s take over by the Saudis and the ownership of Manchester City by Abu Dhabi , both countries with appalling human rights records including the forced disappearances of anyone who disagrees with the regime , torture used as punishment , religious discrimination and diminished rights for women, as just the tip of the iceberg.
Even the aforementioned Arsenal are taking sponsorship money from the Rwandan state where their leader got 99% of the votes in the election and Amnesty international stated that there were politically motivated reprisals carried out against persons living outside the country , unlawful and arbitrary killings by the government and our old friend torture again. Alan Shearer will be livid.
I first went to Chelsea in the late sixties so I’m really looking forward to enjoying the delayed rise to dominance of Spurs and West Ham now that the shackles are off.
Lastly I hope peace will return to the war torn areas soon and that no more Russians and Ukrainians are killed on the whim of a psycho and no I don’t mean Abramovic whatever Pierce Morgan or the Daily Mail may think .
Getting a bit chilly here , best turn the gas on.
Mark Kelly
…Abramovich’s decision to support the victims of the Ukrainian war is a massive middle finger at the UK government and fans of rival clubs. Which British billionaire has donated any funds or even speak out and directly against Putin’s Russia? Why must he subjected to double standards when he has no say in Russia’s foreign policy? He recently won a libel case against Harper Collins in a British court who have to retract derogatory remarks in controversial book about Putin’s inner circle by Catherine Belton.
There’s too much bias in the treatment of Roman Abramovich. Nothing good he does get widespread coverage. Most of it stems from his nationality, his wealth and the fact that he completely reshaped the landscape of English football. All the work done for the Jewish people around the world is underreported. Chelsea were one of the few clubs to continue paying staff during lockdown when clubs that claim to have moral high grounds like Liverpool wanted the furlough of their own workers. Sky Sports didn’t report it on the same the free meals to frontline workers or donations by Chelsea instead reported Man Utd dimming the lights at Old Trafford in support of health care workers. It contributed to the loss column of our finances but Roman didn’t care, he did the right thing.
There’s no billionaire anywhere in the world without links to government whether perceived as corrupt or not, it’s the reality of global business. Government itself is a corrupt entity and is very hypocritical at its very core just ask Boris Johnson.
Roman leaves Chelsea in a strong position. We have a great academy with top class talent coming through. The best will get their chance in the team while the others will be sold for profit. Chelsea already have a brand associated with success and we’ll continue to get top signings and sponsorships. Our outlay last season on young talents has paid dividends already and those players will only get better. I have no doubt Abramovich will only sell to owners who have genuine interest of the club at heart. All in all, Chelsea isn’t going anywhere haters, we’re here to stay.
I’ll miss Abramovich, the only club owner who actually a fan and genuinely loves the club, #Respect.
Double Eph
/
…As a Chelsea fan I didn’t give a shit how Roman got his money, having watched United, carve up the league I wanted a piece of that and in came the man who was going to do it. The breaking up of Russian state monopolies to be sold for ‘cash for shares’ didn’t worry me. Besides I had seen similar from the sale of state assets in the UK throughout the 80’s, BT, Post Office, British Gas privatisation made some people very rich.
So the fun began, in modern parlance the under privileged where not only dinning at the top table they fucking owned it, Club directors who used to enjoy the privilege of ‘big club status’ were pissed at new money. David Dein’s famous comment of Roman’s tanks turning up at Highbury firing £50 notes. But relatively unknown was that years before Hoddle wanted to sign Bergkamp from Inter to pair up with Gullit, but Chelsea were potless and Arsenal and Dein stepped in, the rest is history, he wasn’t upset then.
Roman promised fun and delivered every trophy there was to win. To see the established hierarchy in Europe apoplectic that this man could come in and not only take them on but beat them at their own privilege was delicious. it saw them push UEFA to bring in FFP to quell Roman the tiger. His money and transfers helped finance the cash flow of European football for good and for bad.
Roman will not be forgotten, but it will be interesting to see how so many fans of clubs moralising about Chelsea now look in the mirror at their own clubs, where the money comes from with the owners, their sponsors and what they represent.
I’m looking forward to the likes of Ian Herbs, Henry Winter, John Cross firing questions at Guardiola, Eddie, Howe, Pochettino even Arteta regarding the clubs backers.
Roman, thanks for the memories, as Big Chris says in Lock Stock “It’s been emotional”
P Didi
Loan write-off not dodgy
A lot of uproar about the £1.5 billion loan write off in the mailbox as its “creative accounting” and clearly an unruly way of circumventing potential FFP issues.
It’s as simple as converting the loan to share/capital contributions, this bumps up the value of the assets by the same amount as there is no longer a loan liability so effectively boosting the value of the club from £2.5 billion to £4 billion.
There is no rule against this as you can do this in any company (yes football clubs are companies), the shouts of corruption and a blueprint for City and Newcastle are a bit late as City have done this for years, and it’s completely legal as long as you can show the business is sustainable.
Chris – accountant – available for any other seminars (Just because you don’t understand finance it doesn’t mean its corrupt/wrong/fraudulent)
Football fans and hypocrisy
I like to think I am a reasonable, easy-going fan but some of the conversations dominating football discourse recently have made me a bit annoyed even though as a Liverpool fan, my fellow fans are in the thick of it.
Take the refereeing controversies – we had many Arsenal fans both in the mailbox and social media vent about how so many decisions have gone against them and wondering if there was a conspiracy against their team (I’m sure they have a detailed breakdown of the decisions that have gone against, say Burnley or Leeds right?). Many of them said all they wanted was consistency and fairness- a line fans use often. This always makes me laugh. What most fans really want is for as many refereeing decisions to go in their favour and as few to go against them irrespective of the rightness or wrongness of it. It’s quite noticeable that teams (including mine) celebrate when they get away with a big decision that should have gone against them and also celebrate when their rivals get a big decision against them. It’s never been about justice or consistency.
It’s a similar situation with the Rodri non-penalty against Everton. It’s a shame it wasn’t given, but seeing my fellow Liverpool fans and Everton fans losing their minds about it was quite something. We all know that if either team had got away with what City did, they would be delighted and would have dozens of justifications for it. Once we are on the wrong side, we start talking conspiracies and incompetence and how those moments will make or break the season. Once we benefit, we celebrate.
I get it to an extent – being a fan of a club has bias built into it and quite often that bias is more theatrical than anything else (witness fans instantly demanding a penalty whenever their player falls in the box). It’s part of the fun of football and can be harmless when it’s just venting. But when fans start talking conspiracies in the context of their very flexible views on the matter, it starts looking a bit empty.
Turiyo Damascene
The quad is on (not really)
Well that’s it, just award us the quadruple now! I mean we’re in the quarter finals of the FA cup, so we’ve practically won it. Take that United!
Can we all be serious please? The word quadruple shouldn’t even be mentioned at the moment. It’s absolutely ludicrous. Yet it’s in the papers, websites and was even mentioned in the commentary of the FA cup tie. Can we all just pause and reflect?
Liverpool are second in the league. They’re 6 points behind City (with a game in hand). The match between Liverpool and City is at the Ethiad. The last 5 league matches there have been 1-1, 4-0, 2-1, 5-0 and 1-1, with those 3 wins going to City. Liverpool also have the harder run in. Yes there a chance, but City are firm favourites.
In the Champions League, Liverpool are not even in the quarter finals yet (although you could say they have one foot in there). There are still 3 rounds to go after the last 16 and Liverpool could play City, Chelsea, Bayern or PSG (or any other perfectly decent team). Against all those teams they’d have a decent chance, but it’s not exactly a sure thing.
As for the FA cup, there are still 3 rounds left to win it. Liverpool could face City, Chelsea or a team like Southampton who are no mugs, especially at home.
According to the bookies, Liverpool are 2nd favourites for every trophy they are still in contention for. And who is the favourite for all those trophies? City. In other words it’s far more likely that City win the treble (which would still be a historic achievement) than Liverpool win the quadruple. So why is all the fuss about Liverpool and there’s no talk yet of City matching the United team of ’99?
What’s frustrating is that we’re going to hear this after every Liverppol win from here until we’re out of contention for one of the trophies. All the attention is coming from the media, yet when the season is over I’m sure we’ll get mails saying “All Liverpool fans were saying you were going to win the quadruple, ha ha ha.” So let’s just be clear. No Liverpool fan is saying that, unless they are completely moronic. Everyone is just enjoying this great team and hoping we’ll be in contention for something come the end of the season. So please, media, pundits etc. calm down. This is incredibly unlikely to happen.
Mike, LFC, London
Nearly men
Marc in the morning mailbox talked about nearly men in terms of teams.
Well in terms of players, the ‘Nearliest’ man of all must surely be 2002’s Michael Ballack. Runner-up in the Bundesliga with Bayer Leverkusen, losing the title on the final day to Dortmund, having surrendered a five-point lead.
Leverkusen also lost the German Cup Final to Schalke, and the CL Final to Real Madrid (that Zidane goal).
To ‘bottom’ off his year, Ballack’s Germany then lost the World Cup Final to Ronaldo-inspired Brazil.
Ouch!
Vinny, LFC, Colchester
…Marc, any mention of nearly men has to include the Bayer Leverkusen team of 2002, who in the space of eleven days;
•Finished second in the Bundesliga to Borussia Dortmund (after having being top going into the penultimate round of fixtures)
•Lost the DFB-Pokal final to Schalke 04
•Lost the Champions League final to Real Madrid, courtesy of a pretty decent Zidane volley.
Little wonder their nickname is ‘Neverkusen’.
Dario
The post Roman Abramovich: Psychopath or philanthropist? appeared first on Football365.