Tbf we don't really know much fully. If we can question the French police wouldn't treat fans impartially, then we can equally question the accounts from liverpool fans and a media which is anti-french, and a sports media which treads on eggshells when it comes to pool fans. I'm not saying the pool fans are to blame, just that I think all parties were culpable to varying degrees and I'm going to reserve judgement until the full facts come out, not just what our media and the livpl fans are saying.
The French police made the Met Police look good. That may be something of an exaggeration- nothing could make them good - but they were very poor. Resorted to heavy handed tactics to try to cope with the disorganisation of the event by UEFA, the stadium and French authorities and the consequences resulting. Default position of the police everywhere in these authoritarian times
Not saying this is deliberate, but it certainly hasn't had the discussion it should have because of the "other news". However it seems the Chelsea takeover is complete. This is what the BBC said about the payment: "The UK government - which said last Wednesday it could issue a licence for the sale of the club - does not want Abramovich to receive any of the proceeds from the sale, which will instead go into a frozen bank account to be donated to charities supporting victims of the war in Ukraine." Which actually doesn't tell you much at all. For example, lets put the amount into perspective. It's more then *ten times* the current financial aid from the whole of the UK (and the UK is one of the largest donors), and it's two thirds as much as US aid (non-military aid that is). So how it's distributed is rather important don't you think? And then there's the question which appears to have been forgotten. What happened to the loan?
It tells you that Roman will not get any money from the sale and instead it will go to charity, the actual value of the club was around £3m so the new owners have paid most of that loan back (£1.25m) with the money going to said charity as part of the price paid
Did Roman agree to this? I’m just wondering if there’s a chance he could lawyer up and argue this isn’t legal. But I’m sure he must have provided written confirmation to the Govt that he agrees to £1.5bn loan being managed and distributed this way.
Not sure he has much say in it, his assets have been frozen and the sale of the club has nothing to do with him anymore. Will be interesting in a couple of years though when the war is over, he would be within his rights to say "i had no say or part in this war so where are my frozen assets?"
The issue is that the club was valued at £3bn. The proceeds from this was always going to go to the victims of the Ukraine war. Whether this included the Russian “victims” too is unclear. The proceeds will be frozen and distributed eventually. But the club was bought for 4.5 bn to cover the 1.5bn loan by Roman. There is absolutely no mention of what’s happening to 1.5bn. This ought to be handled differently from the proceeds of the sale otherwise there are implications as to whether the 1.5bn is gifted to the govt. If this is bookmarked for distribution to charities, there will be problems. As it stands, any money or assets that are frozen due to sanctions, can’t be used by the govt for any reasons. Eventually, frozen cash and assets may be returned to the Russians unless there are specific reasons that will enable govts to confiscate specific funds to distribute to Ukraine. Meanwhile, it’s still possible that Roman will get his loan returned so it’s interesting that there isn’t anything announced about this yet.
The club was owned by Roman so the sale of it goes (or should) to his frozen assets, the loan likewise is owned by him. Either it all goes to charity including the loan or it all goes into stasis until his assets are released and then goes to him.
Whatever happens to the money, Chelsea have already benefited from £1.6 billion of spending on wages and transfers that was not earned from football related activities, without which it is certain they would not have achieved the success they have had
Oh, so you don't know then. I thought the face palm in response to my question was indicating what a stupid question it was.
The loan had to be repaid in the name of fairness (so the new owners bear the true cost) . While the sale money is held in escrow, whatever profit is made from it (interest accrued etc) during that time IMHO should go into the state coffers.
African Champions League final last night: What a cracking opener. The match was held at the Stade Mohammed V in Casablanca, where Wydad play their home games. That resulted in a very, very one-sided crowd, made up of about 66,000 locals and a few Egyptians. Still looks a lot better organised than the one in Paris on the weekend, though.
