Of that I have no doubt. They tried to dress it as protecting clubs from going bust from overspending (ie Portsmouth), but we really know it was because clubs noses were put out of joint by Chelsea muscling in on the elite.
When Roman finally goes back to Russia CFC will be at the forefront of the fight against City and PSG.
Not really. In chelseas case it was more about people not liking someone who made his money in less than ethical ways suddenly thinking he can buy a club and buy success. Had Richard Branson took charge then it may have been different.
I seriously doubt that had f**k all to do with it. I would imagine it was purely from an "unsporting" standpoint, rather than an ethical one. You saying UEFA have morals?
Uefa officials would never have had the bottle to ban Chelsea or Roman's secret hitmen would have whacked them.
You're not meant to find it hilarious, I thought you'd overlook an obvious piece of bait. I still think you chavskovites are in no position to criticise PSG or City for their spending.
Its a bit like hitler or Stalin taking over a club. Extreme examples but its rich men who have got to where they are on the back of millions suffering. So while its in part because of the sporting side of things, its also because of the ethical aspect. A lot was said back then, while sky couldnt stop themselves falling over Romans millions other, less in your face media outlets were looking into his past.
Why the laugh, this could well be true. The sad thing is we let him go because we wouldn`t give him enough game time when he needed it. If he was demanding big money as a second string player i could understand it but the game time he wanted could easily have been arranged as we were (and still are) light in midfield.
