So is it the case that he is chasing that loan back because otherwise he won't get a penny from the sale of a club he raised from middling relevance to a global force?
It appears that a "letter of the law" argument is being made
whereby repayment of a loan to a person who is being
sanctioned via financial restriction, is not the same as them
profiting from the sale of an asset (and therefore should
not be be subject to the bounds of the attack) .
Which of course conflicts with the desire to prevent Roman
receiving a penny via any channel.
