macphisto

Because Iran is the common enemy.

Not sure how serious this proposal is but one option for Man U is to knock the stadium down and rebuild. If we stay where we are then I wouldn't be surprised if we went down this road. Obviously there's the problem of where do we play whilst it's rebuilt?

Johnson will probably Whattsapp PIF to let them know they're losing the club.

I wonder what VAR would make of this elbow?

The Western world has no right to lecture others when the leader of the West, the US, still has Guantanamo Bay. We can debate the rights and wrongs of capital punishment but it is a form of punishment that many countries adhere to across the world. Guantanamo Bay was deliberately set up to evade people having the right to a fair trial.

I don't know enough about the implications of being disqualified by the Premier League. Is Ambramovich allowed to reject offers he deems to low? Would it eventually go to something similar to a silent auction where the highest bidder wins? If we think of Ashley, he was "trying" to sell Newcastle for the last 10 years.

Makes it easier to trade though, particularly for energy supplies. I thought that was the reason some European countries were reluctant to cut off SWIFT. I might be wrong but that was my impression.

I misunderstood your question, I thought we were talking about if the club was allowed to trade as normal. Yes, sanctions will be in place for sometime. I suspect until Putin is replaced. Though I could see access to SWIFT and restoring normal Russian energy supplies fairly soon as we are not on a position to do without Russian oil and gas for any length of time. Or rather it would be too costly.

When it happens is immaterial. If the business continues to trade as normal then eventually, say 10 years from now, the club would revert back to him once sanctions are lifted. The value of the club wouldn't have significantly decreased and he would be eligible for profit accrued during that time.

If you allow the club to trade as normal then you may as well not bother with sanctions. If the club trades as normal then two things happen. 1) Value of the club more or less remains the same. 2) The business will continue to accrue profits. OK, maybe not in Chelsea's case but in theory it could turn in a profit by selling players. Once sanctions are lifted then Ambramovich would have been mildly inconvenienced at most. He wouldn't materially be any worse off.

What happens when sanctions are lifted?

A difficult question to answer, in general no I'm not in favour of them as they presume people are guilty. Difference with sanctions is that in most cases sanctions are only implemented when there has been a violation of international law or agreements and a country has been found "guilty".

For those asking what crimes has Ambramovich committed? Sanctions are not about identifying guilty parties responsible for certain actions. Sanctions are a way to coerce a country into changing its actions. Often they will target the very rich as those are the people who have direct access to those in power. It also weakens the support base for those in power. If anything, in theory it is probably best to target innocent rich people as they would then have more cause to try to implement change.

I was replying to the discussions about Chelsea in this Chelsea thread where people have raised the point of people losing their jobs. There is a thread in Chat for the war in Ukraine which is a more appropriate thread to discuss the points you've raised.

Chelsea will not cease being a club, the worst that could happen is that it becomes a new entity similar to Rangers a few years back. I wouldn't worry about them too much; indeed as l said yesterday I'm quite enjoying it. The UK does approximately £16 billion in trade with Russia. Think I'll save my thoughts for some of those businesses and employees who will really be affected rather than Chelsea. Many of whom will be outside of London without the prospect of easily finding new employment.

"Ill" is almost a euphemism now for Covid.

You're right about the Leeds game for a multitude of reasons, 3 points, Saudi break and who knows how much it influenced some of our signings in the latter part of the transfer window.

The US has invaded several countries since World War 2. The only reason they have never been rebuked is that they have loaded guns both economically and militarily.

I would say the Glazers on a much bigger scale are similar to how Newcastle was run under Shepherd/Hall in their last five years. Fans were disgruntled, everyone knew they took money out the club, not happy with managerial appointments but still kept the club competitive or at least kept up the appearance of trying. Basically we were kept happy enough not to demand change.

Glazers have bought £1.2 billion in players, champions league most years. Hicks and Gillett were only there for three years and it would have soon become untenable for them after that.. We got relegated twice. Neither of those clubs were run into the ground like we were under Ashley for such a length of time.

Fair enough, I feel the same. During the last 14 years, I'd love to have supported someone else but just couldn't do it.

Do you know much about the Middle East? There is not a chance anything will happen with the Saudis. They are not going to give up the protection of the US when they have Iran in the neighbourhood. Likewise for the US who deem the Saudi's far too valuable an ally. It is no coincidence that Trump made his first overseas visit to Saudi Arabia. He's not alone, Obama went to Saudi Arabia three times. They are a key strategic partner.

It's quite strange this board, as everyone I know off-line thinks it's hilarious what has happened at Chelsea, myself included. When I say that, I am talking from the very narrow perspective of only looking at Chelsea and not the situation in Ukraine. For a mid-sized London club the fans have had an unbelievable journey under Abramovich, beyond their wildest dreams. The worse that can happen is that they go back to their former status in a year or two.

Talk about governance of the game, I would be very wary if Chelsea get taken over by American owners. I think you could virtually guarantee the European Superleague within a few years. Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal and Chelsea under American ownership would lead to big changes in the game. Not sure what exactly but it would all be about consolidating their power and maximising their income to the detriment of every other club.

I wonder how much the decision at the time to give away 10,000 tickets played a part in Ashley selling up within a few years?