Jackie Broon

Yep, when he comes on lare in a game the rest of the team just desperately look to get the ball to him all the time and he just tries to win the match single handed. He's much more part of the team when he starts.

Yeah. The way you can tell what the judges are going to decide just by looking at them, nothing to do with the actual evidence, purely their political persuasion. America is fucked up.

I'd recommend it, it's fascinating and terrifying, it would change your mind on the reliability of the justice system. Particularly in the US, but I imagine we have the same issues here with police deciding someone is guilty because it's convenient and twisting, or completely fabricating, the evidence to fit rather than actually trying to find the real perpetrator.

Someone who hasn't watched Making a Murderer.

In reality he is still the owner, he could decide not to sell, but eventually the club would become worthless under the sanctions and potential penalties from the PL for not removing a banned director. Yeah, Howe isn't in the same position because the owners of the club are acceptable in the eyes of the government and PL, if there are questions to be asked they should be of them rather than Howe. But Tuchel is continuing to manage a club whose owner has close ties with Putin and whose supporters continue to chant the name of, he does not deserve sympathetic press.

Abramovich still owns Chelsea, he hasn't been kicked out, he probably has no option but to agree to the club being sold but he is still the owner for now.

How is a governing body meant to make assessments like that? How are they meant to gather enough evidence to prove that Abramovich came by his money in such a way that would make him fail their test? Ultimately it is not the place of a governing body to scrutinise those issues, it's the place of government. As far as I'm aware, other than football, there is no other circumstance in the UK where prospective owners of a business have to go through an owners and directors test. The only other is for directors of NHS trusts and that is enshrined in law, unlike the football owners and directors test. Why should owning a football club be different to owning any other business or sporting club? If it decided that football is so important to us culturally that who can own clubs should be specially restricted, the test should be enshrined in law and independently assessed by a government body.

The sports media have completely bought into / pushed that narrative though, 'the fans and staff are innocent victims', 'isn't Tuchel so noble for saying he'll drive a minibus if he needs to' etc. All the while seemingly expecting us to stop supporting our club and our manager to quit because we're owned by the sovereign wealth fund of a nation that our government is a firm ally of.

It's mad that Abramovich has had the club as a plaything for 19 years, ploughed enough money into them for them to win every major trophy available in that time, has no option but to sell, yet it is still looking likely to be sold at a profit of somewhere in the region of £1 billion over the £1.65 billion he spent buying and financing the club.

The separation stuff was due to the KSA/MBS not wanting to be subject to the PL O&D test. They probably would've passed the O&D test, irrespective of the piracy stuff, but they were clearly never going to agree to be subject to it. However, it was probably because of the piracy that the PL insisted that the KSA should be disclosed as a director, knowing the they would never agree rather than it being something they would be disqualified on.

Or just say 'I meant the Chelsea fans, everyone knows the 12th man refers to a home crowd, why would you think I meant anything else?'

The US also executes hundreds of 'terrorists' each year, without trial, by drone strike.

Aye, it's clear as day that the big six are refereed and judged by VAR differently to every other team, whether that's unconscious bias or the PL seeing it as advantageous to their product for the big six to win but there's clearly something not right.

Their big problem is they just can't seem to win six pointers.

The rules require that he is removed as a director (i.e. the club is sold) within 28 days, if not the club can be suspended from the league. Btw, the reason for his disqualification will be this, because of the sanctions, rather than directly due to his links to Putin: A Person shall be disqualified from acting as a Director and no Club shall be permitted to have any Person acting as a Director of that Club if: F.1.6. he/she becomes prohibited by law from being a director...

28,000 season tickets apparently, but it won't affect our match with them because the most/all of the match tickets will probably have been sold already.

Bruce is the only swinger amongst them?

Getting a bit off topic, my point was that the Saudi-led intervention in the civil war in Yemen isn't equivalent to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The response to that isn't indicative of some kind of change in policy towards conflicts in general and when sanctions will be imposed.

Well he did deliver them their highest league finish in the past 20 years, which was their third highest in the past 65 years. Imagine having to support a club where the highest achieving managers of your modern era have been Steve Bruce and Peter Reid

It's not something that's going to be explicitly said but that's the fundamental reason. NATO countries can't get directly involved in a conventional war with Russia because of the threat of nuclear war, the only real weapon we have is sanctions.

What a fucking result!!!!

The Wolves match on the nufc.co.uk radio stream

Whilst the human cost of both is terrible, ultimately that is not the reason for these sanctions, the reason is that with the threat of nuclear response if we get involved in the conflict, it is the only weapon we have. We are literally facing the potential of WW3, nuclear annihilation of civilisation is being threatened by Putin. It's not a contest, but if it were, nothing trumps that in terms of immorality.

It's not inconsistent, Russia have invaded a neighbouring state while holding a loaded nuclear gun the the head of the western world. There is no equivalent to that since the second world war. The intervention in the civil war in Yemen has our tacit support and is essentially a proxy war against Iran. As terrible as it is, it is not equivalent to the invasion of Ukraine.

Their future would probably at Spurs / Arsenal's level, which is hardly awful, with us eventually replacing them in their regular top 4 spot.