Okey Dokey ... the ultimate cop out ... I'll take that as a win Top Gun 0 Kiwi 3

You too ... have a lovely day .

Got to go ; the apologist for a child killer has to help his son move house .

You need to admit you pissed ya pants in front of the forum on this but you won’t.

Now you are sat in the chair. Stinking of piss, positively humming but arguing that you aren’t.

Kiwi, go check the UN vote today - just the magnificent 4 against the condemnation resolution - the cradle of democracy otherwise known as North Korea, Syria, Eritrea and Belarus. You're playing like Wilhelm Bungert in this match!

Wonder if this property RA bought back in 2008 is still in his repertoire at all. If it is, it may be one of many to go o. The chopping block.

Russian oil magnate Roman Abramovich has bought a Colorado ranch. The latest purchase is of a 14,300-square-foot, split-level house in Snowmass, near Aspen, set on 200 acres. It has 11 bedrooms, 12 baths, a media room, a climate-controlled wine room with a tasting area, a hot tub and a spa.

Sounds a civilised sort of chap.

https://twitter.com/matt5cott/status/14 ... 73059?s=21

Interesting Twitter thread on Chelsea and their post Roman finances.

By all accounts chelsea are a sustainable club right now, a combination of high player sales (a lot through the academy), lots of prize money and big sponsorship deals has allowed them to do so. They’ve taken a £1.5billion leg up to get there so does it come slowly crashing down?

Logical thinking is it brings them back in line with teams like us and Liverpool financially. Where finances are linked directly to success. Man U operate on a higher plane due to huge commercial activities and City (and potentially Newcastle) are a different level again.

This is my thinking as well. Chelsea have spent a lot in recent years, and they've spent poorly: Havertz £72m, Lukaku £97m, Werner £47m, Chilwell £45m, Zieyech £36m - none of them have lived up to expectations. You can get away with that sort of spending if you're backed by a billionaire who likes to splash the cash (like Man City in their quest for a top class central defender), but if the next owner of Chelsea is more conservative they could be in a bit of trouble. The contracts for Rudiger, Azpilicueta and Christensen are up in the summer, so they might be in a position where they will need to invest.

It all depends on who buys the club of course, but there's a chance we might see Chelsea fall down into Arsenal/Liverpool territory, rather than challenge Man City.

This is a decent piece on Abramovich

I wasn’t sure about your comment that they spent badly in recent years, although I can see why one would say that of Lukaku and maybe Werner. But as you say in the above passage, the absolutely critical factor now is who buys them.

Yes, well put together, but as he asks the question of others, perhaps he should also ask why the UK media has been, and remains, complicit in accepting the role of billionaire owners within our game. Millions of fans of the less well-endowed clubs understand how this has completely distorted the sport, yet the Fourth Estate has failed to ever seriously take on the status quo. Yesterday, after virtually two decades of supine reporting, Tuchel was put on the spot over Abramovich's future! Why weren't the importnat, tough questions being asked from 2003 onwards?

Absolutely. We just accepted this as the next step in the financial shenanigans of football. Just proves that sports washing absolutely works. Arseblog writes a really good blog this morning about it all. Worth taking a few minutes to read.

You're absolutely right about this. Experts, pundits and columnists have spent 20 years hiding behind the 'football shouldn't be mixed with politics' schtick, which was always nonsense. Football doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's part of society and it's evidently a part of politics as well.

Newcastle being bought by what is essentialy the Saudi Arabian state is the latest, and most obvious example of this, and experts were very reluctant to comment on the political aspect of it all. The problem now is that the Premier League and all the experts can't take a stand against Abramovich without being seen as the worst kind of hypocrites.

A very good piece which fairly puts the blame where it most belongs - with the football authorities and governments. The fans only ever want the best for their team, so can never be relied upon to provide a moral compass or see the big picture. Similarly the players and management have willingly jumped on the gravy train, so they are far from disinterested parties.

I find it depressing that Abramovich's assets have not been frozen by the UK government. There is equanimity about him being able to sell his club, while people die in Ukraine. Appallingly the debate is mainly about Chelsea's future. Abramovich must have some very powerful friends in the West.

I am not in London obviously but I would assume a decent percentage of the young supporters "inherited" their club from their fathers, older brothers, etc.

However, I also have to assume that a lot of kids chose Chelsea back around 2004, 2005 and the few years after that they dominated because they were the big thing going. Probably despite ther fathers being supporters of other clubs.

In the states, football took off right around that time (being shown on TV for the first time, scores part of the sports news) and Americans generally are notorious glory hunters, no shame in it at all, so I know Chelsea picked up a few fans because I've seen it.

Essentially, Chelsea bought titles and cups and with that bought a big enough fan base to sustain them. Globally as well.

The league should have long adopted standards similar to what the NFL does. There are a few requirements just to get a vote and if I'm not mistaken, 3/4 of all owners must approve the ownership.

But just to get there, you can be minority holder but not less than 30%. Your group can't have more than 24 persons in it and you can't use debt more than 1 billion (prior it was 500 million). The 3/4 vote is to keep out the Romans, Usmanovs of the world.

Less than 5 years ago the debt was 350 million. The NFL has been weakening the financial requirements. Anyway, it kept the 'wrong sort' out by having to be approved by the other owners.

I've just read an article in the Times that says Liz Truss has wanted to impose far greater sanctions on the Oligarchs but has been warned how difficult it would be from a legal standpoint which may well take months and months to counter. Ironically, the EU have had no such issues imposing sanctions. I can't understand how there remains a disparity in being able to bring such sanctions in Europe but not in the UK from a legal point of view.

I think the depth of Russian money and influence which has been allowed within the political sphere has created such a conflict of interest for the Government they're genuinely hamstrung by their own decision to allow such 'investments' and as such can't move against these people.

Yes most likely that is the case. If Parliament wants to do so, it can introduce the necessary legislation very quickly. I think an Act of Parliament trumps all other legalities.

At the time, most people condemned that. The US had very little support. Remember the ridiculous 'coalition of the willing', and the absurd attempt to rename 'french fries' 'freedom fries' (because the French did not support them). People have been calling for Blair and Bush to be prosecuted and I would absolutely support that.

Were we differ is I just do not see how this justifies Putin's actions. I am unable to see your line of argument here. It seems to be nothing but whataboutism. We should focus on the facts at hand. The whole whole world, with some exceptions (including, shamefully, South Africa, which abstained after initially strongly denouncing the invasion) are seeing this as naked aggression and extremely dangerous.

I'd also be careful of arguing that Putin is not deliberately targetting civilians or is not particularly aggressive or isn't going to use his nukes. It is the sort of position that might not age well.

Wrong again.

Perhaps you should try doing some football predictions!

Can't win them all.

Fulham v West Ham cup final? Wow...London must have been rocking.



So, West Ham in another cup final in '81 after beating us in the FA Cup in '80? Didn't know that.

You do enjoy your wine Bernard.

A few Chelsea fan forums indicate they are not particularly fond of having a Stan Kroenke sort owning their club. Mike Ashley was also mentioned, but that may have been in jest.
Neither is there any stampede of enthusiasm of having a Swiss billionaire living in Wyoming at the helm either. Wyss, being 86 and needing a consortium, is worrisome to Chelsea fans.

Sanctions imposed on Usmanov. Worth considering that had he bought the club, today was the day we could have found ourselves in a very big pile of *%^@.

Dead right. I remember Exiled being massively against his involvement at the time.

Usmanov would presumably be selling the club now, as Abramovich is apparently doing at Chelsea. But like the Chelsea situation, the critical factor would be who buys it. I certainly hope this damages Chelsea deeply, but it’s way too early to be confident it will. Who knows who will buy Chelsea, and who knows who’d have bought Arsenal from Usmanov? I suppose Daniel Ek or Dangote are the obvious candidates but nobody can be sure.

It is too early to say if Abramovich selling Chelsea will damage them and it’s equally impossible to say if Usmanov selling Arsenal would have damaged us.

It is fair to say our reputation would be forever scarred if Usmanov had owned our club. We have been very fortunate that Kroenke prevented that.

Do you seriously think Chelsea’s reputation is “forever scarred” because Abramovich bought them? Let’s be realistic rather than enjoy hyperbole. It isn’t and nor would Arsenal’s be “forever scarred” had Usmanov bought us.

Seeing as Spurs still bang on about something as inocuos as the move from Woolwich some 100 years ago, I don’t think that’s entirely far fetched. Although “in the minds of opposition fans” might mitigate “forever scarred” enough to not care about it.

To be honest I think proportionately very few Tottenham fans still do that, and I'd say those who do make themselves look ridiculous, if not laughably pathetic. So sorry but I think an expression like "forever scarred" is pure, unadulterated hyperbole.

Arsenal’s performance under Arteta

https://www.justarsenal.com/304754-2/304754

With regards to Darren's post, (thanks), we were caught between a Scylla and Charybdis scenario at the time thanks to Dein who brought both Usmanov and Kroenke into the club when neither were interested prior.

Both had significant percentage of shares so even if those on the board who held shares sold it someone else, it would have been chaotic since that person would not have had full control. We could have been in a malaise for far longer with board room battles.

That said, neither were idyllic or wanted and some of us held our noses and took a side. I wanted Usmanov at the time. I wrote my reasons then and it was because of the devil I knew. Kroenke didn't know or understand football. I thought (and still do) that its unwise at best to have an owner who I would bet a thousand pounds couldn't name more than 3 positions on the pitch (GK, central defense).

Had Usmanov took over, there is no guarantee he'd still be here. I would also suggest that using the invasion as an "I told you so" isn't completely in context because without the Russian invasion he wouldn't have been an issue. He is odious. No disagreement there. We didn't know how odious at the time. I do think though that we'd have a far better team had he taken ownership and the revival we are seeing now would have happened years earlier because Usmanov would likely would have tried to spend his way into our hearts.

Anyway, here we are, with Kroenke, things are better and we can do the 'what if' but in the end, he isn't our owner and we can have debates speculating about it had he been.

...and with regards to our reputation. Possibly. Leeds will always be the club that imploded. We are always the club that cheated our way into the then top flight.
Speculation of course, but I'd agree its possible we'd be forever tainted. Chelsea surviving Roman's reputation may offer some idea.

Just read the most insane Twitter thread about Russian involvement at Govt level here. Trigger warning…it includes Brexit. If you read one thing today it should be this.

Hey Roger is there anything you can do about the very small print posts,including your last one, as reading on a mobile is impossible without having to zoom in and out every few posts?

Can you not impose a minimum size eg?

They are up to their armpits and have been compromised. It’s not just Russia Gavin Williamson has lots on Johnson and owns him. The knighthood is very dodgy but if you remember the picture he took here and understand the implication the picture is implying you will understand why he’s being knighted. Our politicians are pretty disgusting

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... r-intrigue

In hindsight, I wonder why Dein didn't try to partner with Dangote. As far as I know he had the funds, loves Arsenal, and is about as pristine as a multi-billionaire can be (behind every great fortune is a great crime being true usually).

Kroenke didn't even know Arsenal existed and there was no evidence that I see that Usmanov was an Arsenal fan prior.

Choosing between Dangote and Kroenke wouldn't have been so muddy. Just thinking.

How many people across the football world do you think are even aware of it? Hardly anyone I would say. Maybe more Arsenal and Tottenham fans than the huge number of supporters following other clubs. But I don’t think it’s well known.

Has Arsenal’s reputation been forever scarred, or even tainted? I genuinely don’t think so.

Hey kiwi .. your best mate has now tried to attack a nuclear power plant that supplies a third of the country’s power.

Kiwi, kiwi ! Talk to me mate.

K
I
W
I


Talk to me mate.