Chelski

[Alex 34912]

6 minutes ago, Howay said:

Kuper is talking out his arse. As Alex said this isn’t a punishment by football it’s a government sanction that happens to impact football, at no point did any footballing body show any sign whatsoever that they were going to move against Abramovich. Additionally, this is whataboutism and I’m fairly sure Kuper was one of those that accused Newcastle fans of it. 
 

He’s also pathetically downplaying who Abramovich is. His proximity to Putin isn’t some “no enemies” approach, how else would a man who made his wealth by essentially stealing from Russia during the breakdown of the USSR keep that money and be allowed to be anywhere near Russia by a man who wants to rebuild the very thing Abramovich (and other Oligarchs) siphoning helped break apart? There are other Oligarchs who didn’t end up like Abramovich and the others we see because they wouldn’t cost up to Putin and do his bidding. His company’s help produce the tanks currently invading Ukraine, he was a Governor in Russia, he’s helped fund separatist movements that have led to this Ukraine conflict iirc. Painting him as some jolly bloke who just wants to be friendly with everyone and avoid any bother, but unfortunately has just been caught up in this is incredibly deceptive and undermines Kupers point. Saying all that it doesn’t really matter since his entire point is moot anyway, this wasn’t done by any footballing authority so there’s no hypocrisy from that standpoint.
 

The issue was and always has been allowing fucking scum like Abramovich in, this twisting on and saying which one is worse is a needless and absurd point. 

100% this. He was (is) a fucking gangster who used that money and influence to bribe Yeltsin. That was so he could also use his cash to buy vast mineral resources owned by the state for a minute fraction of its true worth. To cling onto that, he’s been one of the people that’s turned the psychopathic Putin into one of the richest men on the planet. Don’t fucking sugar coat it, Kuper, so you can make a moralistic point whilst excusing the fact you’ve happily gone to Stamford Bridge for years and never said a dickie bird about it. 

[Christmas Tree 4711]

6 minutes ago, Tom said:

Spurs fans were desperate for the Saudis to buy them.

 

Before the sanctions all of the blue ticks were saying PIF should ditch Newcastle and buy Chelsea. 

 

Fuck them.

 

Saudi cash is magic, 

It wears a magic hat,

They wanted it at Chelsea

But Saudi said fuck that

 

Sorry  

[Alex 34912]

The real issue here is that our lot have more money than anyone else. Even more so now Chelsea are fucked (completely fucking fucked, the utter fucking cunts). 

[Craig 6682]

Just now, Alex said:

The real issue here is that our lot have more money than anyone else. Even more so now Chelsea are fucked (completely fucking fucked, the utter fucking cunts). 

 

That bit truly is marvelous! 

I'm taking football training this evening and one of the dads there is a 'Carefree' wanker who has never failed to have a pop at me about all things NUFC since his kid joined the team (about 4 years ago). I've never engaged with him on any of it yet and I don't intend to now either. But I bet he's got something to say this evening

[Alex 34912]

Also if we’re going to change legislation to stop owners like the Saudis, is there any ‘moral’ argument as to why it should only apply to football and nothing else? I’m pretty sure it would be impossible to make any legal arguments on that basis too. If we’re going to go down the route of the huge social revolution that removing all the dirty money from our country would entail then I’m all ears. Otherwise, fuck right off, as you’re the fucking hypocrites 

[Alex 34912]

4 minutes ago, Craig said:

 

That bit truly is marvelous! 

I'm taking football training this evening and one of the dads there is a 'Carefree' wanker who has never failed to have a pop at me about all things NUFC since his kid joined the team (about 4 years ago). I've never engaged with him on any of it yet and I don't intend to now either. But I bet he's got something to say this evening

I’m on a fucking roll, Craig  

[Meenzer 15432]

Football's been broken since Alf Common.

 

[Craig 6682]

7 minutes ago, Alex said:

I’m on a fucking roll, Craig  

 

 

 

 

 

[Dr Gloom 21847]

11 minutes ago, Alex said:

Also if we’re going to change legislation to stop owners like the Saudis, is there any ‘moral’ argument as to why it should only apply to football and nothing else? I’m pretty sure it would be impossible to make any legal arguments on that basis too. If we’re going to go down the route of the huge social revolution that removing all the dirty money from our country would entail then I’m all ears. Otherwise, fuck right off, as you’re the fucking hypocrites 

 

there is legislation coming to try to tackle dirty money - the economic crime bill (part 1 was just passed in parliament) and part 2, which is coming in a few months, which will hopefully introduce long-overdue reform of companies house, making it more difficult to register a new company in the name of donald duck or whatever, when the real owners are hiding behind a shell company. 

 

whether any of this leads to anything meaningful remains to be seen. it took a war before we started having serious conversations about something most people knew was happening about, but which has been swept under the carpet for decades - and under successive governments. it was actually gordon brown who introduced the golden visa scheme, which basically gave oligarchs, other kleptocrats and criminals citizenship as long as they brought enough investment with them. who cares where the money came from as long as it props up the luxury property market, private schools etc? 

[Howmanheyman 32826]

17 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

Saudi cash is magic, 

It wears a magic hat,

They wanted it at Chelsea

But Saudi said fuck that 

They wanted to buy Newcastle, 

The famous black and white 

And when Chelsea's playing their cup final against Sunderland in leyague one.....

We'll sing this song all night.

 

Sorry  

 

Good effort, CT, good effort.

 

 

 

[Alex 34912]

2 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

there is legislation coming to try to tackle dirty money - the economic crime bill (part 1 was just passed in parliament) and part 2, which is coming in a few months, which will hopefully introduce long-overdue reform of companies house, making it more difficult to register a new company in the name of donald duck or whatever, when the real owners are hiding behind a shell company. 

 

whether any of this leads to anything meaningful remains to be seen. it took a war before we started having serious conversations about something most people knew was happening about, but which has been swept under the carpet for decades - and under successive governments. it was actually gordon brown who introduced the golden visa scheme, which basically gave oligarchs, other kleptocrats and criminals citizenship as long as they brought enough investment with them. who cares where the money came from as long as it props up the luxury property market, private schools etc? 

Thing is though, whilst the Saudi money is ‘dirty’ in terms of coming from a morally bankrupt regime. It’s completely legit in any legal sense and this wouldn’t alter that. 

[Dr Gloom 21847]

33 minutes ago, Alex said:

100% this. He was (is) a fucking gangster who used that money and influence to bribe Yeltsin. That was so he could also use his cash to buy vast mineral resources owned by the state for a minute fraction of its true worth. To cling onto that, he’s been one of the people that’s turned the psychopathic Putin into one of the richest men on the planet. Don’t fucking sugar coat it, Kuper, so you can make a moralistic point whilst excusing the fact you’ve happily gone to Stamford Bridge for years and never said a dickie bird about it. 

 

i think he's right about abramovich falling for the west. no question he is a gangster, who stole his wealth from the russian people, but how much influence, if any, he has over putin is another question.  i get the impression he's against the war, but like most oligarchs is too terrified of putin to try to talk him out of it - he probably knows better than to get on the wrong side of him. putin doesn't give as much as a shit about the oligarchs as we'd like to think and these sanctions may prove futile. 

 

[NJS 4375]

6 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

there is legislation coming to try to tackle dirty money - the economic crime bill (part 1 was just passed in parliament) and part 2, which is coming in a few months, which will hopefully introduce long-overdue reform of companies house, making it more difficult to register a new company in the name of donald duck or whatever, when the real owners are hiding behind a shell company. 

 

whether any of this leads to anything meaningful remains to be seen. it took a war before we started having serious conversations about something most people knew was happening about, but which has been swept under the carpet for decades - and under successive governments. it was actually gordon brown who introduced the golden visa scheme, which basically gave oligarchs, other kleptocrats and criminals citizenship as long as they brought enough investment with them. who cares where the money came from as long as it props up the luxury property market, private schools etc? 

Sounds good but the Tories wouldn't pass anything that actually worked (or that workarounds weren't already in place or possible for). 

[Alex 34912]

1 minute ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

i think he's right about abramovich falling for the west. no question he is a gangster, who stole his wealth from the russian people, but how much influence, if any, he has over putin is another question.  i get the impression he's against the war, but like most oligarchs is too terrified of putin to try to talk him out of it - he probably knows better than to get on the wrong side of him. putin doesn't give as much as a shit about the oligarchs as we'd like to think and these sanctions may prove futile. 

 

Kind of misses the point I think. Even if they don’t have that much influence their money has made him. 

[Dr Gloom 21847]

1 hour ago, Alex said:

Thing is though, whilst the Saudi money is ‘dirty’ in terms of coming from a morally bankrupt regime. It’s completely legit in any legal sense and this wouldn’t alter that. 

 

i mean there's yemen, right? which is just as tragic as ukraine. but we're sanctioning russians, not saudis because the stakes are higher with ukraine, russia has nukes and it's on our border.

Edited March 11, 2022 by Dr Gloom

[Dr Gloom 21847]

Just now, Alex said:

Kind of misses the point I think. Even if they don’t have that much influence their money has made him. 

 

he's a benign gangster, i suppose was his point. like henry hill at the end of goodfellas

[Alex 34912]

Just now, Dr Gloom said:

 

i mean there's yemen, right? which is just as tragic as ukraine. but we;re sanctioning russians, not saudis because the stakes are higher with ukraine, russia has nukes and its on our border.

What country isn’t more concerned with enemies causing a direct threat than an ally that isn’t? 

[Dr Gloom 21847]

4 minutes ago, NJS said:

Sounds good but the Tories wouldn't pass anything that actually worked (or that workarounds weren't already in place or possible for). 

 

yeah, i suspect this will remain the case. money talks and politicians of all stripes are corrupt. we're definitely having the conversation in a way that wasn't happening before the war though, which i think has to be a good thing. 

[Craig 6682]

[Alex 34912]

Just now, Dr Gloom said:

 

he's a benign gangster, i suppose was his point. like henry hill at the end of goodfellas

That’s basically my point. He’s a benign gangster because he’s gone legit. He’s not influential because Putin’s already received billions of dollars from him and is one of the richest men in the world because of that. Putin has used that to build palaces and acquire land that almost amounts to his own private state within a state. 

[Tom 14011]

2 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

he's a benign gangster, i suppose was his point. like henry hill at the end of goodfellas

Also the Saudis are close allies and we rely on them financially across multiple routes, not least arms sales.

 

How can we disagree with the war in Yemen when it’s our weapons and systems they’re using?

[Dr Gloom 21847]

2 minutes ago, Alex said:

What country isn’t more concerned with enemies causing a direct threat than an ally that isn’t? 

 

you're right. i'm just saying the saudis and russians are cut from the same cloth 

[Dr Gloom 21847]

4 minutes ago, Tom said:

Also the Saudis are close allies and we rely on them financially across multiple routes, not least arms sales.

 

How can we disagree with the war in Yemen when it’s our weapons and systems they’re using?

reminds me of that bill hill hicks bit 

 

"Iraq: incredible weapons - incredible weapons." How do you know that? "Uh, well... we looked at the receipts."

[NJS 4375]

9 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

i mean there's yemen, right? which is just as tragic as ukraine. but we;re sanctioning russians, not saudis because the stakes are higher with ukraine, russia has nukes and its on our border.

Going all Rayvin before he gave up, from an objective point of view, the world could have easily considered several US invasions/actions as sanctionable. 

[Monkeys Fist 42129]

1 hour ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

Saudi cash is magic, 

It wears a magic hat,

They wanted it at Chelsea

But Saudi said fuck that

 

Sorry