Abramy didn't buy Chelsea out of a genuine love of English football developed from watching all their great old players like erm Kerry Dixon and John Spencer then?!
Me yesterday morning 'wow that's harsh on football fans, must be tough'
Me yesterday after seeing Chelsea fans singing RA's name during their game 'ahh fuck em'
@TheDancingYak said:
It says Chelsea are banned from selling tickets to fans. Could they just give them to away fans?
Innovative way to bust sanctions
Wasn’t really done to bust the sanctions, more of a way to allow travelling fans follow and support their team at Chelsea’s ground.
Them being banned punished every other teams supporters while Chelsea can have all their season ticket holders at games. Away teams will have zero support. Doesn’t seem right to me.
This does undermine the fairness of the competition. I can see that Abramovich as an individual and Chelsea as a club shouldn't be able to profit from sales of tickets to away fans in the future but this should not result in a ban on away fans. This seems so obvious.
Sports Minister Nadine Dorris (I can't think too deeply about that) has talked about varying the special licence under which Chelsea are allowed to operate.
The only important variation that I can think of is the one to keep the competition fair. I suggest that the order should compel Chelsea to make available their normal allocation of away tickets which the away can sell making a donation to a charity - I think I could trust Nadine Dorris to make a list of approved charities.
Chelsea are allowed £500,000 to stage each home game - if there are additional stewarding costs or policing costs it can come out of that.
It should have been forseeable to the Sports Minister at least that providing an opportunity for a significant proportion of 28,000 Chelsea season ticket holders to sing Ambramovich's name continuously and unchallenged throughout a game would not be fair to the players of any opposition team, or indeed a good governance course of action.
At the end of all this it would be useful to take a proper look at who this country thinks should be a fit and proper person to own a football club. Is a football club a community asset or is it a business? Who is a fit and proper person to run a business / community asset for which brand loyality has such deep roots and emotional value to so many individuals.
PS in an Edit: I am more angry about Putin's war in Ukraine than I am about fairness in the Premier League, but this is a football forum.
It should have been forseeable to the Sports Minister at least that providing an opportunity for a significant proportion of 28,000 Chelsea season ticket holders to sing Ambramovich's name continuously and unchallenged throughout a game would not be fair to the players of any opposition team, or indeed a good governance course of action.
When it comes to the discussion about what sanction to take against a Country and it's citizens regarding the invasion of another Country, I doubt that the feelings of football fans or players was high on the agenda.
It should have been forseeable to the Sports Minister at least that providing an opportunity for a significant proportion of 28,000 Chelsea season ticket holders to sing Ambramovich's name continuously and unchallenged throughout a game would not be fair to the players of any opposition team, or indeed a good governance course of action.
When it comes to the discussion about what sanction to take against a Country and it's citizens regarding the invasion of another Country, I doubt that the feelings of football fans or players was high on the agenda.
Nadine Dorris says that is what she was doing - this from the BBC - "Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries has said her focus was on protecting Chelsea Football Club, its fans and the "national game" despite owner Roman Abramovich being sanctioned." Here is a link to their story with a video clip of her talking.
I apologise if I came across as political point scoring - I just think the consequence of banning away fans was not thought out, should have been thought out and that decision should be changed as soon as possible.
@railwaysteve. No apology necessary, I didn't read your comment as political point scoring.
I have to admit I have not read that article, but doubt that Nadine Dorris is getting much say in the broad picture. My feeling is that it would be more a case of 'these are the sanctions we are imposing', you find something to say to deal with the fallout.
When it comes to the discussion about what sanction to take against a Country and it's citizens regarding the invasion of another Country, I doubt that the feelings of football fans or players was high on the agenda.
I think it absolutely was. The Government wants to look hard for the UK media. There's votes in it. Meanwhile few care about Saudi amongst others despite what they are doing in Yemen. But then they buy British weapons, so that's OK.
Interesting viewpoint from Tehran. Not sure Iran is any less guilty in global terms but there is truth here about Western hypocrisy. Mankind is a horrible species.
Personally, I'm gutted that all of my Chelsea loving friends & relations will not be able to buy tickets for games at Stamford Bridge and will therefore be obliged to take up their usual matchday positions on the sofa.
@Glenactico said:
Anyone complaining this is unfair or that the consequences for fans are unreasonable needs to get some perspective.
It’s quite possible to simultaneously think that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the biggest threat to life as we know it in a generation, and think Brentford fans are being hard done by.
I understand that the pitch itself is leased from a freeholder. The freeholder is not Chelsea FC or Abramovich. I think when Ken Bates was selling in the 90s he put this in place. One of the leasehold requirements is that the team that always plays on the pitch must be called Chelsea and that freeholder decides who can play.
Not sure what relevance this has in this situation and to the wider stadium.
Strangely, I was more surprised when the Chelski fans initially supported Ukraine against the Russian onslaught than I am by the rabid support for Roman being shown now.
:Like many of us I am capable of holding two or more thoughts in my head at one time, so whilst being deeply concerned and angered about Putin's war against Ukraine, I am also angered by the continued actions of the Saudis in Yemen, the Israelis in the occupied territories/Lebanon/Syria, the US in Somalia & Russia/Syrian government in Syria.
Similarly, whilst I have little time for the Premier League & their international cast of poseurs, the skewing of the competitive atmosphere by not allowing away fans at The Bridge bothers me and is inherently unfair on the other 19 teams in the PL. The ideal solution for me was suggested above of allowing the away team to sell the usual allocation of tickets and donating the proceeds to a relevant charity' sadly I wouldn't trust Nadine Dorres to sit the right way on a toilet far less come up with a sound range of options to this problem.
As usual, faced with something that needed careful consideration of all the issues and a practical solution rather than a kneejerk, ill-informed populist, idiotic move that they believe will make them look decisive to the 'base', while actually causing more confusion and achieving very little, the government goes for...
The article seemed reasonably clear in that prospective buyers approach the government with
a) their bid price,
b) proposals as to where the funds will be held (i.e. an account Abramovich cannot access until sanctions are lifted),
c) details of where the net proceeds will go (anything above the £1.4-1.5bn RA has put into the club)
d) presumably (though unsaid) a budget for how they will fund the club in line with PL regs.
e) necessary information re "fit & proper person" owners test
f) a request based on the foregoing to vary the licence to allow the sale to proceed
Sounds like they can apply to be able to sell tickets to away fans or to make any changes or even sell the club as long as they can justify that it's needed and Abromovich won't directly benefit from it at this point. Ie for a sale the money can go in a pot he can't control until things change or if he's extremely true to some of what was being hinted at someone can sell it on his behalf and give the Money away.
@Erroll_Sims said:
:Like many of us I am capable of holding two or more thoughts in my head at one time, so whilst being deeply concerned and angered about Putin's war against Ukraine, I am also angered by the continued actions of the Saudis in Yemen, the Israelis in the occupied territories/Lebanon/Syria, the US in Somalia & Russia/Syrian government in Syria.
Similarly, whilst I have little time for the Premier League & their international cast of poseurs, the skewing of the competitive atmosphere by not allowing away fans at The Bridge bothers me and is inherently unfair on the other 19 teams in the PL. The ideal solution for me was suggested above of allowing the away team to sell the usual allocation of tickets and donating the proceeds to a relevant charity' sadly I wouldn't trust Nadine Dorres to sit the right way on a toilet far less come up with a sound range of options to this problem.
Just last season there was a period of time certain cities could have fans and others couldn't (Liverpool being one).
Comments
Nick Fucking Freeman. Who cares?
I’m more interested in Watford signing an 18 year old Uche on the text at the bottom.
Beat me to it! I wonder how things went for Moyes at Old Trafford.
Abramy didn't buy Chelsea out of a genuine love of English football developed from watching all their great old players like erm Kerry Dixon and John Spencer then?!
I for one am shocked.
I like that idea.
Me yesterday morning 'wow that's harsh on football fans, must be tough'
Me yesterday after seeing Chelsea fans singing RA's name during their game 'ahh fuck em'
This does undermine the fairness of the competition. I can see that Abramovich as an individual and Chelsea as a club shouldn't be able to profit from sales of tickets to away fans in the future but this should not result in a ban on away fans. This seems so obvious.
Sports Minister Nadine Dorris (I can't think too deeply about that) has talked about varying the special licence under which Chelsea are allowed to operate.
The only important variation that I can think of is the one to keep the competition fair. I suggest that the order should compel Chelsea to make available their normal allocation of away tickets which the away can sell making a donation to a charity - I think I could trust Nadine Dorris to make a list of approved charities.
Chelsea are allowed £500,000 to stage each home game - if there are additional stewarding costs or policing costs it can come out of that.
It should have been forseeable to the Sports Minister at least that providing an opportunity for a significant proportion of 28,000 Chelsea season ticket holders to sing Ambramovich's name continuously and unchallenged throughout a game would not be fair to the players of any opposition team, or indeed a good governance course of action.
At the end of all this it would be useful to take a proper look at who this country thinks should be a fit and proper person to own a football club. Is a football club a community asset or is it a business? Who is a fit and proper person to run a business / community asset for which brand loyality has such deep roots and emotional value to so many individuals.
PS in an Edit: I am more angry about Putin's war in Ukraine than I am about fairness in the Premier League, but this is a football forum.
When it comes to the discussion about what sanction to take against a Country and it's citizens regarding the invasion of another Country, I doubt that the feelings of football fans or players was high on the agenda.
Nadine Dorris says that is what she was doing - this from the BBC - "Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries has said her focus was on protecting Chelsea Football Club, its fans and the "national game" despite owner Roman Abramovich being sanctioned." Here is a link to their story with a video clip of her talking.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-60692438
I apologise if I came across as political point scoring - I just think the consequence of banning away fans was not thought out, should have been thought out and that decision should be changed as soon as possible.
@railwaysteve. No apology necessary, I didn't read your comment as political point scoring.
I have to admit I have not read that article, but doubt that Nadine Dorris is getting much say in the broad picture. My feeling is that it would be more a case of 'these are the sanctions we are imposing', you find something to say to deal with the fallout.
Anyone complaining this is unfair or that the consequences for fans are unreasonable needs to get some perspective.
.
I think it absolutely was. The Government wants to look hard for the UK media. There's votes in it. Meanwhile few care about Saudi amongst others despite what they are doing in Yemen. But then they buy British weapons, so that's OK.
Interesting viewpoint from Tehran. Not sure Iran is any less guilty in global terms but there is truth here about Western hypocrisy. Mankind is a horrible species.
https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/470892/Deafening-silence-for-Yemen-loud-outcry-for-Ukraine.
Personally, I'm gutted that all of my Chelsea loving friends & relations will not be able to buy tickets for games at Stamford Bridge and will therefore be obliged to take up their usual matchday positions on the sofa.
Who owns the ground?
I've got tickets to see the Blasters at Under The Bridge in July. Its a great venue. Hate to see that get mixed up in all of this.
It’s quite possible to simultaneously think that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the biggest threat to life as we know it in a generation, and think Brentford fans are being hard done by.
I understand that the pitch itself is leased from a freeholder. The freeholder is not Chelsea FC or Abramovich. I think when Ken Bates was selling in the 90s he put this in place. One of the leasehold requirements is that the team that always plays on the pitch must be called Chelsea and that freeholder decides who can play.
Not sure what relevance this has in this situation and to the wider stadium.
https://www.chelseafc.com/en/cpo
Honoured to have John Terry as their president....
Strangely, I was more surprised when the Chelski fans initially supported Ukraine against the Russian onslaught than I am by the rabid support for Roman being shown now.
:Like many of us I am capable of holding two or more thoughts in my head at one time, so whilst being deeply concerned and angered about Putin's war against Ukraine, I am also angered by the continued actions of the Saudis in Yemen, the Israelis in the occupied territories/Lebanon/Syria, the US in Somalia & Russia/Syrian government in Syria.
Similarly, whilst I have little time for the Premier League & their international cast of poseurs, the skewing of the competitive atmosphere by not allowing away fans at The Bridge bothers me and is inherently unfair on the other 19 teams in the PL. The ideal solution for me was suggested above of allowing the away team to sell the usual allocation of tickets and donating the proceeds to a relevant charity' sadly I wouldn't trust Nadine Dorres to sit the right way on a toilet far less come up with a sound range of options to this problem.
As usual, faced with something that needed careful consideration of all the issues and a practical solution rather than a kneejerk, ill-informed populist, idiotic move that they believe will make them look decisive to the 'base', while actually causing more confusion and achieving very little, the government goes for...
Anyone understand how this works? Prospective buyers can approach the government. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/mar/11/potential-chelsea-buyers-told-they-can-approach-uk-government-roman-abramovich
The article seemed reasonably clear in that prospective buyers approach the government with
a) their bid price,
b) proposals as to where the funds will be held (i.e. an account Abramovich cannot access until sanctions are lifted),
c) details of where the net proceeds will go (anything above the £1.4-1.5bn RA has put into the club)
d) presumably (though unsaid) a budget for how they will fund the club in line with PL regs.
e) necessary information re "fit & proper person" owners test
f) a request based on the foregoing to vary the licence to allow the sale to proceed
Sorry, anything to do with economics fries my brain a bit
Sounds like they can apply to be able to sell tickets to away fans or to make any changes or even sell the club as long as they can justify that it's needed and Abromovich won't directly benefit from it at this point. Ie for a sale the money can go in a pot he can't control until things change or if he's extremely true to some of what was being hinted at someone can sell it on his behalf and give the Money away.
If that means that the UK Government now owns CFC, they are f****d.
Just last season there was a period of time certain cities could have fans and others couldn't (Liverpool being one).
They'll probably flog it off to one of their Russian donor mates... oh, hang on.
Let Jeremy Hunt the Chelsea fan, show the same the same enthusiasm for assisting down at Stamford Bridge as he did for the NHS !!
Let's all clap for the Chelsea. It helped to save the NHS and Ukraine, after all.