Let's All Laugh At... Let's all laugh at Chelsea thread

[Trix]

Agreed.

But by the same token, the new owners paid for a reputation unfairly won.

Any losses they incur as a result should really be a matter between them and Abramovic, not for the football authorities to adjudicate on and compensate them for.

But then they should have done their due diligence before hand, and looked into the accounts extensively. This has hardly come as a shock to anyone, and it shouldn't have been a shock to them.

If you buy a an old house with structural damage after you've had a cowboy in to survey it, it's on you to deal with the consequences, not the previous owner or the tenants.

 

[For the love of Spurs]

Agreed.

But by the same token, the new owners paid for a reputation unfairly won.

Any losses they incur as a result should really be a matter between them and Abramovic, not for the football authorities to adjudicate on and compensate them for.

Exactly, the asset was built on cheating the system. This is the risk you take, the risk that the premier league might enforce the rules they have at some point in time which appears to be right now.

We can all say how unfair it is on the Chelsea fans but what about our fans cheated out of a title for one and many players and other club fans affected. Everyone who is not Chelsea or City has been negatively affected by the cheating. Thankfully the ‘wE cHanGed OwNerShip’ cop out doesn’t seem to be relevant as it’s about the clubs themselves.

Chelsea and City signed deals with the devil and the devil wants his due.

As for Spurs and we can all sleep soundly at night knowing our ownership will never break FFP, EVER!

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

But then they should have done their due diligence before hand, and looked into the accounts extensively. This has hardly come as a shock to anyone, and it shouldn't have been a shock to them.

If you buy a an old house with structural damage after you've had a cowboy in to survey it, it's on you to deal with the consequences, not the previous owner or the tenants.

Exactly my point.

 

[Japhet]

Banhammering the new ownership for the old management would be a little unfair - especially as they came clean. But some sanctions needed (financial/transfer ban/Europe ban etc) and the club itself loses any and all "honours" won in the offending periods.

It's called due diligence though. Everybody has known for years that they were breaking the rules. If you buy a very profitable business that was artificially successful because of money laundering, then more fool you when it blows up in your face.

 

[Westmorlandspur]

But then they should have done their due diligence before hand, and looked into the accounts extensively. This has hardly come as a shock to anyone, and it shouldn't have been a shock to them.

If you buy a an old house with structural damage after you've had a cowboy in to survey it, it's on you to deal with the consequences, not the previous owner or the tenants.

They were aware of it before they bought Chelsea. They kept back 100m from the purchase price just in case. Probably think they will be ok as they self reported. I would like to know how they found it but the prem lge haven’t found it over the years that Abramovich was there.

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

It's called due diligence though. Everybody has known for years that they were breaking the rules. If you buy a very profitable business that was artificially successful because of money laundering, then more fool you when it blows up in your face.

Whilst this is true, it doesn’t exonerate the previous owner.

You can’t escape the consequences of fraud or other crimes just because someone was gullible enough to fall for your dishonesty.

 

[Westmorlandspur]

It's called due diligence though. Everybody has known for years that they were breaking the rules. If you buy a very profitable business that was artificially successful because of money laundering, then more fool you when it blows up in your face.

Matt Lawton, chief investigative reporter at the Times, said last year that they had various stories on Abramovich ,when Lawton was at the Daily Mail. He said the owners of the paper wouldn’t publish any of them because they feared being sued into oblivion if the stories were not 100%.
This is the problem of the likes of Abramovich and nation states getting involved in our football. When they break the rules, how are you going to take them on.
City need to be relegated but will it happen.

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

By the way, anyone who thinks £100m is enough to cover the extent of the wrongdoings at Chelsea is either A, stupid or B, fucking stupid!

Todd Boehly appears to qualify on both counts.

 

[Japhet]

Whilst this is true, it doesn’t exonerate the previous owner.

You can’t escape the consequences of fraud or other crimes just because someone was gullible enough to fall for your dishonesty.

The previous owner has been kicked out of the country and had a lot of assets seized so I doubt there's any point in pursuing that. What I really don't get is how he was able to write off the 1.5 billion 'loan' (which is an asset) and Chelsea haven't had to pay any of it back to the Government who seized the other assets.

 

[spursfan77]

They were aware of it before they bought Chelsea. They kept back 100m from the purchase price just in case. Probably think they will be ok as they self reported. I would like to know how they found it but the prem lge haven’t found it over the years that Abramovich was there.

I suspect they were too worried about the outcome of that.

Chelsea are cooperating now which will probably help lessen the punishment they get. But Man City have to be completely screwed, they havent played ball with the PL since day one. That will be what does for them, like it did with Everton, almost as much as the misdemeanours.

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

The previous owner has been kicked out of the country and had a lot of assets seized so I doubt there's any point in pursuing that. What I really don't get is how he was able to write off the 1.5 billion 'loan' (which is an asset) and Chelsea haven't had to pay any of it back to the Government who seized the other assets.

I don’t know if I remember correctly but I thought the government sort of wrote it off to enable a change of ownership to go ahead, rather than be held responsible for the collapse of a high profile pile of shite, or “football club” as it’s humorously called in some quarters.

 

[Japhet]

I don’t know if I remember correctly but I thought the government sort of wrote it off to enable a change of ownership to go ahead, rather than be held responsible for the collapse of a high profile pile of shite, or “football club” as it’s humorously called in some quarters.

Sounds about right to me, but either way, Chelsea have benefitted from a 1.5 billion bung that they won't have to repay. Unless they do, surely it's an issue for FFP to investigate.

 

[For the love of Spurs]

They were aware of it before they bought Chelsea. They kept back 100m from the purchase price just in case. Probably think they will be ok as they self reported. I would like to know how they found it but the prem lge haven’t found it over the years that Abramovich was there.

Pretty sure they knew, they just let a Wild West grow as it was good for business. Now you have the regulator coming like a new sheriff in town and the Prem suddenly has to enforce the rules. Like 2008 with bankers bonuses, the care free days are coming to an end and those that did wrong are slowly being rounded up.

City and Chelsea are the Bernie Madoff’s of football.

 

[rossdapep]

But then they should have done their due diligence before hand, and looked into the accounts extensively. This has hardly come as a shock to anyone, and it shouldn't have been a shock to them.

If you buy a an old house with structural damage after you've had a cowboy in to survey it, it's on you to deal with the consequences, not the previous owner or the tenants.

Exactly, they would have known the risk of taking on Chelsea.

I mean, Chelsea were supposed to have lost a billion that needed paying back, right?

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

I wouldn't hold my breath on any significant punishment for either team.

And, any penalty imposed - if ever - will be appealed for years.

 

[rossdapep]

Also, Boehly and co didn't buy Chelsea in the sense of buying a typical business to make profit.

They bought a football club. A sporting enterprise that takes part in competitions, and they bought them with the aim of making them succseful and using it as a vehicle to fatten their pockets too.

So the cost is twofold.

1. Bought a sporting enterprise that has openly cheated.
2. Bought a business that has proben to have had fradulent or suspicious activity in the past.

ZERO sympathy from me.

 

[E17yid]

Chelsea and City getting relegated would be better than winning an FA cup. It would be beyond glorious.

 

[Col_M]

But then they should have done their due diligence before hand, and looked into the accounts extensively. This has hardly come as a shock to anyone, and it shouldn't have been a shock to them.

If you buy a an old house with structural damage after you've had a cowboy in to survey it, it's on you to deal with the consequences, not the previous owner or the tenants.

and they could try and sue the previous owner. Good luck with that.

 

[Karol]

Cheatsea fc

 

[allatsea]

They were aware of it before they bought Chelsea. They kept back 100m from the purchase price just in case. Probably think they will be ok as they self reported. I would like to know how they found it but the prem lge haven’t found it over the years that Abramovich was there.

It's the three monkeys thing in action. Hands over their ears and eyes.