That’s actually an exceedingly good point.Just got a text from a mate who’s into finance and other boring crap. he reckons Chelsea are bang in trouble as the holding company owes Abramovich £1.5b and he can’t write it off even if he wants to..That means who ever buys the club will have to buy it with that debt and no one would do that..
He believes administration is a possibility..
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
From CaitlinCFC on The Shed End:
"This seems to just be political racism against Roman and the chance to create a big story. Stealing a football club will not make any difference to those getting attacked in Ukraine, neither is there any link. Why not do something that actually makes a difference."
"This seems to just be political racism against Roman and the chance to create a big story. Stealing a football club will not make any difference to those getting attacked in Ukraine, neither is there any link. Why not do something that actually makes a difference."
This country's journalistic standards ain't what they used to be, is they?
Victims..
But does a debt owed to someone who neither wants to or can accept it really still a debt?Just got a text from a mate who’s into finance and other boring crap. he reckons Chelsea are bang in trouble as the holding company owes Abramovich £1.5b and he can’t write it off even if he wants to..That means who ever buys the club will have to buy it with that debt and no one would do that..
He believes administration is a possibility..
Their credit would be fucked but who would be chasing for it?
are his assets frozen globally? What about accounts in some other random country or in another companies name. I can't for one minute believe a backhander, separate from the club sale will not go to him via a non-UK or a country who is freezing his assets.
Whilst 'THREE' are the first to want to sever ties, they wont be the last, and more importantly it would be a pretty big PR disaster for any new company to be associated to them going forward. Gone are the days of mega sponsorship deals from the big brands.
It does, because it's a legal liability and absolutely no one is going to take it on based on the word of a sanctioned Oligarch.
Not totally sure but I doubt £1.5bn can be wiped out without it being owed to someone?
I think this will get messy with various possible outcomes..
I like the possibility of administration and will settle for nothing less
Thought you were talking about the kebab and burger van staff for a second there...
I clicked on the article to find out which three companies were suspending sponsorship before I realised it was Three :contefacepalm2:
Sky though have been lauding chelsea since 2003. Shit vanity channel. Think amazon do a great balanced job in football. Hope they beat sky to next rights.
All three of them are in essence state enterprises, representing the different regime structures of those states.
It's not as clean of a line to draw as we might like, the Leicester owners produce all of their money through a monopoly license to duty-free shops from the Thai military junta that's basically the same thing as how Roman got Sibneft, and of course just generally nobody becomes a billionaire without co-opting the structures of government anywhere.
But "no state enterprises" is a worthy line to attempt to draw, and Newcastle proves they aren't even trying.
All of this is entirely, 100% separate from transfer spending and the competitive structure of the league, of course.
I dunno. Unless there's some way of paying it to the people he stole it from it's not going anywhere. Chelsea can't afford it and nobody is going to cover it.Not totally sure but I doubt £1.5bn can be wiped out without it being owed to someone?
I think this will get messy with various possible outcomes..
I like the possibility of administration and will settle for nothing less
I know that's your original point, but I don't think it's as simple as them owing the funds.
Uncertainty is not an appealing thing in a transaction like this. And there's only so much certainty the government is going to be able to provide.Not totally sure but I doubt £1.5bn can be wiped out without it being owed to someone?
I think this will get messy with various possible outcomes..
I like the possibility of administration and will settle for nothing less