Honestly this is comical. I can't even tell if you're trolling. If you're not, well lmao.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
- Status
User Banned (5 Days): Hostility towards another member
How about instead of being a condescending cunt you explain why it's comical then?
For example, here in America the owner of the LA Clippers was a massively racist asshole. He was a disgrace and was forced by the league to sell the team. Same has happened to another owner in the past. But the team/players/staff/fans etc weren't directly punished because that would be ridiculous. You excise the cancer from the club and move on.
So why sanction the Russian and Chinese people who are not Putin or Xi?
Nah, the conditions strictly say that only people who bought tickets prior to today can attend matches.
So why are you wanting countries rulers to punish innocent civilians? They have not done anything wrong.
Premier League can't force owners to sell up. Roman Abramovich has already passed the fit and proper persons test.
Maybe next time don't chant his name during the minutes applause for Ukraine at the stadium.
They get what they deserve.
Exactly, without that he could, picking a thing at random, buy private travel to the next away game with Aeroflot for $EveryPennyYouCanDragOutOfTheClub.
Sanctioning the Russian civilians is of course aimed at putting enormous pressure on Putin in hopes that he won't be able to continue the invasion. What does sanctioning football fans accomplish is all I'm asking?
He was already in the process of selling the club. If the government wants to step in and say "no, you don't get to receive money from the sale," due to your connection to Putin that's also fair enough. So is the goal just that, then? They don't want him getting the money? Okay, great. Do that. But why the direct punishment on everyone else?
"Proceed from any sale would not go to the sanctioned individual while he's subject to sanctions"
... So he'll get his money later? Don't get this, are they scared of getting sued after the war?
I buy a Chelsea ticket.
The money goes to Chelsea.
Chelsea is owned by Roman.
Roman uses the money to help Putin.
The money goes to Chelsea.
Chelsea is owned by Roman.
Roman uses the money to help Putin.
But theyy are only sanctioning the club. They're not stopping the players from training. They are not searching supporteers homes. It is literally just the club. Yes, maybe it sucks when you're a fan, but you sold your club to a russian oligarch in the hope that he will buy you success. It was always a deal with the devil. It backfired.
And you could make an argument, the really dedicated fans (eg - season ticket holders) are even less affected.
That's a good point, but wouldn't that de-value season ticket holders? Since they paid for their seats already, but now everyone else gets them for free. And it's not like it's free, there'd be more costs for more people.
If sanctions are so good at making the people affected by them put pressure on the leader to give up - why have you spent the last few pages whining about how normal people shouldn't be affected?
You're directly proving how these things go down in reality - the people affected by them tend to blame the person/org applying the sanctions, not the person that created the situation in the first place.
Possibly. It does also give some encouragement to Abramovich to sell Chelsea now, cause right now there's little reason for him to co-operate. Some of the reasons for the sanctions include things like this:
If Abramovich wanted to fight it, which he has the legal right to, things could get messy and drag out for years. Of course sanctions can last for years anyway so who knows what'll happen with the money in the long run.
Conditions of the operating license don't allow it. Only people who have bought tickets prior to today can attend.
Those giveaways come with running costs (Security costs etc) so that involves the club spending money, which they are trying to limit.
They've known of his connections to Putin for decades and were perfectly fine with him owning the club. There are club owners in the same league who are directly connected to human rights abusing regimes, including approving the takeover of Newcastle by the regime that murdered Khashoggi just months ago.
I mean, I agree on the part of Newcastle being owned by Saudi Arabia being disgusting. However, that has nothing to do with this case. Russia started a war that is causing the West to sanction the oligarchs and Russia in general. That means that what was previously OK for some of them, is not OK now. So Chelsea being owned by a Russian Oligarch is not OK and ways to avoid him benefiting from Chelsea were put in place.
If the West decided to sanction Saudi Arabia (which would be great, for instace due to Yemen), the same would end up happening to Newcastle.
And Chelsea play Newcastle on Sunday so I'm hoping the Chelsea chants are entirely of the "You're next" variety.
Seriously. Azpi or Rudy would be great to have for the team
That's another discussion.
But yes, the owners of Newcastle and Man City should also be deposed and their assets seized.
The commentary around their fixture next week will be interesting
When the fans are just as mentally weak as their club. Soft.
Weren't there reports that Donnarumma and Neymar had to be separated in the locker room last night? Hilarious stuff.
How do you actually do that if they aren't allowed to sell players and what not because that means income, paying off Chelsea to get him wouldn't be allowed I would guess or they can sell but can't buy?
Yeah that's how I'd read up. He's bound to Chelsea as long as they pay him and no-one can unpay him.
Well, the terms of the current license expire 31st May, so things could change. Transfers are one thing, but I'd be surprised if the terms of the license prevented players or staff buying out their own contracts (even if the money gets held in escrow accounts). If the license terms basically forced players/staff to remain at the club even if they didn't want to and were prepared to exercise termination clauses themselves, that'd be something extreme. That's forced labour extreme.
Depends on the contract of course.
Christensen more than likely goes to Barcelona then. I wonder if Chelsea is still able to activate that extension Azpilicueta reportedly has in his contract still.
Disagree with people saying this is wrong because it affects fans etc... people love doing this whenever any kind of punishment is doled out to a corrupt or damaging institution. E.g. "What are all the oil rig workers going to do if we decarbonise???" It's a viewpoint which means it is impossible to ever do anything about anything.
That being said:
That being said:
Chelsea gonna play topless at Norwich
Wonder if they'll start shifting to a more Bundesliga style of ownership (answer: no)
Wonder if they'll start shifting to a more Bundesliga style of ownership (answer: no)
Unoriginal tweets about the kit but still funny
How much cash will they have at the moment?
Hefty wage bills and no money coming in for a club whose business model seem to have been reliant on borrowing money from the owner can't be very sustainable.
Maybe the taxpayer will end up having to bail them out
Hefty wage bills and no money coming in for a club whose business model seem to have been reliant on borrowing money from the owner can't be very sustainable.
Maybe the taxpayer will end up having to bail them out
- Status