Premier League 2021/22

[gunnar hendershow]

 

[Lineker]

Quote

The trustees of Chelsea's charitable foundation have not yet agreed to take control of the club, BBC Sport has learned.

On Saturday, Chelsea's Russian owner Roman Abramovich announced he was handing them "the stewardship and care" of the club.

The billionaire, who would remain the club's owner, made the move amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Members of the charitable foundation met on Sunday to discuss the situation.

But some have concerns over whether Charity Commission rules would allow them to run the club, and the foundation's lawyers are now exploring what can be done.

There are also understood to be some members of the foundation concerned about their legal liability if they agree to take on responsibility for running the club.

The announcement from Abramovich was made on the eve of Chelsea's Carabao Cup final against Liverpool at Wembley.

"I have always taken decisions with the club's best interest at heart," Abramovich said on Saturday.

"I remain committed to these values. That is why I am today giving trustees of Chelsea's charitable Foundation the stewardship and care of Chelsea FC.

"I believe that currently they are in the best position to look after the interests of the club, players, staff, and fans."

Following Abramovich's statement, which did not reference the invasion of Ukraine, Chelsea released another statement on Sunday which said the situation was "horrific and devastating".

"Chelsea FC's thoughts are with everyone in Ukraine. Everyone at the club is praying for peace," said the west London club.

The Chelsea Supporters' Trust said it was "seeking urgent clarification" on what Abramovich's statement on Saturday means for the running of the club.

It is not known yet if Abramovich will be sanctioned as part of the UK Government's measures against Russia.

BBC Sport understands Chelsea are not for sale, and the £1.5bn loan their owner gave to the club is not being called in.

Abramovich is one of Russia's richest people and is believed to be close to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The Chelsea Foundation runs the club's community and education departments as well as other charitable activities. Its chairman is US lawyer Bruce Buck, who is also chairman of the club as a whole.

The foundation's other trustees are Chelsea women's team manager Emma Hayes, the club's director of finance Paul Ramos, British Olympic Association chair Sir Hugh Robertson, Fare (Football Against Racism in Europe) chief Piara Powar and lawyer John Devine.

During Abramovich's time at Chelsea, the club have won the Champions League twice, both the Premier League and FA Cup five times, the Europa League twice and the League Cup three times.

Earlier in the week, Labour's Chris Bryant told MPs he had a leaked Home Office document that suggested Abramovich should not be able to base himself in the UK. He said the government should remove his ownership of Chelsea FC and seize his assets.

On Sunday, Bryant tweeted: "Unless and until he condemns the criminal invasion of Ukraine I will continue to call for the UK to sanction him and seize/freeze assets."

Downing Street would not be drawn on the claims about Abramovich made in the House of Commons.

The Chelsea Supporters' Trust said it was "ready to work with the trustees of the Chelsea Foundation in order to ensure the long-term interests of the club and supporters".

It added: "We stand with the people of Ukraine."

 

[Szumi]

 

 

[Hobo]

 

[Colly]

Did you just pick a thread at random?

[Adam]

55 minutes ago, Colly said:

Did you just pick a thread at random?

Maybe Alexander Orlov is the new Leeds manager?

[Colly]

I wish. I always struggle to balance my hatred for the meerkat adverts against the fact I know it's Simon Greenall's voice.

[METALMAN]

Is the meerkat facing sanctions?

[Lineker]

Quote

The Charity Commission has contacted Chelsea’s charitable foundation to ask for more information about Roman Abramovich’s plan to pass the care and stewardship of the club to the organisation’s trustees, who are yet to agree to the new arrangement.

Abramovich’s decision to relinquish the running of Chelsea came after a call in parliament for him to face sanctions and the move has come under growing scrutiny since it was announced on Saturday evening. The Russian has not given up his ownership of the club and the foundation’s trustees are understood to feel there are legal and regulatory problems, as well as ethical concerns, over the change of stewardship.

There are several unanswered questions over the move and the trustees are unsure about whether running a football club would be compatible with charity law. They do not know who they would be answerable to, whether a separate entity would need to be created and whether there would be liability over future decisions. It also remains unclear whether sanctions will be imposed on Abramovich, while Chelsea are at risk of being in a vulnerable financial position if their owner is targeted by the UK government.

Abramovich, who has vehemently denied he has any links to Vladimir Putin and Russia or that he has done anything to merit being sanctioned, was said to have reached his decision to transfer stewardship because of the increased focus on him following the invasion of Ukraine. The haste with which the move was made was said to have surprised the trustees, who were not consulted before the decision was made on Saturday. But nothing has been agreed yet and the move has attracted the attention of the Charity Commission, which has also received a report from Chelsea’s foundation.

A Charity Commission spokesperson said: “We have contacted the charity seeking information and, in line with our guidance, the charity has also made a report to the commission. We cannot comment further at this time.”

The Charity Commission’s response will be a consideration for some trustees as they ponder how to move forward. It is understood some trustees could decide to step aside from the foundation, though no decisions have been made yet.

The transfer of stewardship has been met with scepticism in some quarters. The Labour MP Chris Bryant told the Guardian on Sunday that it was a “Russian ruse” and expressed fears it was an attempt by Abramovich to avoid sanctions. One source suggested Abramovich had been jolted into acting quickly when Bryant told parliament last Thursday that the Russian was identified by the Home Office in 2019 as having links to the Russian state as well as to “corrupt activity and practices”.

Chelsea have reportedly insisted the transfer of power is not an attempt to avoid sanctions but rather to save the club from potential “reputational and strategic damage”. Legal experts have also questioned whether transferring stewardship amounts to anything given Abramovich still owns Chelsea and, providing he is not sanctioned, can still fund the Stamford Bridge club.

Sources have said nothing has changed at Chelsea. Their charitable foundation is headed by Bruce Buck, the club’s chairman. The other trustees are Emma Hayes, the Chelsea Women’s manager; Piara Powar, the executive director of the anti-racism organisation Fare; Paul Ramos, Chelsea’s director of finance; the sports lawyer John Devine; Sebastian Coe, president of World Athletics; and Hugh Robertson, chairman of the British Olympic Association and a former MP and sports minister.

Football decisions – including transfers, contracts and the future of the manager, Thomas Tuchel – will be the responsibility of the director Marina Granovskaia and the technical and performance director, Petr Cech. They are already heavily influential in running the club, and in practical terms little will change for now on a day-to-day basis.

Abramovich’s move is likely to attract interest in Chelsea from potential bidders, although the club have said they are not for sale. It is unclear if a sale would be possible if Abramovich is sanctioned.

Chelsea have been approached for comment.

 

[Baddar]

[DFF]

Ambramovich has put Chelsea up for sale - wants £4bn for them. 

[Gazz]

20 hours ago, Baddar said:

Did they get over the penalty stripe?

[Lineker]

 

[gunnar hendershow]

2 hours ago, DFF said:

Ambramovich has put Chelsea up for sale - wants £4bn for them. 

I saw billionaire Hansjorg Wyss is being linked with buying the club. 

It'll be interesting to see what happens with Chelsea. They've had a lot of success bankrolled by Abramovich but as far as I know haven't converted that into profitability in the sense that Levy has made Spurs into a cash cow. Will a new owner/ownership group want to get the books straight at the expense of the club's success?

[DavidMarrio]

The biggest thing for any new owner for Chelsea from my understanding (the Chelsea contingent on here will know more than me) will be around any potential debt that might be owed to Abramovich and then issues around any potential stadium move. 

It also appears there may be a rebuilding job somewhat defensively given Rudiger looks set to go, there's talks of Azpi going back to Spain and Christensen has reportedly agreed to go to Barca

[stokeriño]

What I don't understand about these stories, from Roman's perspective, is if they're prompted by potential asset freezes/etc, how exactly is exchanging a football club for a wad of cash helping any of that for him?

If anything, I'd expect sanction-creators to be more lenient on a football club with a large public following than other kinds of financial assets.

[Lineker]

 

[gunnar hendershow]

52 minutes ago, stokeriño said:

What I don't understand about these stories, from Roman's perspective, is if they're prompted by potential asset freezes/etc, how exactly is exchanging a football club for a wad of cash helping any of that for him?

If anything, I'd expect sanction-creators to be more lenient on a football club with a large public following than other kinds of financial assets.

I haven't really understood this. And I don't think the government does either, and they're hoping he just sells the club and goes away so they don't have to try to understand it.

[stokeriño]

I don't really think that the people who in a position to apply sanctions (the government) and the people who want to see Chelsea sold (potential buyers and those in the media/sport who have been dreaming of it since 2003) are the same people. If anyone in government thinks that Chelsea being sold will somehow make anything easier for them, they haven't got a clue what sanctions are meant to be for or how they work.

Oh wait, it's this government. Disregard.

But in all seriousness, this kind of external "ooh he could sell" noise has happened before from time to time and Roman has done nothing. While the context of the war is a lot more serious this time, all that matters is whether Roman feels it's in his own best interests to sell the club, and I can't see how/why sanctions would prompt that.

[Lineker]

What bank is going to want to get involved lending money in any potential deal?