FA Cup Quarter Final Draw ( Chelsea H) and comments

[Changing Times 12,347]

7 minutes ago, Redcar Rioja said:

So Chelsea won't be inconvenienced or suffer any fall out from this then. All Clubs have a history but their current owners actions and decisions directly affect their status in the here and now (Boro 1986) even their very existence e.g. Bury and that one in the midlands again that keep crying about our owner being out to liquidate them?

Chelsea will be inconvenienced but they shouldn't be as the football club hasn't done anything wrong, and hasn't benefited in any way from Russia invading Ukraine.  That situation has absolutely nothing to do with Chelsea Football Club. The current Chelsea owner's actions aren't the issue because he hasn't actually done anything.  His nationality is the issue, which he can't really change, his past is an issue, which he can't really change either, and we've been aware of both since he first had an interest in buying Chelsea.  He was still allowed to buy them, and nobody in the UK Government gave a *** quite frankly.  They also didn't give a *** when Russia invaded Ukraine 8 years ago funnily enough.

Bury went under because the person who owned them didn't actually want to save them, as he had no interest in it at all, it's not even a remotely similar situation.  Mel Morris has done more 'wrong' than Abramovich has in English football.  

[Changing Times 12,347]

19 minutes ago, Brunners said:

It could just mean feeding employees I suppose! But people are currently interpreting it as food can be sold

Feeding employees wouldn't be an issue unless they were charging the employees for a meal.  I'd be surprised if they can buy a burger but not a Chelsea keyring or whatever but maybe food and drink is viewed as necessary for hosting an event?  Maybe they just don't want to *** off the Chelsea fans any more than they have to.

[Changing Times 12,347]

14 minutes ago, Denzel Zanzibar said:

Surely if the whole point of the sanctions is to ensure the club cannot receive any money, they can't really play in the FA Cup? There's prize money awarded for getting past each round after all.

I know, wishful thinking and I wouldn't really want to progress to Wembley that way anyway. Imagine if we won it under those circumstances? We'd be the Max Verstappen of English Football.

I think it's additional money beyond what they would have earned anyway.  So they are already in the FA Cup, they are already in the Premier League, they are already in the Champions League.  They are receiving income from those already.  But selling tickets now is new income, selling a player would be new income, and it's the new stuff that they are stopping.  Same with spending as well, they are stopping new spending or spending beyond a certain limit.  They are trying to keep the club alive until it's taken over without letting them trade as normal.  Not an easy thing to do.

[Brunners 7,982]

9 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

Chelsea will be inconvenienced but they shouldn't be as the football club hasn't done anything wrong, and hasn't benefited in any way from Russia invading Ukraine.  That situation has absolutely nothing to do with Chelsea Football Club. The current Chelsea owner's actions aren't the issue because he hasn't actually done anything.  His nationality is the issue, which he can't really change, his past is an issue, which he can't really change either, and we've been aware of both since he first had an interest in buying Chelsea.  He was still allowed to buy them, and nobody in the UK Government gave a *** quite frankly.  They also didn't give a *** when Russia invaded Ukraine 8 years ago funnily enough.

Bury went under because the person who owned them didn't actually want to save them, as he had no interest in it at all, it's not even a remotely similar situation.  Mel Morris has done more 'wrong' than Abramovich has in English football.  

Depending on how much trust you put in the UK Govt as a source, Abramovich "is or has been involved in the destabilising of Ukraine" due to his connection with a company called Evraz PLC, so it's not necessarily true that he "hasn't actually done anything".

[Redcar Rioja 5,976]

8 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

Chelsea will be inconvenienced but they shouldn't be as the football club hasn't done anything wrong, and hasn't benefited in any way from Russia invading Ukraine.  That situation has absolutely nothing to do with Chelsea Football Club. The current Chelsea owner's actions aren't the issue because he hasn't actually done anything.  His nationality is the issue, which he can't really change, his past is an issue, which he can't really change either, and we've been aware of both since he first had an interest in buying Chelsea.  He was still allowed to buy them, and nobody in the UK Government gave a *** quite frankly.  They also didn't give a *** when Russia invaded Ukraine 8 years ago funnily enough.

Bury went under because the person who owned them didn't actually want to save them, as he had no interest in it at all, it's not even a remotely similar situation.  Mel Morris has done more 'wrong' than Abramovich has in English football.  

Owners fates or whims directly affect their Club. Every case is different, always has been and always will, whether these particular circumstances should in a footballing context is a moot point. Abramovich has done nothing wrong football wise (putting to one side how he may have come into his wealth) and has been a brilliant Chairman/Owner but that doesn't mean that Chelsea won't be immune to the consequences of what's going on. The loss of merchandise sales, sponsorship and even limits on travelling expenses will hit them. Chelsea the Football Club are innocent of events in Ukraine but they are part of Abramovich's assets. Having said that their fans behaviour of late won't endear them to many.

[Blanco 4,917]

If Chelsea have already purchased the tickets from Boro for the game, why can they not sell them on to their fans at face value, thus not making any profit on them? 
By face value I mean the exact amount that they paid Boro for them as I presume them buying in bulk would have meant a mark up for them on the actual ticket sales to their own fans.

[Redcar Rioja 5,976]

3 minutes ago, Blanco said:

If Chelsea have already purchased the tickets from Boro for the game, why can they not sell them on to their fans at face value, thus not making any profit on them? 
By face value I mean the exact amount that they paid Boro for them as I presume them buying in bulk would have meant a mark up for them on the actual ticket sales to their own fans.

My understanding is that anything purchased before 10th March is good but they cannot sell  anything after the 10th March. The deadline has passed therefore no sales of tickets, merchandise or anything else. No doubt the rules will be made up as they go along.

[Changing Times 12,347]

24 minutes ago, Brunners said:

Depending on how much trust you put in the UK Govt as a source, Abramovich "is or has been involved in the destabilising of Ukraine" due to his connection with a company called Evraz PLC, so it's not necessarily true that he "hasn't actually done anything".

Destabilising Ukraine by owning a Steel company?  I think they are saying that Russia purchased Steel from them, and that some of that may have been used to make tanks.  I would say that's a significant stretch if that's what they are on about:

The company had potentially been involved in “supplying steel to the Russian military which may have been used in the production of tanks”, the government added.

Do you think that we haven't supplied Russia with things they are using in this invasion?  I'm bloody sure that we've contributed financially to it.

 

[Downsouth 6,327]

Am I correct in saying that until resolved Chelsea FC will only play at SB in front of ST holders and there will be no Chelsea fans in attendance at away games, mind you do they operate both a home and away ST policy if so there maybe some issues later on in terms of trouble and heckling!

[Denzel Zanzibar 6,972]

30 minutes ago, Downsouth said:

Am I correct in saying that until resolved Chelsea FC will only play at SB in front of ST holders and there will be no Chelsea fans in attendance at away games, mind you do they operate both a home and away ST policy if so there maybe some issues later on in terms of trouble and heckling!

Chelsea sell away season tickets, those fans have already potentially bought tickets for the FA Cup tie against us, I think they have about 650 of those so 650 max will be coming to the Riverside next Saturday and 650 max can travel to any PL away games.

Tickets for the FA Cup were put on sale for regular season ticket holders yesterday but swiftly pulled, no idea how many of those were sold or if they have been recalled. 

Only ST holders will be able to attend matches at Stamford Bridge, yeah.

[RiseAgainst 3,793]

If Chelsea turn up with 650 fans, would it be unkind to sing "your support is effing s**t" at them?

[sanddancer 1,967]

Having read the news Chelsea cash reserves won’t last long and I have read days at most. The budget for travel could mean the players driving to the game although they may not get paid for the effort. 
Sponsors and creditors are pulling out, assets froze spells the end of the club. 

[sanddancer 1,967]

14 hours ago, Changing Times said:

The club will be sold long before next season.

Tricky one. The club can’t be sold it can’t receive income therefore I believe it will have to be gifted?  

[sanddancer 1,967]

Having read the reports I think the government has acted under pressure to be seen doing the right thing. They are now displaying the head of the victim many have opposed for decades for political gain. Will the government now review ALL owners of ALL clubs and take action? I very much doubt they will to be fair which questions how they can justify allowing countries to trade with Russia especially oil and gas. 
Planning an invasion takes months if not years and governments have for a long time done little to nothing other then post sound bites and sabre rattling to look good. In reality they underestimated the threat of both Russia and China as can be seen with military cuts and boosting trade. Trade paid for China and Russia military. The reality being we are reliant on both and not self sufficient. 
I am sitting on the fence with this one because I believe successive governments, globally, have slept on watch allowing two superpowers the freedom to not only build huge military threats but own and control vast global resources needed in manufacturing. 

 

[Denzel Zanzibar 6,972]

2 hours ago, sanddancer said:

Having read the news Chelsea cash reserves won’t last long and I have read days at most. The budget for travel could mean the players driving to the game although they may not get paid for the effort. 
Sponsors and creditors are pulling out, assets froze spells the end of the club. 

Chelsea won't go under, no way