Chelsea (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
rob9872

rob9872

Well-Known Member
I probably shouldn't be surprised people care this much about Chelsea as they're modern high profile and in London. If only the same coverage was given to Bury ...
 
clint van damme

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
Sky Blue Pete said:
How do you sanction him without it affecting the club
Click to expand...

I don't care if 5hey sanction him, what I'm saying is either Sanction them all and end their involvement in this countrys institutions or don't bother.
Same with banging on about Newcastle, the PM is off to meet the Saudis in a few days, ifour PM is doing that why should a football club be any different?
 
rob9872

rob9872

Well-Known Member
clint van damme said:
I don't care if 5hey sanction him, what I'm saying is either Sanction them all and end their involvement in this countrys institutions or don't bother.
Same with banging on about Newcastle, the PM is off to meet the Saudis in a few days, ifour PM is doing that why should a football club be any different?
Click to expand...
Whist I do agree with you, two wrongs don't make a right here.

If someone had been murdered it wouldn't be ok for some else to steal the dead man's wallet however small their crime in relation to the first.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
clint van damme said:
I don't care if 5hey sanction him, what I'm saying is either Sanction them all and end their involvement in this countrys institutions or don't bother.
Same with banging on about Newcastle, the PM is off to meet the Saudis in a few days, ifour PM is doing that why should a football club be any different?
Click to expand...

I suppose the basic answer is the global sanction response to Russia

what I find slightly odd is the general acceptance that a government can freeze a persons assets as they don’t like them very much. The much droned on about delay was clearly as the government were working out ways to ensure no legal challenge was forthcoming

I doubt we’d have been feeezing any assets of Americans here if the us decided to roll back the years and Napalm Vietnam
 
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
I suppose the basic answer is the global sanction response to Russia

what I find slightly odd is the general acceptance that a government can freeze a persons assets as they don’t like them very much. The much droned on about delay was clearly as the government were working out ways to ensure no legal challenge was forthcoming

I doubt we’d have been feeezing any assets of Americans here if the us decided to roll back the years and Napalm Vietnam
Click to expand...
Classic whataboutery
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Sky Blue Pete said:
Classic whataboutery
Click to expand...
The general point about whether a government can arbitrarily freeze someone's assets is fair, however. tbh I don't know where I stand on that - on the one hand it's he path towards a controlling dictatorial government that we claim to be opposing, and along the lines of banning protest etc. On the other hand, when times are special, does government *have* to act of its own accord?
 
oakey

oakey

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
The general point about whether a government can arbitrarily freeze someone's assets is fair, however. tbh I don't know where I stand on that - on the one hand it's he path towards a controlling dictatorial government that we claim to be opposing, and along the lines of banning protest etc. On the other hand, when times are special, does government *have* to act of its own accord?
Click to expand...
You're right. Governments should have limited powers to affect private assets. But, in times of war governments give themselves special powers.
I would argue that we should be "at war" with Putin and his gangsters. I would rather freeze or confiscate assets than send bombs and bullets or send young men to die.
I would go much further, suspending or expelling all with clear links to Putin, as we would do in wartime.
We cannot stand idly by whilst gangsters infiltrate our institutions after looting Russia's wealth, then attack a sovereign nation.
 
clint van damme

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
rob9872 said:
Whist I do agree with you, two wrongs don't make a right here.

If someone had been murdered it wouldn't be ok for some else to steal the dead man's wallet however small their crime in relation to the first.
Click to expand...

I'd rather the government, whoever they are, made well thought out decisions based on sound logic rather than knee jerk ones based on getting a thumbs up from the public.
For me, that would have meant nipping this all in the bud a long time ago but it is what it is.
 
clint van damme

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
I suppose the basic answer is the global sanction response to Russia

what I find slightly odd is the general acceptance that a government can freeze a persons assets as they don’t like them very much. The much droned on about delay was clearly as the government were working out ways to ensure no legal challenge was forthcoming

I doubt we’d have been feeezing any assets of Americans here if the us decided to roll back the years and Napalm Vietnam
Click to expand...

Indeed. Similarly I doubt the Americans would have responded so tepidly had Jamal Kashoggi been chopped up by Iranians but that's the world of geopolitics I suppose.
 
S

SBT

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
The general point about whether a government can arbitrarily freeze someone's assets is fair, however. tbh I don't know where I stand on that - on the one hand it's he path towards a controlling dictatorial government that we claim to be opposing, and along the lines of banning protest etc. On the other hand, when times are special, does government *have* to act of its own accord?
Click to expand...

It’s not the government acting unilaterally - our power to sanction countries or freeze assets is based in both British law and UN resolutions which we’re obliged to follow.
 
David O'Day

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
clint van damme said:
I don't care if 5hey sanction him, what I'm saying is either Sanction them all and end their involvement in this countrys institutions or don't bother.
Same with banging on about Newcastle, the PM is off to meet the Saudis in a few days, ifour PM is doing that why should a football club be any different?
Click to expand...

Newcastle should be sanctioned because of their horrible despotic murderous owners
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Sky Blue Pete said:
Nah this is whataboutery

doubt we’d have been feeezing any assets of Americans here if the us decided to roll back the years and Napalm Vietnam
Click to expand...

no that’s a fact as is the west continuing to pile money into Russia when it needs trade but can play “look we seem tough” - which they also wouldn’t be if 40,000 uk jobs were at stake
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
It’s nonsense anyway as whatever he’s directly done himself this is a country where Shiniwatra owned a club and was described by the Boddy equivalent at the club “as a good guy to play golf with”
 
no_loyalty

no_loyalty

Well-Known Member
The government allowing Chelsea their full ticket allocation for the cup semi, after talks with the FA.
 
S

SBT

Well-Known Member
"Chelsea is more than just its owner, it's a living organism with huge importance to its fans and community," Knight said.

"It was understandable that, at short notice, last week's game against Middlesbrough went ahead without Chelsea fans.

"But with this much notice, the FA have no excuse for excluding them. The FA must be allowed to sell tickets to Chelsea fans”
Click to expand...

Thought this quote was from a Chelsea supporters group at first glance - it’s actually from the head of the parliamentary DCMS committee.

Remember when people (including on this thread) were talking about the government forcing Chelsea into liquidation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top