Chelsea Thread - 2021/22

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

No I think he was poisoned yes, whether on purpose or as collateral damage who knows and whether by hardliners with Putin’s bless or not, I also don’t know. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be sanctioned. Watch the Panorama episode from a week ago on him. A 3 year investigation into his ties to Putin. He’s Putin’s personal banker. There are fewer closer in Russia to Putin than Roman. His steel factory produces 90% of the steel used in all of russias tanks for a start. If that is not “providing material support to Russia in the invasion of Ukraine”, then what is? That’s why I said your post was bollocks.

 

[Vialli98]

No I think he was poisoned yes, whether on purpose or as collateral damage who knows and whether by hardliners with Putin’s bless or not, I also don’t know. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be sanctioned. Watch the Panorama episode from a week ago on him. A 3 year investigation into his ties to Putin. He’s Putin’s personal banker. There are fewer closer in Russia to Putin than Roman. His steel factory produces 90% of the steel used in all of russias tanks for a start. If that is not “providing material support to Russia in the invasion of Ukraine”, then what is? That’s why I said your post was bollocks.

Is this even true? I know some MP said something to that effect in parliament but my understanding was that Evraz, the company he has a 30% share in, is a US based steel company who provides steel used in American tanks. Not Russian tanks.

 

[SWP's back]

Is this even true? I know some MP said something to that effect in parliament but my understanding was that Evraz, the company he has a 30% share in, is a US based steel company who provides steel used in American tanks. Not Russian tanks.

Who knows?

Roman Abramovich accused of ‘destabilising Ukraine’ by supplying steel for Russian tanks

Chelsea owner among seven oligarchs targeted by Foreign Office, with Liz Truss saying they have ‘blood of Ukrainian people … on their hands’

www.telegraph.co.uk

What sanctions mean for Roman Abramovich after claims his steel company provides for tanks

Chelsea owner will see more than £3bn of UK assets frozen after sanctioning

inews.co.uk

I can’t claim to know everything that he’s done but the two articles above cover the majority of what he’s accused of doing and why he’s been sanctioned. As I say, the Panorama special on him goes into far greater detail.

 

[Vialli98]

Who knows?

Roman Abramovich accused of ‘destabilising Ukraine’ by supplying steel for Russian tanks

Chelsea owner among seven oligarchs targeted by Foreign Office, with Liz Truss saying they have ‘blood of Ukrainian people … on their hands’

www.telegraph.co.uk

What sanctions mean for Roman Abramovich after claims his steel company provides for tanks

Chelsea owner will see more than £3bn of UK assets frozen after sanctioning

inews.co.uk

I can’t claim to know everything that he’s done but the two articles above cover the majority of what he’s accused of doing and why he’s been sanctioned. As I say, the Panorama special on him goes into far greater detail.

Yeah I understand the UK sanctions and there was mention of the supplying steel to Russian tanks bit. It's just that every English report I've read about the supplying steel to Russian tanks contains words like 'potentially' and 'believed to be'. And that now gets spoken about as if it's a certified fact when it's anything but. You're straight up saying '90% of Russian tanks'. If that's actually certifiably and demonstrably true, and he's doing it via a US based company, there would be zero reasons for the US to refrain from sanctioning him when the UK did. Yet they haven't.

There are plenty of things to nail Abramovich on. He's clearly not a very good guy and it's right that he's forced to sell the club, but attributing the direct facilitation of the brutal mass murder of the Ukrainians to him isn't something we should be doing without the facts to prove it beyond doubt.

I've watched the Panorama special and it touched on old ground. Abramovich already admitted in court years ago that he engaged in highly corrupt practices in order to gain influence and wealth. Nothing in there about providing steel to 90% of Russian tanks though.

 

[kaz7]

Heard on the news his mum is ukranian and he is at the peace talks today even after the so called poisoning but not directly involved , what game is he playing ?

 

[Henri Regnault]

View attachment 39303

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Heard on the news his mum is ukranian and he is at the peace talks today even after the so called poisoning but not directly involved , what game is he playing ?

 

[Bridgejunky]

Is this even true? I know some MP said something to that effect in parliament but my understanding was that Evraz, the company he has a 30% share in, is a US based steel company who provides steel used in American tanks. Not Russian tanks.

Chelsea fan so read bias into my comments if you feel that's what's going on.

Note I am not saying Roman is in the clear and should not be sanctioned. I can't say that because I do not know it to be true. My problem is that no evidence is being supplied to back up the claims made against him. The accusations against Roman are full of assertions but empty of evidence.

The Panorama program, which I saw being praised above, was a very poor piece of journalism. Examples: -

• Their evidence of links between Roman and Putin was that they were at a party together ten years ago! In any case that there are links doesn't matter. What matters is the nature of any links and whether they amount to Roman corruptly aiding Putin and supporting his war efforts.
• For legal protection the programme mentioned that Evraz denies suppling steel to the Russian armaments industry. They then continued making their point as if the denial is not true. That's fair enough. If they are confident of their information then they are justified in sticking to their guns but they have a responsibility to show how they know that the allegation is true. They didn't even hint at how they know however. It was typical tabloid tactics. Chuck the sensational headlines out there and rely on the fact that people will already have decided what they think before they notice the lack of evidence to backup the headline.
• The program asked us to accept that a 29 year old low level businessman of no repute was the architect of Boris Yeltsin's policy of rigged bidding processes for the sale of Russian state assets. This is obvious nonsense. It is no secret that Ronan paid bribes to acquire his Gazprom shares. This is not unusual, just look what is happening in our own country, but it is illegal. It can be grounds for barring Roman as a club owner but it is not a reason for sanctioning him.

If Roman is guilty of the things alleged then act against him but you have to show your evidence or at the very least explain why the evidence can't be revealed and and convince us that you are not lying. As it is, when MPs are only willing to state their assertions under Parliamentary privilege they surely have to understand why that weakens their position with anyone who is not prepared to simply lap up what they have to say.

 

[Vienna_70]

Chelsea fan so read bias into my comments if you feel that's what's going on.

Note I am not saying Roman is in the clear and should not be sanctioned. I can't say that because I do not know it to be true. My problem is that no evidence is being supplied to back up the claims made against him. The accusations against Roman are full of assertions but empty of evidence.

The Panorama program, which I saw being praised above, was a very poor piece of journalism. Examples: -

• Their evidence of links between Roman and Putin was that they were at a party together ten years ago! In any case that there are links doesn't matter. What matters is the nature of any links and whether they amount to Roman corruptly aiding Putin and supporting his war efforts.
• For legal protection the programme mentioned that Evraz denies suppling steel to the Russian armaments industry. They then continued making their point as if the denial is not true. That's fair enough. If they are confident of their information then they are justified in sticking to their guns but they have a responsibility to show how they know that the allegation is true. They didn't even hint at how they know however. It was typical tabloid tactics. Chuck the sensational headlines out there and rely on the fact that people will already have decided what they think before they notice the lack of evidence to backup the headline.
• The program asked us to accept that a 29 year old low level businessman of no repute was the architect of Boris Yeltsin's policy of rigged bidding processes for the sale of Russian state assets. This is obvious nonsense. It is no secret that Ronan paid bribes to acquire his Gazprom shares. This is not unusual, just look what is happening in our own country, but it is illegal. It can be grounds for barring Roman as a club owner but it is not a reason for sanctioning him.

If Roman is guilty of the things alleged then act against him but you have to show your evidence or at the very least explain why the evidence can't be revealed and and convince us that you are not lying. As it is, when MPs are only willing to state their assertions under Parliamentary privilege they surely have to understand why that weakens their position with anyone who is not prepared to simply lap up what they have to say.

He’s Russian. Isn’t that enough?

 

[Bridgejunky]

Who knows?

Roman Abramovich accused of ‘destabilising Ukraine’ by supplying steel for Russian tanks

Chelsea owner among seven oligarchs targeted by Foreign Office, with Liz Truss saying they have ‘blood of Ukrainian people … on their hands’

www.telegraph.co.uk

What sanctions mean for Roman Abramovich after claims his steel company provides for tanks

Chelsea owner will see more than £3bn of UK assets frozen after sanctioning

inews.co.uk

I can’t claim to know everything that he’s done but the two articles above cover the majority of what he’s accused of doing and why he’s been sanctioned. As I say, the Panorama special on him goes into far greater detail.

The Panorama program was a disgrace of tabloid journalism that should embarrass even the Express.

Have you read the Telegraph article and it's claims, perhapses, and potentiallies? I don't think you can have done. It's nothing but allegations backed up with zero, zero, evidence. That such a large percentage of our population is convinced by such weak arguments and climbs aboard the witch hunt is disappointing and scary. Did you notice that the Telegraph supports absolutely NONE of the accusations? Instead it protects itself legally by putting all of the pertinent points in quotes to make it clear that the government is saying this not the newspaper.

If Liz Truss had handed in a piece of work like this during her university days it would have been rejected for a lack of sources and supporting material. It is smoke and mirrors. Don't fall for it.

Let me make it clear once again that I am not saying Roman is innocent of the charges. I'm not saying that because I don't know it. I am saying that I have not seen any evidence to support the claims made about him.