• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Cheatski are still scum

Lilbaz said:
Didn't know about hyundai.

Yes it would have to agreed with the player to terminate.
Click to expand...
I also don't think they can write off players who still have a value on their books - that sounds like the kind of thing a frozen business would be restricted from.
 
scaramanga said:
I also don't think they can write off players who still have a value on their books - that sounds like the kind of thing a frozen business would be restricted from.
Click to expand...

Possibly. But the licence does give the government leeway in what the club can do to stay afloat. If needs be they could start selling tickets and merch again. But they'd have to show they'd face bankruptcy if they didn't.
 
scaramanga said:
I had always assumed they would still have access to the money they were contracted to - just as they have to continue paying what they're contracted to pay.

See my numbers posted the other day - if the sponsors leave then they're fudged with or without TV money.
Click to expand...

Regarding accessing money they were contracted to.

The OFSI General Guidance contains a useful explanation of the approach taken by OFSI in relation to the licensing grounds that were typically found in EU sanctions legislation and that are now relevant to UK sanctions. These include:

  • Making available funds or economic resources necessary to satisfy the basic needs of designated persons: OFSI considers that ‘basic needs involve those expenses which are necessary to ensure that the very existence of the designated person or dependent family members is not imperilled. These needs will be different if the designated person is a legal entity rather than a natural person.’ OFSI does not consider that this ground should be used to enable designated persons to continue the lifestyle or business activities they had before they were designated.
  • Legal fees and disbursements: OFSI states that such fees must be reasonable and must relate specifically to the provision of legal advice or involvement in litigation or dispute resolution. In addition, the sums that could be expected to be recouped if costs were awarded in litigation ‘provide a useful starting point for assessing the reasonableness of legal fees and disbursements’.
  • Satisfaction of prior court judgements or arbitration decisions against the designated entity: OFSI’s position is that the judgment or decision must have been given before the date of designation, and cannot be for the benefit of a designated person.
  • Satisfaction of prior contractual obligations of the designated person: again, OFSI contends that the contract or obligation must have arisen prior to the date of designation and cannot result in funds or economic resources being made available to the designated person.
  • Extraordinary expenses: OFSI states that these must be extraordinary in nature (unexpected or unavoidable and so not recurring or easily anticipated). This ground cannot be used where other grounds are more suitable or as a way of avoiding the clear limitations of those other grounds.
Guessing this has been overridden by the top one. Funds have been made available to use.

Edit - it goes on.

  • OFSI confirms that generally frozen funds, and any profits from frozen funds, cannot be invested. The OFSI General Guidance states that exceptions or licensing grounds are unlikely to allow for such activity. However, the OFSI General Guidance does note that in certain circumstances ‘some asset management may be permitted, under the “basic needs” licensing ground, to ensure that the existence of the business or the frozen assets is not imperilled’. Such an application will be considered by OFSI on a case-by-case basis.
 
Lilbaz said:
He is not facing any criminal charges in the uk. He is just being sanctioned due to his links with putin. Whatever else we think of him or how he got his money doesn't change that.

The question was whether chelsea would be deducted points if they went into administration.

Firstly they won't. The sanctions are not in place to punish chelsea. The government doesn't want chelsea to go bust.
If somehow they did go into administration, the premier league would have to acknowledge the situation was not in chelseas control. They wouldn't give them a points deduction for it.

I'm trying to answer the question of what will happen. Not what we want to happen.
Click to expand...
The 9 points deduction is automatic. That rule was introduced 15 odd years ago to prevent any case by case basis arguments.
 
Gutter Boy said:
The 9 points deduction is automatic. That rule was introduced 15 odd years ago to prevent any case by case basis arguments.
Click to expand...

Not automatic. From the premier league handbook.

Upon a Club or its Parent Undertaking suffering an Event of Insolvency the Board shall have the power to impose upon the Club a deduction of nine points scored or to be scored in the League competition. If the Board exercises this power it shall forthwith give written notice to the Club to that effect.

Subject to Rule E.35, the Club may appeal against the deduction of points by sending or delivering to the Board Form 3 so that it receives the same together with a deposit of £1,000 within seven days of the date of the notice given under the provisions of Rule E.33.

The only ground upon which a Club may appeal in accordance with Rule E.34 is that:E.35.1. the Event of Insolvency was caused by and resulted directly from circumstances, other than normal business risks, over which it could not reasonably be expected to have had control; andE.35.2. its Officials had used all due diligence to avoid the happening of such circumstances.

At the end of the day the prem will probably have a vote beforehand on what should be done in the case of chelsea going into administration.
 
Lilbaz said:
Not automatic. From the premier league handbook.

Upon a Club or its Parent Undertaking suffering an Event of Insolvency the Board shall have the power to impose upon the Club a deduction of nine points scored or to be scored in the League competition. If the Board exercises this power it shall forthwith give written notice to the Club to that effect.

Subject to Rule E.35, the Club may appeal against the deduction of points by sending or delivering to the Board Form 3 so that it receives the same together with a deposit of £1,000 within seven days of the date of the notice given under the provisions of Rule E.33.

The only ground upon which a Club may appeal in accordance with Rule E.34 is that:E.35.1. the Event of Insolvency was caused by and resulted directly from circumstances, other than normal business risks, over which it could not reasonably be expected to have had control; andE.35.2. its Officials had used all due diligence to avoid the happening of such circumstances.

At the end of the day the prem will probably have a vote beforehand on what should be done in the case of chelsea going into administration.
Click to expand...
So 19/1 in favour???
 
Not sure what happens with eu players at chelsea if the eu do sanction them. Even though they are abroad (from the eu), it would still be illegal for them to do business with chelsea. Whether they have to honour existing contracts i don't know.
 
DeanoAustin said:
Haha this is wonderful. Something in the back of my head says they get out of this relatively unscathed but, for the moment, I'm thoroughly enjoying the doomsday scenarios.
Click to expand...

They get a sale done fairly quickly they'll be fine. May just have to be more sustainable than under Abramovich.

If they don't and this drags on. They're in trouble. Not of bankruptcy, but they'll have to sell players to stay afloat.
 
Lilbaz said:
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/eu-discussing-sanctions-on-chelsea-s-abramovich-other-russians-1.1737037

The eu looking to sanction abramovich. Which could be horrible for chelsea. If they don't give them a licence, it will be illegal for any eu business to do business with abramovich or any of his companies. Including chelsea. They would not be allowed to travel or play games in europe.
Click to expand...

I just realised who chelsea play on weds. Think macron would agree to give them a licence to play if the eu do sanction abramovich? He currently holds the presidency. A forfeit is a 3-0 loss isn't it?
 
Lilbaz said:
Looks like the eu have agreed to sanction abramovich. Should be officially announced soon.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2022/03/14/eu-freeze-assets-roman-abramovich/
Click to expand...
So, totally ignorant of how sanctions work at an individual level - would an EU citizen be allowed to buy Chelsea, even if the money goes to somewhere other than Abramovich? Clearly the UK government have deemed this to be Ok but that’s before EU sanctions were in place. Also I am not sure what level of sanctions, if any, the US have in place but given previous cited interest from a potential US buyer and I think a US investment bank has been charged with finding a buyer I assume he’s not sanctioned there or only at a low level. I guess my question is, is it where the money ends up that is the pertinent point or is it having commercial interaction of any kind with a sanctioned entity that is prohibited (apart from any exemptions such as given by UK government). If that makes sense?
 
Glenda's Legs said:
So, totally ignorant of how sanctions work at an individual level - would an EU citizen be allowed to buy Chelsea, even if the money goes to somewhere other than Abramovich? Clearly the UK government have deemed this to be Ok but that’s before EU sanctions were in place. Also I am not sure what level of sanctions, if any, the US have in place but given previous cited interest from a potential US buyer and I think a US investment bank has been charged with finding a buyer I assume he’s not sanctioned there or only at a low level. I guess my question is, is it where the money ends up that is the pertinent point or is it having commercial interaction of any kind with a sanctioned entity that is prohibited (apart from any exemptions such as given by UK government). If that makes sense?
Click to expand...

Sanctions mean it's illegal for any citizen or company from your country to do business with the person being sanctioned or any companies they own.

Now the country can issue a licence allowing the company to continue doing certain activities as the uk has done. The uk has also allowed a sale to go through.

When the eu announces sanctions later. Without a licence or sale agreement from the eu, no eu citizen, company can buy chelsea. No banks can lend money to facilitate someone to buy chelsea. I don't know what it means for eu players playing for chelsea.

The us haven't issued sanctions yet. If they do (again unless they issue a licence) it would be the same as the eu. Nike would have to suspend their contract. No us citizen could buy...
Also the company overseeing the sale is us. So would have to halt the sale.

Now if they issue a licence as the uk have done, nothing much has changed. If they don't though chelsea are in a lot more brick.
 
Lilbaz said:
Sanctions mean it's illegal for any citizen or company from your country to do business with the person being sanctioned or any companies they own.

Now the country can issue a licence allowing the company to continue doing certain activities as the uk has done. The uk has also allowed a sale to go through.

When the eu announces sanctions later. Without a licence or sale agreement from the eu, no eu citizen, company can buy chelsea. No banks can lend money to facilitate someone to buy chelsea. I don't know what it means for eu players playing for chelsea.

The us haven't issued sanctions yet. If they do (again unless they issue a licence) it would be the same as the eu. Nike would have to suspend their contract. No us citizen could buy...
Also the company overseeing the sale is us. So would have to halt the sale.

Now if they issue a licence as the uk have done, nothing much has changed. If they don't though chelsea are in a lot more brick.
Click to expand...

thanks. That’s as I thought. It’s all about the exemptions (licences) given. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out now. .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back