Glenryck Pilchards Posted March 15, 2022 Share Posted March 15, 2022 Chelsea want FA Cup tie with Middlesbrough to be played behind closed doors - BBC Sport  Chelsea want Saturday's FA Cup quarter-final at Middlesbrough to be played behind closed doors "for matters of sporting integrity" Sporting Integrity? After ploughing billions of Pounds over 20 years stolen from the Russia to become successful they now want to plead "sporting integrity?" Fuck off! The little sympathy I had for them has completely diminished now. Boro should cancel the 800 tickets Chelsea have sold and have 34,000 Teessider's scream blue murder at them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members PunkStep Posted March 15, 2022 Paid Members Share Posted March 15, 2022 29 minutes ago, Glenryck Pilchards said: The little sympathy I had for them You had any in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gaffer Posted March 15, 2022 Share Posted March 15, 2022 29 minutes ago, Glenryck Pilchards said: Chelsea want Saturday's FA Cup quarter-final at Middlesbrough to be played behind closed doors "for matters of sporting integrity"Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted March 15, 2022 Share Posted March 15, 2022 Boro telling them to get to fuck is nice.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Factotum Posted March 15, 2022 Share Posted March 15, 2022 2 hours ago, Carbomb said: Fairly sure Highbury had something similar, though not quite as tucked away. Yes the West Stand entrance and North Bank entrance are in the middle of the houses. The West Stand entrance is just utterly beautiful. I miss that ground so much. Glad its still there (East Stand and West Stand decor and the marble halls) I hate when iconic grounds just become car parks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted March 15, 2022 Paid Members Share Posted March 15, 2022 As it was the first (back then) top flight ground I went to, I'm pleased to see Fratton Park's main entrance is still gloriously domestic: Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Duke Posted March 16, 2022 Paid Members Share Posted March 16, 2022 I'm all over the place on the Chelsea stuff. Abramovich hasn't been sanctioned because he's a bad man, or because he's a crook (although he undoubtedly is), but because the government thinks doing so will put pressure on Putin. The Chelsea fans saying "but look at all his charity work" are missing that. His money could be entirely legit, but he is clearly influential in Russia and Russia clearly use his international companies for supplies, so sanctioning him is the way to go because it might save some lives in Ukraine. That's just good politics. On the other hand, some of the outrage from Chelski fans is that the government are clearly just sanctioning him because it's now in their best interests because of the pressure Labour have put them under. It feels like they were giving him lots of opportunity to get out of the country on his terms and was selling Chelsea in such a way that, if you take his stated intent seriously, he would not profit from. That being said, the man has defrauded governments in the past, so why would you take that intent seriously? The moral outrage from some in the government (and indeed many others) also sounds completely absurd so close to the Newcastle takeover. Some have been consistent in their anger, but plenty haven't and are using the opportunity to score some points. Watching Panorama the other night was helpful. I started paying attention to football and Chelsea specifically long after he'd arrived, so I've been ignorant as to what the specific morality charges are against him, in terms of what's provable. He is, clearly, a crook and a bad man who the UK should've been more wary of than they were (though he's far from alone on that when it comes to football investment). I tend to think that the story of him borrowing money from the government to buy the oil companies from the government at a knockdown price to then sell them back for a huge profit years later is the sort of story that would be turned into a Clooney film in other circumstances, but his money is clearly filthy, probably bloody and not the kind of man that we want to do business with. Not that that's ever stopped anyone in power in the UK before.... In all, this is a rambly way of saying the sanctions are obviously a good thing as they may help save some Ukrainian lives, and while they've not been done for reasons of morality, they are getting someone like him out of a position of influence in the country and that's a good thing. It is sad for Chelsea fans that the club is going to, almost certainly, be more Spurs than City by a few years time. I don't really buy into the trophies being "tainted", the PL knew what they were getting into and allowed it, and let's face it, if we're going to argue Chelsea are tainted we might want to forget the last 20 years of football all together and start over, but I get the accusation. Asking for the Middlesbrough game to be behind closed doors was incredibly arrogant, and really speaks to the club living a different narrative to everyone else. I used to work with a guy who just saw all his interactions with people totally differently to how everyone else, he was always the hero and the victim. He resigned after hurting an awful lot of people. That's what that request was, total narcissism. Proper narcissist. The logic, presumably, was that Middlesbrough would have even more of a home field advantage, but obviously the better solution is to let Middlesbrough have all of the money from the ticket allocation and ask that they let some chelsea fans in. Or just suck it up. You have every other conceivable advantage. Read the room! I feel sorry for Thomas Tuchel, who is somehow now expected to be an expert in geopolitics and business because his employers have hung him out to dry. I feel most sorry for all the non-playing staff who have their jobs dangling in front of them whilst most of the country jeers and laughs.   Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Factotum Posted March 16, 2022 Share Posted March 16, 2022 34 minutes ago, Duke said: I feel sorry for Thomas Tuchel, who is somehow now expected to be an expert in geopolitics and business because his employers have hung him out to dry. As much as I think he's answered well enough, if you take such a job, you should be asked on this and can't complain when you are. Football has put its head in the sand for too long on stuff like this. If you were a highly sought after coach you don't HAVE to go to work for a place where the ownership situation is extremely well know. He's paid very well. It should be the same for Guardiola and Howe (less sought after obviously) but they should be asked if they're comfortable working for people with such links.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted March 16, 2022 Share Posted March 16, 2022 1 minute ago, Factotum said: As much as I think he's answered well enough, if you take such a job, you should be asked on this and can't complain when you are. Football has put its head in the sand for too long on stuff like this. If you were a highly sought after coach you don't HAVE to go to work for a place where the ownership situation is extremely well know. He's paid very well. It should be the same for Guardiola and Howe (less sought after obviously) but they should be asked if they're comfortable working for people with such links.  But where is the line drawn?  Someone working in the club shop or a concession stand doesn’t need to explain why they work for such a dodgy bloke. I don’t think employees who aren’t board members need to be asked about who owns and runs these clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members mim731 Posted March 16, 2022 Paid Members Share Posted March 16, 2022 1 minute ago, Keith Houchen said: But where is the line drawn?  Someone working in the club shop or a concession stand doesn’t need to explain why they work for such a dodgy bloke. I don’t think employees who aren’t board members need to be asked about who owns and runs these clubs. In fairness, the people working in the club shop and the concession stand don't have the platform the manager does. In many ways the manager is the public spokesperson for the club in terms of the press, and as such the face of the club so I can see why journalists feel it's fair game to ask them such questions. For me, it's the difference between being public facing for the club and the public face of the club in that scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted March 16, 2022 Share Posted March 16, 2022 3 minutes ago, mim731 said: In fairness, the people working in the club shop and the concession stand don't have the platform the manager does. In many ways the manager is the public spokesperson for the club in terms of the press, and as such the face of the club so I can see why journalists feel it's fair game to ask them such questions. For me, it's the difference between being public facing for the club and the public face of the club in that scenario. Absolutely. I’m wondering where the line is drawn. I think asking the manager football related questions is a journalists job, such as asking how sanctions will affect preparation and whatnot. I don’t think it’s on the manager to discuss the reasons for the sanctions. That’s for the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Factotum Posted March 16, 2022 Share Posted March 16, 2022 11 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said: But where is the line drawn?  Someone working in the club shop or a concession stand doesn’t need to explain why they work for such a dodgy bloke. I don’t think employees who aren’t board members need to be asked about who owns and runs these clubs. I have no issue with people who work for the club shop etc. as much as I have an issue with someone who works for Amazon in their warehouse or starbucks for instance. But as I mentioned, if you're a football manager like Tuchel you have options that someone in the concession stand doesn't have. You don't have to go and manage Chelsea if you thought their ownership was against your principles. The model also gives him as a manager an advantage over clubs he is competing against, therefore it is pertinent to his role. I'm not saying he hasn't been thrown out to the wolves a bit on this, someone like Bruce Buck is far more soaked in the shit than Tuchel, but its par the course as manager of a club with these links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Duke Posted March 16, 2022 Paid Members Share Posted March 16, 2022 33 minutes ago, Factotum said: As much as I think he's answered well enough, if you take such a job, you should be asked on this and can't complain when you are. Football has put its head in the sand for too long on stuff like this. If you were a highly sought after coach you don't HAVE to go to work for a place where the ownership situation is extremely well know. He's paid very well. It should be the same for Guardiola and Howe (less sought after obviously) but they should be asked if they're comfortable working for people with such links.  Yeah, I get this, except the problem is no one asked any of this stuff until Russia invaded Ukraine, something that I don't think it's reasonable for Tuchel to have predicted. Let's not kid ourselves, the culture hasn't changed because of the slow build up of changing values, it's changed because of War in Europe, and if Abramovich had done everything that he'd done except be from a different state, we still wouldn't be asking those questions. Tuchel joined a club that, honestly, we were generally fine with ownership wise up until now. We didn't even do this when Putin annexed Chechnya. I have less of a problem with the media asking Tuchel and more of a problem that the people above him (apart from a few words from Petr Cech) haven't shielded him from this at all. This is, surely, part of their job. I also agree with Houchen that it's a dodgy line to draw. The Howe comparison doesn't really hold up as Howe's owners aren't just businessmen connected with the Saudi Government, they ARE the Saudi government. He is, explicitly, being employed by the Saudis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members mim731 Posted March 16, 2022 Paid Members Share Posted March 16, 2022 8 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said: Absolutely. I’m wondering where the line is drawn. I think asking the manager football related questions is a journalists job, such as asking how sanctions will affect preparation and whatnot. I don’t think it’s on the manager to discuss the reasons for the sanctions. That’s for the board. You're absolutely right, it should be a question for the board, but the board members aren't in the press conferences. As such surely it's implied that the manager is speaking on their behalf. It's tricky because they should really only be having to answer on footballing matters, but if you work for a Chelsea (or indeed a City or a Newcastle whose owners are subject to certain scrutiny in that way) as the face of the club, it's inevitable that you'll be asked such questions as part of your duties because you are in a position to give a statement in a way the board members have insulated themselves from having to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Factotum Posted March 16, 2022 Share Posted March 16, 2022 2 minutes ago, Duke said: Yeah, I get this, except the problem is no one asked any of this stuff until Russia invaded Ukraine, something that I don't think it's reasonable for Tuchel to have predicted. Let's not kid ourselves, the culture hasn't changed because of the slow build up of changing values, it's changed because of War in Europe, and if Abramovich had done everything that he'd done except be from a different state, we still wouldn't be asking those questions. Tuchel joined a club that, honestly, we were generally fine with ownership wise up until now. We didn't even do this when Putin annexed Chechnya. Yes and that was shameful. There have been journalists digging into this, but we all know the legal threats Roman has been wielding over people who have dug in all these years, Its all out there. I think we broadly agree on this, I just think that someone like Tuchel cannot plead ignorance on it. Agree on the Howe point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpeg.55e5547a252a5ad1a05f197973025167.jpeg)
Recommended Posts