EPL 2020/21

[wlu_lax6]

Everton would be the biggest surprise relegation since _______?

Newcastle?

https://www.90min.com/posts/6280913-rel ... r-the-drop

on the other hand if Derby manages to escape relegation this year it will be a master job by Rooney and the team.

[pruitt2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998%E2%8 ... .C._season

98/99 Blackburn Rovers. 5th place the year before, played in the Uefa Cup and was relegated in the same season.

[DaveInSeattle]

In 2013, Wigan won the FA Cup and was relegated a few months later.

[sancarlos]

Everton would be the biggest surprise relegation since _______?

Newcastle?

A month ago, Newcastle looked toast for relegation. But I guess they are out of danger now after this nice little run.

[serrano2]

Everton would be the biggest surprise relegation since _______?

Newcastle?

A month ago, Newcastle looked toast for relegation. But I guess they are out of danger now after this nice little run.

Looking back in my texts, on 1/15 I was adamant NUFC we’re going down after they dropped points to Watford and Norwich won. NUFC had 10 or 11 points and 18 games to go. I could not see how they were going to get 10 wins, or 8 wins and 5 draws, etc with their squad. Credit to Howe for getting the most out of the players who were there, and the front office for making some smart transfers. If they can get 5+ points from their next 4 matches (all away), I’ll feel that they’re out of danger. They have a decent chance to do that but they need to play better than they did against Brighton.

[The Sybian]

Everton would be the biggest surprise relegation since _______?

Newcastle?

A month ago, Newcastle looked toast for relegation. But I guess they are out of danger now after this nice little run.

Looking back in my texts, on 1/15 I was adamant NUFC we’re going down after they dropped points to Watford and Norwich won. NUFC had 10 or 11 points and 18 games to go. I could not see how they were going to get 10 wins, or 8 wins and 5 draws, etc with their squad. Credit to Howe for getting the most out of the players who were there, and the front office for making some smart transfers. If they can get 5+ points from their next 4 matches (all away), I’ll feel that they’re out of danger. They have a decent chance to do that but they need to play better than they did against Brighton.

Such a shame, I really wanted to see the Saudi's relegated. Nothing against Newcastle and I feel for their fans suffering under Mike Ashley all those years, but I hate seeing a murderous despot sportswashing his image.

[DaveInSeattle]

This seems like a big deal:

[Baloney]

Would seem so, if my understanding is right any player out of contract at the end of the season cannot be re-signed, e.g. Antonio Rüdiger, as that would constitute a new contract.

[mister d]

I hope Rudiger signs with Hell and then goes to hell.

[Baloney]

I hope Rudiger signs with Hell and then goes to hell.

Galatasaray it is then

[mister d]

No way. They sound cool and futuristic.

[The Sybian]

I've hated Abramovich for a very long time, partially for stealing Billions in Russian public assets, partially for ruining club soccer by laundering Putin's money through wasteful spending on Chelsea (leading to numerous Chelsea titles) and opening the door for other Billionaire owners to spend like drunken sailors. That said, I'm having a little trouble understanding the sanctions against Chelsea. Abramovich is either a private citizen whose country happened to invade another country, or the money used to buy and run Chelsea is part of a criminal kleptocracy run by the second worst despot of our times (Kim Jung-un is champ) and it's always been wrong to allow Chelsea to thrive on Abramovich's purse. If Putin backs out of Ukraine tomorrow, can Roman keep Chelsea and will all the restrictions lift?

[Steve of phpBB]

If Putin backs out of Ukraine tomorrow, can Roman keep Chelsea and will all the restrictions lift?

Probably?

[mister d]

I don't know the EPL all that well, but if this were an American sport I assume he'd both keep ownership and have a full whitewashing campaign that credits him for ending the war.

[pruitt2]

I don't know the EPL all that well, but if this were an American sport I assume he'd both keep ownership and have a full whitewashing campaign that credits him for ending the war.

If the enforcement of FIFA's Fair Play Rules are anything to go by, Chelsea could end up with Mbape.

Call me sceptical about this move.

[pruitt2]

Football ignored the truth about Roman Abramovich’s oligarch money for too long

[Shirley]

Yeah, I get that the world is mad at Russia, but these sanctions against the oligarchs are odd to me. And seizing yachts and shit just seems illegal. What claim does Germany have against the yacht of some dude because his home country invaded a different (non-Germany) country? Maybe I just don't understand the money entanglements.

Abramovich apparently started making lots of money when Yeltsin was president. He bought Chelsea back in 2003. Since then, we've mostly had two decades of the world embracing Russia. They hosted the Winter Olympics and the World Cup. But now that they've invaded Ukraine, we're retroactively saying it was bad all along? I'm not saying it wasn't bad all along, just that the world didn't seem to care and Russia has been fully integrated into the world economy (until now). It's odd that we're going back and saying that anyone made money there - no matter how long ago - is now a criminal and must be punished by other countries because Putin invaded Ukraine.

[The Sybian]

Yeah, I get that the world is mad at Russia, but these sanctions against the oligarchs are odd to me. And seizing yachts and shit just seems illegal. What claim does Germany have against the yacht of some dude because his home country invaded a different (non-Germany) country? Maybe I just don't understand the money entanglements.

Abramovich apparently started making lots of money when Yeltsin was president. He bought Chelsea back in 2003. Since then, we've mostly had two decades of the world embracing Russia. They hosted the Winter Olympics and the World Cup. But now that they've invaded Ukraine, we're retroactively saying it was bad all along? I'm not saying it wasn't bad all along, just that the world didn't seem to care and Russia has been fully integrated into the world economy (until now). It's odd that we're going back and saying that anyone made money there - no matter how long ago - is now a criminal and must be punished by other countries because Putin invaded Ukraine.

I thought I was going to get attacked for saying this. The sanctioned oligarchs made their money through kleptocracy, but they stole from the Russian people. Maybe banking laws allow Germany and England to seize assets, but the oligarchs have been flaunting their wealth throughout Europe for decades so I don't understand why Putin invading Ukraine made them act on their wealth. It does seem crazy that Roman loses all he invested in buy Chelsea, because they are forcing a sale and not letting him touch the proceeds of the sale.

I don't understand the specifics well enough to explain, but Putin is believed to be the wealthiest man alive, and he uses to oligarchs to hold and launder his wealth. That's been the case for 20+ years, and all these countries (including the US) have welcomed the influx of Russian wealth. I highly doubt any of the sanctioned oligarchs are involved in the decision to invade Ukraine, so it seems weird to suddenly seize all their assets. I know they want the oligarch to apply pressure on Putin, but I do want to understand the legal mechanism for the seizures. I'm very leery of allowing governments to seize assets, even when the owners deserve it. I worked at Customs during the early years of the Patriot Act, so I signed off on thousands of asset seizures, and there were a lot I didn't feel good about.

[pruitt2]

I'm all for taking everything from these crooks.

But considering that the city of London is awash in their money, the sudden burst of morality is rich.

[Baloney]

Allegedly Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse are going to need some new clients

[degenerasian]

I think legalities are out the window when Russia is committing war crimes. Pressure needs to be put on the oligarchs to turn on Putin.

[The Sybian]

I think legalities are out the window when Russia is committing war crimes. Pressure needs to be put on the oligarchs to turn on Putin.

Sure, but a government needs some sort of justification for stealing from private citizens.

[degenerasian]

I think legalities are out the window when Russia is committing war crimes. Pressure needs to be put on the oligarchs to turn on Putin.

Sure, but a government needs some sort of justification for stealing from private citizens.

They are in Putin's inner circle. It would be a security risk if they funneled money home. Governments are only seizing assets in their jurisdiction.

At wartime, seizure of private property by the government is pretty standard stuff, but really most of the laws necessary to do it tend to be in place even in peacetime. National security trumps everything whenever government say it does. These laws are normally just not used, because seizing private property on the basis of someone's nationality is clearly aggression towards that nation.

Now that Russia declared itself our enemy, we get to treat Russia as the enemy back.

It's not pretty, but going after Putins billionaire buddies lifestyle is a decent strategy to undermine Putins powerbase.

   

[Steve of phpBB]

I think legalities are out the window when Russia is committing war crimes. Pressure needs to be put on the oligarchs to turn on Putin.

Sure, but a government needs some sort of justification for stealing from private citizens.

They are in Putin's inner circle. It would be a security risk if they funneled money home. Governments are only seizing assets in their jurisdiction.

At wartime, seizure of private property by the government is pretty standard stuff, but really most of the laws necessary to do it tend to be in place even in peacetime. National security trumps everything whenever government say it does. These laws are normally just not used, because seizing private property on the basis of someone's nationality is clearly aggression towards that nation.

Now that Russia declared itself our enemy, we get to treat Russia as the enemy back.

It's not pretty, but going after Putins billionaire buddies lifestyle is a decent strategy to undermine Putins powerbase.   

I think that bolded part is the main justification. I don't think the seizures are being legally justified simply because the owners are wealthy Russians. I think it is based on the theory that the owners are have influence with the Russian government, as if they are part of it.

The national security justification is a little fuzzier, because what is going on isn't really about the UK's or US's national security, or if so, only remotely. Russia has ruled Ukraine a long time without that really imposing much of a threat to the West.

Here's a couple of articles going into some of the legal bases to seize oligarch property under US law.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/how-us ... 022-03-07/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... -rcna18278

[The Sybian]

I think legalities are out the window when Russia is committing war crimes. Pressure needs to be put on the oligarchs to turn on Putin.

Sure, but a government needs some sort of justification for stealing from private citizens.

They are in Putin's inner circle. It would be a security risk if they funneled money home. Governments are only seizing assets in their jurisdiction.

At wartime, seizure of private property by the government is pretty standard stuff, but really most of the laws necessary to do it tend to be in place even in peacetime. National security trumps everything whenever government say it does. These laws are normally just not used, because seizing private property on the basis of someone's nationality is clearly aggression towards that nation.

Now that Russia declared itself our enemy, we get to treat Russia as the enemy back.

It's not pretty, but going after Putins billionaire buddies lifestyle is a decent strategy to undermine Putins powerbase.

   

I don't know much about British law, and I know nothing about German law, but in the US, you can't just take a criminal's money or possessions. You need to PROVE the money or assets are directly obtained through the commission of a crime (cash obtained through selling drugs, or a house purchased with drug proceeds), assets used in the commission of a crime (seizing the getaway vehicle in a bank robbery). We seized cash off of people entering the country if they failed to declare they were carrying over $10,000 when entering the country, as the failure to declare was the law violated. We also did criminal forfeitures on items when the property itself is illegal. The pornography seizures I've mentioned were done this way. We'd bring a criminal case against the pornography itself as the Defendant. It's a weird concept called Defendant In Rem, and the owner can appear in court to defend the property. While much of the various oligarch's wealth comes from crime or theft of formerly Soviet owned commodities, the US can't seize assets that were obtained through crimes in other countries. At best, they could detain and hold an item and hand it over to that country, but clearly not what is going on here.

In the case of an oligarch's yacht, you might be able to trace the funds used to buy the yachts and mansions to a crime, but it isn't based on anything happening in Ukraine today. And the US, Germany and UK have specifically NOT declared war with Russia, so this isn't a war time seizure. Provisions in the Patriot Act were created to seize funds sent to terrorist organizations. Wahabi money transfer schemes were avoiding our ability to seize money sent to find terrorists, so the Patriot Act created new ways to seize money people were donating to terrorist groups. Another example of a good outcome done in a shady way avoiding the law, and sure as fuck we abused the new laws seized non-terrorist assets and money from people who didn't deserve to have their property seized, but I digress.

I read somewhere that the British argument is Roman's steel company sold steel to whoever makes Russian tanks. Again, I'm happy to see Roman stripped of his possessions, but I don't see how this is legal. If ALCOA sells aluminum to Lockhead, Lockhead builds an F-22 and sells it to the US Air Force and a pilot goes nuts and bombs US civilians, the US government isn't going to seize the ALCOA CEO's house for his part in commission of the crime. We may not like Putin, but a Russian company selling steel to whoever makes Russian tanks isn't a crime. I guess it could be a crime if we place an embargo on US companies selling to Russian tank manufacturers, then it could be a crime for an American steel company to sell, but thats not what we are talking about here, and the steel was sold years ago!

[degenerasian]

Again, national security, seize now, deal with lawsuits later. Plus I'm sure all governments know where the money comes from and how illegally it's been obtained for these guys. This is not suddenly new info, holy shit who are these guys, how are they so rich? They've just turned a blind eye all these years

Kind of like how the US asked Canada to arrest the Huawei executive and held her in house arrest for 2 years before releasing it. She's guilty but they'll just cut a deal now. You scratch my back I scratch yours.

Abramovich isn't even fighting the sanctions. He even tried to get out in front to donate the proceeds of the sales to yhe Chelsea community.

[The Sybian]

What you aren’t understanding is the US government needs to have a basis to seize. They either witness a crime and detain then file in court to seize or get a court order for a seizure. You can’t just walk in guns drawn, steal a yacht or a mansion and say “sue me,” you need the justification first. And you need to provide evidence. And the burden of proof is on the government. And saying “c’mon judge, clearly he’s a POS” isn’t going to cut it. And while they are scum, you need to follow the law and rules, otherwise law enforcement will abuse their power.

I just saw the US Attorney is setting up a Kleptocracy Strike Force to gather evidence. I’m sure they violate all sorts of banking laws, I’d just like to know the justification.

And sanctions are fine, prohibit them from doing business, but seizing assets is a whole different game.

[govmentchedda]

What you aren’t understanding is the US government needs to have a basis to seize. They either witness a crime and detain then file in court to seize or get a court order for a seizure. You can’t just walk in guns drawn, steal a yacht or a mansion and say “sue me,” you need the justification first. And you need to provide evidence. And the burden of proof is on the government. And saying “c’mon judge, clearly he’s a POS” isn’t going to cut it. And while they are scum, you need to follow the law and rules, otherwise law enforcement will abuse their power.

I just saw the US Attorney is setting up a Kleptocracy Strike Force to gather evidence. I’m sure they violate all sorts of banking laws, I’d just like to know the justification.

And sanctions are fine, prohibit them from doing business, but seizing assets is a whole different game.

The US government has nothing to do with Chelsea

[Rush2112]

The US government has nothing to do with Chelsea

and sadly why Pulisic will never be what we hope for the USMNT

[The Sybian]

What you aren’t understanding is the US government needs to have a basis to seize. They either witness a crime and detain then file in court to seize or get a court order for a seizure. You can’t just walk in guns drawn, steal a yacht or a mansion and say “sue me,” you need the justification first. And you need to provide evidence. And the burden of proof is on the government. And saying “c’mon judge, clearly he’s a POS” isn’t going to cut it. And while they are scum, you need to follow the law and rules, otherwise law enforcement will abuse their power.

I just saw the US Attorney is setting up a Kleptocracy Strike Force to gather evidence. I’m sure they violate all sorts of banking laws, I’d just like to know the justification.

And sanctions are fine, prohibit them from doing business, but seizing assets is a whole different game.

The US government has nothing to do with Chelsea

I know. I’m just asking if anyone has seen an explanation for the justification for the UK and Germany seizing assets. I don’t know their laws, but I assume they can’t just take private citizens assets without justification. Lots of questions about why the US isn’t seizing assets, I’m explaining how that works and wondering how the UK and Germany can.

[DaveInSeattle]

Oh...Harry Maguire...



And Romero getting in his face...

[govmentchedda]

Don't even feel like celebrating that outcome.

[pruitt2]

Don't even feel like celebrating that outcome.

Talk about a one man game.

Fucking Ronaldo.

[Baloney]

Not sure how that Leeds goal is allowed

[govmentchedda]

Has anyone written about where the purchase $$ will go when Chelsea is sold?

[A_B]

Has anyone written about where the purchase $$ will go when Chelsea is sold?

Poor heist panning on your part if you're outsourcing this for your trip.

[govmentchedda]

Has anyone written about where the purchase $$ will go when Chelsea is sold?

Poor heist panning on your part if you're outsourcing this for your trip.

My layover in Gatwick is short but probably juuuuust long enough to get to SW London and back in time for the connection to Manchester.

[govmentchedda]

Has anyone written about where the purchase $$ will go when Chelsea is sold?

Poor heist panning on your part if you're outsourcing this for your trip.

My layover in Gatwick is short but probably juuuuust long enough to get to SW London and back in time for the connection to Manchester.

To be honest, IF I was able to snag the oligdollars, I'd probably walk it right down Fulham Rd. and buy the Cottagers.

[DaveInSeattle]

I hate the yellow Liverpool kits. Just awful...

[DaveInSeattle]