Honey Honey

Matty Longstaff?

What needs to happen is those at the bottom of the squad are sold and we sign new players better than what we've got, but keep the existing. So Gayle for example 3rd choice striker, let him go sign a new one. Whereas if Ashley was around and we wanted a new striker we'd have to sell Wilson not Gayle. Would say Sean Longstaff, Dwight Gayle, Matt Ritchie and Fernández to be replaced. Maybe Almiron.

Since that game, 9 wins, 2 draws, 3 defeats. Top 4 team results wise and Joelinton best midfielder in the league

Cancel culture the war strategy of this era.

Out of interest who is Chelsea's £1.5bn of debt to?

Sounds like sponsors are now looking at how to jump ship and see if they can end contracts early. Could Chelsea Football Club collapse? What's the Premier League going to do?

I wouldn't be surprised if the ticket decision is reversed. It looks like your classic public servant fuck up. Right to sanction Abramovich, it was ridiculous that he could have just sold the club for £3bn and fucked off with that money. A sanction implies something that can be lifted. At some point we might get beyond the point of return on that the way things are going, then compulsory purchase orders and confiscation would be required to rid the South East of Putin puppets. Let's image Ukraine is occupied by Russia, in part or full. How then can sanctions be lifted at all for years? What then for Chelsea?

Abramovich sanctioned. Chelsea not allowed to sell tickets. Only season ticket holders allowed to continue to attend matches. Can't help but think that particular ticket decision is in part down to those fans who sang his name during the support for Ukraine. Though Chelsea are de facto owned by Putin and the Russian state. Abramovich has to have all major purchases sanctioned by Putin and he did sanction the takeover of Chelsea as a means to promote Russian business ownership in the UK according to Catherine Belton.

This is an important moment to send a warning message to the dirty money from Saudi Arabia and China by coming down hard on Russia. If we fail here what was the point of our engagement strategies?

As some analyst on the telebox said the amount the Tories receive isn't worth the cost to them of not doing enough about Putin's pals. Isn't there a high court case right now against an author who has claimed Putin gave the approval for Abramovich buying Chelsea? As he supposedly does for all big purchases those he made rich with stolen money make.

What is this government doing allowing these Putin puppets to disinvest and get out with all their money.

If things continue to escalate a compulsory purchase order of Chelsea by the government could become realistic. One where the government transfers funds to a bank account that Abramovich then can't access anymore than £50k of

That article is based on the same polling in the image I shared. It does not show they want a return to the Soviet Union. Positive Russian views of that era is not the same as wanting to bring back western cold war interpretations of what the Soviet Union was. Certainly not on the scale claimed. At a significant cost to life, money, order and reputation. A moronic act.

Link to poll? Levada Poll CNN poll - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10543865/amp/Half-Russians-believe-RIGHT-use-military-force-Ukraine-NATO-poll-reveals.html Right to invade Ukraine - 50% Reunite Ukraine with Russia - 33% Feel threatened by foreign activity in former Soviet countries - 50%

The stationed troops are simply not significant enough in size and capability to launch a meaningful ground invasion. The NATO countries bordering Russia have far larger land armies of their own than the troops that exist there under NATO banners. It's token gesture placements not invasion forces. If any NATO country were to be defended or invade it wouldn't be done off stationed troops. That's surely clear for all to see. If you want to be picky and argue there's enough Americans, British and French there to take some nearby farms then fine. Finland is a good example of the nonsense that is spouted about the "threat" of being a NATO member. Finland is a stronger force than most individual states in NATO, they have national service, they buy weapons from NATO and train with NATO. They are members of the European Union. Yet they are not in NATO. As they say they are not a neutral country. The Finns hate Russia and Putin as much as anyone else on this earth. It makes absolutely no military or strategic difference whether they are in NATO or not, yet they are threatened this week with "consequences" if they join. Putin has no legitimate reason to consider Finland in NATO as any form of increased risk to Russia. In Putin we have a megalomaniac with an outdated world view that belongs in the 1940s. Why the fuck do we bend over backwards to "understand where he's coming from" we should be tearing down how much of a moron this guy is.

Not a land invasion. A point to fire missiles or send in the air force sure, but you don't need to be in Ukraine to have missiles in range of Moscow. You'd need the unanimous approval of 30 nations for an offensive just to fire a weapon. Not happening. Especially given the majority will do absolutely anything they can think of before attacking anyone. As stupid as Putin often sounds, and maybe he is as stupid as say someone like Trump, but I doubt among the whole lot of the hierarchy that they are all deluded idiots when it comes to NATO. Not impossible I suppose. NATO are solely a threat to Russian nationalists ambitions and probably their pride, aww bless. Tossers. Given that early Putin Russia probably could have joined NATO and may have considered it, I wouldn't be surprised if 10 years after he's gone it is back on the cards.

Will this satisfy sanctions? As in make Chelsea England's Gucci handbags?

No. NATO is a defence agreement. It doesn't station troops capable of an offence. A Ukrainian membership of NATO brings an end to the ease with which Russia can drive its tanks into Ukraine when it wants. It is symbolic of the end of imperial Russia.

Russian nationalism, the racialist type of which Putin subscribes to, doesn't see Ukraine as an independent country, it considers it as an extension of Russia, part of Russia, ethnically Russian. Particularly parts of Ukraine. It considers Russia to have been robbed of Ukraine. For 20 years Ukraine has been attacked by various means, from tanks to trade wars by the Kremlin all to prevent Ukraine from breaking away from their influence and control. Strong forces in Ukrainian politics would like to join the European Union. Putin won't stand for it. This is all why Ukraine flirts with joining NATO. Hanging over Ukraine's expression of freedom is the stench of Russian nationalism and the threat of Russian tanks if Ukraine dare do what the Kremlin doesn't like.

Putin's invasion of Ukraine is not because of NATO, rather it is precisely for the reason Ukraine wanted to be in NATO in the first place. The poking the Russian bear is a Nigel Farage hot take, common today on the extreme political wings in Britain and the contrarian writers. Desperate to inflict some sort of score against our own politics. Everything must be framed as to how "the west" (an outdated cold war label and thought process) is in the wrong here.

Even with the spending we are not getting more than 33-35 points with our fixtures unless we are suddenly a top 6 form side overnight. The spending gives us a better chance of getting to 35 points than without. However there's no reason at least one of the others around us can't also get to that tally. This is a scrap til the end.

Wonder what, since it is them and not the club is it something they said?

Why is that do you think? At top line level US jobs market was surging back end of last year. As it did here. Something weird is going on, we were struggling to hire for months despite many in the industry and even our company having been laid off in 2020.

His wife also a 5G conspiracy promoter