I wouldn’t take this idea seriously if it hadn’t been mentioned in an august journal like The Economist, and even that newspaper suggested that it might have been put forward by Arsenal fans – and that was before the 6-0 drubbing that spoilt Arsene Wenger’s 1,000th match!
I wouldn’t take this idea seriously if it hadn’t been mentioned in an august journal like The Economist, and even that newspaper suggested that it might have been put forward by Arsenal fans – and that was before the 6-0 drubbing that spoilt Arsene Wenger’s 1,000th match!
However, apparently it has been suggested that Chelsea should be seized from Roman Abramovich was part of the Ukraine sanctions programme. As The Economist points out it would be a banana republic response, it would almost certainly be illegal and in any case the Chelsea owner has played no role in the Crimea.
It does, however, raise a more general point. It has been jokingly suggested that President Putin should next annex Kensington & Chelsea given the size of its Russian population. The fact of the matter is that Britain does very well out of the spending power of wealthy Russians and laundering their money – correction, providing them with a range of useful financial services.
Abramovich’s purchase of Chelsea was always seen in part as a form of political insurance to make him untouchable in Russia. It also strengthens Russia’s presence in Britain and makes it more difficult for the UK to impose stringent sanctions on Russia.