Question
Foreign money can be used to influence politics through sport. On 17 December last year, the Government gave Roman Abramovich 90 days to hand over the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea football club to benefit Ukrainians— 314 days later, that has still not happened. What is holding the Government back from enforcing their own legal contract with Mr Abramovich through the courts? When might Ukrainians who are fearful about the winter see some of that money? In the light of this and questions over the ownership of Manchester City by Sheikh Mansour, what conversations has the Foreign Secretary had with the Prime Minister or the Culture Secretary about ensuring that overseas investors are fit and proper persons to own English clubs?
Answer
Let me deal directly with the most substantive part of the hon. Member’s question. I think it is a view shared across the House that the ill-gotten gains of Russia and Russian oligarchs must be used for the right purposes, not the wrong purposes. On the question he raised about Chelsea, I will be careful what I say because of legal processes, but we are absolutely determined to take action on that. More broadly, we will be urging in the coming months that our EU partners, along with Britain, move on Russian sovereign assets more generally, because we know that one of the most important things we need to do is give proper support to Ukraine through this winter and beyond, and Russian sovereign assets are an ideal way to do that.43% vibes
Verdict: RED (18/100)
The reply gives a reason for not discussing the Chelsea contract, namely ongoing legal processes, but does not explain what those processes are and offers only a general commitment to act. It gives no timeframe for when Chelsea sale proceeds might reach Ukrainians and instead discusses winter support funded from Russian sovereign assets, which is a different source of money. It does not address the Foreign Secretary's engagement with the Prime Minister or the Culture Secretary, or the fit-and-proper-person test for overseas investors in football clubs. A questioner would most likely need to ask again for specifics, so this is a weak answer overall, and the assessment concerns the content of the exchange rather than anyone's intent.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is preventing the Government from enforcing its legal contract with Roman Abramovich through the courts to secure the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea Football Club for the benefit of Ukrainians? | Addressed | Hedged | The reply gives a stated reason for not discussing the Chelsea contract ("because of legal processes"), which answers what is preventing enforcement, though it never describes the legal obstacle itself and only restates a commitment to act. |
| When might Ukrainians who are fearful about the winter see some of the Chelsea sale proceeds? | Partially Addressed | Hedged MISREADS QUESTION | The reply gives no timeframe for when Chelsea sale proceeds might reach Ukrainians, and instead shifts to winter support funded by Russian sovereign assets, which is a different pot of money from the Chelsea proceeds asked about. |
| What is the nature of the Foreign Secretary's engagement with the Prime Minister and the Culture Secretary on ensuring that overseas investors are fit and proper persons to own English football clubs? | Not Addressed | Generic | None of the answer statements mention the Foreign Secretary's engagement with the Prime Minister or the Culture Secretary, or the fit-and-proper-person test for overseas investors in football clubs. |