As the burden of state sanctions begins to bite, Russian tycoon and Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich has denied going cap in hand to wealthy US friends for financial assistance.
His spokesman made the statement in response to claims in the United States that Putin’s erstwhile confidante was imploring wealthy friends, including Hollywood director Brett Ratner, for £765,000 ($980,000) loans to help him pay his workers after being sanctioned by London and Washington.
Chelsea Football Club owner Roman Abramovich, who has been accused in the United Kingdom of being a close buddy of Putin, is claimed to have sought large loans from his celebrity pals to keep his workforce, which is said to cost him £600,000 each week.
The news, which was initially revealed by media outlet Page Six, was debunked by Abramovich’s spokeswoman, who claimed they had not been solicited for comment.
Abramovich has ‘neither communicated with, nor solicited for contributions from these individuals,’ according to a spokeswoman for radio station City AM.
They stated, “We have contacted the primary source Page Six because they did not reach out to us prior to publishing.”
According to Page Six, Abramovich solicited Rush Hour director Brett Ratner, as well as members of the Rothschild family and other Hollywood and Silicon Valley acquaintances. Following the seizure of his assets in the United Kingdom and the United States last month, the oligarch is alleged to have made approaches. It is believed that no one has consented to give him the money.
‘Roman is asking some of his closest prominent pals to allow him borrow $1 million,’ a source told the outlet. He claims he has never missed payroll for his workforce, which is $750,000 each week, and that he can’t pay them because his assets are frozen.
‘He has asked Hollywood producer and director Brett Ratner and the Rothschild family, among others, for money, but – while they are good friends with Roman – they have refused to give him money because either they do not have it in liquid cash, or it is unclear what the legal ramifications would be.’