Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:48 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

However, it is simply nonsense to say we're any more liable than all the other billionaire owned clubs to collapse. We're all in the same boat if our owners chose to walk away. If you think we'd "truly collapse" while others wouldn't then I'd be interested to read why that's so, but I doubt you'd be able to back the claim up at all.

I agree with you that any side who have a billionaire owner and find themselves in a relatively false position, simply because of their investment, would definitely struggle (Look at how Blackburn quickly went from champions to nowhere once Jack Walker's influence waned).

However, I think there is a very small number of English clubs (Man Utd, Liverpool and, to a lesser extent, Arsenal) who would survive and still be able to attract a decent quality of player, because of their reputation in the football world - No disrespect, but take the financial factor from clubs like Chelsea and Man City, and you are left in the same boat as the Newcastle's and Everton's of this world in trying to tempt second and third tier players to your club, knowing that if any of these players show any potential they will be snapped up by the richer and supposedly bigger clubs.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Thu Mar 20, 2014 8:07 pm  

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

I agree with you that any side who have a billionaire owner and find themselves in a relatively false position, simply because of their investment, would definitely struggle (Look at how Blackburn quickly went from champions to nowhere once Jack Walker's influence waned).

If the Glazer's "walk away" from Man United they are still going to want to take as much money out of the club as possible. So whoever buys Man United is probably going to have to shell out around one and a half billion quid just to buy the club. Then spend another couple of hundred million buying better players.

It's not just Chelsea and Man City who are in this situation, it's every club.

However, I think there is a very small number of English clubs (Man Utd, Liverpool and, to a lesser extent, Arsenal) who would survive and still be able to attract a decent quality of player, because of their reputation in the football world - No disrespect, but take the financial factor from clubs like Chelsea and Man City, and you are left in the same boat as the Newcastle's and Everton's of this world in trying to tempt second and third tier players to your club, knowing that if any of these players show any potential they will be snapped up by the richer and supposedly bigger clubs.

Before Roman bought the club, Chelsea had just qualified for the Champions League ahead of Liverpool. In that squad was Gianfranco Zola, Marcel Desailly, Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink.

The year before Roman bought the club Chelsea earned revenues of 134m Euros, compared to Liverpool's 149m. Those figures are with Liverpool in the CL and Chelsea in the UEFA Cup and our players not giving a toss and getting knocked out in the first round.

In the 2003/4 season, when CFC had CL football, our revenues shot up to to 217m, while Liverpool in the UEFA fell to 140m.

So all this nonsense about the value of Liverpool's great history is clearly BS. If you like to own LFC BS then keep buying it, but if you buy it because you actually believe in it then you need to go back to school to get your brain working.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Thu Mar 20, 2014 8:12 pm  

Just had another look at Liverpool's 2002/03 season. Not only did Liverpool benefit from CL group money, they also had 3 rounds of UEFA Cup football too, until they lost to Celtic.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Thu Mar 20, 2014 8:56 pm  

I think any debate where a Chelsea fan insinuates that they are on a par, as a worldwide name, with Liverpool, isn't really worth debating any more....

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Thu Mar 20, 2014 9:46 pm  

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

I think any debate where a Chelsea fan insinuates that they are on a par, as a worldwide name, with Liverpool, isn't really worth debating any more....

When did I insinuate that we were on a par, as a worldwide name, with them? I didn't.

I just question the value of having that worldwide name when there's clearly little benefit for them in their accounts.

There might be five million people around the world who claim that they are LFC fans, and they will get spin off benefits from extra advertising and commercial deals, but the value clearly isn't that high or you'd see it in their earnings.

And while Liverpool have historically been a European powerhouse and the most successful league team in England, they've only challenged once properly for the PL title (twice if they keep it up this season.) In that time we've won three league titles and been challenging almost every year under Roman. We'll have been hoovering up most of the new worldwide supporters while Liverpool will have been lagging.

And I do question the nature of foreign supporters. I've written before that I saw a guy in Louisville in a CFC shirt back in 2007 in the week after Jose had left the first time. I said, "I can't believe they've gone and done it" and wanted to talk about the game we'd just had with Man United. The guy didn't have a clue what I was talking about. So I said "Jose's sacking" and then he said that he wasn't an actual supporter, he just liked the shirt and it was a choice between a Chelsea or Liverpool shirt for him. I wasn't interested in talking to him after that.

Having a big worldwide support might earn your respect for Liverpool, but there's not much money in it. There might be some LFC supporters who will let you pay them to kiss their ass, but I don't think they'll be passing on that money to LFC. And I don't think you want to pay to do it, you want a willing partner with no fees either way.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Thu Mar 20, 2014 10:58 pm  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ritic.html Roman Abramovich should face sanctions, says Vladimir Putin critic

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ritic.html Roman Abramovich should face sanctions, says Vladimir Putin critic

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:29 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10713040/Roman-Abramovich-should-face-sanctions-says-Vladimir-Putin-critic.html

Roman Abramovich should face sanctions, says Vladimir Putin critic

Never going to happen. The London economy, particularly the property market, is too dependent on wealthy foreigners, many with links to dubious governments, for Cameron to go down the route of seizing assets.

[TimperleySaint]

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:40 pm  

Interesting draw in the Champions League. Tough for both English teams I would say - more so for United. Barca v Atletico will be a great game, and you'd have to say Real are faves to go thru v Dortmund.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:09 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10713040/Roman-Abramovich-should-face-sanctions-says-Vladimir-Putin-critic.html

Roman Abramovich should face sanctions, says Vladimir Putin critic

I feel almost prophetic .....

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:31 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

Never going to happen. The London economy, particularly the property market, is too dependent on wealthy foreigners, many with links to dubious governments, for Cameron to go down the route of seizing assets.

I don't even think it's to do with that, because while London does benefit slightly because it's a billionaire's playground, the effect is actually tiny compared to the rest of the 8 million population. And there are strong arguments that maybe London would be better off if it did cater a lot less to billionaires and far more to the ordinary Londoner.

But I think that the main reason that London is so acceptable to billionaires who are shady is that Britain is a lawful and properly regulated place. David Cameron might want the positive poll numbers that freezing a man like Abramovich's assets brings, but if he actually did try and do it he's going to come up against the British court system which will demand he makes the case for it. And IMO he can't make the case for it. Being stupidly rich, Russian and POSSIBLY have some influence with Putin is simply no reason in Britain to freeze someone's assets.

If Cameron was to attempt to freeze Abramovich's and Usmanov's accounts, the main effect would be that the British government are saying they are just as corrupt as Putin is. I honestly don't think British people want our politicians to emulate a complete loon like Putin, even if nearly every football fan would have a big cheer if a fleet of government officials turned up at Stamford Bridge and seized Roman's club.