test

Welcome to Talk Chelsea

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

termninja

Roman Abramovich

Started by termninja,

884 posts in this topic
On ‎22‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 0:41 PM, OhForAGreavsie said:

To a marginal extent only.

It is more true to say that Roman is in English football because it was already big before he arrived. More true, but not wholly so because we must also factor in that Football Association rules and national legislation make it easier for overseas owners to buy in to our clubs than is the case in some other countries. Premier League revenue growth was already well underway before Roman arrived. My own view is that the long standing international popularity of England's top division, which predates the Premier League, is more to do with the emotional attachment people felt towards Man Utd after Munich, the fact that the1966 World Cup was the first to be televised with anything even approaching modern standards, that outside of the World Cup, The FA Cup Final was the only show-piece football occasion people saw around the world, that Liverpool's dominance during the 70's & early 80's made them a worldwide fascination, that the cultural ties between Britain and some of the world's biggest markets were strong, and most importantly there was a gap to be filled. Like The Beatles, English football was the right product at the right time.

I don't see why not since it's all relative. Without the huge revenue injections they would certainly have had lesser budgets but so too would the teams they were competing with. In any case, during their rise to the top tier, they have regularly outperformed clubs with bigger resources than they could call on. Let's remember that many clubs have made the same climb before the Premier League came into being, including teams with even fewer resources than those you mention.

Football was big before Roman arrived but it went massive after he arrived the TV deals got bigger every year apart from the last one. Your stating the obvious in a lot of your points about the cup final and Munich etc. Teams like Brighton were more or less fucked after the Goldstone Ground closed they would never have built a new ground if there wasn't loads of money in the Premiership. Smaller clubs have made it to the top but staying there is the main problem the top six will stay as it is indefinitely Everton and Leicester like this year will be next and the rest are frankly also rans who could be involved in a relegation battle every year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Iggy Doonican said:

Football was big before Roman arrived but it went massive after he arrived the TV deals got bigger every year apart from the last one. Your stating the obvious in a lot of your points about the cup final and Munich etc. Teams like Brighton were more or less fucked after the Goldstone Ground closed they would never have built a new ground if there wasn't loads of money in the Premiership. Smaller clubs have made it to the top but staying there is the main problem the top six will stay as it is indefinitely Everton and Leicester like this year will be next and the rest are frankly also rans who could be involved in a relegation battle every year.

Hello Iggy,

You’re suggesting that, because of Roman, the Premier League is much richer than it would have been without him. As I said in my first reply, I think that if this is true at all it is true to a marginal extent only. The factors I mentioned, along with the growth of pay TV, played a much, much bigger role.

I see no evidence that Premier League revenues would be noticeably lower had Roman not bought Chelsea. Of course Chelsea might not be a power in the league if he hadn’t, but that’s a different conversation.

My point re Brighton is that they earned their place in the Premier League and since they didn’t benefit from a greater revenue boost to get them there than any other team did, they would have been just as likely to make it even if revenues were lower. In any case, as above, I don’t think the revenue would be significantly different if there had been no Roman.

 

 

 

11Drogba likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎23‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 2:42 PM, OhForAGreavsie said:

Hello Iggy,

You’re suggesting that, because of Roman, the Premier League is much richer than it would have been without him. As I said in my first reply, I think that if this is true at all it is true to a marginal extent only. The factors I mentioned, along with the growth of pay TV, played a much, much bigger role.

I see no evidence that Premier League revenues would be noticeably lower had Roman not bought Chelsea. Of course Chelsea might not be a power in the league if he hadn’t, but that’s a different conversation.

My point re Brighton is that they earned their place in the Premier League and since they didn’t benefit from a greater revenue boost to get them there than any other team did, they would have been just as likely to make it even if revenues were lower. In any case, as above, I don’t think the revenue would be significantly different if there had been no Roman.

 

 

 

This is my last reply on the subject if Roman hadn't come we would still be in a Man United- Arsenal domination of the PL. As I've said in another post Stockport were in a higher league than Man City 20 years ago. The flux of clubs being taken over after Abramovich came well who hasn't been taken over or had massive investment. We've had City, United, Arsenal, West Ham, Leicester, Villa, Liverpool, Everton, Wolves, Pompey, Leeds,Swansea,Watford, Newcastle I could go on it's practically everyone. If you think Roman wasn't a game changer where football ownership was concened then your totally wrong. Some of those were a disaster but the point is all were taken over after 2003. The likes of Jack Walker, Matthew Harding could have never competed with the sort of investment football clubs have seen in the last 15 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Iggy Doonican said:

This is my last reply on the subject if Roman hadn't come we would still be in a Man United- Arsenal domination of the PL. As I've said in another post Stockport were in a higher league than Man City 20 years ago. The flux of clubs being taken over after Abramovich came well who hasn't been taken over or had massive investment. We've had City, United, Arsenal, West Ham, Leicester, Villa, Liverpool, Everton, Wolves, Pompey, Leeds,Swansea,Watford, Newcastle I could go on it's practically everyone. If you think Roman wasn't a game changer where football ownership was concened then your totally wrong. Some of those were a disaster but the point is all were taken over after 2003. The likes of Jack Walker, Matthew Harding could have never competed with the sort of investment football clubs have seen in the last 15 years. 

Of course Roman has had an impact, and yes of course he acted as a trailblazer for other international investors in the Premier League. Those are not the points with which I disagreed however. You said. "Look at the bigger picture the reason that English football is so massive is indirectly because of Abramovich." My point is, and was, that the premier League was already massive before Roman and would be just as big as it is now with or without him. To repeat what I said earlier, Roman got into the premier League because it was massive, it didn't get massive because he got into it. The growth in the league's revenues since 2003 are to do with market forces and the changed nature of pay TV, not because Roman bought Chelsea. Indeed revenues had already grown massively between 1992 and 2003, before any of us had ever heard of Roman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P.S.          
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           

The 2003 football rich list was calculated and published before Roman bought Chelsea. Its top ten already included four English sides. The Premier League was already big before Roman. 

 

Rank Club Income
( million)
Country
1. Manchester United 217.2 England England
2. Juventus 173.5 Italy Italy
3. Bayern Munich 173.2 Germany Germany
4. Milan 164.6 Italy Italy
5. Real Madrid 138.2 Spain Spain
6. Liverpool 137.6 England England
7. Lazio 125.4 Italy Italy
8. Roma 123.8 Italy Italy
9. Chelsea 118.4 England England
10. Internazionale 112.8

Italy Italy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2018 at 4:42 PM, OhForAGreavsie said:

The factors I mentioned, along with the growth of pay TV, played a much, much bigger role.

Bosman ruling also had a massive effect. With the transfer of international star players Premiere League became much more popular among international fans imo.

"Post-Bosman, clubs were free to play all EU players, and back at the Nou Camp in 1999, United completed an historic treble, by fielding eight players who would have been considered "foreign" just four years previous. "

"On Boxing Day 1999, Gianluca Vialli's Chelsea became the first English side to field an entire XI of foreign players in the win at Southampton."

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/10100134/how-the-bosman-rule-changed-football-20-years-on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:
P.S.          
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           

The 2003 football rich list was calculated and published before Roman bought Chelsea. Its top ten already included four English sides. The Premier League was already big before Roman. 

 

Rank Club Income
( million)
Country
1. Manchester United 217.2 England England
2. Juventus 173.5 Italy Italy
3. Bayern Munich 173.2 Germany Germany
4. Milan 164.6 Italy Italy
5. Real Madrid 138.2 Spain Spain
6. Liverpool 137.6 England England
7. Lazio 125.4 Italy Italy
8. Roma 123.8 Italy Italy
9. Chelsea 118.4 England England
10. Internazionale 112.8

Italy Italy

I've already stated that English football was big before Roman and it went to a different stratosphere afterwards. The Premier League wasn't massive in countries like India, China the States etc. I really don't see your argument here's the latest list look at the obscene amounts of money West Ham and Leicester are on there for fucks sake. I also said indirectly but if you think that West Ham and Leicester (both who were taken over by the way) would have found themselves on the rich list in 2003 then your taking the piss.

https://www.totalsportek.com/money/richest-football-clubs/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Iggy Doonican said:

I've already stated that English football was big before Roman and it went to a different stratosphere afterwards. The Premier League wasn't massive in countries like India, China the States etc. I really don't see your argument here's the latest list look at the obscene amounts of money West Ham and Leicester are on there for fucks sake. I also said indirectly but if you think that West Ham and Leicester (both who were taken over by the way) would have found themselves on the rich list in 2003 then your taking the piss.

https://www.totalsportek.com/money/richest-football-clubs/

 

Those clubs are on the ‘list’ because you’ve expanded it to the top 20. (From the top 10 I showed.) Had we looked at 2003’s top 20 I’m pretty sure further English clubs would have been included.

The clubs you name are on the list because they are in the Premier League and benefit from the second biggest TV rights deal in world sport. Throw in a big stadium for West Ham, plus a Champions League run for Leicester, and there is no mystery about their turnover. I say again, they are achieving those numbers because they are members of the Premier League, not because Roman bought Chelsea.

The question is not that the Premier League is rich; that’s a given. The question is why. You say it’s because Roman bought Chelsea. I say that’s not it. I notice the fact that the league was already rich and getting richer before Roman arrived. I notice too that the growth in TV revenues is strongly linked to the business models of Sky, BT and other ‘media partners’, and I stick to the argument that the league’s continued growth is not because of Roman.

manpe likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Those clubs are on the ‘list’ because you’ve expanded it to the top 20. (From the top 10 I showed.) Had we looked at 2003’s top 20 I’m pretty sure further English clubs would have been included.

The clubs you name are on the list because they are in the Premier League and benefit from the second biggest TV rights deal in world sport. Throw in a big stadium for West Ham, plus a Champions League run for Leicester, and there is no mystery about their turnover. I say again, they are achieving those numbers because they are members of the Premier League, not because Roman bought Chelsea.

The question is not that the Premier League is rich; that’s a given. The question is why. You say it’s because Roman bought Chelsea. I say that’s not it. I notice the fact that the league was already rich and getting richer before Roman arrived. I notice too that the growth in TV revenues is strongly linked to the business models of Sky, BT and other ‘media partners’, and I stick to the argument that the league’s continued growth is not because of Roman.

Look for the final time I'm saying football got to be the massive sport partly and indirectly because of Roman buying Chelsea and I'm sticking to that. The business models well do you think a company like BT would have got involved in football before 2003?. Companies went tits up because they believed that football was the golden goose Setanta, ITV Digital or whatever it was called ESPN didn't last long either. Lets be honest how many members here were Chelsea fans before 2003 when Roman bought Chelsea?. As I've said the USA had no interest in football and was looked down by the Yanks as a girls game 2018 it's more popular then ever and the same with other countries and that's PARTLY down to Roman buying Chelsea.

So you can save the history lesson I'm quite aware how football has changed pre and after Roman but seeing as he gave Chelsea a new fanbase almost overnight I think he's had quite a difference to our club and INDIRECTLY to others. And I never said the league's continued growth is because of Roman but him buying Chelsea had an effect on the PL and English football's finances.

 

Matt Hughes, our deputy football correspondent, traces how the Roman Abramovich’s shock £140 million takeover of Chelsea ten years ago transformed the Premier League and turned it into a world force. 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/audio-slideshow-how-roman-abramovich-changed-football-7n259bhg20t

 

oldportblue and Fernando like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope this VISA issue is sorted out ASAP! we won 15 trophies in 15 years under Roman’s rule, long may it continue!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please tell me how Roman is going to be in control of our transfers when he cant even get into the soddin country ffs!!!

We NEED a sporting director!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Unionjack said:

Please tell me how Roman is going to be in control of our transfers when he cant even get into the soddin country ffs!!!

We NEED a sporting director!

WhatsApp video calls :)

Duppy Conqueror and the wes like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, xPetrCechx said:

WhatsApp video calls :)

That might be banned in Russia too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, xPetrCechx said:

WhatsApp video calls :)

And I suppose MOST of our buys will be out of England anyway.

But it doesn't distract from the fact we need a SD badly. I really cant see Granny doing it. Businisswoman yes. SD no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, the wes said:

British Prime Minister Theresa May’s spokesman said on Monday the government could not comment on why Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich’s visa was yet to be renewed.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-russia-abramovich/uk-pm-mays-spokesman-says-cannot-comment-on-russian-billionaires-abramovich-visa-delay-idUSKCN1IM10W?rpc=401&

We've all done it. '' Fuck which yacht was I on, where the fuck is that visa application, which country ? ''

Duppy Conqueror and 11Drogba like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roman Abramovich: Chelsea owner and close friend of Putin must reveal finances to get back into the UK

The Kremlin has accused the UK of acting in an 'unprincipled and unfriendly' way amid deteriorating relations

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/roman-abramovich-chelsea-wealth-russia-uk-putin-salisbury-spy-poisoning-a8362421.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.