Roman Abramovich Thread

[the wes 7,212]

Roman Abramovich & Alisher Usmanov risk losing Chelsea & Arsenal assets

https://www.101greatgoals.com/news/abramovich-usmanov-lose-chelsea-arsenal/

[Iggy Doonican 4,186]

Look at the bigger picture the reason that English football is so massive is indirectly because of Abramovich. Do you think the likes of Burnley, Bournemouth and Brighton would be in the top tier of football on the budgets and crowds they used to have?. Since 2003 yes Chelsea were the club who got given the golden goose so to speak but the TV deals and rewards have benefitted every other club who have found themselves in the Premier League. Man City being the obvious one but Spurs before 2003 were a mid table club now there a force and moving into a 60,000 stadium would that have happened before Roman came would it fuck.

There have been some real shitheads who have bought football clubs since and have ruined them but the blame there is firmly at the F.A's door with their fit and proper persons rule. I can't believe there are fans saying stupid things like get Roman out and get the Arabs in no wait actually I can because they had never heard of Chelsea till 15 years ago.

[zekinjo 449]

I wonder where’s my mate Roman? Last time I’ve seen him at the Bridge Gudjohnsen has scored against Barca.

[Jase 43,479]

 

[Fulham Broadway 16,829]

49 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Will get worse with Syria as well. US expelling oligarchs etc.

Quick....sell the club !  Bruce buck frantically shredding documents....

[11Drogba 2,000]

On 3/18/2018 at 0:58 AM, OhForAGreavsie said:

 

“There is history the way Tolstoy imagined it, as a great, slow-moving weather system in which even tsars and generals are just leaves before the storm. And there is history the way Hollywood imagines it, as a single story line in which the right move by the tsar or the wrong move by the general changes everything. Most of us, deep down, are probably Hollywood people. We like to invent “what if” scenarios--what if x had never happened, what if y had happened instead?--because we like to believe that individual decisions make a difference: that, if not for x, or if only there had been y, history might have plunged forever down a completely different path. Since we are agents, we have an interest in the efficacy of agency.” Louis Menand

I am grateful what Roman, managers and players have done but when I think about our fans, the buzzing atmosphere at the bridge, the history and the location of this club I feel so optimistic about Chelsea.

Conte has done that, Roman will appoint this, that player missed that chance makes a difference today but in the long term the storm is still very strong and our rivals seem like leaves to me. 

[Antonio8 736]

On 9/4/2018 at 11:22 PM, Jason said:

 

that's a good reason to make terrible markets like the last two 

[OhForAGreavsie 5,890]

On 3/18/2018 at 0:10 PM, Iggy Doonican said:

Look at the bigger picture the reason that English football is so massive is indirectly because of Abramovich.

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.

On 3/18/2018 at 0:10 PM, Iggy Doonican said:

Do you think the likes of Burnley, Bournemouth and Brighton would be in the top tier of football on the budgets and crowds they used to have?

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.

[Iggy Doonican 4,186]

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.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,890]

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.

 

 

 

[Iggy Doonican 4,186]

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. 

[OhForAGreavsie 5,890]

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.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,890]

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
2.	Juventus	173.5	Italy
3.	Bayern Munich	173.2	Germany
4.	Milan	164.6	Italy
5.	Real Madrid	138.2	Spain
6.	Liverpool	137.6	England
7.	Lazio	125.4	Italy
8.	Roma	123.8	Italy
9.	Chelsea	118.4	England
10.	Internazionale	112.8	Italy

[11Drogba 2,000]

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

[Iggy Doonican 4,186]

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
2.	Juventus	173.5	Italy
3.	Bayern Munich	173.2	Germany
4.	Milan	164.6	Italy
5.	Real Madrid	138.2	Spain
6.	Liverpool	137.6	England
7.	Lazio	125.4	Italy
8.	Roma	123.8	Italy
9.	Chelsea	118.4	England
10.	Internazionale	112.8	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/

 

[OhForAGreavsie 5,890]

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.

[Iggy Doonican 4,186]

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

 

[Unionjack 7,531]

I call bullshit on this one

 

Abramovich to ‘relegate’ Granovskaia’s Chelsea role, and manage transfers ‘in first person’

http://sportwitness.co.uk/abramovich-relegate-granovskaias-chelsea-role-manage-transfers-first-person/