Roman Abramovich Thread

[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 5,773]

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 5,773]

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 5,773]

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/

[iceboy 992]

 

[oldportblue 547]

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

[Unionjack 7,531]

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!

[xPetrCechx 13,546]

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

[11Drogba 2,000]

1 minute ago, xPetrCechx said:

WhatsApp video calls

That might be banned in Russia too.

[Unionjack 7,531]

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.

[the wes 7,212]

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&

[Fulham Broadway 16,386]

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 ? ''

[11Drogba 2,000]

Chelsea FC plc’s ultimate parent company is Fordstam Limited informed Companies House on 23 March that it was changing its owner’s residence to “Russia”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/21/is-roman-abramovich-rule-at-chelsea-fc-coming-to-an-end?CMP=share_btn_tw

[Unionjack 7,531]

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