Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire

[Fulham Broadway 17,092]

  On 26/02/2013 at 18:34, The only place to be said:

Emenalo - based on what direction the club has taken in regards player acquisition and development, I think he's done some good thing

OK. all ears.

Isn t he responsible for letting Drogba, Kalou and Lukaku go and leave Torres and Sturridge as the only two strikers, without signing any replacements? or maybe you know better with your ''insider'' information and the 'Technical Director' had no say in it, it was Roman or Buck , or Gourlay.

Abramovich is a mug if at the end of spending @ £1000 000 000 on the club to end up with a mate of Average Grunt as Technical Director. No wonder fans of other clubs laugh.

[Liquidator 5,176]

  On 25/02/2013 at 21:28, bushman said:

Roman is the best thing that ever happened to Chelsea. Without him, the club, most likely would have been bankrupted.

No one can deny the power & influence that money has in football.

It was Murdoch´s Sky TV that changed the face of the game from working class game to a billion pound business.

It became the most globalised sport in the world. Sky TV took advantage of this opportunity & invested millions.

TV deals are at the highest they ever been, these days.

This is the way modern football is heading.

We had just qualified for the Champions League. Although we were in a poor financial situation we would have gained loads of revenue from being in that, we had just completed a large scale redevelopment of the stadium and had some great players that we could have easily sold if we needed to. I doubt we would have gone completely bankrupt.

Absolutely. It has ruined the sport.

What the hell? Football was a global sport already! It was, by an absolute country mile the most watched and played sport in the world long before that money-grabbing cunt Murdoch arrived on the scene. You are right, Sky invested millions and football became a business. And the consequences?

• We have to pay around £15 per month to watch our own domestic football league (in the UK anyway)
• Money is now of more interest to a club than its supporters
• Ticket prices have reached laughable heights
• Everything in football is money-driven, right down to the players. Of course money was an incentive before but now it has reached a stupid scale
• Player wages are silly
• Sky have a pro-Man U agenda and the scale of the Murdoch empire is so great that it has caused the influence of refereeing decisions and decisions made by the FA
• It has brought in investors and foreign owners who don't give a fuck. How often do you see Stan Kroenke at Arsenal games or Venky's at Blackburn? No more than 5 times a season

You are right, it is the way modern football is heading. Its the wrong way too. Can't wait to see what football is like by 2022 for the World Cup in Qatar. If things continue the way they are going, it will be dead as a sport that is affordable to watch, driven almost entirely by brands and sponsors. How long until clubs become 'Samsung Chelsea' or 'Chelsea FC with Samsung?'. It wouldn't surprise me if we start seeing stuff like that in 10 or so years. We already have 'The Capital One Cup' and the 'Emirates Stadium' etc. Murdoch has ruined football

[Fulham Broadway 17,092]

Double like Liquidators post ^ if it was possible.

[Rmpr 8,977]

  On 26/02/2013 at 20:32, Liquidator said:

We had just qualified for the Champions League. Although we were in a poor financial situation we would have gained loads of revenue from being in that, we had just completed a large scale redevelopment of the stadium and had some great players that we could have easily sold if we needed to. I doubt we would have gone completely bankrupt.

Absolutely. It has ruined the sport.

What the hell? Football was a global sport already! It was, by an absolute country mile the most watched and played sport in the world long before that money-grabbing cunt Murdoch arrived on the scene. You are right, Sky invested millions and football became a business. And the consequences?

• We have to pay around £15 per month to watch our own domestic football league (in the UK anyway)
• Money is now of more interest to a club than its supporters
• Ticket prices have reached laughable heights
• Everything in football is money-driven, right down to the players. Of course money was an incentive before but now it has reached a stupid scale
• Player wages are silly
• Sky have a pro-Man U agenda and the scale of the Murdoch empire is so great that it has caused the influence of refereeing decisions and decisions made by the FA
• It has brought in investors and foreign owners who don't give a fuck. How often do you see Stan Kroenke at Arsenal games or Venky's at Blackburn? No more than 5 times a season

You are right, it is the way modern football is heading. Its the wrong way too. Can't wait to see what football is like by 2022 for the World Cup in Qatar. If things continue the way they are going, it will be dead as a sport that is affordable to watch, driven almost entirely by brands and sponsors. How long until clubs become 'Samsung Chelsea' or 'Chelsea FC with Samsung?'. It wouldn't surprise me if we start seeing stuff like that in 10 or so years. We already have 'The Capital One Cup' and the 'Emirates Stadium' etc. Murdoch has ruined football

One thing, those are English Football problems, not Modern Football problems. If you look at Bundesliga, 80% of it has already been solved. I dont think it is the end of the world or the end of football as we know. Yes, they are critical, but you (British) are more than capable of improving things.

The expenses you guys have with your own domestic league are super high, but it is easy to complain on the internet. If you want to change it, just dont pay for things, I bet it will go down really quick (see Spain and Italy).

As far as aspects in football are money driven, well, it is like that for everything isnt it? The fact money is a primary issue with EPL can be coopted with "hapiness and tradition", just look at UCL. Big sponsors and investments and it still keeps a very nice atmosphere.

I do think there are huge problems with the path FIFA, UEFA and FA are taking, but it is something that is manageable. Most people feel the need to categorize club ownership as business and not football or vice-versa. I think this is totally wrong, it is both - football and business. Even more, they can perfectly work together (and there are examples). Roman + Chelsea have been a good partneship until now and we can get things back on track again, no need to overreact and ask for his head.

It hasnt ruin anything, it just got professional and expensive. The passion that has always driven football still very much alive, the fact we are having a very bad season and a lot of things internally are wrong might have a big reflect on our current judgement. However, things were basically the same in 09/10 and we never complained about it. Also, ask how bad things are in English Football for Manure or Spurs fans.

Great post though...

[The only place to be 11,313]

  On 26/02/2013 at 20:15, Fulham Broadway said:

OK. all ears.

Isn t he responsible for letting Drogba, Kalou and Lukaku go and leave Torres and Sturridge as the only two strikers, without signing any replacements? or maybe you know better with your ''insider'' information and the 'Technical Director' had no say in it, it was Roman or Buck , or Gourlay.

Abramovich is a mug if at the end of spending @ £1000 000 000 on the club to end up with a mate of Average Grunt as Technical Director. No wonder fans of other clubs laugh.

He would be partly responsible for those things I'm sure.

Of course if you're giving him the 'blame' for sending Lukaku out on loan, do you give him no credit for the succes of that loan? If you blame him for letting Kalou leave (is that a bad thing?) do you not give him credit for signing Moses? What about the signing of Ba? Yes we were light up front but clearly the club wanted to take every chance they could to make the £100 million man Torres work out. In any business, that's not an asset you can simply write-off.

What about Azpilicueta though? Or the youth team's success? Or the amazingly successful loans of Courtois, De Bruyne, Chalobah and a few others one could mention?

In fact before he took over in July 2011, we signed players like Benayoun, Torres and Zhirkov. After that we've really prioritised young players, which again seeks to remedy one of the biggest problems that faced us a club. We didn't do the right things in the first 5 years of Roman's reign which is why we're playing catch-up now. I actually agree that there is blame to be attributed to people - I just don't know if we still pay their wages.

[MHL 47 378]

  On 26/02/2013 at 18:31, Superfrankie said:

I read somewhere, a bloke said 'Roman is like a permanent erection'. Couldn't have described it better myself.

Would that then mean that "Benitez is like permanent impotence"

[Melanicus 5,208]

I actually agree with Leif on all of his points here. Dude talks sense.

Now, I will go and turn Chelsea in the "more than club" on FIFA.

[zolayes 14,489]

  On 26/02/2013 at 20:36, Fulham Broadway said:

Double like Liquidators post ^ if it was possible.

his one post alone should make him MOM for Feb

[bushman 2,043]

Nothing bit bitterness I read here.

Money makes the world around & football is part of it.

[zolayes 14,489]

  On 26/02/2013 at 22:16, bushman said:

Nothing bit bitterness I read here.

Money makes the world around & football is part of it.

the correct phrase is money makes the world GO round ,,,You should know that as you seem to worship it

[Fulham Broadway 17,092]

  On 26/02/2013 at 20:54, The only place to be said:

Of course if you're giving him the 'blame' for sending Lukaku out on loan, do you give him no credit for the succes of that loan

He was let go when we needed to keep him

  On 26/02/2013 at 20:54, The only place to be said:

you blame him for letting Kalou leave (is that a bad thing?)

Would much rather have King K than Torres right now.

  On 26/02/2013 at 20:54, The only place to be said:

What about the signing of Ba?

Panic buy after bad negotiations for real targets

  On 26/02/2013 at 20:54, The only place to be said:

the amazingly successful loans of Courtois, De Bruyne, Chalobah and a few others one could mention?

Amazingly successful ? Youre having a bubble. We should have 2 players for every outfield position and 3 keepers. We have Turnbull as No 2. If Courtois was in the squad it would keep Cech on his toes who at the moment all he has to do is turn up to be selected. We will now probably lose Courtois to Barca as they want him to replace Valdes.

Apart from lukakuu and Courtouis, De Buyne and Bruma should never have been loaned out and will more than likely in the Chelsea tradition be sold off.

All in all the club has 23 players out on loan and the Fat Ringmaster has said the ''squad isnt strong enough''. No the loan system is not ''amazingly succesful'' -it is the mentality of Emenalo or [insert fuckwit board member here] taking items to Cash Converters or a pawn shop

[bushman 2,043]

  On 26/02/2013 at 22:29, zolayes said:

the correct phrase is money makes the world GO round ,,,You should know that as you seem to worship it

Perhaps, you should be concerned about who are the idiots that run Chelsea ?

I mean, to airbrush Di M out of the picture is not a very nice way to show some gratitude for Di M, is it ?

[zolayes 14,489]

  On 27/02/2013 at 08:34, bushman said:

Perhaps, you should be concerned about who are the idiots that run Chelsea ?

I mean, to airbrush Di M out of the picture is not a very nice way to show some gratitude for Di M, is it ?

The Russians have long airbrushed history ...Roman is only following Stalin

[bushman 2,043]

  On 27/02/2013 at 08:51, zolayes said:

The Russians have long airbrushed history ...Roman is only following Stalin

an old view by you ?

[The only place to be 11,313]

  On 26/02/2013 at 22:41, Fulham Broadway said:

He was let go when we needed to keep him

Would much rather have King K than Torres right now.

Panic buy after bad negotiations for real targets

Amazingly successful ? Youre having a bubble. We should have 2 players for every outfield position and 3 keepers. We have Turnbull as No 2. If Courtois was in the squad it would keep Cech on his toes who at the moment all he has to do is turn up to be selected. We will now probably lose Courtois to Barca as they want him to replace Valdes.

Apart from lukakuu and Courtouis, De Buyne and Bruma should never have been loaned out and will more than likely in the Chelsea tradition be sold off.

All in all the club has 23 players out on loan and the Fat Ringmaster has said the ''squad isnt strong enough''. No the loan system is not ''amazingly succesful'' -it is the mentality of Emenalo or [insert fuckwit board member here] taking items to Cash Converters or a pawn shop

M view on the loans is that it was us playing catch-up after years of mismanaging young players. We simply haven't brought through the young players we need to supplement or replace the first-teamers. Now we're trying to get this group of 18-22 year olds up to speed and experienced enough to play a part at this club.

You say Lukaku was needed, but if you actually look at his thread on this forum then you'll see people saying he wasn't ready, that the loan was needed and even some members saying he was already a busted flush. That's what I mean by misremembering history, because it really doesn't service this discussion. He was wasted last year because AVB said he had a role for him in the squad (same goes for Josh). This year he's become the heir to Drogba.

Does he become that without this loan? I don't know.

Again, the 23 loans issue was something Bushman brought up and I think you're both being unfair. Besides Essien (who has had a bad injury record and poor form for about FOUR YEARS) there aren't many people who you would have said could have contributed before the start of the season. Now we're realistically talking about at least half-a-dozen contributing to the first-team squad next season. Is that not successful?

I can't believe you're criticising the Courtois loan though. We bought a young Belgian keeper with potential. We now have a Europa League and Super Cup winning keeper who is arguably the best young keeper in Europe. Next year he might even have Champions League experience if he stays there and even if we sold him we'd make at least THREE TIMES what we paid for him. You're right about us missing him against Brentford though.

I think this sums up the debate though. You're criticising him for something short-term when I'm praising him for what might be major long-term benefits. I'd really advise you look at the Lukaku thread from around July to August of last year because I don't think you realise just what the feeling was around him then. Compare it to now and see if that loan was good.

[bushman 2,043]

Personally, I believe Emenalo had done an admirable job in scouting & recommended many young talented players.

As the director of football, he is a failure. The job is just out of his depth, in my view.

[Fulham Broadway 17,092]

  On 27/02/2013 at 08:59, The only place to be said:

Now we're realistically talking about at least half-a-dozen contributing to the first-team squad next season. Is that not successful?

Not until it actually happens. There is nothing to suggest the players will be brought back. From previous history they will be sold off like all the other products from Cobham Farm, and the club will seek out Waitrose eggs.

It doesnt matter if we get three times what we paid for Courtois, I would rather have the club successful than flog off talent to contribute to Gourlays bonus.

[The only place to be 11,313]

  On 27/02/2013 at 10:14, Fulham Broadway said:

Not until it actually happens. There is nothing to suggest the players will be brought back. From previous history they will be sold off like all the other products from Cobham Farm, and the club will seek out Waitrose eggs.

It doesnt matter if we get three times what we paid for Courtois, I would rather have the club successful than flog off talent to contribute to Gourlays bonus.

And if it doesn't happen then I would have to re-assess my views on the job that's being done. But you've gone from talking about what has happened to what might happen - I agree that right now it's probably to soon to properly assess the job Emenalo is doing but based on what he's working towards I don't think it's right to call for him to be sacked.