The Official EPL 2010/11 Thread

He did lose a butt-load of money while the economic crisis was happening. Dunno how much of it he made back.
 
Randhir said:
He did lose a butt-load of money while the economic crisis was happening. Dunno how much of it he made back.
Click to expand...

I remember reading a but about that and while the initial shock did cost him some money, he did regain it plus a little cream shortly afterwards. It's only stupid paper-billionaires that lost a crapload of money that they couldn't make back. Don't forget that some of those "losses" were also due to his divorce. If you'd done a bit more research, you'd find out that he's a very shrewd operator and was one of the few Russian tycoons to escape from Putin's purges unscathed (actually, he was in a better position after them than before despite having to lump out a generous sum of "back taxes"). Look, as far as his business acumen and money are concerned... I really don't think there's a problem there. The only problem would be if he "got bored" of Chelsea and I doubt he will. He might want to see it run properly (and let's face it, who wouldn't)... he might lust after a Champions League win (which he does)... but getting bored? Less hands on maybe, less work to do than in the beginning? Yes, if he did the beginning bit properly (which I reckon he did).
 
smokey said:
Well you're not a Russian billionaire, so try a little harder to define a play thing.
Click to expand...

Just a random guess but I'd say it is something you would play with.

Look, I'm not taking a dig at your beloved Chelsea. Personally I think the EPL has become a much more entertaining and competitive league since Abramovich came into the picture.
Same applies with what's happening with Man City at the moment - the league benefits (and the fans in question, and even the neutrals). I'm all for an entertaining season rather than a two horse race every year.

All I'm saying is that I can't see how wealthy business men pumping tons of their own money into foreign football clubs equates to business sense. I don't see a considerable ROI for the owners of either Man City or Chelsea.
 
MartyMarts said:
Just a random guess but I'd say it is something you would play with.

Look, I'm not taking a dig at your beloved Chelsea. Personally I think the EPL has become a much more entertaining and competitive league since Abramovich came into the picture.
Same applies with what's happening with Man City at the moment - the league benefits (and the fans in question, and even the neutrals). I'm all for an entertaining season rather than a two horse race every year.

All I'm saying is that I can't see how wealthy business men pumping tons of their own money into foreign football clubs equates to business sense. I don't see a considerable ROI for the owners of either Man City or Chelsea.
Click to expand...

Indeed, if it wasnt for Chelsea and City, the EPL would be just another la liga
 
I recall last season Abramovich when Chelsea received the trophy he looked unimpressed maybe even bored.But then again he could just be not satisfied not winning the champions league.
 
MartyMarts said:
Just a random guess but I'd say it is something you would play with.

Look, I'm not taking a dig at your beloved Chelsea. Personally I think the EPL has become a much more entertaining and competitive league since Abramovich came into the picture.
Same applies with what's happening with Man City at the moment - the league benefits (and the fans in question, and even the neutrals). I'm all for an entertaining season rather than a two horse race every year.

All I'm saying is that I can't see how wealthy business men pumping tons of their own money into foreign football clubs equates to business sense. I don't see a considerable ROI for the owners of either Man City or Chelsea.
Click to expand...

Well, if you look at in the last 6 years (2 for City) then maybe not. However, these people have enough money to wait it out - years if needs be. If a normal small business takes between a year and three years to become profitable then why do you think Chelsea or City owners expect their investments to be paid back immediately? I mean honestly...
 
An addendum: That's not to say that it's just a business. It's a hobby/bragging rights/passion/whatever that leads them to it - but no matter how passionate they are about something, they wouldn't do it if it didn't make financial sense. Doesn't make sense to you? Well, you're not a billionaire.
 
I dont think City was a business investment tbh, the man has enough money, and the ridiculous amounts being spent on transfers every season will take a very very long time to recover
City is a proper toy by any definition of the word
 
If it was a business venture dont you think a more sensible approach would be to build the best academy and hire the best coaches first? Try and sign on the most promising youth and build a team from the ground up

The only way City can achieve and then maintain success is by splashing crazy amounts of cash

As you mentioned smokey, atleast Roman built an academy, and youth is coming through, I havent heard of a single promising youth signing by City?
 
nivek said:
If it was a business venture dont you think a more sensible approach would be to build the best academy and hire the best coaches first? Try and sign on the most promising youth and build a team from the ground up

The only way City can achieve and then maintain success is by splashing crazy amounts of cash

As you mentioned smokey, atleast Roman built an academy, and youth is coming through, I havent heard of a single promising youth signing by City?
Click to expand...

Different methods, different clubs. City already has an amazing academy - as their recent prospects have shown so they don't need so much investment in that area. Also consider two things.

1. You need world class players to win something, so that necessitates large spending. You need to win n the here and now to be considered "big" or else your best prospects will leave you for greener pastures. I mean honestly... one-club players are all nice and good, but how many truly world class players (who have an instiable desire to win things) are lucky enough to be in the youth teams of a Milan or an Arsenal?

2. Arab marketing. nuff said. They are not only building City, they are bilding up the names of Abu Dhabi etc etc.
 
smokey said:
Different methods, different clubs. City already has an amazing academy - as their recent prospects have shown so they don't need so much investment in that area. Also consider two things.

1. You need world class players to win something, so that necessitates large spending. You need to win n the here and now to be considered "big" or else your best prospects will leave you for greener pastures. I mean honestly... one-club players are all nice and good, but how many truly world class players (who have an instiable desire to win things) are lucky enough to be in the youth teams of a Milan or an Arsenal?
Click to expand...

Perhaps but I think youth team players will stay if there's opportunity for them, at City, its all about instant success and there's no balance between club players and huge purchases..
Take Dunne and Ireland for example - both top quality players that could fit into any top 4 squad, they were replaced by 'big names' that arent even nessassarily better players (Lescott/Toure/Barry), I think the only player they still have is Richards?

2. Arab marketing. nuff said. They are not only building City, they are bilding up the names of Abu Dhabi etc etc.
Click to expand...

Good point!
 
smokey said:
An addendum: That's not to say that it's just a business. It's a hobby/bragging rights/passion/whatever that leads them to it - but no matter how passionate they are about something, they wouldn't do it if it didn't make financial sense. Doesn't make sense to you? Well, you're not a billionaire.
Click to expand...

Jeez dude. Take it easy. Like I said, I wasn't specifically out to take a dig at your club, so relax. Hobby | bragging rights | the 'in' thing | something different etc. - that's what I was referring to when I used the word plaything. Logically one can't physically play with a football club. I'm sure if Chelsea go on to win the EPL & the CL (especially) for the next few years it will be much more satisfactory to Abramovich then if they didn't and he made a few million pounds in profit.
 
smokey said:
If you'd done a bit more research, you'd find out that he's a very shrewd operator and was one of the few Russian tycoons to escape from Putin's purges unscathed
Click to expand...

I didn't do any research, it was just an article mentioning him. How much do you think I care? :)

smokey said:
Well, if you look at in the last 6 years (2 for City) then maybe not. However, these people have enough money to wait it out - years if needs be. If a normal small business takes between a year and three years to become profitable then why do you think Chelsea or City owners expect their investments to be paid back immediately? I mean honestly...
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, Ambramovic expects no ROI anytime soon, Chelsea pile up losses/debts each year which he just takes care of and writes it off their books.
 
Last edited:
MartyMarts said:
Jeez dude. Take it easy. Like I said, I wasn't specifically out to take a dig at your club, so relax. Hobby | bragging rights | the 'in' thing | something different etc. - that's what I was referring to when I used the word plaything. Logically one can't physically play with a football club. I'm sure if Chelsea go on to win the EPL & the CL (especially) for the next few years it will be much more satisfactory to Abramovich then if they didn't and he made a few million pounds in profit.
Click to expand...

Dude, I don't care whether you're taking a dig at my club or not - I was just being blunt about the facts. Roman's a billionaire - different rules apply to him and the way he does business than they do to Joe Soaps like you and I. The point I was trying to make is that these types of things can be done for a million and one reasons, but it matters not a jot if the numbers aren't good. F#ck it, they can afford to make demand making money off a passion where we can't. Nothing untoward intended so don't take it that way.
 
Randhir said:
I didn't do any research, it was just an article mentioning him. How much do you think I care? :)



As far as I can tell, Ambramovic expects no ROI anytime soon, Chelsea pile up losses/debts each year which he just takes care of and writes it off their books.
Click to expand...

1. Which is why I gave you the info, never expected you to know that :)

2. He can afford to do that because he bought the club with his ill-gotten cash reserves. Liverpool's owners didn't have that luxury and it's why they are bleeding the club dry. Sam for United. City are lucky in that they have a de-facto sovereign fund backing them - which is better than a single owner because a sovereign fund has more on it's mind except money (as per the Arab marketing thing I said earlier). It wouldn't surprise me if they continued funding it for years to come due to City (and it's associated expenses) being relatively minor thing in the overall balance-sheet of Abu Dhabi. Football is a far better way to put yourself on the map than a few adverts on CNN. More expensive, but far more prestigious (in the long run).
 
Who is Chelsea's traditional Rival. I know it's not Fulham their rivals are Brentford , Arsenal's traditional rivals are Hotspurs, West Ham has Milwall. Chelsea seems to be the odd man out
 
mmmig said:
Who is Chelsea's traditional Rival. I know it's not Fulham their rivals are Brentford , Arsenal's traditional rivals are Hotspurs, West Ham has Milwall. Chelsea seems to be the odd man out
Click to expand...

They don't have one, but in the last couple of decades Arsenal have come close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X