Scolari's been sacked

[sammy]

allyuh hypocrits like to cry down Roman Abramovich ... but WHO THE F**K is MALCOLM GLAZER?

What FOOTBALL EXPERIENCE does he have?
What does he KNOW about Football?


steups. keep talking.

u sounding like u losing it dey boy.

I feel u should fire u therapist, and bring in another.

[JDB]

Why does Glazer need to interfere with the club?
Is not like is his own money he using.
You really think Glazer could give a flying f**k? - Glazer is a business man. $$$ will always have the final say at the end of the day.

Roman is using HIS MONEY.
That is the difference between ambition and greed.

That is like saying why do you have ot take care of a house that yuh buy with a mortgage, Ent it is the bank money too?

Obviously he has an interest in the club being successful and he has followed up this interest by being a smart owner and not meddling too much. In that sense United better off that they heavily leveraged becuase they cannot afford to be operating at a loss like Chelsea. they have to make a profit every year.

Also what is the point of Roman using his own money if he not doing it wisely? It helping Chelsea fans to know that it not costing them anything when they waste a set of money? Also we done see that for all the money the purse strings get tightened.

[acb]

allyuh hypocrits like to cry down Roman Abramovich ... but WHO THE F**K is MALCOLM GLAZER?

What FOOTBALL EXPERIENCE does he have?
What does he KNOW about Football?


steups. keep talking.

u sounding like u losing it dey boy.

I feel u should fire u therapist, and bring in another.

seems like ManUre fans only understand gutter language.
It have nuff examples to back that up.

[giggsy11]

first problem is trying to combine both roles.
I had to re-read that little part.

If that is the case, we Abramogrant c should've had run de damned board room and leave Jose alone let 'im run de team!

Fix it fuh yuh!!

As so many fellas have accurately pointed out, Roman clearly has absolutely no Idea what he doesn't know about football.  My guess is that, Jose let everybody in the board room know that he was not going to be a puppet.....and they told 'im to cancel his show.   Roman want to turn Chelsea into a "dynasty" but expects it happen overnight.  Jackass!   I wanna see how much interfering he and the board is going to do now with Hiddink at the helm for the rest of the season.
   

He already owns him- he is paying both of his salaries.

[acb]

That is like saying why do you have ot take care of a house that yuh buy with a mortgage, Ent it is the bank money too?

Obviously he has an interest in the club being successful and he has followed up this interest by being a smart owner and not meddling too much. In that sense United better off that they heavily leveraged becuase they cannot afford to be operating at a loss like Chelsea. they have to make a profit every year.

Also what is the point of Roman using his own money if he not doing it wisely? It helping Chelsea fans to know that it not costing them anything when they waste a set of money? Also we done see that for all the money the purse strings get tightened.

Abramovich and Glazer are cut from the same cloth.
Both are businessmen. Each is just as unscrupulous as the other.

Does the phrase "hostile takeover" ring a bell?

It is that same strategy and cut-throat business acumen that Glazer used to acquire controlling interest in Man U - so spin it which ever way you want to convince yourself that Glazer's interest in Man U is football, it is money that will determine the length of his committment. His acquisition of Man U had nothing to do with the love of the game or Man U - it was everything about how much he could squeeze out of your precious club.

It has nothing to do with bank-house-mortgage.
But since you like this irrelevant analogy, we can play house & bank.
 
Honestly answer me this - In this market, do you prefer to have a mortgage on your house - or own your house outrightly?
-Let's take it to another level and factor in the time value of money, asset depreciation/ appreciation and inflation.
UK inflation 3.1% and risk free rate is about 4.55% so Roman can do NOTHING with his money and leave it in a bank account and collect pittance.

Or, he could use his money to create value at a club (he owns outright), raise brand awareness, raise the profile of the club (and for good measure) mark the assets to market, and then shop it in a Middle Eastern oil gluttoned bull market to see how much Chelsea is worth to the highest bidder.
The investment so far is all Roman's money - so if he paid £140M, and spent another £500M ... if he gets back £640 + appreciation - TVM - depreciation. Guess what - he broke even AND Chelsea is in a better position than when he inherited the club.
 
In ManUre's position, they are collateralised to the bank, so go shop ManU with all their intrinsic value, and any shrewd investor will come back and tell you that they will offer you what is left on the note.

Man U's model is based on being able to service their debt using revenue. Revenue is based on increased ticket prices, merchandise sales, MUFC TV, advertising, sponsorship, CL revenue, etc. Apply some pressure and cripple any one of those revenue streams for any amount of reasons, and see if Glazer will use any of his money to bailout Man U.

Man U can sell out it's stadium - glory glory boo hoo. But Man U better sell out it's stadium (every single game), because it needs that money more than anything else to make its payments on the interest it accrues.

Man U is run like a credit card, and all Glazer is doing is paying interest, while he keeps staring the principal down the barrel.
   
Only myopic ManU simpletons will believe that Man U is better off highly leveraged ..... with your positive profits

[sammy]

all dat talk to prove what?
That RA have more money than Glazer? So much so that chelsea eh bong to win nutten (which is the direction they heading) they eh bong to sell out stadium, they eh bong to sell merchandise etc etc etc?


As much as u hate to admit it, RA trying to build another Man Utd, Real, Barca, Juve, AC in chelsea


Just tell me why again the money stop flowing for big stars recently?

[acb]

all dat talk to prove what?
That RA have more money than Glazer? So much so that chelsea eh bong to win nutten (which is the direction they heading) they eh bong to sell out stadium, they eh bong to sell merchandise etc etc etc?


As much as u hate to admit it, RA trying to build another Man Utd, Real, Barca, Juve, AC in chelsea


Just tell me why again the money stop flowing for big stars recently?

To be the best, you have to beat the best.
Chelsea has that ambition.

[JDB]

Or, he could use his money to create value at a club (he owns outright), raise brand awareness, raise the profile of the club (and for good measure) mark the assets to market, and then shop it in a Middle Eastern oil gluttoned bull market to see how much Chelsea is worth to the highest bidder.
The investment so far is all Roman's money - so if he paid £140M, and spent another £500M ... if he gets back £640 + appreciation - TVM - depreciation. Guess what - he broke even AND Chelsea is in a better position than when he inherited the club.

Except that based on the last 5 years this is a pipe dream for Chelsea. They have invested money, raised brand awareness, increased revenue and had success YET they still make a loss year on year. The club needs an injection every year to be run as it was. They may break even this year or even make a profit but that is because they have shifted away from the big spending. Even if Abramovich breaks even in a sale, by somebody buying the assets that lose money every year at the asking price of the owner they cannot continue burning money at their current rate.

If Chelsea is to be run as a Successful Business they have to start paying money that revenues can support, which means lower salaries and transfer fees. the alternative is they have a billionaire intent on spending a fortune every year. All the ambition in the world does not change the fact that there are fixed circumstances that limit how much money Chelsea can rake in every year and that their current expenditures exceed it. If they scale back it does not mean that they cannot be successful, and nobody doubts that the club is better off then where they were 5 years ago but they will have to operate differently. If Chelsea success was all about having big money then they need the benefactor, if not then everything good.

As for the Glazers. Nothing you say there is news. You never hear anybody say that They love football or Munchester United. It was an opportunistic move and they now have a cash cow where each year's profits pay off debts and their equity increases. They also placed the debts on the clubs books and that is why fans were concerned.

The comforting part is that the club's day to day operations have not been hampered. Clearly it is in their best interests for the club to be profitable and part of that is restricting transfers and wages to a healthy percentage of turnover while being successful. Despite such prudence the club is as successful under them than as a PLC and the value has continued to increase so that the Glazers will definitely make a hefty profit when they sell. There is no doubt that the value of the club as a business will cover outstanding debt plus the Glazer investment. In saying this I am not supposing what they "could do" to make it the club valuable, I am stating the current situation as it is.

You seem to be making the United situation out be one of doom and gloom when it is not. There is no risk of the stadium not selling out. There is also no more risk of them losing current revenue streams than there is for any other club, right now Chelsea is at more risk of missing out on CL money than United. Saying that United needs to keep making money to pay interest is pretty obvious since United is a business and is run as one. Chelsea on the other hand could afford to frustrate their most successful manager until he walks because the ownership has a different idea of what success should be and when it should be achieved than the football people. Like you rightly said, United ownership cannot afford to take such a position and that is why United fans are generally more happy with their ownership than Chelsea.

[acb]

Except that based on the last 5 years this is a pipe dream for Chelsea. They have invested money, raised brand awareness, increased revenue and had success YET they still make a loss year on year. The club needs an injection every year to be run as it was. They may break even this year or even make a profit but that is because they have shifted away from the big spending. Even if Abramovich breaks even in a sale, by somebody buying the assets that lose money every year at the asking price of the owner they cannot continue burning money at their current rate.

Chelsea was at the brink of insolvency when Ambramovich purchased the club. In those same 5 years the club has been very successful in it's haul of trophies. Abramovich's spending has allowed that unprecedented success at Chelsea.
There are sunken costs in any investment/ acquisition - much of which Abramovich probably wouldn't care if it is ever repaid. The portion of the 640M quid that he expects(??) to be repaid will come through the payback period. To expect any company, let alone a Football Club to realise a profit in that short period of time is irrational. Chelsea's branding and global reach has been expanding yearly at an exponential rate, and they are tapping up the US and Asian markets. Stuff like that doesn't happen overnight.

If Chelsea is to be run as a Successful Business they have to start paying money that revenues can support, which means lower salaries and transfer fees. the alternative is they have a billionaire intent on spending a fortune every year. All the ambition in the world does not change the fact that there are fixed circumstances that limit how much money Chelsea can rake in every year and that their current expenditures exceed it. If they scale back it does not mean that they cannot be successful, and nobody doubts that the club is better off then where they were 5 years ago but they will have to operate differently. If Chelsea success was all about having big money then they need the benefactor, if not then everything good.

What is the definition of success at a Football Club? .... Trophies or Profits?
Chelsea's method is to pay money to bring in players, put a product on the field that can win trophies and attract supporters/ stakeholders. The stakeholders in turn support the club financially so that costs are defrayed. So far Chelsea has been successful at that.
-Your suggestion of paying lower salaries and lower transfer fees would mean an inferior product incapable of competing for trophies. Your method is what Man U fans would prefer to see, and it is understandable given that Man U fans would feel threatened by any other team that has the ambition, resources and players that it takes to break a monopoly on titles.
Why should Chelsea be forced to operate differently by unmitigating financial circumstances, when the fortune of their owner does not expose them to such?

As for the Glazers. Nothing you say there is news. You never hear anybody say that They love football or Munchester United. It was an opportunistic move and they now have a cash cow where each year's profits pay off debts and their equity increases. They also placed the debts on the clubs books and that is why fans were concerned.

Well it seems news to some who believe there is anything fundamentally different between the motives of either owner. According to your description, the Glazers are in this for the money - not the love of Man U or the game. On the other hand, you have Abramovich who from all indications clearly isn't in it for the money - so I guess he must love the game.
Which one of those is more noble?

The comforting part is that the club's day to day operations have not been hampered. Clearly it is in their best interests for the club to be profitable and part of that is restricting transfers and wages to a healthy percentage of turnover while being successful. Despite such prudence the club is as successful under them than as a PLC and the value has continued to increase so that the Glazers will definitely make a hefty profit when they sell. There is no doubt that the value of the club as a business will cover outstanding debt plus the Glazer investment. In saying this I am not supposing what they "could do" to make it the club valuable, I am stating the current situation as it is.

so if Man U is doing the right thing and restricting transfers and wages to a healthy percentage of turnover, how are other clubs expected to compete - that is, the clubs who do not have the turnover that the ManU, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal's have? .... should they then just be content to fight for middle of the table spots and fight off relegation every season?  That concept is elitist, wrong and stifles ambition.

Man U's worth and intrinsic valued is speculative - even moreso as a PLC. Did you see what happened to all those stocks that were worth $000s per share on the stock market? Wonder how all their value just evaporated into thin air?

You seem to be making the United situation out be one of doom and gloom when it is not. There is no risk of the stadium not selling out. There is also no more risk of them losing current revenue streams than there is for any other club, right now Chelsea is at more risk of missing out on CL money than United. Saying that United needs to keep making money to pay interest is pretty obvious since United is a business and is run as one. Chelsea on the other hand could afford to frustrate their most successful manager until he walks because the ownership has a different idea of what success should be and when it should be achieved than the football people. Like you rightly said, United ownership cannot afford to take such a position and that is why United fans are generally more happy with their ownership than Chelsea.

Man U is highly indebted and leveraged. If that does not spell doom and gloom in an economy with credit stretched beyond it's elasticity, then I don't know what is. There is always risk of crippling revenue streams - sponsors can withdraw, advertising revenue can diminish, MUTV subscriptions can drop, merchandise can stop selling - stuff like this can happen when households determine that they need to scaleback (not cutoff) their expenses. The likelihood is not as high per say compared to lower tiered teams, but risk is still a factor. All this would affect Man U's ability to service their debt - Chelsea on the other hand, in your words, could afford.
.... and for United fans are generally more happy with their ownership than Chelsea, I have not seen any banners at Stamford Bridge, nor overseas ever telling Roman Abramovich to get out. On the other hand, I can't say the same for Man U's fans treatment of The Glazers.

[dinho]

i thinking about naming my son acb.

[sammy]

i thinking about naming my son acb.

poor fella 

[Bakes]

That is like saying why do you have ot take care of a house that yuh buy with a mortgage, Ent it is the bank money too?

Obviously he has an interest in the club being successful and he has followed up this interest by being a smart owner and not meddling too much. In that sense United better off that they heavily leveraged becuase they cannot afford to be operating at a loss like Chelsea. they have to make a profit every year.

Also what is the point of Roman using his own money if he not doing it wisely? It helping Chelsea fans to know that it not costing them anything when they waste a set of money? Also we done see that for all the money the purse strings get tightened.

Abramovich and Glazer are cut from the same cloth.
Both are businessmen. Each is just as unscrupulous as the other.

Does the phrase "hostile takeover" ring a bell?

It is that same strategy and cut-throat business acumen that Glazer used to acquire controlling interest in Man U - so spin it which ever way you want to convince yourself that Glazer's interest in Man U is football, it is money that will determine the length of his committment. His acquisition of Man U had nothing to do with the love of the game or Man U - it was everything about how much he could squeeze out of your precious club.

It has nothing to do with bank-house-mortgage.
But since you like this irrelevant analogy, we can play house & bank.
 
Honestly answer me this - In this market, do you prefer to have a mortgage on your house - or own your house outrightly?
-Let's take it to another level and factor in the time value of money, asset depreciation/ appreciation and inflation.
UK inflation 3.1% and risk free rate is about 4.55% so Roman can do NOTHING with his money and leave it in a bank account and collect pittance.

Or, he could use his money to create value at a club (he owns outright), raise brand awareness, raise the profile of the club (and for good measure) mark the assets to market, and then shop it in a Middle Eastern oil gluttoned bull market to see how much Chelsea is worth to the highest bidder.
The investment so far is all Roman's money - so if he paid £140M, and spent another £500M ... if he gets back £640 + appreciation - TVM - depreciation. Guess what - he broke even AND Chelsea is in a better position than when he inherited the club.
 
In ManUre's position, they are collateralised to the bank, so go shop ManU with all their intrinsic value, and any shrewd investor will come back and tell you that they will offer you what is left on the note.

Man U's model is based on being able to service their debt using revenue. Revenue is based on increased ticket prices, merchandise sales, MUFC TV, advertising, sponsorship, CL revenue, etc. Apply some pressure and cripple any one of those revenue streams for any amount of reasons, and see if Glazer will use any of his money to bailout Man U.

Man U can sell out it's stadium - glory glory boo hoo. But Man U better sell out it's stadium (every single game), because it needs that money more than anything else to make its payments on the interest it accrues.

Man U is run like a credit card, and all Glazer is doing is paying interest, while he keeps staring the principal down the barrel.
   
Only myopic ManU simpletons will believe that Man U is better off highly leveraged ..... with your positive profits

Exactly what is the point of all of this... that is assuming that you are even correct?


Regardless as to how each of the respective ownerships came by their stakes in the club (and no, Glazer's was NOT a hostile takeover), what matters is what they do with the club once in their control.  Each of the last three Chelsea managers have complained about Abramovich's meddling (if you believe the British media, that is).  I hardly think that Ferguson would complain that Glazer is meddling in the on-field affairs of the club.

All this other smoke screen stuff about who club more morally upright or fiscally sound is really peripheral to the discussion of the on-field accomplishments of the respective clubs.

[acb]

...and no, Glazer's was NOT a hostile takeover...

For this not to have been considered a hostile takeover, there would have to be NO compulsory buyout of shareholders.
Unfortunately, that did not happen in the Man U takeover bid. As I recall, a portion of Man U fans did not want to sell their shares to The Glazers, but this did not stop them from the complete acquisition - that alone is grounds for a hostile takeover, even more, hostile takeovers only occur with publicly traded companies. Remember the tender offer from the Glazers, and the ensuing proxy fight?

Buying up the shares within days - hiding the purchases through shell corps (takeover vehicle), sometimes hours and then moving quickly to de-list it from the London Stock Exchange - that's all Malcolm Glazer for you. 
 

All this other smoke screen stuff about who club more morally upright or fiscally sound is really peripheral to the discussion of the on-field accomplishments of the respective clubs.

Absolutely. However, Man U fans would like to discredit the accomplishments of Chelsea - when the truth is that their business practices are as unscrupulous, if not worse than what they would accuse other clubs of conducting.

[Bakes]

...and no, Glazer's was NOT a hostile takeover...

For this not to have been considered a hostile takeover, there would have to be NO compulsory buyout of shareholders.
Unfortunately, that did not happen in the Man U takeover bid. As I recall, a portion of Man U fans did not want to sell their shares to The Glazers, but this did not stop them from the complete acquisition - that alone is grounds for a hostile takeover, even more, hostile takeovers only occur with publicly traded companies. Remember the tender offer from the Glazers, and the ensuing proxy fight?

Buying up the shares within days - hiding the purchases through shell corps (takeover vehicle), sometimes hours and then moving quickly to de-list it from the London Stock Exchange - that's all Malcolm Glazer for you. 
 

All this other smoke screen stuff about who club more morally upright or fiscally sound is really peripheral to the discussion of the on-field accomplishments of the respective clubs.

Absolutely. However, Man U fans would like to discredit the accomplishments of Chelsea - when the truth is that their business practices are as unscrupulous, if not worse than what they would accuse other clubs of conducting.

Well I won't get into technical details... but a hostile takeover is essentially when one company thru some process or the other manages to acquire a majority stakehold in a publicly traded (or privately held) corporation and thereby assumes ownership on the basis of that majority position.  The acquisition is usually at the expressed opposition of the clubs management and directors.

In the case of ManU there a majority of the shareholders voluntarily sold their shares to Glazer and (unless my memory is faulty) his acquisition was opposed by neither club management nor it's board of directors.  You're basing your "hostile takeover" claim on the basis of some minority shareholders witholding assent of Glazer's acquisition of the club.  By that definition then every non-unaminous sale of a corporation would have to be termed a 'hostile takeover' since by definition a non-unanimous acquisition means that there were shareholders in the voting minority who opposed the sale.  I think we can thus see how the term isn't applicable here.

[Bakes]

As for the discrediting of Chelsea, it's not just limited to ManU fans, and it's certainly not just about 'unscrupulous' business practices.  I think most of the scoffing you see take place is the result of people looking at Chelsea (and rightly so) as a nouveau riche or "just come" club.  Yes the Club's been around for nearly a century, no need to debate that... but the fact is that from a business standpoint it has been poorly run and the fiscally unsound chickens may be coming back home to roost... still too early to say.  Chelsea has mortgaged its future for the instant gratification of winning today... and in the process has failed to invest in the progress and development of its Academy system. 

Now there's nothing wrong with paying high stakes in the hopes of winning today... but there's everything wrong when such in done at the expense of future growth (or development... as the case might be).  As much as the criticism might sting, its a failed business model, it has happened in the NBA with the New York Knicks, and more recently the Miami Heat, in the NFL with the Dallas Cowboys, San Francisco 49'rs and most spectacularly, the Washington Redskins.  Major League Baseball has the NY Yankees... and the Mets to an extent.

Profligacy on shiny baubles seldom works in any business, let alone in sports.  Now you say that what matters in football are trophies, not profits... that may have been true 30-40 yrs ago.  However, in today's business environment you seldom see clubs engage in the wanton pursuit of trophies at the expense of turning a profit.  This is particularly true of clubs established on the corporate model where such breach of fiduciary responsibilty to one's shareholders can leave one open to liability.  When the club is your own personal toy you can do as you like... when you are accountable with other people's money (as most clubs are) then you can't be so reckless. 

Regardless, spending of the scale that Abramovich engaged in may have brought short term success to Chelsea, but it also contributed to overvaluing the market for player talent... something that Chelsea alone isn't responsible for admittedly, but they certainly have responsibility for a disproportionate share of the blame.

[acb]

Well I won't get into technical details... but a hostile takeover is essentially when one company thru some process or the other manages to acquire a majority stakehold in a publicly traded (or privately held) corporation and thereby assumes ownership on the basis of that majority position.  The acquisition is usually at the expressed opposition of the clubs management and directors.

In the case of ManU there a majority of the shareholders voluntarily sold their shares to Glazer and (unless my memory is faulty) his acquisition was opposed by neither club management nor it's board of directors.  You're basing your "hostile takeover" claim on the basis of some minority shareholders witholding assent of Glazer's acquisition of the club.  By that definition then every non-unaminous sale of a corporation would have to be termed a 'hostile takeover' since by definition a non-unanimous acquisition means that there were shareholders in the voting minority who opposed the sale.  I think we can thus see how the term isn't applicable here.

In this case, the Glazers needs complete control to delist and leverage out the club. The unwillingness of the minority/ portion of shareholders led to the tender offer by the Glazers. If you have shareholders unwilling to sell, and a buyer forcing their hand .... that's not voluntary, it's forced - hence hostile.

[Bakes]

Well I won't get into technical details... but a hostile takeover is essentially when one company thru some process or the other manages to acquire a majority stakehold in a publicly traded (or privately held) corporation and thereby assumes ownership on the basis of that majority position.  The acquisition is usually at the expressed opposition of the clubs management and directors.

In the case of ManU there a majority of the shareholders voluntarily sold their shares to Glazer and (unless my memory is faulty) his acquisition was opposed by neither club management nor it's board of directors.  You're basing your "hostile takeover" claim on the basis of some minority shareholders witholding assent of Glazer's acquisition of the club.  By that definition then every non-unaminous sale of a corporation would have to be termed a 'hostile takeover' since by definition a non-unanimous acquisition means that there were shareholders in the voting minority who opposed the sale.  I think we can thus see how the term isn't applicable here.

In this case, the Glazers needs complete control to delist and leverage out the club. The unwillingness of the minority/ portion of shareholders led to the tender offer by the Glazers. If you have shareholders unwilling to sell, and a buyer forcing their hand .... that's not voluntary, it's forced - hence hostile.

As I said... by your definition any non-unanimous action by a majority shareholder would be classified as 'hostile'.  We know that simply to not be the case.  There was some strong-arm leveraging by Glazer but that's just good aggressive business, nothing 'hostile' at all about it.

Maybe he should have sent them thank you cards misted with lavender...

[acb]

...Chelsea has mortgaged its future for the instant gratification of winning today... and in the process has failed to invest in the progress and development of its Academy system...

Now there's nothing wrong with paying high stakes in the hopes of winning today... but there's everything wrong when such in done at the expense of future growth (or development... as the case might be).

 

So, is Chelsea and every other financially challenged club supposed to wait around for another 100 years and develop youthful talent that will continue to be poached by the big budget teams?
The problem with the critics that back the historically successful clubs is a simple one of elitist attitude, and an unwillingness to see their stranglehold at the top threatened. No longer can the big names waltz in to smaller clubs and poach away their best talent as easily as before.

So let's turn to salary caps. I guarantee you that the FIRST team in line to protest will be ManU.
How can a smaller club that has been promoted, or anothe club that hovers midtable ever compete with a bigger club, if their budgets are not on par? How does 30% of $10M match up against 30% of $100M?

As much as the criticism might sting, its a failed business model, it has happened in the NBA with the New York Knicks ....

I don't see where the model has failed with Chelsea. They have won cups, and remain competitive in the league and various competitions.

Profligacy on shiny baubles seldom works in any business, let alone in sports.  Now you say that what matters in football are trophies, not profits... that may have been true 30-40 yrs ago.  However, in today's business environment you seldom see clubs engage in the wanton pursuit of trophies at the expense of turning a profit.  This is particularly true of clubs established on the corporate model where such breach of fiduciary responsibilty to one's shareholders can leave one open to liability.  When the club is your own personal toy you can do as you like... when you are accountable with other people's money (as most clubs are) then you can't be so reckless.

Last line emboldened. EXACTLY.
It's Roman's money. He's not using AIGs money, the US Government's money or other bailout money assigned to firms. Chelsea is doing better than they were before Abramovich's arrival and spending and the supporters are content - so why all the fuss?

Regardless, spending of the scale that Abramovich engaged in may have brought short term success to Chelsea, but it also contributed to overvaluing the market for player talent... something that Chelsea alone isn't responsible for admittedly, but they certainly have responsibility for a disproportionate share of the blame.

You say short term success as though the club's success has dried up. Aren't they competing for titles this season? When exactly did the success stop?
Chelsea shares the responsibility for over-valuing the market for player talent, but they share the company of Real, Barca, United, Arsenal, Inter, Juve, Milan ... and lest we not forget clubs like Liverpool who will spend a whopping 20M quid on a striker - barely use him, and then sell him back to his previous club for 15M. If that is not the height of irresponsibility in the marketplace, then Heaven help us all.

[Giggsy's Chestwig]

allyuh hypocrits like to cry down Roman Abramovich ... but WHO THE F**K is MALCOLM GLAZER?

What FOOTBALL EXPERIENCE does he have?
What does he KNOW about Football?


steups. keep talking.

u sounding like u losing it dey boy.

I feel u should fire u therapist, and bring in another.

seems like ManUre fans only understand gutter language.
It have nuff examples to back that up.

The Glazers don't interfere when it comes to transfers or team selection.

Thats the difference between them and Abrahimovic...

[Bakes]

...Chelsea has mortgaged its future for the instant gratification of winning today... and in the process has failed to invest in the progress and development of its Academy system...

Now there's nothing wrong with paying high stakes in the hopes of winning today... but there's everything wrong when such in done at the expense of future growth (or development... as the case might be).

 

So, is Chelsea and every other financially challenged club supposed to wait around for another 100 years and develop youthful talent that will continue to be poached by the big budget teams?
The problem with the critics that back the historically successful clubs is a simple one of elitist attitude, and an unwillingness to see their stranglehold at the top threatened. No longer can the big names waltz in to smaller clubs and poach away their best talent as easily as before.

So let's turn to salary caps. I guarantee you that the FIRST team in line to protest will be ManU.
How can a smaller club that has been promoted, or anothe club that hovers midtable ever compete with a bigger club, if their budgets are not on par? How does 30% of $10M match up against 30% of $100M?

As much as the criticism might sting, its a failed business model, it has happened in the NBA with the New York Knicks ....

I don't see where the model has failed with Chelsea. They have won cups, and remain competitive in the league and various competitions.

Profligacy on shiny baubles seldom works in any business, let alone in sports.  Now you say that what matters in football are trophies, not profits... that may have been true 30-40 yrs ago.  However, in today's business environment you seldom see clubs engage in the wanton pursuit of trophies at the expense of turning a profit.  This is particularly true of clubs established on the corporate model where such breach of fiduciary responsibilty to one's shareholders can leave one open to liability.  When the club is your own personal toy you can do as you like... when you are accountable with other people's money (as most clubs are) then you can't be so reckless.

Last line emboldened. EXACTLY.
It's Roman's money. He's not using AIGs money, the US Government's money or other bailout money assigned to firms. Chelsea is doing better than they were before Abramovich's arrival and spending and the supporters are content - so why all the fuss?

Regardless, spending of the scale that Abramovich engaged in may have brought short term success to Chelsea, but it also contributed to overvaluing the market for player talent... something that Chelsea alone isn't responsible for admittedly, but they certainly have responsibility for a disproportionate share of the blame.

You say short term success as though the club's success has dried up. Aren't they competing for titles this season? When exactly did the success stop?
Chelsea shares the responsibility for over-valuing the market for player talent, but they share the company of Real, Barca, United, Arsenal, Inter, Juve, Milan ... and lest we not forget clubs like Liverpool who will spend a whopping 20M quid on a striker - barely use him, and then sell him back to his previous club for 15M. If that is not the height of irresponsibility in the marketplace, then Heaven help us all.

I doh have time for de long talk...

1. You're happy with how the club is conducting its affairs.  That's your right. 

2. Others have issues with it.  That's their right.

[acb]

we go continue this next week or next month or something.

I too vex to think bout anything else.

[dinho]

the goalposts moved so much in this debate is best we talk bout rugby..

first it was about chelsea being financed by a sugar daddy and not running a profitable business model..

but wait.. Glazer owns Man Utd and running the club on leveraged debt.

oops... ok, well lets change this up and say that its about Abramovich being involved in team affairs is not a good model for success, while Glazer takes a hands off approach.

while this might be true, what I would say is that its easy to come to that conclusion when Glazer has walked into a ready made situation with prolonged success and little need for making any significant changes.. If it ain't broke don't fix it, so its easy for him to take a backseat... Abramovich on the other hand took control of a club that needed changes to be made to realize its ambition. Much bigger input required.

The business plan was always to scale back spending after the initial years so this comes as no surprise to me.. Like I said, I not worried...

but doh worry..

the day draweth near when Fergie will keel over and the club will have to look for a successor.. when the going gets rough, i prefer to judge Glazer on what he does then than now, to decide whether he is as shrewd a business man as he's made out to be.

[Small Magician aka Wazza]

Real Madrid remained at the head of football's richest list beating Manchester United to top spot.

Accounting firm Deloitte produce an annual list of turnover in football and Madrid are again on top of the pile, although the strength of the Euro against Sterling is the main reason they stayed ahead of European champions United.

The list sees seven Premier League clubs included, whilst Scottish giants Celtic drop out of top 20 along with Valencia and Werder Bremen.

"If the exchange rate value of the pound had not depreciated, there would have been nine, rather than seven English clubs in the top 20 and Manchester United would have topped the Money League ahead of Real Madrid," said Dan Jones, partner in the Sports business group at Deloitte.

Real saw their revenues rise by four per cent to £328million, whilst United saw their turnover up 21 per cent to £291million.

The list, which was completely made up of European clubs, with England leading the way with their seven. Germany and Italy have four each, whilst there are just two from Spain and France.

Turkey's Fenerbahce also make the top 20 for the first time.
List in full

1. Real Madrid, Spain, €365.8 million

2. Manchester United, England, €324.8 million.

3. Barcelona, Spain, €308.8 million.

4. Bayern Munich, Germany, €295.3 million.

5. Chelsea, England, €268.9 million.

6. Arsenal, England, €264.4 million.

7. Liverpool, England, €210.9 million.

8. AC Milan, Italy, €209.5 million.

9. AS Roma, Italy, €175.4 million.

10. Inter Milan, Italy, €172.9 million.

http://msnsport.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12040_4914899,00.html

[Giggsy's Chestwig]

The business plan was always to scale back spending after the initial years so this comes as no surprise to me.. Like I said, I not worried...

Yes, I'm sure.

The scaling back has nothing to do with the fact that Abramovic lost 12 BILLION of his own money when Russian shares plunged in October 2008.

No, of course not.

[dinho]

The business plan was always to scale back spending after the initial years so this comes as no surprise to me.. Like I said, I not worried...

Yes, I'm sure.

The scaling back has nothing to do with the fact that Abramovic lost 12 BILLION of his own money when Russian shares plunged in October 2008.

No, of course not.

ay, ay, you still around?

what going on, how yuh maccoing in silence so?

[Giggsy's Chestwig]

The business plan was always to scale back spending after the initial years so this comes as no surprise to me.. Like I said, I not worried...

Yes, I'm sure.

The scaling back has nothing to do with the fact that Abramovic lost 12 BILLION of his own money when Russian shares plunged in October 2008.

No, of course not.

ay, ay, you still around?

what going on, how yuh maccoing in silence so?

I have a life.

So forgive me if I can't log on every five minutes to put you straight...

[Giggsy's Chestwig]

allyuh hypocrits like to cry down Roman Abramovich ... but WHO THE F**K is MALCOLM GLAZER?

What FOOTBALL EXPERIENCE does he have?
What does he KNOW about Football?


steups. keep talking.

u sounding like u losing it dey boy.

I feel u should fire u therapist, and bring in another.

seems like ManUre fans only understand gutter language.
It have nuff examples to back that up.

Maybe if you started making a semblance of sense, they wouldn't be on your case so much.

- The Glazers did NOT gain control of the club via a hostile takeover. If you knew what a hostile takeover was, you wouldn't have said it.

- Chelsea have a plan and that plan is to put themselves in a position where they require ZERO cash funding from their Russian overlord. They are a very long way from that as their wage bill is the highest in the Premiership (which equals 71% of their turnover, Manchester Uniteds wage bill is 44% of their annual turnover) and have recently lost the combined sum of roughly 67 million pounds which was paid to Mourinho and Grant as compensation when they were fired. This does not include the compensation fee for Scolari so that loss will rise.

Another thing that you casually ignore is that Chelsea were on the verge of bankruptcy before Abramovic arrived. He spent over 700 million of his own money to pay off their debt, so when he leaves...Chelsea will OWE him what he paid. He has halved that amount by turning a large portion of the money he used to bail them out and turned them into shares...Chelsea will still owe him over 300 million should he get bored and leave.

You want to go on about United being leveraged, but they have made massive strides in paying that money back, combine that with the fact that their merchandising and commercial arm generates an obscene amount of revenue for the club. Chelsea's pales in comparison.

I mean, you have Peter Kenyon going public today and saying that Chelsea will now need to sell in order to buy. You don't hear United making those noises. Yes, they are in debt but the have a plan and a business model in place. The Chelsea bubble has burst, NOW they are trying to find ways to become self sufficient yet they can't, because their wage bill eats over 70% of their annual revenue and they have to lay out large amounts of cash as compensation for each coach they fire...

You tell me, would you trust a company that spends 70% of its annual revenue on salaries? I'm just talking about the players...that figure would probably be higher when you take into account what the backroom staff are getting...

Remind me which club is poorly run again?

[acb]

way, allyuh still talking bout this? lol

We could talk about this from now til the next Stern John PK, and you will see things thru your Man U blinders and I will see mine thru my Chelsea 3D glasses.

Ok, the Glazers didn't use a hostile takeover to acquire Man U. They only force remaining shareholders to give up their stake via a tender offer, or as Bake n Shark said, "strong-arm leveraging"

Yesterday SM put the #s up:

2. Manchester United, England, €324.8 million.
....
5. Chelsea, England, €268.9 million.

So according to your estimates,
     Man U spends 44% of this =  €144.7
     Chelsea spends 71% of theirs = €190.9

Roughly €45M is small change to billionaires. But, that is what is needed to level the playing field and compete to be the best. If more teams could afford it, more power to them and their owners.

Again, it presents the arguement that for (smaller, less historically dominant clubs) they must limit their spending to match their revenue.
Some clubs (mostly ones at the bottom) without far reaching resources need to spend money to stay competitive to AVOID relegation.
Some clubs (mid-table) with a little more resources need to spend money to challenge for CL/ UEFA Cup spots.
.... and then you have the ones at the top who need to spend money to challenge for trophies.

Abramovich didn't go mortgage Chelsea to build up a team of title winners who compete annually for trophies. He put his money where his mouth was and value winning over the bottom line. When he calls for the head of a manager, it is because he values winning over a wage bill. The man can flat out afford it.

On the other hand, you have the Glazers - who mortgage Man U.

As a fan, Chelsea's finances not paying my wages and not covering my expenses, so once they are successful on the field and winning trophies - I happy ... and that is what Chelsea has done in the Abramovich era.

Abramovich is involving himself because he cares and values winning.
As for the Glazers, do they even know the address of the stadium?

[sammy]

Abramovich is involving himself because he cares and values winning.
As for the Glazers, do they even know the address of the stadium?

when last did RA attend a game?