The Footie Thread

[Swango1980]

When you get to the sums involved, all money is tainted. Even huge wealth accumulated entirely “legally” can be dubiously managed and criticised, see for example Amazon, which is entirely legitimate but not exactly fitting with the moral principals of taxation.

Football was always going to get swayed by money. If it wasn’t an Ambramovich it would have been a Bezos.

Nice read PieMan, never apologise for writing passionately it wasn’t that long. ?

Maybe all money is tainted if you really look into the detail, however it doesn't make it at the same level.

Somebody might have a very strong opinion that they would not be friends with a serial killer as they fundamentally disagree with their criminal lifestyle. A counter argument of "you could apply this to most friends, as one might have stolen a Mars Bar in their youth or gone 35mph in a 30 zone" would be fairly weak.

I've not actually looked into Abramovich made his billions. But, I suspect his alleged crimes may be considered at a higher level of taintness than a company trying to find legal loopholes in saving money on tax?

 

[Dando]

 

[chrisd]

Your story of when you started supporting Spurs is similar to mine and Chelsea.

My uncle took me to my first ever Chelsea game during the 1978/79 season, aged 5. Old First Division. I can honestly still remember snippets of that experience - the wooden seats in the old West Stand and the clicking noise the seats made when everyone stood up, the vivid blue of the Chelsea kit - but also the noise both sets of fans made that day, unlike anything I'd heard to that point. Apparently I was hooked that day and my uncle took me to most home matches.

Now when I say he took me to 'most' what I obviously wasn't aware of was the 'H' word that was surrounding English football at that time, with Chelsea home to some of the worst hooligans around. As I got older, reaching early teens, I then started going either on my own, or with friends. I then became fully aware of the dregs of society that went to Chelsea in those days - the far right, neo-nazi dickheads who loved nothing more than a good punch up.................and hurling racist abuse at not only visiting black players, but our own!

But despite that, I LOVED going to Chelsea. Win, lose or draw - it was mostly lose during the 80s - new heroes replaced old. But because of the edginess and nastiness, I watched most of the game behind the infamous electric fence - the old 'if they behave like animals I'll treat them like animals' approach from Ken Bates.

The 80s then gave way to the 90s and things - slowly - started to improve. Following the tragedies at Bradford and Hillsborough, like all grounds the transformation at the Bridge was rapid with facilities and spectator experiences greatly improved. Investment improved the quality on the pitch too, and slowly we started to have success.

So the fortunes of Chelsea as a club (on the pitch) coincides with the break-up of the old Soviet Union. Those of us old enough remember the tearing down of the Berlin wall and the Iron Curtain, with new countries emerging from the yolk of Russian control. But what of Russia itself? Absolute meltdown! I still remember media reports describing it as 'The Wild West on steroids'!! Of course all actively encouraged by the West, eager to exploit this new Russia.

And we have corruption at the highest levels of Russian Government, the emergence of organised crime, and of course the Russian Oligarch - all vying to get control of Russia's vast natural resources, industries and subsequent wealth. And this is where Roman Abramovich takes advantage of the opportunities on offer to make his fortune, ensuring he has all the right political connections..........just as things take a turn for the worse at Chelsea!!

It is well known that, despite the odd success, Chelsea are in trouble - huge debts and are literally on the brink, days away from defaulting on a £75m loan. Enter Roman Abramovic.

If anyone is still with me, here's where I hope I answer Rlburnside's point - from my perspective of course - "we all have choices to make".

So euphoria amongst Chelsea fans, including me. "Who is this fella?"; "He's Russian?" [actually his ancestry is Lithuanian and Belorussian]; "He's Jewish? Why didn't he buy Spurs? Oh he tried and they turned him down? Classic #Spursy"; "He's got HOW much money? Christ, must be dodgy; but aren't they all"!!!

Which then leads to "We're signing who? For how much"; "This Mourinho fella has some balls"; and ultimately "We're champions"!

Apologies that this is so lengthy and I'm sure there are a number who are bored reading this as much as I am typing it, but I am now getting to the crux as to why I will NEVER have a bad word to say about Roman Abramovich, despite how he may have made his wealth.

Everyone knows about the success on the pitch, BUT there's loads off it that Abramovic has encouraged with his wealth and influence in the name of Chelsea, such as:

- countless initiatives in the immediate and wider community to support the fight against anti-semitism, racism and homaphobia;

- going into schools, especially those with a lot of deprived kids, encouraging education;

- supporting environmental causes both in the UK and abroad;

- supporting NHS workers during the pandemic, opening up both hotels at Chelsea and their facilities for the staff at the local hospitals.

So for me it's simple. Roman Abramovic saved my club, and when I compare the Chelsea of when I was a lad, teenager and young adult, to the Chelsea since 2003 and what it has achieved/is trying to achieve both on and off the pitch, I'll take since 2003 thanks each and every time. His legacy to me is also about what he has encouraged off the pitch as well as what he's provided for on it.

I love going to Chelsea with my boys. I tell them about the good and bad days pre-Abramovic; we've experienced the good and bad days with Abramovic; we'll experience together the good and bad days post-Abramovic.

All sounds exactly as I remember back then. Very much the same as when I went to Selhurst Park, crowds were very good in the mid to late 60's but then the nutters took over and I stopped going for a while when I saw a brick thrown into the away stand against QPR. I agree that Abramovich has been good for Chelsea and how they will fare now I'm not too sure but, as I said to BIM, at least the managers safe fore a while ??

 

[Tashyboy]

Is it the expectation or knowing that you’re almost certainly going to win the game before you’ve even left your house? Being too good for 90% of teams isn’t competitive.

The use of the tech is the biggest downfall. When VAR is checking something the lack of communication and the unknown of what’s actually going on is frustrating.

At least the telly clappers are updated and kept entertained though ??

There may well be a lot in this, that’s maybe why I am happy that at the start of the season there’s always the chance that. 3 or 4 teams are in with a chance of winning the title but it then tends to fizzle out. Back when Utd were so dominant I remembe thinking how many will we get battered by. Then it became a fair chance of beating them. Now it seems how many we can beat Utd by. That’s why when we get beat by Spurs etc you give credit where it’s due.

 

[Yorkhacker]

I'll argue that it wasn't a change for the better. Vast sums of money have reduced us to a league of 5 (4 really as I dont suppose you should include Arsenal) who most of us don't care about.
And the rest of us more or less doomed to obscurity because as soon as we get any decent players, the chequebook gets waggled and they are filched away ...

You seem to have overlooked/forgotten the 80s with the so called big 5. Realistically it was only the big 2, and only one of the big 2 (I'm not forgetting Everton) won the league. In the 90s there was only 1 team. At least now, at the start of every season, you expect a few teams to be in with a chance, at least until Christmas

 

[Tashyboy]

First match was when my mum took me to see Forest in 1967. I already 'followed' them as the local team (Ok, Mansfield was a bit nearer but nobody followed Mansfield ...) T'was v Man Utd and we won 3-1. We had some good times over the next 15 years or so. Pains me to think our glory days are now 40 (did I just write 40 ??) years ago.

shocking, your on ignore for 20 minutes ?

 

[Deleted member 1740]

I'll argue that it wasn't a change for the better. Vast sums of money have reduced us to a league of 5 (4 really as I dont suppose you should include Arsenal) who most of us don't care about.
And the rest of us more or less doomed to obscurity because as soon as we get any decent players, the chequebook gets waggled and they are filched away ...

Fair points well made.

I think once the PL was voted and agreed for, it was inevitable the rest of football would suffer.

Once RA turned up the rest had to increase their own Budgets to try to keep up with the jones' and compete. Unfortunately some like Leeds were mismanaged and spiralled into huge debt.

The only club that never really suffered was Yernited as they were already turning over some real good matchday numbers (£1m per game iirc) compared to their competitors. Aswell as having a really good squad of players, they only had to spend big on 1 player to keep challenging.

Others were expected to compete by spending £20m a season.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Your story of when you started supporting Spurs is similar to mine and Chelsea.

My uncle took me to my first ever Chelsea game during the 1978/79 season, aged 5. Old First Division. I can honestly still remember snippets of that experience - the wooden seats in the old West Stand and the clicking noise the seats made when everyone stood up, the vivid blue of the Chelsea kit - but also the noise both sets of fans made that day, unlike anything I'd heard to that point. Apparently I was hooked that day and my uncle took me to most home matches.

Now when I say he took me to 'most' what I obviously wasn't aware of was the 'H' word that was surrounding English football at that time, with Chelsea home to some of the worst hooligans around. As I got older, reaching early teens, I then started going either on my own, or with friends. I then became fully aware of the dregs of society that went to Chelsea in those days - the far right, neo-nazi dickheads who loved nothing more than a good punch up.................and hurling racist abuse at not only visiting black players, but our own!

But despite that, I LOVED going to Chelsea. Win, lose or draw - it was mostly lose during the 80s - new heroes replaced old. But because of the edginess and nastiness, I watched most of the game behind the infamous electric fence - the old 'if they behave like animals I'll treat them like animals' approach from Ken Bates.

The 80s then gave way to the 90s and things - slowly - started to improve. Following the tragedies at Bradford and Hillsborough, like all grounds the transformation at the Bridge was rapid with facilities and spectator experiences greatly improved. Investment improved the quality on the pitch too, and slowly we started to have success.

So the fortunes of Chelsea as a club (on the pitch) coincides with the break-up of the old Soviet Union. Those of us old enough remember the tearing down of the Berlin wall and the Iron Curtain, with new countries emerging from the yolk of Russian control. But what of Russia itself? Absolute meltdown! I still remember media reports describing it as 'The Wild West on steroids'!! Of course all actively encouraged by the West, eager to exploit this new Russia.

And we have corruption at the highest levels of Russian Government, the emergence of organised crime, and of course the Russian Oligarch - all vying to get control of Russia's vast natural resources, industries and subsequent wealth. And this is where Roman Abramovich takes advantage of the opportunities on offer to make his fortune, ensuring he has all the right political connections..........just as things take a turn for the worse at Chelsea!!

It is well known that, despite the odd success, Chelsea are in trouble - huge debts and are literally on the brink, days away from defaulting on a £75m loan. Enter Roman Abramovic.

If anyone is still with me, here's where I hope I answer Rlburnside's point - from my perspective of course - "we all have choices to make".

So euphoria amongst Chelsea fans, including me. "Who is this fella?"; "He's Russian?" [actually his ancestry is Lithuanian and Belorussian]; "He's Jewish? Why didn't he buy Spurs? Oh he tried and they turned him down? Classic #Spursy"; "He's got HOW much money? Christ, must be dodgy; but aren't they all"!!!

Which then leads to "We're signing who? For how much"; "This Mourinho fella has some balls"; and ultimately "We're champions"!

Apologies that this is so lengthy and I'm sure there are a number who are bored reading this as much as I am typing it, but I am now getting to the crux as to why I will NEVER have a bad word to say about Roman Abramovich, despite how he may have made his wealth.

Everyone knows about the success on the pitch, BUT there's loads off it that Abramovic has encouraged with his wealth and influence in the name of Chelsea, such as:

- countless initiatives in the immediate and wider community to support the fight against anti-semitism, racism and homaphobia;

- going into schools, especially those with a lot of deprived kids, encouraging education;

- supporting environmental causes both in the UK and abroad;

- supporting NHS workers during the pandemic, opening up both hotels at Chelsea and their facilities for the staff at the local hospitals.

So for me it's simple. Roman Abramovic saved my club, and when I compare the Chelsea of when I was a lad, teenager and young adult, to the Chelsea since 2003 and what it has achieved/is trying to achieve both on and off the pitch, I'll take since 2003 thanks each and every time. His legacy to me is also about what he has encouraged off the pitch as well as what he's provided for on it.

I love going to Chelsea with my boys. I tell them about the good and bad days pre-Abramovic; we've experienced the good and bad days with Abramovic; we'll experience together the good and bad days post-Abramovic.

My first game was a Chelsea v Man Utd that my Dad took me to in 1974. Dad, bless him, wasn’t a football man so just followed the crowds into the first entrance he saw; straight into the away end! The United fans were quite friendly and it was no problem, we were even given tea from their flasks. At 3-0 down, Dad decided it was best to best the rush so I was dragged away early, missing Bill Garner’s consolation goal.

My parents were obviously aware of the hooligan issue but in 1978 I was deemed sensible enough to go on my own, and have been going regularly ever since.

The rest of Pieman’s post sums up my feelings on Roman perfectly. I, and everyone I go with, will be eternally grateful for what he has done and the fact that we still exist as a club.

People ask how you can support a club with an owner like that. The answer is they were the family’s local club (Mum’s family were all from Battersea) and I’d been supporting them long before Roman arrived. It’s where you go, where you meet your mates and it’s part of you. It’s not quite that easy.

Look hard enough and I’d wager you’ll find something unsavoury about all clubs. Seem to remember a club that only got its new stadium after the one business that didn’t want to sell up and move to accommodate it suffered an unfortunate fire…

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Maybe all money is tainted if you really look into the detail, however it doesn't make it at the same level.

Somebody might have a very strong opinion that they would not be friends with a serial killer as they fundamentally disagree with their criminal lifestyle. A counter argument of "you could apply this to most friends, as one might have stolen a Mars Bar in their youth or gone 35mph in a 30 zone" would be fairly weak.

I've not actually looked into Abramovich made his billions. But, I suspect his alleged crimes may be considered at a higher level of taintness than a company trying to find legal loopholes in saving money on tax?

Should we have a league table based on the scale of tainted owners? Is it like prison where all are guilty but some are crimers are worserer (yes I know that is a made up word ). Who judges the levels of tainted, Big Vinny and his crew?

 

[Deleted member 1418]

The audio book is out next week....

I need you to voice the Scouse version!

 

[HomerJSimpson]

My first game was a Chelsea v Man Utd that my Dad took me to in 1974. Dad, bless him, wasn’t a football man so just followed the crowds into the first entrance he saw; straight into the away end! The United fans were quite friendly and it was no problem, we were even given tea from their flasks. At 3-0 down, Dad decided it was best to best the rush so I was dragged away early, missing Bill Garner’s consolation goal.

My parents were obviously aware of the hooligan issue but in 1978 I was deemed sensible enough to go on my own, and have been going regularly ever since.

The rest of Pieman’s post sums up my feelings on Roman perfectly. I, and everyone I go with, will be eternally grateful for what he has done and the fact that we still exist as a club.

People ask how you can support a club with an owner like that. The answer is they were the family’s local club (Mum’s family were all from Battersea) and I’d been supporting them long before Roman arrived. It’s where you go, where you meet your mates and it’s part of you. It’s not quite that easy.

Look hard enough and I’d wager you’ll find something unsavoury about all clubs. Seem to remember a club that only got its new stadium after the one business that didn’t want to sell up and move to accommodate it suffered an unfortunate fire…

As you get more into it and start going to away games as well thats where friendships for life a made, you have shared experiences to look back on and some stories to tell. Went to loads of grounds mainly at the bottom end of the league with Fulham and yes some places were hairier than others during the dark days (Birmingham away being very scary) but I wouldn't have missed it. I don't go as often these days (maybe 5-6 times a year) but there will always be Fulham in my DNA. Don't forget we had Al-Fayed's millions and so we're not untarnished by dodgy money

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Fair points well made.

I think once the PL was voted and agreed for, it was inevitable the rest of football would suffer.

Once RA turned up the rest had to increase their own Budgets to try to keep up with the jones' and compete. Unfortunately some like Leeds were mismanaged and spiralled into huge debt.

The only club that never really suffered was Yernited as they were already turning over some real good matchday numbers (£1m per game iirc) compared to their competitors. Aswell as having a really good squad of players, they only had to spend big on 1 player to keep challenging.

Others were expected to compete by spending £20m a season.

I think you’re being a little bit oot to put a lot of the blame on RA, Chelsea were not a struggling Club when he took over, they’d been a top 6 Club for the previous 7-8 seasons and top 2-4 for a few of those, they had a decent structure in place.

It was 12 years after the PL had started and suffered in that 1 team had really dominated the PL since day 1 with only Arsenal threatening Utd’s dominance.
Leeds were relegated and made insolvent the same season RA took over, so is not related.

It is possible to see that without RA coming in to Chelsea we’d of had Utd and Arsenal continue with that dominance for even longer. In fact we’ve had more teams win the PL since RA took over at Chelsea than we’d had prior to this.

Sadly mate, we older fans are sounding more and more like our dad’s in that, “it was far better in my day” etc, but look at it from your own son’s pov or the generstion that have only experienced the PL, why should they go back to crappier players or only seeing a match once a week on MOTD?

The PL is now the biggest watched league in the world with over 4.5 billion watching it last season, without that no foreign investor would be interested, look at the overseas deals the PL Clubs have.

I don’t think it is as bad as some make out, yes there are problems and elements we all don’t like, I just don’t think any of us are being entirely honest when we look at were we are and the effect RA had on the PL, if anything, it was the Bosman ruling that had a bigger detrimental effect imo.

 

[Swango1980]

Should we have a league table based on the scale of tainted owners? Is it like prison where all are guilty but some are crimers are worserer (yes I know that is a made up word ). Who judges the levels of tainted, Big Vinny and his crew?

Liverpoolphil?

 

[Jimaroid]

I've not actually looked into Abramovich made his billions. But, I suspect his alleged crimes may be considered at a higher level of taintness than a company trying to find legal loopholes in saving money on tax?

Legality depends on the reference point. Law is a reflection of social history. Because societies evolve differently, the west vs east in this case, Abramovich made a fortune exploiting the laws of the Russian society that did and didn't exist following the collapse of the USSR. To us in the west it might appear criminal, to what they had in the east it seems legal.

The one thing I'd say about Abramovich is that he's spent a lot of his dirty fortune helping people in the UK live a better life, through taxation, employment, entertainment and charity. He didn't have to, maybe he's trying to buy his place in heaven and right some of his past wrongs. Who knows but there are a lot of worse people with more and less money to their name than him.

 

[Dando]

Have you got this in a hard back version

Sod the book, I can’t wait for “Pieman:the movie”
not sure who’ll play the man himself though

 

[chrisd]

I need you to voice the Scouse version!

hopefully it wont sound like that Carragher fella ??

 

[Deleted member 1740]

I need you to voice the Scouse version!

I'll just go straight to '86 Gillespie....Whelan.....DOGLEASH!!!!!!

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Liverpoolphil?

Please dont encourage him??‍

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Liverpoolphil?

Please dont encourage him??‍

^^^ wot he said

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The football landscape first changed with Premier League but even more so when the CL grew and jumped on the Telly right’s bandwagon and it was starting to become a closed shop

Man Utd made use of the new money , Newcastle tried to spend their way in the same Blackburn did but this guys are just millionaires - Abramovich was the first billionaire and changed the landscape massively, there was unlimited budgets for spending and also wages , the spending was all within the rules at the time

They then changed the rules and to ensure that Billionares couldn’t just bank roll teams

And then the state sponsership clubs arrived and the landscape changed again - they didn’t care about the rules and looked at every single which way possible to spend as much as th y can bypassing the rules and hiding their spending - that imo was/is financial cheating. Just look at the clubs recent accounts -every club is making a small loss of sorts because of Covid , a lack of match day revenues and drops in commercial revenue and then you have one club that’s amazingly managed to make “record commercial profits” and it’s no surprise that these “partners” will have some link the owner - and then you add on the states who own the clubs own actions to their people and others

football is money driven - people play FIFA or Football manager and they want to see their club act the same way , they don’t care about debt or loans they just want to see money spent - it’s amazing how the transfer window has been such a big entity ,’and that’s driven by the likes of Sky. I remember when we didn’t sign Werner - social media went mental because and demanded the owners leave because we didn’t buy him. We have fans that see City etc spend and want to see the same - our owners have had their issues ( super league , ticket prices etc ) but the biggest complaint you see on a daily basis is that they don’t spend their own money buying players ?! It astounds me - we have a model that works yet for some it’s not good enough and it’s all boils down to the same thing - spending money on players or big wages