The Footie Thread

[Deleted member 1740]

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.

I'm not blaming RA for Leeds, your right as it was before he arrived, it was an example of how teams tried to keep up with the more powerful ones at the time

Lets be honest without massive investments in such a short space of time Blackburn, Chelsea and City wouldn't have won the league so soon. That's not to say they wouldn't have won it.

RA encouraged the excessive wages and transfer fees because he could.

The Bosman has made a greater impact on world football. All clubs in the worlds domestic leagues have suffered at somepoint.

RA changed the standard of ownership in the PL. Milliomaired are not enough.

 

[Bdill93]

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

Damn right you do. Credit where its due.

Your recruitment under Klopp has been awesome to be fair. You could only argue one player was "expensive" in the current market and hes been worth every penny and more - VVD.

The moment City spent 100m on a player, they entered another stratosphere for me... Its absolutely mind blowing money. They always brought around 40-60 mill but now it seems thats too cheap for Pep!

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Damn right you do. Credit where its due.

Your recruitment under Klopp has been awesome to be fair. You could only argue one player was "expensive" in the current market and hes been worth every penny and more - VVD.

The moment City spent 100m on a player, they entered another stratosphere for me... Its absolutely mind blowing money. They always brought around 40-60 mill but now it seems thats too cheap for Pep!

Alisson £65 million.
VVD only cost that much because of an illegal approach!

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I'm not blaming RA for Leeds, your right as it was before he arrived, it was an example of how teams tried to keep up with the more powerful ones at the time

Lets be honest without massive investments in such a short space of time Blackburn, Chelsea and City wouldn't have won the league so soon. That's not to say they wouldn't have won it.

RA encouraged the excessive wages and transfer fees because he could.

The Bosman has made a greater impact on world football. All clubs in the worlds domestic leagues have suffered at somepoint.

RA changed the standard of ownership in the PL. Milliomaired are not enough.

I took your comment on Leeds as you said it was after RA turned up.??

Try and remember the 90’s, the PL was dominated by 1 Club more than it’s ever been, I agree RA took spending and wages to another level, but he had no choice to get to the next level, at least they were there or there about.

City, regardless of having a great history, came from nowhere, just as Newcastle will do.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Damn right you do. Credit where its due.

Your recruitment under Klopp has been awesome to be fair. You could only argue one player was "expensive" in the current market and hes been worth every penny and more - VVD.

The moment City spent 100m on a player, they entered another stratosphere for me... Its absolutely mind blowing money. They always brought around 40-60 mill but now it seems thats too cheap for Pep!

VVD cost us a bit more because of the issues in the summer , we prob would have got him for about £50mil in the summer if they had done things right

But the two big purchases VVD and Alisson were paid using the money from Coutinho , it’s a self sufficient model , we spend the money we make and no more than that, for some that’s not enough because the “net spend” is so low - they point fingers at other clubs and use them as comparison. But that’s the way of football now - spending and transfers is bigger news at times than clubs winning trophies.

 

[Bdill93]

Alisson £65 million.
VVD only cost that much because of an illegal approach!

Top keepers cost around that. I dont think 65 is too high for a player who was 25 when he signed and can play for 10 years plus. Id call that good value.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Top keepers cost around that. I dont think 65 is too high for a player who was 25 when he signed and can play for 10 years plus. Id call that good value.

At the time it was the world record for a keeper.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

VVD cost us a bit more because of the issues in the summer , we prob would have got him for about £50mil in the summer if they had done things right

But the two big purchases VVD and Alisson were paid using the money from Coutinho , it’s a self sufficient model , we spend the money we make and no more than that, for some that’s not enough because the “net spend” is so low - they point fingers at other clubs and use them as comparison. But that’s the way of football now - spending and transfers is bigger news at times than clubs winning trophies.

Come on Phil, Coutinho forced a move, it was never about balancing the books! Klopp new who he wanted.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Come on Phil, Coutinho forced a move, it was never about balancing the books! Klopp new who he wanted.

?‍ Sorry I’m not sure what point you’re addressing - the Coutinho move was going to happen at some point and the club used the funds to bring in VVD at a higher fee and then also use the money to bring in Alisson and others.

The club still work to a financial model - self sustaining, they spend what money the club generates , the only loans are for infrastructure which the club then pay back - the will always balance the books

 

[Bdill93]

At the time it was the world record for a keeper.

Even still, fantastic value for one of the top 5 keepers in the world.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

?‍ Sorry I’m not sure what point you’re addressing - the Coutinho move was going to happen at some point and the club used the funds to bring in VVD at a higher fee and then also use the money to bring in Alisson and others.

The club still work to a financial model - self sustaining, they spend what money the club generates , the only loans are for infrastructure which the club then pay back - the will always balance the books

He spent £113 mil on 3 players in between VVD and Alisson, so how and why do you always equate the Coutinho money with them 2.

I admire the model you are now forced to adopt, but at the time Klopp stated he didn’t know he was going to lose Coutinho so if he’d of stayed were would the money have come from? You make it sound like it was all part of some clever plan!

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Come on Phil, Coutinho forced a move, it was never about balancing the books! Klopp new who he wanted.

Coutinho certainly did and i dont think anyone is suggesting Liverpool sold him without him knowing etc.

Things have changed massively in the recruitment dept at Liverpool, and i think other clubs are looking to replicate the same model. We went from a "transfer committee" to a proper sporting director.

Above all, the books do have to be balanced with these owners and they dont want to go down the bank rolling the club route.

Yes we spend money and have spent really good money on players, but we've recouped a hell of a lot more than i thought we would've.

So for once, LP is right??‍?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

He spent £113 mil on 3 players in between VVD and Alisson, so how and why do you always equate the Coutinho money with them 2.

I admire the model you are now forced to adopt, but at the time Klopp stated he didn’t know he was going to lose Coutinho so if he’d of stayed were would the money have come from?

We have sold other players and we have had money coming in from other commercial revenues - the accounts are pretty clear for all to see and it’s been the same since FSG bought the club hence why the net spend is always low - the Coutinho money went into the clubs coffers to use on player purchases

Who knows what would have happened if Coutinho stayed - we might have just bought VVD and not the others in that one summer , but the owners still wouldn’t have funded a spending spree just like they haven’t at any stage of their ownership. What’s the point in dealing “what if” - Coutinho did leave and the club did use the money to strengthen the squad , whether that be Fabinho , VVD , Allison or even Shaqiri

But the model IMO is what all clubs should be using - clubs should be forced imo to spend only what they earn and then rely on being well run , better recruitment and player development

 

[Deleted member 1740]

I took your comment on Leeds as you said it was after RA turned up.??

Try and remember the 90’s, the PL was dominated by 1 Club more than it’s ever been, I agree RA took spending and wages to another level, but he had no choice to get to the next level, at least they were there or there about.

City, regardless of having a great history, came from nowhere, just as Newcastle will do.

Yeah i know it read like that, apologies.

The 90's Yernited team dominated but Arsenal also challenged them. The transfer fees were creeping up year on year but no one was really outspending eachother by much.

RA Chelsea were blowing teams out the water with fees and wages. He couldve grown chelsea steadily but he chose his way and its proved to work for him and Chelsea.

I'm not complaining or harking for a return to the good old days per se, its just how i see RA legacy in English football.

Yernited also touched lucky bringing through all those kids they did at the same time. They never had to really buy 3 or 4 players in 1 season. It was always 1 real top player to add to the squad.I dont think that'll ever happen again in my life time.

It good to have a debate instead of the usual bickering.

 

[GreiginFife]

Yeah i know it read like that, apologies.

The 90's Yernited team dominated but Arsenal also challenged them. The transfer fees were creeping up year on year but no one was really outspending eachother by much.

RA Chelsea were blowing teams out the water with fees and wages. He couldve grown chelsea steadily but he chose his way and its proved to work for him and Chelsea.

I'm not complaining or harking for a return to the good old days per se, its just how i see RA legacy in English football.

Yernited also touched lucky bringing through all those kids they did at the same time. They never had to really buy 3 or 4 players in 1 season. It was always 1 real top player to add to the squad.I dont think that'll ever happen again in my life time.

It good to have a debate instead of the usual bickering.

Late to this particular party but Abramovich demonstrated the very Rusiian ethos on the bold bit. They seem to crave success or to be seen to be the best and employ any method to achieve this. Doping, financial or otherwise is very much in their arsenal, proven time and time again.

United did luck out with the kids coming through but they also, along with quite a few clubs in the 90s, had decent academies. The arrival of big money in to the game, driving that "instant success" culture actually promoted the move away from development of talent to buying talent (ironically, often from clubs that have strong academy development systems...).

Now, I'm not saying that RA is responsible for that, but certainly culpable in the act of triggering the dominos, toppling the explosions (mix your own metaphor here)....

As viewed by someone that has zero skin in the English game.

 

[Blue in Munich]

I can but hope…

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Late to this particular party but Abramovich demonstrated the very Rusiian ethos on the bold bit. They seem to crave success or to be seen to be the best and employ any method to achieve this. Doping, financial or otherwise is very much in their arsenal, proven time and time again.

United did luck out with the kids coming through but they also, along with quite a few clubs in the 90s, had decent academies. The arrival of big money in to the game, driving that "instant success" culture actually promoted the move away from development of talent to buying talent (ironically, often from clubs that have strong academy development systems...).

Now, I'm not saying that RA is responsible for that, but certainly culpable in the act of triggering the dominos, toppling the explosions (mix your own metaphor here)....

As viewed by someone that has zero skin in the English game.

Spot on.

Pre RA at Chelsea, managers were given time to get a team together, nowadays most managers are judged on 2 transfer windows and are as quickly sacked.

That said i think society has gone that way too.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Yeah i know it read like that, apologies.

The 90's Yernited team dominated but Arsenal also challenged them. The transfer fees were creeping up year on year but no one was really outspending eachother by much.

RA Chelsea were blowing teams out the water with fees and wages. He couldve grown chelsea steadily but he chose his way and its proved to work for him and Chelsea.

I'm not complaining or harking for a return to the good old days per se, its just how i see RA legacy in English football.

Yernited also touched lucky bringing through all those kids they did at the same time. They never had to really buy 3 or 4 players in 1 season. It was always 1 real top player to add to the squad.I dont think that'll ever happen again in my life time.

It good to have a debate instead of the usual bickering.

Isn’t that the point though mate? Pre RA the PL was won 8 times by Utd, 3 by Arsenal and Blackburn, RA’s approach woke other Clubs up and now more teams are in with a shout.

As for spends etc, absolutely agree the Lpool approach would be ideal for everyone, but that’s today’s position and if you choose to ignore the previous 15-20yrs and we’ll never have a level starting point to get there.

Utd did spend a bit, not Chelsea or City standard, but certainly a lot relative to the period, Blomquist, Stam, O’Shea, Yorke plus others in 1 season, Carroll, Ruud van Nistelrooy, Verón, Laurent Blanc and Diego Forlán in one other etc.

If any Club should get stick for spends and how they are run, it is Utd, just look at the debt their owners have caused, where as Chelsea have been debt free since 2008.

So to pick RA out and lay all the issues of the PL on him is unfair as previously said, the PL issues started before him and were made worse after him.

Look at the were the majority of Clubs get their money from and why? Maybe they should be thanking RA for spending the way he did as I believe every PL Club has benefitted from the knock on effect.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Isn’t that the point though mate? Pre RA the PL was won 8 times by Utd, 3 by Arsenal and Blackburn, RA’s approach woke other Clubs up and now more teams are in with a shout.

As for spends etc, absolutely agree the Lpool approach would be ideal for everyone, but that’s today’s position and if you choose to ignore the previous 15-20yrs and we’ll never have a level starting point to get there.

Utd did spend a bit, not Chelsea or City standard, but certainly a lot relative to the period, Blomquist, Stam, O’Shea, Yorke plus others in 1 season, Carroll, Ruud van Nistelrooy, Verón, Laurent Blanc and Diego Forlán in one other etc.

If any Club should get stick for spends and how they are run, it is Utd, just look at the debt their owners have caused, where as Chelsea have been debt free since 2008.

So to pick RA out and lay all the issues of the PL on him is unfair as previously said, the PL issues started before him and were made worse after him.

Look at the were the majority of Clubs get their money from and why? Maybe they should be thanking RA for spending the way he did as I believe every PL Club has benefitted from the knock on effect.

Chelsea are £1bn in debt to the owner - not exactly debt free as such

And Utd’s debt has come from the leveraged buy out from the owners

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Chelsea are £1bn in debt to the owner - not exactly debt free as such

And Utd’s debt has come from the leveraged buy out from the owners

He’s written off the debt in his statement this week.?‍