Comments on: Buying success

By: Dave F

Dave F — Tue, 02 Sep 2003 11:16:09 +0000

Come off it , guv, football and dodgy money have gone together forever, like, I dunno, Fergie and aerial teacups (or flying football boots). Your elegant phraseology fails to conceal a nasty case of sour grapes. Perhaps we should be worried about Fulham’s fortune or Madchester’s moolah too?

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 01 Sep 2003 12:30:38 +0000

If he amassed that much private wealth “via” a nationalised industry (hang on, isn’t that kindof sortof what he did?) I’d certainly have a problem with it – as well you know Perry!

By: Perry de Havilland

Perry de Havilland — Mon, 01 Sep 2003 12:11:08 +0000

No doubt if he had got his money via some nationalised industry that steals cash from taxpayers and productive sectors of the economy, folks on the left like Chris would have had no problem with ‘where his money comes from’.

By: reuben

reuben — Sun, 31 Aug 2003 21:05:16 +0000

For the last several years, commentators in the US have moaned about how big money guys like Steinbrenner are ruining baseball by “buying titles”. And now Abramovich is supposedly guilty of doing the same for “Chelski”. This meme is a bit exaggerated, and doesn’t take into account other big spenders who haven’t managed to win. LA Dodgers, anyone? The truth is, big spenders often do win, but only if they run their organisations intelligently. And often, the little guys can do just as well. Look at last year’s World Series (so named because it was originally sponsored by the New York World newspaper, I believe): neither San Francisco nor Anaheim were atop the spending charts. San Francicso was only 16th out of 30 teams, I think. I’m not particularly sure how well the American experience will translate to the UK, but it should be noted that even with super spenders like Steinbrenner, baseball is now more balanced than it ever has been before. Don’t believe me? Just look at the list of World Series winners: there’s a lot more variegation now than there ever was back in the good old days. And in the ‘80s, didn’t one team and pretty much one team alone dominate UK football? What was its name again? The point about building up a team over time is well taken, though. But what would you do to stop teams from buying in lots of high-priced talent? An American basketball-style salary cap? Doesn’t look like that’s done a lot of good for NBA parity. Cheers

By: enthymeme

enthymeme — Sat, 30 Aug 2003 20:06:37 +0000

Right, so you wouldn’t be lauding a cash injection that size. OK. Nor would you particularly enjoy the excitement of having new players bought from that windfall – and people who do deserve to be disliked. OK. So let’s grant that Abramovich’s riches are “ill-gotten”. And because Chelsea Village Plc receives financing from a man whom you consider some kind of reprobate, Chelsea the footballing side deserves to be intensely disliked. Gee, OK. Anyway, congrats on the 3-0 win :-)

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 30 Aug 2003 19:23:50 +0000

“If you had a cash injection that size, you’d be fawning too.” I’d hope not. “his allegedly ill-gotten riches” Allegedly?

By: enthymeme

enthymeme — Sat, 30 Aug 2003 18:20:39 +0000

Chris, Liverpool plays boring football, and you know it. They deserved to lose out on a Champions’ League place last season and indeed – it would have been a travesty of footballing justice had they beaten Chelsea to a CL spot in the final deciding match of the season. Chelsea had, for the length of the entire season, been the more entertaining, the more inventive, the more positive, and the better managed of the two sides. Most neutrals will agree too, that the CL would have been all the poorer for it if Liverpool had qualified at the expense of Chelsea. Now that we’ve come into a bit of a windfall, we get envious moans from all over about how Chelsea fans are ‘fawning’ over Abramovich ‘uncritically’. Bah. Sour grapes. If you had a cash injection that size, you’d be fawning too. That is not to say though, that we aren’t aware that Abramovich may one day decide to up and leave, or do the club in in some other unfathomable way. Being wary doesn’t preclude enjoying what’s essentially a done deal for all it’s worth. I for one fail to see how abstract reasons for disliking Chelsea – such as Abramovich’s character (about which we know little, incidentally), or his allegedly ill-gotten riches – can inspire such ‘hatred on a low boil’, as it were. Why detract from providing good footballing reasons for said bitterness? You know, the usual: arrogant players/manager, ‘negative’ football, thuggish players, supporters are prigs, etc. Mark Radcliffe just about sums it up from the terraces: “. . . however first things first a word about money. Once again the indulgent meanderings of one or two chairman and commentators have emerged moaning about how the chelsea revolution is ruining the game. Apparently according to among others the Arsenal vice chairman Chelsea are putting too much money into the game ?!? I’m not going to waste too much time on this suffice to say that off the top of my head so far Portsmouth, West Ham, B’ham, Charlton, Southampton, Blackburn, and annoyingly Man Utd have benefited from Romans money and of course that money filters down as those clubs with cash spend (blackburn buy Ferguson, Saints buy Phillips etc) and those with players on loan do better then they would have. It seems to me that the only negative impact so far is the vague possibility that this years Premeirship will not be a two horse race and there is an extra £100 million in the industry swilling about at a difficult time. And thats bad why? Tony Parks the Blackburn assistant manager and student of political economy says with a stunning insight ‘what will happen if Roman gets bored and leaves?’ Well he will arguably leave a debt free club and we’ll carry on but if you want extremes I’ll offer one. If he goes in three or four years time and the ‘stars’ go as well after winning the title, maybe the Champions League maybe coming close, maybe picking up the FA cup maybe winning the league again…. and then descending back into the pack of mediocrity that is the world of Spurs, Villa, Everton etc, clubs who’s lack of ambition have done a disservice to their fans and to the game itself then I for one won’t give a f***. We’ve supported a crumbling bankrupt side with Tommy Langley in it before and as long as we never have to pay to watch Dean Windass we’ll carry on supporting them then. You take the ups with the downs, right now its an up, shut the f*** up and let us get on with enjoying it. Right now we are going to spend some time trying to compete with Manure and the Arse and play some bloody brilliant football. And we might, just might, just win the league?!”

By: Robert Schwartz

Robert Schwartz — Sat, 30 Aug 2003 17:30:52 +0000

You soccer fans are about a generation behind professional sports in the US. Baseball has progressed the farthest down this primrose path. If you think Roman Abramovich is odious, you just don’t know about George Steinbrenner.

By: chris

chris — Sat, 30 Aug 2003 08:41:06 +0000

Sorry, I see the convolutedness now! As you may know, part of Liverpool’s bad start involved a home defeat to Chelsea. It might be (wrongly) thought that my animosity towards Chelsea was merely a case of sour grapes. It isn’t. Have I given up already? Not quite, though one dodgy penalty in 270+ minutes of play doesn’t exactly fill me with hope.

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 30 Aug 2003 08:34:08 +0000

I didn’t stop disliking ManU, Brian. I meant (and thought I’d said) that there was now one team I disliked more than ManU, namely, Chelsea.

By: Brian Weatherson

Brian Weatherson — Sat, 30 Aug 2003 08:23:21 +0000

I didn’t understand the last sentence at all. Liverpool do badly so you stop disliking Man U. Is it because you’re already giving up hope of competing with them this year? Now all the energies can be focussed on teams backed by Mob Money? The Everton game is the first Liverpool game this year being televised in the U.S. (I think, unless I missed one somewhere) so I’ll be able to see how badly they are performing ‘first-hand’.