Dokko Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 im sure ronaldo was 13.5million........our scout couldent see him cause he was watching vianna Not true, SBR spotted CR before Viana, but CR had made it clear he had no interest in coming to a minor team like us, so SBR told SAF to have a look at him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 There ain't any difference between the two if you consider Roman as an investor and his investment as part of Chelsea's business operations. Why should you separate the two? many investors, private equity firms, hedge funds do take over companies who are doing poorly (in debt), invest significantly, turn the company around and make the priofit later either by way of divident or by selling off the shares. Doubt Manchester could have spent so much this year (and they're not done yet) if Glazier did not open up his wallet too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 There ain't any difference between the two if you consider Roman as an investor and his investment as part of Chelsea's business operations. Why should you separate the two? many investors, private equity firms, hedge funds do take over companies who are doing poorly (in debt), invest significantly, turn the company around and make the priofit later either by way of divident or by selling off the shares. Doubt Manchester could have spent so much this year (and they're not done yet) if Glazier did not open up his wallet too. Are you responding to MY earlier point? If the Russian lives to be 500 years old, he will not see a personal profit! He has not turned them around, they are STILL making incredible annual losses and show no signs of ever making a profit. Do not believe Kenyons words on this. The Russians money is not part of a 'Business Investment' by any definition of that term that I understand - other than "Chelsea Football Club is a Business" and "Abramovich gives them an annual amount of money, varying only by the 'size' of their annual loss" The SIZE of their annual losses, is the "deformity" that I detest. The annual payoff allows them to behave like the real world does not touch them It indeed does not. They are a deformity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliMag Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 1. Its not Mourinho's fault that they spent big and in most cases overpaid - he's still a brilliant manager 2. Alex is right - I would not care if it happened to us either Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 1. Its not Mourinho's fault that they spent big and in most cases overpaid - he's still a brilliant manager 2. Alex is right - I would not care if it happened to us either ok. One day we may get the chance to find out if Mourinho is a brilliant manager or not, compared to others in the Premier League who have had to "manage" without endless supplies of money. He has not been tested in the Premier League yet. He hasn't really even been "in" the Premier League yet. He has been on "Planet Roman"!! True? How do you think he would cope at (say) Charlton or Villa? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliMag Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 I'd say winning the UEFA Cup, the CL (and the Portuguese treble) with less than 5m euros makes him a brilliant manager (I know many on here disagree). He had a bad season (by their standards) and this "planet Roman" seems to have been part of the cause - signings being made against his plans/will/authorization so I'd say it cuts both ways to some extent. I am not defending Chelsea by the way but the endless pisstaking of Mourinho is usually uncalled for. There were number of Newcastle supporters on the old NUFC.NU board that were calling for his appointment when Porto won the UEFA Cup (myself included). He is "special" and also smart and I think his comments are partly him being ironic since they were almost identical to the comments made by Lord Ferg when he took the helm at Chelsea. And to answer your last question I think he would have done better than MON or Curbs. That said I think this past season Mourinho has lost his way a bit and might need to move on to rediscover his abilities. And being at Chelsea with Roman's money and influence is defo part of the reason for his personal decline. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gggg Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 Doubt Manchester could have spent so much this year (and they're not done yet) if Glazier did not open up his wallet too. They spent nothing last year. IN: Carrick -£16m OUT: Van Nistelrooy -£10m, Obi Mikel -£6m. This year they've spent £50m and will get back about £20m from -Mikel £6m -Smith £6m -Heinze £5m -Richardson £3m etc. So £30m in two years, I think Manchester United's budget can just about stretch to £15m a year. Chelsea on the other hand spent £200m in two years, this is a club who were on the verge of bankruptcy with over £100m debt so make that £300m plus whatever they've spent since. Not to mention their wage bill which is £114m to Man United's £85m despite having a smaller revenue!! If Glazer left Man United nothing would change, if Abramovich left Chelsea who would buy a football club that makes a loss of £80m every year? They'd have to sell all their biggest assets and cut the wage bill in half which means they'd find their level at about mid table. That's if Abramovich doesn't want any of his money back and pays off the debts if he does and doesn't then it'll be Leeds United MKII. No other football clubs league position is based entirely on one mans money like Chelsea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest elbee909 Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 So it's ok for a club to take money, over many years, from lots of people, but not right to take it in a short amount of time from very few people. I'd like someone to explain the righteousness of one over the other exactly. errr because every club takes money from fans, sponsors ... that's a level playing field, Man Utd built there reputation in the 50's and 60's and then became dominant in the 90's when the money rolled in, any other club could have done that. Totally different from a billionaire just saying right here's £500m while you're on the brink of bankruptcy. I don't see how it's a level playing field when Manchester resides in one of the largest conurbations in the UK whereas a team like say, Ipswich, have far less of a catchment area. I don't think any of it is a level playing field and if a football club can attract money from whoever, then ultimately it's fair enough, regardless of how unfair it may seem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gggg Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 Ipswich have the whole of Suffolk to themselves a catchment area of 600,000 people, There's about 15 clubs near Manchester. By that logic Ipswich would be the bigger club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gggg Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 Oh and since Mourinho's Porto days were mentioned earlier...... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/european_football/article1929447.ece Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now