Robinho!!!

Jeez, people, what are you talking about?

Business is business, and football has become just that. It's not about the sport, it's not about the "glory"... it's not about you or me, as far as we're consumers of a branding strategy built with fancy, expensive marketing departments, either in-house or outsourced.

Football as we know it is dead. Long time ago.

Beautiful, though, but dead.

Originally posted by smartrrrrs
I still think it is about the managers ,yes Chelsea have abought team but they are the only English team to ever do it,Yes of course an open cheque helps,but it is not the be all and end all,Yes open cheque books attract big managers,What we need is another Cloughie ,dont know what he would make of it all ,but his comments would be good

Not sure if Chelsea are the first club to do it mate... have you forgotten Blackburn under Jack Walker in 1994/95 season? That really was the start of somehting!

Also lets not forget Man U.....everyone talking about Chelsea but how many times have Man U broken the british transfer record to sign players:- of the top of my head in recent years....

Van Nistelrooy then Rio then Rooney and now Barbatov.... all were british transfer records at the time of the signing.

Originally posted by Seitse
Business is business, and football has become just that. It's not about the sport, it's not about the "glory"....

No. Football used to be run as a business. Blackburn, Chelsea and now Man City are all examples of clubs that are not being run as a business. They're (were) playthings and/or PR vehicles for the extreme wealthy.

Before anyone says they're rich, they're in it to make money - then just take a look at Chelsea's accounts. 5 years after Abramovich took over Chelsea are still in the red. His only hope is to sell them for a huge fee to come out of it with anything like a profit.

Originally posted by spurs73
sorry yes i did mean best.

What i am saying is that the game now is all about money and who has the most.

City have now become the richest club in the world(?), Spurs cant compete with citys spending power.

Liverpool could well be the next team to be taken over by a arab business, if not i feel they or Arsenal will lose their top 4 place this season to Man City.

The PL will go to Chelsea or Man Utd, on one else will come close to them.

... and still, you fail to answer the question.

How is the Man City situation good for the Premiership? Apart from Man City fans why would anyone be happy about it? How does replacing one club with another in the CL positions break a "strong-hold" which your team weren't in before and aren't in now?

Originally posted by Angry Boy
... and still, you fail to answer the question.

How is the Man City situation good for the Premiership? Apart from Man City fans why would anyone be happy about it? How does replacing one club with another in the CL positions break a "strong-hold" which your team weren't in before and aren't in now?

so was the situration better before?

4 teams have been winning everyhing year in..year out for the last 5-10 years... the same 4 teams... its better because we got another BIG player on the scene.

You are P-ed off because Liverpool (unless you get taken over soon by that other arab company that is sniffing around at the moment) will struggle this season.

I am not sure why you have suddenly become so concerend about the situtaion in the PL, when reading your posts over the last 12 months, you have been more then happey with the situration as it was.

Now a 5th team is challangeing the so called 'top 4' with big bucks and you become concerned about the future of the PL.

Originally posted by Angry Boy
No. Football used to be run as a business. Blackburn, Chelsea and now Man City are all examples of clubs that are not being run as a business. They're (were) playthings and/or PR vehicles for the extreme wealthy.

Before anyone says they're rich, they're in it to make money - then just take a look at Chelsea's accounts. 5 years after Abramovich took over ...[text shortened]... His only hope is to sell them for a huge fee to come out of it with anything like a profit.

The fact that you don't see the profit in Chelsea's financial statements, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Chelsea is just part of a corporate structure tought by its owner to produce revenue.

Trust me, I know about these things: An unprofitable division or subsidiary doesn't mean that the business is going "bad".

Originally posted by spurs73
Also lets not forget Man U.....everyone talking about Chelsea but how many times have Man U broken the british transfer record to sign players:- of the top of my head in recent years....

Van Nistelrooy then Rio then Rooney and now Barbatov.... all were british transfer records at the time of the signing.

So?

United have always conducted their business properly (at least until the Glazer era) and never went into the red to fund these transfers.

Totally different scenario between a well run, popular business and a business which year after year operates at a loss, only to be funded by a rich benefactor.

To compare United to Abram's Chelsea, you'd have to show books whereby United went into the red to fund their players.

You can't do that, because it is not the reality.

D

Originally posted by Seitse
The fact that you don't see the profit in Chelsea's financial statements, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Chelsea is just part of a corporate structure tought by its owner to produce revenue.

Trust me, I know about these things: An unprofitable division or subsidiary doesn't mean that the business is going "bad".

I don't agree.

Chelsea FC is to Abramovich what a Playstation 2 is to Joe Ordinary.

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
So?

United have always conducted their business properly (at least until the Glazer era) and never went into the red to fund these transfers.

Totally different scenario between a well run, popular business and a business which year after year operates at a loss, only to be funded by a rich benefactor.

To compare United to Abram's Chelsea, you'd hav ...[text shortened]... into the red to fund their players.

You can't do that, because it is not the reality.

D

my point was that teams like Man U do spend big bucks to get success.. chelsea are not the only team which has 'bought the title'

Originally posted by Ragnorak
I don't agree.

Chelsea FC is to Abramovich what a Playstation 2 is to Joe Ordinary.

D

however would you not agree that the Glazers' are only interest in United as a business ...so if they get the right offer they will sell up asap?

Originally posted by Ragnorak
I don't agree.

Chelsea FC is to Abramovich what a Playstation 2 is to Joe Ordinary.

D

Do you think he gets no benefit from Chelsea?

Come on, in the worst case scenario, Chelsea is for him like business cards are for you and me.

Even though they can be booked as expense, they are representation expenses. And, henceforth, translate into revenue at some point.

Check this very interesting (although flawed at some parts) analysis of the Chelsea business model.

http://soccerlens.com/chelsea-limited-06-07-financial-accounts-analysis/7451/

Originally posted by spurs73
my point was that teams like Man U do spend big bucks to get success.. chelsea are not the only team which has 'bought the title'

Your point is as poorly thought out as it is presented.

Chelsea have lost at least 150m a year since Abramovich took over. Show me 1 year (pre Glazers) , where United carried ANY debt forward.

Spurs spend big as well. But, I presume they spend within their budget and are run as a business. How ridiculous would you find it if Dagenham and Redbridge fans said that Spurs have bought their place in the Premiership, purely based on the fact that they spend money that the Spurs business has generated?

Chelsea and Blackburn, as far as I can tell, are the only 2 teams which have "bought the title". Other teams, like United and Arsenal have used excellent marketing and business acumen to fill the coffers to allow them to compete in the top end of the transfer market. Similar to the way Spurs' position in the Premiership allows them to spend more than Dagenham and Redbridge, due to the higher profits generated.

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Your point is as poorly thought out as it is presented.

Chelsea have lost at least 150m a year since Abramovich took over. Show me 1 year (pre Glazers) , where United carried ANY debt forward.

Spurs spend big as well. But, I presume they spend within their budget and are run as a business. How ridiculous would you find it if Dagenham and Redbridge ows them to spend more than Dagenham and Redbridge, due to the higher profits generated.

D

thats all very well Rag, but lets look at now (instead of 'pre-Glazers'😉 the fact is Man Utd are 80m in debt!

Never mind what Unided may or may not have done in the past, the fact is that NOW if United were to have just one 'bad season' (ie not finish in the top 4 and get into the Champions League) they would be in sheeet finnancial problems- thats a FACT.

however the point i was trying to make was that United have always spend BIG to win things (apart from the season when the likes of beckham, scholes, giggs etc come through some 15 years ago)

EDIT: sorry UNITED are £764m in debt!!!!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/may/20/premierleague.chelsea

Originally posted by spurs73
the fact is Man Utd are 80m in debt!

FACT!!!

LOL.

Tell me durs, what has the fact that currently United are in shaky hands of dodgy speculators to do with them previously buying the title as you claimed earlier?

Please, try to maintain a static point of discussion, otherwise it all just becomes random.

Nice jumper.

D