Chelsea lost £140million last year

stevenmu

Tbh I'm not a huge PL fan so some of you may disagree strongly with me on this but it seems to me like the premiership was being bought long before Chelsea started doing it. Man Utd and Arsenal have dominated it for the 10 years previous to that mainly due to the players they bought. They had the most money and got first pick of players interested in the PL, Leeds tried to compete and were bankrupted by it, Man U and Arsenal had raised the expenditure-needed-to-win bar too high. Now Chelsea have raised the bar again, but it's not their fault, the premiership had already been turned into a competition where whoever invests the most, wins.

gracehopper

stevenmu wrote:

Tbh I'm not a huge PL fan so some of you may disagree strongly with me on this but it seems to me like the premiership was being bought long before Chelsea started doing it. Man Utd and Arsenal have dominated it for the 10 years previous to that mainly due to the players they bought. They had the most money and got first pick of players interested in the PL, Leeds tried to compete and were bankrupted by it, Man U and Arsenal had raised the expenditure-needed-to-win bar too high. Now Chelsea have raised the bar again, but it's not their fault, the premiership had already been turned into a competition where whoever invests the most, wins.

i disagree with this. United basis for success in the 90's was the investment in their youth system, granted United bought players to help them win the CL in '99 but you couldnt disagree that the basis of United's most successful team ever was the 5 or 6 exceptionally good young players that came through at the same time.

growler

Lots of anti-chelsea pseudo facts being rolled out by the United and Arsenal fans here. I hadn't realised that so many boards users were personal friends with Abramovich , but they must be , how else can you be so certain about what his motivations in buying the club were, his level of interest in chelsea, his plans for the future, and whether he considers it a toy or not ?plus the unsubstantiated allegtions of corruption, mafia involvement, smuggling etc.

Regardless of the losses in recent years and of the personal wealth of RA he has put some very shrewd football business brains in charge at CFC, it is not unusual for a business plan to focus on breakeven / profitbability on the timescales being mentioned by Bruce Buck. The potential rewards for sustained success, in domestic and european competitions, plus TV rights, shirt sales, sponsorship, merchandising, ticket sales, etc. etc. must be sufficient to ensure that the levels of investment Roman is making will ultimately paay off. Much of how the club capitalises on this success is down to the business acumen of the men in charge, negotiation of deals, development and promotion of the brand. The Glaziers have also realised the potential for profit in developing the Man U brand, otherwie they would not be in it.

Redspider says clubs haven't been making money, maybe that's because they were run by the wrong people, football people not business people. Stekelly's assertion that RA is "the stupidest billionaire " must be an oxymoron, where did you pluck the £50 million per annum loss til 2010 figure from ? The usual course of events would see the losses decreasing incrementally followed by profits rising post break even.

Maybe Man U and Arsenal fans are just ****ting yourselves now that you realise that:
Abramovich is with Chelsea for the forseeable future.
Abramovich is not going to be magically imprisoned in Siberia.
Chelsea are going to take money from your club's purses by winning the competitions that allowed you dominate the PL for so long.

That said, I don't think it's particularly good for football, even as a chelsea fan, I would rather go to Old Trafford or the Library with a sense of anticipation that with the expectation of victory. For that I now have to wait for Bacelona games :-)

PHB

plus the unsubstantiated allegtions of corruption, mafia involvement, smuggling etc.

The guy is one of the Russian oligarchs. He is by definition corrupt. Mafia involvement is rumoured in europe but nothing is specifically done, but his corruption is definate, and thats shown by his presents to Putin. Putin is not going to be able to run again, and once he is gone, a strong anti-oligarch candidate will emerge, probably with US backing.

The usual course of events would see the losses decreasing incrementally followed by profits rising post break even

If this were true, the following things would have to happen.
1. Chelsea move out of the bridge into a massive new stadium(something that RM has no real interest in, as he has stated)
2. Chelsea make a massive cut in the amount of wages they are spending, which is 150% that of Man Utd.
3. Chelsea stop spending massive amounts of money on transfer. People talk about United spending big, they spent 30 million a year at the peak of the spending, roughly 20 million net. Chelsea spend 80 million last year, on players which only one is making the team reguarly. Chelsea's massive strength comes from squad depth, which is impossible to sustain when trying to run a profit, especially without a proper youth system and a coach which gives them a chance.

Why am I worried?
Because without Man Utd and Arsenal and Liverpool or anybody being able to compete, the only teams that can compete are teams which are backed by philantrophists. No other team can take a gamble and invest like United did in the hopes of getting the future, because with Chelsea around, nobody can possibly compete with that. Thats the problem, if you thought you were upset with Man Utd Arsenal dominance, if RM sticks around forever, and passes it onto his son, expect Chelsea to dominate for years to come, alone.

iregk

PHB wrote:

If this were true, the following things would have to happen.
1. Chelsea move out of the bridge into a massive new stadium(something that RM has no real interest in, as he has stated)
2. Chelsea make a massive cut in the amount of wages they are spending, which is 150% that of Man Utd.
3. Chelsea stop spending massive amounts of money on transfer. People talk about United spending big, they spent 30 million a year at the peak of the spending, roughly 20 million net. Chelsea spend 80 million last year, on players which only one is making the team reguarly. Chelsea's massive strength comes from squad depth, which is impossible to sustain when trying to run a profit, especially without a proper youth system and a coach which gives them a chance.

I agree with a lot of what growler has said is so far as that i think a lot of Arsenal and Man U fans are running scared now in teh sudden realisation that he is not leaving anytime soon.

In reponse to the points above.
1) not sure where your getting that from considering Chelsea have purchased the land where lies an old shut down hospital for the reason of building the new Stamford Bridge, for which 60,000 seater planning permission has already been granted. Work is due to start in the summer.

2) Chelsea have already implemented a tiered wage structure and have significantly reduced the wage bill from Claudio's last season and are looking to reduce it further in the summer as Jose clears out some dead wood which has been stated is going to happen.

3) Again as stated previous, Roman has invested hugely in the youth system which was a shambles so the future is bright in that area, that and the fact that they have secured some of the top youth staff in the country to run it.

With regards to the amount being spent and this is something i agree with a previous post. The premier league since sky was bougth long before Chelsea. Match printed out back in September the Chelsea and United squad and the Chelsea squad was only 5million more expensive. So if United win the title please tell me how they wouldn't have bought it?

The competetion is still there, Liverpool now being as I see Chelsea's biggest threat both this and next season. I think the main problem from teh Arsenal United band is that they are not just seeing their dominance break they are seeing themselves being over taken for second place as well.

The Muppet

iregk wrote:

With regards to the amount being spent and this is something i agree with a previous post. The premier league since sky was bougth long before Chelsea. Match printed out back in September the Chelsea and United squad and the Chelsea squad was only 5million more expensive. So if United win the title please tell me how they wouldn't have bought it?

Rubbish how much did United spend on Beckham Butt Giggs Scholes The Neville sisters? United and Arsenal spent the money they generated themselves not blood money.

iregk wrote:

The competetion is still there, Liverpool now being as I see Chelsea's biggest threat both this and next season. I think the main problem from teh Arsenal United band is that they are not just seeing their dominance break they are seeing themselves being over taken for second place as well.

Have a look at the table Liverpool are not your biggest competition.


Chelsea will never be as big as United because the will never have the Global support United have. Chelsea themselves obviously realise this , only building a 60,000 seater Staduim in the Capital when United attract 75.000 and expanding in Manchester.

iregk

Right are Beckham, P Neville and Butt still at united? No. So why are we talking about these?

Was Rio, Rooney, Van Nist, Ronaldy, actually anyone else come to think of it a product of the youth accademy? No they paid and paid well for these players.

I'm not here to discuss where Roman got his money from and get invovled in the moral side of that debate. All I will say is that if you think your club is 100% clean in where all money and players came from your very nieve.

The table at the moment yes united are above liverpool. Me personally I expect Liverpool to finish above united and get stronger again next year. Liverpool are on the up and I'm talking now about the here and now but about next season and coming seasons. In that respect I think Liverpool will be Chelsea's biggest competition.

Chelsea may never be as big as United are, nobody ever laid claim that they would be so I've no idea where that has come from. They have not realised this by only building a 60k stadium, they applied for more but were only granted 60k for the first 6 years and can expand there after.

That last post smacks of the rantings of a disgruntled and bitter United fan.

redspider

I am not happy with the Chelsea situation as I think it is bad for football. And its not the first time that money is ruining the sport as a spectacle and competition.

My suggestion to improve football is to make it more of a level playing field, as money, not only Chelsea's which is of a dubious source legally and morally, but also the sums that Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool and indeed Real Madrid, Barcelona and the Italians put in, makes the sport less competitive and less fair. There should be some cap on spending costs as others have advocated, maybe 50m ukp or 50m euro a year, some arbitrary figure. Ground development costs (real capital expenditure) perhaps should be seperate.

Deloitte produce an analysis of club football finances each year, we are due one soon. The table from the last one was as follows:

http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/press_release/0,1014,sid%253D2834%2526cid%253D74042,00.html

The Deloitte Football Money League – 2003/04 season (UK £ Sterling)
Position (prior year position) 	Club 	Income (£m)
1 (1) 	Manchester United 	171.5
2 (4) 	Read Madrid 	156.3
3 (3) 	AC Milan 	147.2
4 (10) 	Chelsea 	143.7
5 (2) 	Juventus 	142.4
6 (7) 	Arsenal 	115.0
7 (13) 	Barcelona 	112.0
8 (6) 	Internazionale 	110.3
9 (5) 	Bayern Munich 	110.1
10 (8) 	Liverpool 	92.3
11 (9) 	Newcastle United 	90.5
12 (11) 	AS Roma 	72.0
13 (18) 	Celtic 	69.0
14 (16) 	Tottenham Hotspur 	66.3
15 (15) 	SS Lazio 	65.8
16 (n/a) 	Manchester City 	61.9
17 (14) 	Schalke 04 	60.5
18 (n/a) 	Olympique Marseille 	58.3
19 (n/a) 	Rangers 	57.1
20 (n/a) 	Aston Villa 	55.9

A euro version is available here:
http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/press_release/0,1014,sid%253D1018%2526cid%253D74209,00.html

During that year, Man U had revenue of 171m but they did spend quite a bit of money, about 111m (correction), so they made a massive profit of approx 60m. Chelsea, who's revenue was lower at 143m, had payroll costs of 115.5m and they acquired players spending 175m (source Chelsea FC - http://www.chelseafc.com/article.asp?hlid=357629&m=1&y=2006&nav=news&sub=latest+news)

That is way above their revenue and they are living above their means. Note that for financial accounting purposes players are seen as assets and hence their purchase cost is not written down as a full cost for that year. Only the depreciated value of the player gets recognised as a cost. I dont necessarily agree with that treatment as financially it can give a false impression.

However, having looked more closely at their release for this year, the 140m figure is perhaps an inflated headline figure as it includes write-down costs (Mutu, Veron) which affect comparability with the 80m of last year. But either way, 220m loss is a huge amount.

Reduction in payroll has been achieved through player loanings, but here again I think football rules should step in. It does not make sense that the big clubs should own so many players and loan them out to the clubs with less money. Thats market domination, cartel practices. Squad size should be limited. If 23 is good enough for a World Cup, why not say 30 registered players for a club.

Chelsea spent less last year but £101m is still collosal. And that is a net expenditure (player purchases - player sales). They have earmarked net expenditure of about 60m for this season.

And what should drive all investment - increasing revenues and the prospect of profitability. However, revenues from football at Chelsea Fc Ltd only slightly increased by 4.1% to £122.7m from £117.9m. Not a huge factor. It would take a huge reduction in players salaries/numbers for Chelsea to be close to a profit.

The Rooster wrote:

Is it known for certain that Roman puts all his money into Chelsea in the form of share capital (which in most circumstances he cant get back unless he sells his shares), rather than loans (which in theory Chelsea would owe him)?

I would be very surprised if it was loans as then it would be written down as Debt. I havent seen the Chelsea accounts, if anyone has a link feel free to post it here. Also there are corporate governance rules which prevent owners from loaning money to their companies, as this can lead to fraud situations.

astrofool wrote:

As I said before, it's like 'Brewster's Millions' where he has to get rid of the money. Also, given the amount of bung's in football, any ill gotten money could also be channelled of this way into the football club, no questions asked.

Yes, thats a good analogy. Abramovich got his wealth by ill-gotten means so has no problem splashing it about and indeed losing money in certain areas. Thats why Chelsea is a "play thing". He doesnt care if he loses money. He is just having fun, just like going to a casino. Its a longer game/bet but its still a game to him.

LostinBlanch wrote:

No, football is so awash with money and dodgy dealing that it has become a prime target for those wishing to "clean" their money. Make of that what you will.

Yes, I agree with that. By building up value in Chelsea, its unlikely that any future Russian leader/government could acquire it as payment for back-taxes, as they did with Khodorovsky and Yukos. Its a form of money laundering on a masive scale and also publicly for everyone to see.

I would not be suprised though if Abramovich would dissappear some day.

redspider

The Muppet

iregk wrote:

Right are Beckham, P Neville and Butt still at united? No. So why are we talking about these?

Was Rio, Rooney, Van Nist, Ronaldy, actually anyone else come to think of it a product of the youth accademy? No they paid and paid well for these players..

Has Rooney won the premiership with United ? You made the point that United baught success, IMO that is not an accurate reflection of the situation as my list of players demonstrates.

iregk wrote:

I'm not here to discuss where Roman got his money from and get invovled in the moral side of that debate. All I will say is that if you think your club is 100% clean in where all money and players came from your very nieve..

I support Manchester United , I would have serious moral issues if their source of funding was akin Chelsea's. As for the other Clubs source of funding If you can back up that claim work ahead otherwise you cant just cast group all the other clubs with Chelsea and expect to be taken seriously.

iregk wrote:

The table at the moment yes united are above liverpool. Me personally I expect Liverpool to finish above united and get stronger again next year. Liverpool are on the up and I'm talking now about the here and now but about next season and coming seasons. In that respect I think Liverpool will be Chelsea's biggest competition.

Chelsea may never be as big as United are, nobody ever laid claim that they would be so I've no idea where that has come from. They have not realised this by only building a 60k stadium, they applied for more but were only granted 60k for the first 6 years and can expand there after.

That last post smacks of the rantings of a disgruntled and bitter United fan.

YOu are entitled to you opinion . Mine is that United have strengthened recently and I expect them to do so again in the summer. Liverpool have closed the gap but are still a few players short of challenging Chelsea. AT the risk of sounding like a liverpool fan from a few seasons back I believe United are/will be best equipped to mount a serious challenge next season.


I am not the least bit Bitter, I agree that the league was stale and needed stirring Up. Not winning it for a couple of seasons would not bother me once the team was progressing.

The Rooster

redspider wrote:

I would be very surprised if it was loans as then it would be written down as Debt. I havent seen the Chelsea accounts, if anyone has a link feel free to post it here. Also there are corporate governance rules which prevent owners from loaning money to their companies, as this can lead to fraud situations.

I too would be surprised if the investment was structured as a loan, but I've never heard it confirmed one way or another. I didnt think corporate goverance rules prevented owners loaning money to their companies (I've certainly seen plenty of it in smaller scale companies). Rules do prevent companies loaning money to owners however.

iregk

The Muppet wrote:

Has Rooney won the premiership with United ? You made the point that United baught success, IMO that is not an accurate reflection of the situation as my list of players demonstrates.

I support Manchester United , I would have serious moral issues if their source of funding was akin Chelsea's. As for the other Clubs source of funding If you can back up that claim work ahead otherwise you cant just cast group all the other clubs with Chelsea and expect to be taken seriously.

What I actually said was if United win the league woudl they not have bought it as well?

I'm not for one moment casting all clubs on par with chelsea when it comes to ill gotten gains but dont think for one second that United, Liverpool Arsenal or anyone else for that matter are completely 100% clean.

Anyway we are going to have to agree to disagree on the situation. Were not really getting anywhere here we are on our way down the road of bickering and a he said she said situation. i might be wrong but I don't think anyone wants that.

The Muppet

iregk wrote:

What I actually said was if United win the league woudl they not have bought it as well?

I'm not for one moment casting all clubs on par with chelsea when it comes to ill gotten gains but dont think for one second that United, Liverpool Arsenal or anyone else for that matter are completely 100% clean.

Anyway we are going to have to agree to disagree on the situation. Were not really getting anywhere here we are on our way down the road of bickering and a he said she said situation. i might be wrong but I don't think anyone wants that.

Fair enough.

growler

Muppet / redspider , for years Man U and Arsenal effectively dominated english football because their revenues allowed them to buy some of the best players in the world. It's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario as to whether the money allowed success or the success led to the money, either way i think its a comical "shifting of goalposts" for other fans to suggest that now there should be a cap on spending etc. in order to level the playing field. I don't recall anyone calling for artificial limitations on Man U / Arsenal during their glory days. Ok , you may feel the gulf is much bigger since RA arrived but to that I say "tough ****", you had your time in the sun and now I want to see my club winning everything in sight to make up for all those years of winning sweet fa.

Anyway, money or not, Liverpool, Charlton, Everton have all proven that chelsea are capable of dropping points.

And , although I love seeing my team win the PL and hopefully having another crack at the CL this year, eventually I won't be able to do so as its the fans who will ultimately have to pay for Roman's investment.

cruiserweight

growler wrote:

I don't recall anyone calling for artificial limitations on Man U / Arsenal during their glory days.

Arsenal,Liverpool and Man Utd are members of the G14! This group has placed self imposed limits on each of it's members with regards to the percentage of revenue that can be spent on transfers, wages etc., this insures that none of it's members go out of business!

The Muppet

growler wrote:

Muppet / redspider , for years Man U and Arsenal effectively dominated english football because their revenues allowed them to buy some of the best players in the world. It's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario as to whether the money allowed success or the success led to the money, either way i think its a comical "shifting of goalposts" for other fans to suggest that now there should be a cap on spending etc. in order to level the playing field. I don't recall anyone calling for artificial limitations on Man U / Arsenal during their glory days. Ok , you may feel the gulf is much bigger since RA arrived but to that I say "tough ****", you had your time in the sun and now I want to see my club winning everything in sight to make up for all those years of winning sweet fa.

Anyway, money or not, Liverpool, Charlton, Everton have all proven that chelsea are capable of dropping points.

And , although I love seeing my team win the PL and hopefully having another crack at the CL this year, eventually I won't be able to do so as its the fans who will ultimately have to pay for Roman's investment.

I didn't suggest a cap on spending and I would not be in favour of one , it's the alledged source of Chelsea's money that would concern me .

growler

cruiserweight wrote:

this insures that none of it's members go out of business!

Chelsea isn't part of the cosy G14 cartel. The G14 were happy with to share the wealth of football amongst themselves.

Do all the Man U / Arsenal / Livepool supporters think for a second that they would turn down a takeover bid for a similarly wealthy foreigner ? ( With the possible exception of Osama bin Laden).

cruiserweight

growler wrote:

Chelsea isn't part of the cosy G14 cartel. The G14 were happy with to share the wealth of football amongst themselves.

Do all the Man U / Arsenal / Livepool supporters think for a second that they would turn down a takeover bid for a similarly wealthy foreigner ? ( With the possible exception of Osama bin Laden).

I know that Chelski are not part of the G14 group, although they would like to be!

The G14 are a lobby group and of course look after the interests of their members, but are definitely not a cartel as you choose to describe them :rolleyes:

As a Liverpool supporter I would be concerned about who invested in our club yes! Also I would be extremely concerned if my club had posted a loss of £140 million for the previous year, and planned on continuing to post loses until 2010 at the earliest!

The Muppet

growler wrote:

Do all the Man U / Arsenal / Livepool supporters think for a second that they would turn down a takeover bid for a similarly wealthy foreigner ? ( With the possible exception of Osama bin Laden).

Considering the allegations surrounding the source of his money I would have moral issues if Roman became Utd owner.

growler

most of the allegations regarding RA's wealth come from PHB and Red Spider. If I was to make similarly unfounded, unproven allegations about Glaziers would you change teams ?

The Muppet

growler wrote:

most of the allegations regarding RA's wealth come from PHB and Red Spider. If I was to make similarly unfounded, unproven allegations about Glaziers would you change teams ?

Now Growler the allegations on Romans wealth are very well documented and supported and are cetainly not just down to PHB and Red Spider. If the same allegations were levelled at the Glaziers with the same amount of evidence backing them up I would definitly have to consider not supporting United while they were still in charge. I would never change teams.

growler

The Muppet wrote:

Now Growler the allegations on Romans wealth are very well documented and supported and are cetainly not just down to PHB and Red Spider. If the same allegations were levelled at the Glaziers with the same amount of evidence backing them up I would definitly have to consider not supporting United while they were still in charge. I would never change teams.

can you show me a reputable source that shows Abramovich has been convicted of a criminal act either in Europe or Russia or anywhere for that matter ?

The Muppet

growler wrote:

can you show me a reputable source that shows Abramovich has been convicted of a criminal act either in Europe or Russia or anywhere for that matter ?

No I can't. Does that mean he is innocent or does it just mean he has not been caught yet? Innocent until proven guilty I guess.

Chucky the tree

The Muppet wrote:

No I can't. Does that mean he is innocent or does it just mean he has not been caught yet? Innocent until proven guilty I guess.

Its a case of them not having enough evidence to prove the allegations. With thankfully in most countries means hes innocent.

The Rooster

The Muppet wrote:

Now Growler the allegations on Romans wealth are very well documented and supported and are cetainly not just down to PHB and Red Spider. If the same allegations were levelled at the Glaziers with the same amount of evidence backing them up I would definitly have to consider not supporting United while they were still in charge. I would never change teams.

Its not dissimilar to Ferguson organising and taking bungs for transfers and using family members as middle men to get extra money for himself and his family. Like Abramovich, everyone knows Ferguson is corrupt, unless they choose to be blind and ignore it. However, there is not enough hard evidence to prove them guilty, therefore they are "innocent".

redspider

growler wrote:

Muppet / redspider , for years Man U and Arsenal effectively dominated english football because their revenues allowed them to buy some of the best players in the world. It's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario as to whether the money allowed success or the success led to the money, either way i think its a comical "shifting of goalposts" for other fans to suggest that now there should be a cap on spending etc. in order to level the playing field. I don't recall anyone calling for artificial limitations on Man U / Arsenal during their glory days.

Well, I for one have not thought up of the spending/costs cap as a result of Abramovich. I've put that forward during the run-away success years of the 1990's and early 2000's of Man Utd. You may or may not recall that in several of my earlier reports I've used the phrase "the Man Utd/Arsenal duopoly". Domination whether by Man Utd, Arsenal or anyone when it is based on large sums of money, to me makes the sport less competitive and more business-like rather than football like. Success begats money, which begats success, etc, and so on ad infinitum and indeed ad boredom. Several years during Man Utd's reign it was more interesting watching the relegation battle, and now this season the interest is with the battle for 2nd. Over-dominance is not entertaining. Indeed many of Chelsea's wins this season are not entertaining.

The situation with Abramovich is that the playing field is even more unbalanced than ever before, due to the large sums involved where not even the previous duopolists can keep up, and where the source of the money is very dodgy indeed. Chelsea are spending twice as much as Man U, and they are 2nd. At this point its obvious to the blind-men, the dogs on the street and even Fifa and Sepp Blatter!

As I and others have said before, other sports have tackled this in various ways. For example, with youth systems where the lower teams each season get the pick of the crop. Can you imagine an environment where Rooney would have got picked by Sunderland instead of where Man Utd buy him for 30m? And the same with the likes of Beckham, Giggs, Scholes, the Nevilles. It requires a different structure than what we have now.

The Chelsea situation has just made the need for change more obvious.

Bringing in changes and fair ones wont be easy, and the G14 (who are 18 clubs I believe and doesnt include Chelsea) wont be in favour of it. They have brought in a couple of guidelines for themselves, but they are more interested in keeping their hegemony dominance than in changing the sport and giving the likes of Fulham, West Ham, etc, more than just a chance.

Football league tables of years gone by will show that the standings were much closer each season and more volatile. A club that won the league one year could the following season easily end up 8th. When is the last time that has happened in England? The English league is too much like formula, and less interesting as a result, although the sport still has shocks.

redspider

redspider

Chucky the tree wrote:

Its a case of them not having enough evidence to prove the allegations. With thankfully in most countries means hes innocent.

No, its a case of people that have the evidence being equally corrupt and where a Prime Minister of a country pays bribes on a massive scale (Yeltsin) to criminals and where a different Prime Minister of the same country accepts bribes (Putin), and all this in a country that is severely corrupt, where criminality is high, death rates rising, life expectancy dropping, inequality increasing, etc, etc, etc .....

Just because there is no political, judicial and governmental will to gather evidence, arrest someone and convict them does not mean that a person has not commtted a crime. Russia is corrupt - Wake Up!

And Chelsea are living off the "fruits" of Russian corruption .....

redspider

ps: an extreme example, none of Genghis Khan, Vlad the Impaler or Adolf Hitler were ever convicted in a court of law, so hence are innocent until proven guilty. As I've said on other forum, just because someone has not been convicted of something does not mean that they did not commit a crime.

iregk

Are all the big clubs to an extent not living off some form of corruption. Take G14 for example.

*Now i'm aware that we are not talking any where near the scale of Roman but hear me out.

G14 has rules in place that means they will basically not wipe each other out. In doing this however they also ensure that the money stays with the big clubs and widens the gap between rich and poor. This is well documented. So they have their own interests at heart and couldn't care less about the small clubs.

When the TV deal to split the money was discussed at the premier league meeting a few years back the idea of sending the money down teh chain to help lower budget teams close the gap had to be agreed by all 20 clubs for it to be passed. It wasn't passed as 1 club, Man U, rejected it.

What ever way you look at it thats a form of corruption. The game is full of it and the main problem is that they authorities cannot do much about it because if they did, the entire game would come crashing to the ground. So in a vicious catch 22 scenario they have to keep most of it quiet.

PHB

It wasn't passed as 1 club, Man U, rejected it.

Thats probably because United are shown nearly every single week, on avergage I don't see 3 united games, why? Because people watch them. ATM, United get a comparable amount to Sunderland, only a million or so more, and you want Sunderland to get more money? These teams are lucky Utd dont make a serious attempt to do what Juve have done.

What ever way you look at it thats a form of corruption.

Thats not corruption, its cost-effective business.

iregk

In response yes i do want lower teams to get more. Crack out the nfl model, the chain is only as strong as it weakest link! Improve the lower teams and bring it all closer together.

The FA though dont tackle real issues, they side step the big tasks and go hiding when anything serious happens. Look at recently. Mangers step up and say all about corruption and back handers, which is serious stuff. What do the fa do, not come up and release anything and lauch a serious investigation. no they take the easy option as usually and fine gary neville!

growler

redspider wrote:

No, its a case of people that have the evidence being equally corrupt and where a Prime Minister of a country pays bribes on a massive scale (Yeltsin) to criminals and where a different Prime Minister of the same country accepts bribes (Putin), and all this in a country that is severely corrupt, where criminality is high, death rates rising, life expectancy dropping, inequality increasing, etc, etc, etc .....

Just because there is no political, judicial and governmental will to gather evidence, arrest someone and convict them does not mean that a person has not commtted a crime. Russia is corrupt - Wake Up!

Thats a conspiracy theory, not proof of anything.

What football club does Genghis Khan own ?

KdjaCL

growler wrote:

Thats a conspiracy theory, not proof of anything.

What football club does Genghis Khan own ?

Martin Cahill was misunderstood or just really good at what he did?


Same difference.

kdjac