Chelsea "hell-bent on ruining football"

Benedict XVI

Rickylovesuall wrote:

The ones that do the best ?

i wonder what the top 18 in europe would be . . .

Juventas
Milan
Inter
Lazio/Roma/Fiorentina
Man U
Liverpool
Chelsea
Arsenal
Real Madrid
Barcelona
Valencia ?
Bayern Munich ( what other good german teams are there )
Lyon ( what other good french teams are there )
PSV
AZ Akmaar/Ajax
Porto
Celtic/Rangers ?
or who else ?

I would not put Cetic or Rangers in it, they would be in the second tier with the likes of Belgian, Dutch, French and German clubs not mentioned above.

therecklessone

growler wrote:

you're obviously an expert in the world of sponsorship marketing strategy and I bow to your intimate knowledge of the subject, silly old me thought that companies with global brands like 888.com were more interested in the exposure (in terms of hours of brand exposure to key target audiences) they get over the course of a season on international television and press than they were in selling gambling to brummies. just goes to show.;)

You're deluding yourself if you think clubs can rely on sponsorship to fund their activities, just like anyone who thinks a full stadium each week is enough to pay the bills.

Clubs need to exploit every revenue source available, and gate receipts are an important component of that. 40% of Newcastle's turnover is matchday related (annual report 2004/05). Man Utd's figure was 37% (2004). If matchday income wasn't so important, why would Arsenal move from the Library to the Death Star? Why are Liverpool so keen to raise the £100m needed to build their new stadium? Why have ManYoo upped the capacity at OT again?

Merchandising sales increase with higher gates, the people who spend money on match day tickets are also the people who spend money in the club shop. Food and drink sales remain bouyant with full houses (7% of Newcastle's turnover in 2004/05 was from food and drink sales, and merchandising accounted for another 8%)

Empty stadiums take away from the entertainment value of televised games.

therecklessone

As for the thread topic...

Chelsea are following in the footsteps of ManYoo, AC Milan and Real (and if you go back far enough, you'll even find my shower doing the same), but they have taken it to a whole new level. None of the clubs mentioned had access to a bottomless pit, they have largely had to fund their activities through football-related income, or in the case of Madrid a favour from the local council. For comparison, Chelsea lost 150% of the amount that Leeds Utd owed after Ridsdale in the last year!

That said, football in general is broken, and its gonna take a lot more than an end to Chelsea's losses to change that. G14 are just a symptom, players wages and the influence of agents have contributed. For that matter, the number of players who see the game as just a job, and only care about their pay packet is rising and rising and rising. Football's not a sport anymore, its a business.

growler

therecklessone wrote:

. Football's not a sport anymore, its a business.

for the people running it (and possibly ruining it) it is, for us punters and for tthe players it's a sport. I can't blame players for following the money, I'd do the very same, the like of shearer giving the 2 fingers to Fergie and Duff rejecting spurs are the honourable exception, unlike Rooney selling his soul.

Rikand

Benedict XVI wrote:

I would not put Cetic or Rangers in it, they would be in the second tier with the likes of Belgian, Dutch, French and German clubs not mentioned above.

Aye, i was starting to clutch at straws by that stage

Nalz

Trilla wrote:

They'll (lower clubs) give a crap when Abramovich and Glaziers mates will come over and start taken over every other top 6-8 clubs in premiership, which is possible to happen, but nothin can be done about that. It ewill get to a point were 6-8 clubs will be own bu the riches blokes around, leaving the others to basically rot....possible ya know, very possible.

Aston Villa.