argh1 Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 This breaks Leeds United previous record of 49 1/2 million pounds. Roman has sunk over 340 million into the team. Now I'm just an unedumacated buddy from Down East here and don't know the ways of dem dere rich folk from dem big places with all them fancifull frills 'n stuff......but it seems to me, that that's some sorry way to run a busyness. Seems to my ways of figurin' that that would kinda be like bein' spending 200 bucks to plant poetaaters so's I can sells dem to that french fries plant for 20. I mays as well just go to that new Sobey's place and spend a twonnie for a 10 pounds bag and peel dem suckers me self and hopes I bags me a moose or two and a big 12 pointer buck deer. Hell there's always dem clams to digs for free and the smelts will be runnin' in a month or so. Sweet effen "A" Roman is that's hows you made yer billions or are ya just on shore leave from one of dem Russian trawlers that are always takin' space at the docks bud? For the luv of gawd smarten the geezus up me friend before dad slaps ya one, bud. When yahs leaves the club might end up in one of dem dere County leagues at this rate. Oh,well I'm not a cut and paste dude so here's the link: SkySports Chelsea story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettermirror Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 i thought he erased all chelsea's debt when he bought the team before he bought new players. i guess all those purchases haven't paid off yet! they BETTER win he champions league a few times with the current group to recoup the losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 As I understand it, Roman made his bilions by cronyism and the "privatization" of former assets of the USSR - in this case an oil company. Ain't sure he is much of a business man and obviously is doing this solely for ego gratification. Expect though, that Chelsea will be a short term play thing that he will ditch once the losses become to high to manage. I don't see anything sustainable about the current operation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Gordon As I understand it, Roman made his bilions by cronyism and the "privatization" of former assets of the USSR - in this case an oil company. Ain't sure he is much of a business man and obviously is doing this solely for ego gratification. Expect though, that Chelsea will be a short term play thing that he will ditch once the losses become to high to manage. I don't see anything sustainable about the current operation. Well, I hope you're right because I think Chelsea is bad for football. Certainly they're bad for English football. But even with the 88 million pound loss Roman is probably richer now than the day he took over Chelsea so he's not too worried I imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argh1 Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 quote:Originally posted by amacpher Well, I hope you're right because I think Chelsea is bad for football. Certainly they're bad for English football. But even with the 88 million pound loss Roman is probably richer now than the day he took over Chelsea so he's not too worried I imagine. It can be argued but except for the 88 million in loses which apparantly are being shrugged off. What has Chelsea done that the "Galacticos" haven't been doin' for years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 quote:Originally posted by argh1 It can be argued but except for the 88 million in loses which apparantly are being shrugged off. What has Chelsea done that the "Galacticos" haven't been doin' for years? When I said Chelsea is bad for football, it's because: A) we have to see all these great players just sitting on the bench instead of actually playing (for some other team) they're running away with the league this season and probably many seasons in the near future. Real Madrid are doing none of the above, nor have they for several years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Amacpher, the argument could be made that Chelsea is doing the exact same thing as Real but are far more sucessful at it. At least they are winning for the money they are spending and big names they are signing. As much distaste as I have for how Abrahmovic acquired his millions, I don't think I would classify Real Madrid's money as cleaner. I also doubt the English and London taxpayers will be stuck with paying for Chelsea's debts like the Spanish and Madrid taxpayers have with Real's who seem to always be able to make some sweet deal smacking of corruption whenever they are in financial difficulty. We may not like what Abrahmovic is doing but it is certainly no novelty in soccer nor even in English soccer (the only novelty for English soccer is that he is a foreigner spending millions not an Englishman). 10 years ago several of the big Italian teams were the Chelseas of their time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desigol Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 The House of Cards will fall down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 This is precisely why I urge caution for those who are gungho about launching a Canadian pro league. If it does not make good business sense i.e. be profitable or at worst break even, it will fail. At this stage another collapsed domestic pro league will set Canadian soccer back further than it has ever been set back before. Proceed with great caution if you truly love the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rivaldo Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Gordon I don't see anything sustainable about the current operation. At the rate of 88 million pounds per year Abramovich can only sustain those losses for another 64 years (assuming he doesn't make any more money in his other holdings). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frostman Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 The 88 Mill is a little innacurate though. I heard that 8 Mill is from the time he misplaced his wallet, and there's another cool mill in the ash-tray of his gold Bentley. The losses will be less when somone turns in his wallet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.