Infomation on Chelsea and Abramovich?

Discussion in 'Football Discussion' started by dycben, Nov 5, 2006.

  1. dycben

    dycben DYC 1st team Reserves

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Hello,

    I'm doing a presentation on the ethics of the recent Chelsea era and I was hoping some people here had good opinions on this topic or have links to some articles.

    I'll be talking about:

    Whether the mulit-billionaire investment in chelsea is ethical, as it gives them unlimited spending power?

    Whether Abramovichs investment in chelsea is good or bad, as it leads to inflating prices, which makes buying players more expensive, though this also gives smaller clubs more money from their sale.

    Thanks in advance for any info given. [​IMG]
     
  2. SoilBorn

    SoilBorn DYC Mr. Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2006
    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Abramovich is a crook. That's all you need to know.
     
  3. dycdan

    dycdan DYC please wait...

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Abramovich is a crook. That's all you need to know.</div>Do I sense jealousy in that ignorant comment. [​IMG]

    Just because his one of lifes succeeders does not make him a crook or bad person.

    <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Whether the mulit-billionaire investment in chelsea is ethical, as it gives them unlimited spending power?</div>What on earth makes you think his investment is unethical? At the end of the day football is business, and if you take away that business you'll be left with no tv coverage, no stadiums, no merchandise etc.

    In reality money wins leagues! sad but true. Liverpool in the 70's and 80's were funded by the Moores family for example, could pretty much outbid anyone for players and guess what? they won everthing. Likewise with Manchester Utd after their float on the market and now Chelsea have money.

    That's the way it goes unfortunately, look at Blackburn under Walker and teams like Wigan and Reading who have relied so much on a backer to get them anywhere.

    The thing with Chelsea (or Abramovich) is that they have completely blown the player market out of proportion and now everyone is trying to compete with them financially. Its a dog eat dog world and the faster people learn that the better - I'm sick of everyone crying about this 'issue'.
     
  4. SoilBorn

    SoilBorn DYC Mr. Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2006
    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    No, I know how he got his money. He basically has the same style as Maggie Thatcher, only with zero business ethics.
     
  5. dycdan

    dycdan DYC please wait...

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    You clearly have no clue, his larger business is oil. [​IMG]

    You should read up
     
  6. SoilBorn

    SoilBorn DYC Mr. Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2006
    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I know he is in oil.

    Do you know how he managed to get inot oil once it was privatised?

    Boris Yeltsin's government held an auction for the Siberian oilfields and the only bidders were companies owned by Abramovich and his good friend Boris Berezofsky. I also know he bought his share of the Siberian oilfields at a massively discounted price of something in the region of $300m when, in reality, they are worth closer to $15bn.

    I also know he tricked the Siberian oilworkers unions out of their pensions and benefits. They must wonder why their futures are running around a patch of grass in London in blue shirts.

    Nothing confirmed, as far as I know, but there have been multiple strong cases for him being heavily-linked with the Russian mafia too.

    And there is obviously some sort of unknown benefit to owning Chelsea as he hasn't bought them as a long-term investment project to make massive profits. Any profits he could have hoped to have made are wiped out in one or two signings every summer. And it's not for the fact he's a football fan because he was widely known not to have the foggiest what was going on when he first came over.

    He also tried to buy Manchester United before Glazier did but realised he couldn't afford it.
     
  7. dycdan

    dycdan DYC please wait...

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Can any of that be backed up? nope...

    His richer then Glazier and could afford to buy them, saying that he prolly wouldn't even need to take a loan. [​IMG]
     
  8. SoilBorn

    SoilBorn DYC Mr. Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2006
    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    No, he looked into buying out the shareholders and decided Chelsea were the cheaper option as he'd have had to stump up £500-odd-million, PLUS the hundreds of millions he's spent on transfers (remember, a lot of the early bigger-money signings Chelsea have made were United targets from the Kenyon-era). Was shaping up something like £1bn over 5-8 seasons. Even he can't afford that.

    And it's not like United's spending power has been dramatically hit either. Obviously not on the same level as Chelsea but we're still transfer market heavyweights.
     
  9. dycdan

    dycdan DYC please wait...

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I assure you he can afford £1bn, his worth something like $18.2bn. 11th richest in the world and youngest out of those 11!
     
  10. SoilBorn

    SoilBorn DYC Mr. Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2006
    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    And your whole "can this be proved?" act doesn;t vut it either. Of course it can be:

    http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/pdfarticle.php?id=5808

    Everything I've said (bar the mafia links) can be proved. I've read books and seen countless documentaries about post-communist Russia. The only reason Abramovich got his hands on the shares of Sibneft was because of the country moving from Communism to Capitalism. It doesn't ring any alarm bells that Russia's assets were sold off in a murky Loans-For-Shares scheme at a fraction of the minimum asking price? If the country truely was in that much financial peril, they wouldn't sell off lucrative industries such as oil (this was just after the first Gulf War, remember) for relative pittance.

    If you think the whole thing was legit, you clearly have no idea about business, ethics or politics and you can't comment about anything to do with Roman Abramovich's wealth.
     
  11. SoilBorn

    SoilBorn DYC Mr. Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2006
    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    <div class="quote_poster">dan Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I assure you he can afford ?1bn, his worth something like $18.2bn. 11th richest in the world and youngest out of those 11!</div>

    $18.2bn USD is about ?10bn GBP. About ?7.5bn is assets, not personal wealth.

    And I hope my structured, fact-backed arguements are helping you, Ben. [​IMG]
     

Share This Page