However, the party is somewhat gatecrashed by teams with no European heritage, suddenly fighting for the prize through little enterprise of their own.
----------------------------------------------------------------
You are aware that both Chelsea and Man City won a European trophy about three or four years before Liverpool won one?
"You are aware that both Chelsea and Man City won a European trophy about three or four years before Liverpool won one?"
Fair comment, although I highly doubt that was the reason behind the clubs' purchase.
There are two variables.
The money itself & how you use it.
A few decades ago Liverpool used their money very well and dominated whilst Utd wasted theirs and were nowhere.
Go forward 20 years and those positions pretty much swapped.
I have no problem with City or Chelsea or the money they spend. City will likely have 3 trophies to show for a billion pounds and 6 years work. It's not the be all and end all.
comment by PenaltySpot (U19494)
posted 5 minutes ago
"comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 2 minutes ago
Penalty spot, tell me, who was the first English club to qualify for the European/CL cup? I will give you a clue the first quaifiers came from the winners in the 1955 season.
The winners were told not to enter by the FA, a decision that may have prevented a significan contribution to the clubs history, indeed the history of English football.
History is not about trophies, trophies are a measure of success."
"Qualifying" for the EC just meant you happened to win the title they year the EC was formed.
Did you think the FA didn't try to stop Busby taking United into Europe too? Or was it just Chelsea?
It was just Chelsea but they realized their mistake unfortunately for Chelsea it was too late, the point being our history could have been very different,
The FA called it a tin-pot competition, yet Busby was a visionary, and took his team to compete in the competition that all clubs now crave.
They wouldn't even accommodate the fixtures in 1958 to allow them time to travel back from the competition that they said was a waste of time.
The subsequent rush to get home contributed to the Munich disaster. So don't talk about the FA!!
The FA have not changed in this approach, they have not made concessions for any teams today until this year where they moved our game v Sunderland. This time it has taken them 50 years to take a tiny step, other countries are more behind their clubs still.
comment by PenaltySpot (U19494)
posted 1 minute ago
"You are aware that both Chelsea and Man City won a European trophy about three or four years before Liverpool won one?"
Fair comment, although I highly doubt that was the reason behind the clubs' purchase.
------------------------------------------------------
But it totally blows your ridiculous theory out of the water
comment by Metro. (U6770)
posted 1 minute ago
Liverpool are where we're at first and foremost because of lods-of-emone....money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money...
-----
see my previous post
Liverpool were not and contrary to popular belief the top spenders, even in their period of dominance
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But Man U also were not often the biggest spenders every season but remained dominant.
If you look at the money spent by Liverpool in the 70's it would dwarf every other club (maybe bar Utd).
Money buys success and success brings money.
If it wasnt for Chelsea and City we would still have the same monopoly of clubs we always did just because those clubs had substantial investment earlier in their history.
"But it totally blows your ridiculous theory out of the water"
I'm not entirely sure what the ridiculous theory is. My "theory" is that the clubs have been bankrolled, which is irrefutable.
However, I would be happy to consider the possibility that the billionaire owners would only be interested in a club with some level of success behind it, and a decent fanbase.
If that fanbase was grown by the fact that the club had some sporadic success in Europe, then you have a point.
I'm a fan of the billionaires and anti-FFP
It's not to Liverpool's benefit, but at least there was competition introduced
To refer directly to the OP "Are Chelsea and City ruining football" with the new PL spending constraints, Uefa's FFP and various league’s versions, I feel that in 5/10 year’s time the landscape of football will have changed so much that many of current concerns will be largely redundant.
Can't be bothered to read all the replies but before Abramovich changed the landscape there were only Man Utd and Arsenal challenging for the title each season. Now we have many more and the PL is incredibly good.
So, in answer to the question in the OP, I would say no. They have saved football.
If that fanbase was grown by the fact that the club had some sporadic success in Europe, then you have a point.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you actually investigated the size of Chelsea and Man City's fan base?
I don't know about City but Chelsea have the 5th highest all time average in English football with Arsenal in 4th place and Spurs in 3rd, all within in an average of 2,000.
Chelsea 's highest ever league gate at 82,000 dwarfs Liverpool's highest league gate of 58,000 and 62,000 in the Cup.
Apart from that Chelsea have historically had dozens of over 60/70,000 crowds the their credit - you really need to research football history before making a fool of yourself!
If you look at the money spent by Liverpool in the 70's it would dwarf every other club (maybe bar Utd).
------
Are you expressing an opinion here or passing this off as a fact ?
"Apart from that Chelsea have historically had dozens of over 60/70,000 crowds the their credit - you really need to research football history before making a fool of yourself!"
At no point did I dispute that. If anything, it is that level of following that caused the owners to go for those particular clubs.
Otherwise, why not pick Brentford or Watford, see if they can get those clubs in the CL?
Of course they are going to choose a club that already has substantial following. Perhaps you didn't read the whole piece. I suggested that Abramovich could easily have opted or Spurs, and with some justification, if it was based on "success" and "fan base".
Basically , this article is a very long winded way of
Penalty spot, new user who doesn't nail his colours to his mast. Hmmmm. All over the Chelsea board spouting anti Chelsea rhetoric. Hmmmm
If I was against Chelsea per se, I wouldn't be lauding their exploits in the CL, even referring to their misfortune.
I also referred to United's failing form domestically.
Even the top journalists support a football team.
So we were already 'Up there' then anyway - and there was me thinking you were implying we bought our success after coming from now where!
comment by PenaltySpot (U19494)
posted 7 minutes ago
"Apart from that Chelsea have historically had dozens of over 60/70,000 crowds the their credit - you really need to research football history before making a fool of yourself!"
At no point did I dispute that. If anything, it is that level of following that caused the owners to go for those particular clubs.
Otherwise, why not pick Brentford or Watford, see if they can get those clubs in the CL?
Of course they are going to choose a club that already has substantial following. Perhaps you didn't read the whole piece. I suggested that Abramovich could easily have opted or Spurs, and with some justification, if it was based on "success" and "fan base".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Owners are individuals, there are many reasons for chosing a football club to support, it could be inherited, it could be the colour they play in, it could be location, it could be peer pressure or simply trophies. Seldom is it history, I suspect most people learn about the history of their clubs after they chose them, and probably never stop learning. Owners will be no different and if you have an issue with who they chose then it has to be plain sour grapes.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
It's this kind of nonsense that winds me up.
To sum up the OP - "Having a massive financial advantage that destroys competition in the premiership is fine, as long as that money is generated in the way it is for my club. Any other way, that other clubs might use, is fundamentally unfair and ruins football".
I would expect this sort of logic from a 10 year old. Either you can have rich clubs and poor clubs, and it doesn't matter where the money comes from, or everyone works on a level playing field. Those are the choices. Anything else and you just sound like the kid saying "it's my ball, we play my rules or I'm taking it home with me now".
"Owners are individuals, there are many reasons for chosing a football club to support, it could be inherited, it could be the colour they play in, it could be location, it could be peer pressure or simply trophies. Seldom is it history, I suspect most people learn about the history of their clubs after they chose them, and probably never stop learning. Owners will be no different and if you have an issue with who they chose then it has to be plain sour grapes"
I agree with virtually everything you said. It wasn't me that suggested the owners go hunting for the best historical club, and buy them. The point was that it can jar with people that teams with no "history" (in European for example) can suddenly lay claim to the competition.
It was somebody else that then explained that they had actually won a UEFA cup before (or something like that), so I reasoned (trying to be fair to that poster) that perhaps those sorts of past success could attract an owner.
I agree with you though. I think that that is unlikely.
But unless one picks a club purely on romance (e.g. local club, father supports them, etc), a business owner is likely to make his choice based on their probable success, so it will more likely be with a club already with a good following.
My article didn't undermine any of those facts, but did mention the fact that Abramovich could, on his criteria for choosing a club, have picked one with a similar success story and following, e.g. Spurs.
If that were the case, we'd all be talking about how Spurs are lucky, have no history in the EC, etc.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
But unless one picks a club purely on romance (e.g. local club, father supports them, etc), a business owner is likely to make his choice based on their probable success, so it will more likely be with a club already with a good following.
-------------------------------------------------------
Rubbish, my Dad is from the East End, born and bred there and comes from a long line of West Ham fans, I chose Chelsea, at the time they had not even won their first FA cup, I knew little about them but once I had decided to follow them that was it.
When I started school kids were choosing teams based on who won the cup or league that year, some changing a number of times before settling on a club, not me, I chose mine and stuck with them ever since.
Chelsea have a crowd record bigger than most and that was achieved long before any success. You may like to think that way but it simply isn't true. Success is just one of many reasons people chose a team.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
"comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 25 minutes ago
But unless one picks a club purely on romance (e.g. local club, father supports them, etc), a business owner is likely to make his choice based on their probable success, so it will more likely be with a club already with a good following.
-------------------------------------------------------
Rubbish, my Dad is from the East End, born and bred there and comes from a long line of West Ham fans, I chose Chelsea, at the time they had not even won their first FA cup, I knew little about them but once I had decided to follow them that was it.
When I started school kids were choosing teams based on who won the cup or league that year, some changing a number of times before settling on a club, not me, I chose mine and stuck with them ever since.
Chelsea have a crowd record bigger than most and that was achieved long before any success. You may like to think that way but it simply isn't true. Success is just one of many reasons people chose a team."
I applaud your choice, but did you invest billions into your choice, hoping for a decent return on your money?
Sign in if you want to comment
Are Chelsea and City ruining football? Pt 1
Page 3 of 4
posted on 25/4/14
However, the party is somewhat gatecrashed by teams with no European heritage, suddenly fighting for the prize through little enterprise of their own.
----------------------------------------------------------------
You are aware that both Chelsea and Man City won a European trophy about three or four years before Liverpool won one?
posted on 25/4/14
"You are aware that both Chelsea and Man City won a European trophy about three or four years before Liverpool won one?"
Fair comment, although I highly doubt that was the reason behind the clubs' purchase.
posted on 25/4/14
There are two variables.
The money itself & how you use it.
A few decades ago Liverpool used their money very well and dominated whilst Utd wasted theirs and were nowhere.
Go forward 20 years and those positions pretty much swapped.
I have no problem with City or Chelsea or the money they spend. City will likely have 3 trophies to show for a billion pounds and 6 years work. It's not the be all and end all.
posted on 25/4/14
comment by PenaltySpot (U19494)
posted 5 minutes ago
"comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 2 minutes ago
Penalty spot, tell me, who was the first English club to qualify for the European/CL cup? I will give you a clue the first quaifiers came from the winners in the 1955 season.
The winners were told not to enter by the FA, a decision that may have prevented a significan contribution to the clubs history, indeed the history of English football.
History is not about trophies, trophies are a measure of success."
"Qualifying" for the EC just meant you happened to win the title they year the EC was formed.
Did you think the FA didn't try to stop Busby taking United into Europe too? Or was it just Chelsea?
It was just Chelsea but they realized their mistake unfortunately for Chelsea it was too late, the point being our history could have been very different,
The FA called it a tin-pot competition, yet Busby was a visionary, and took his team to compete in the competition that all clubs now crave.
They wouldn't even accommodate the fixtures in 1958 to allow them time to travel back from the competition that they said was a waste of time.
The subsequent rush to get home contributed to the Munich disaster. So don't talk about the FA!!
The FA have not changed in this approach, they have not made concessions for any teams today until this year where they moved our game v Sunderland. This time it has taken them 50 years to take a tiny step, other countries are more behind their clubs still.
posted on 25/4/14
comment by PenaltySpot (U19494)
posted 1 minute ago
"You are aware that both Chelsea and Man City won a European trophy about three or four years before Liverpool won one?"
Fair comment, although I highly doubt that was the reason behind the clubs' purchase.
------------------------------------------------------
But it totally blows your ridiculous theory out of the water
posted on 25/4/14
comment by Metro. (U6770)
posted 1 minute ago
Liverpool are where we're at first and foremost because of lods-of-emone....money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money...
-----
see my previous post
Liverpool were not and contrary to popular belief the top spenders, even in their period of dominance
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But Man U also were not often the biggest spenders every season but remained dominant.
If you look at the money spent by Liverpool in the 70's it would dwarf every other club (maybe bar Utd).
Money buys success and success brings money.
If it wasnt for Chelsea and City we would still have the same monopoly of clubs we always did just because those clubs had substantial investment earlier in their history.
posted on 25/4/14
"But it totally blows your ridiculous theory out of the water"
I'm not entirely sure what the ridiculous theory is. My "theory" is that the clubs have been bankrolled, which is irrefutable.
However, I would be happy to consider the possibility that the billionaire owners would only be interested in a club with some level of success behind it, and a decent fanbase.
If that fanbase was grown by the fact that the club had some sporadic success in Europe, then you have a point.
posted on 25/4/14
I'm a fan of the billionaires and anti-FFP
It's not to Liverpool's benefit, but at least there was competition introduced
posted on 25/4/14
To refer directly to the OP "Are Chelsea and City ruining football" with the new PL spending constraints, Uefa's FFP and various league’s versions, I feel that in 5/10 year’s time the landscape of football will have changed so much that many of current concerns will be largely redundant.
posted on 25/4/14
Can't be bothered to read all the replies but before Abramovich changed the landscape there were only Man Utd and Arsenal challenging for the title each season. Now we have many more and the PL is incredibly good.
So, in answer to the question in the OP, I would say no. They have saved football.
posted on 25/4/14
If that fanbase was grown by the fact that the club had some sporadic success in Europe, then you have a point.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you actually investigated the size of Chelsea and Man City's fan base?
I don't know about City but Chelsea have the 5th highest all time average in English football with Arsenal in 4th place and Spurs in 3rd, all within in an average of 2,000.
Chelsea 's highest ever league gate at 82,000 dwarfs Liverpool's highest league gate of 58,000 and 62,000 in the Cup.
Apart from that Chelsea have historically had dozens of over 60/70,000 crowds the their credit - you really need to research football history before making a fool of yourself!
posted on 25/4/14
If you look at the money spent by Liverpool in the 70's it would dwarf every other club (maybe bar Utd).
------
Are you expressing an opinion here or passing this off as a fact ?
posted on 25/4/14
"Apart from that Chelsea have historically had dozens of over 60/70,000 crowds the their credit - you really need to research football history before making a fool of yourself!"
At no point did I dispute that. If anything, it is that level of following that caused the owners to go for those particular clubs.
Otherwise, why not pick Brentford or Watford, see if they can get those clubs in the CL?
Of course they are going to choose a club that already has substantial following. Perhaps you didn't read the whole piece. I suggested that Abramovich could easily have opted or Spurs, and with some justification, if it was based on "success" and "fan base".
posted on 25/4/14
Basically , this article is a very long winded way of
Penalty spot, new user who doesn't nail his colours to his mast. Hmmmm. All over the Chelsea board spouting anti Chelsea rhetoric. Hmmmm
posted on 25/4/14
If I was against Chelsea per se, I wouldn't be lauding their exploits in the CL, even referring to their misfortune.
I also referred to United's failing form domestically.
Even the top journalists support a football team.
posted on 25/4/14
So we were already 'Up there' then anyway - and there was me thinking you were implying we bought our success after coming from now where!
posted on 25/4/14
comment by PenaltySpot (U19494)
posted 7 minutes ago
"Apart from that Chelsea have historically had dozens of over 60/70,000 crowds the their credit - you really need to research football history before making a fool of yourself!"
At no point did I dispute that. If anything, it is that level of following that caused the owners to go for those particular clubs.
Otherwise, why not pick Brentford or Watford, see if they can get those clubs in the CL?
Of course they are going to choose a club that already has substantial following. Perhaps you didn't read the whole piece. I suggested that Abramovich could easily have opted or Spurs, and with some justification, if it was based on "success" and "fan base".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Owners are individuals, there are many reasons for chosing a football club to support, it could be inherited, it could be the colour they play in, it could be location, it could be peer pressure or simply trophies. Seldom is it history, I suspect most people learn about the history of their clubs after they chose them, and probably never stop learning. Owners will be no different and if you have an issue with who they chose then it has to be plain sour grapes.
posted on 25/4/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 25/4/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 25/4/14
It's this kind of nonsense that winds me up.
To sum up the OP - "Having a massive financial advantage that destroys competition in the premiership is fine, as long as that money is generated in the way it is for my club. Any other way, that other clubs might use, is fundamentally unfair and ruins football".
I would expect this sort of logic from a 10 year old. Either you can have rich clubs and poor clubs, and it doesn't matter where the money comes from, or everyone works on a level playing field. Those are the choices. Anything else and you just sound like the kid saying "it's my ball, we play my rules or I'm taking it home with me now".
posted on 25/4/14
"Owners are individuals, there are many reasons for chosing a football club to support, it could be inherited, it could be the colour they play in, it could be location, it could be peer pressure or simply trophies. Seldom is it history, I suspect most people learn about the history of their clubs after they chose them, and probably never stop learning. Owners will be no different and if you have an issue with who they chose then it has to be plain sour grapes"
I agree with virtually everything you said. It wasn't me that suggested the owners go hunting for the best historical club, and buy them. The point was that it can jar with people that teams with no "history" (in European for example) can suddenly lay claim to the competition.
It was somebody else that then explained that they had actually won a UEFA cup before (or something like that), so I reasoned (trying to be fair to that poster) that perhaps those sorts of past success could attract an owner.
I agree with you though. I think that that is unlikely.
But unless one picks a club purely on romance (e.g. local club, father supports them, etc), a business owner is likely to make his choice based on their probable success, so it will more likely be with a club already with a good following.
My article didn't undermine any of those facts, but did mention the fact that Abramovich could, on his criteria for choosing a club, have picked one with a similar success story and following, e.g. Spurs.
If that were the case, we'd all be talking about how Spurs are lucky, have no history in the EC, etc.
posted on 25/4/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 25/4/14
But unless one picks a club purely on romance (e.g. local club, father supports them, etc), a business owner is likely to make his choice based on their probable success, so it will more likely be with a club already with a good following.
-------------------------------------------------------
Rubbish, my Dad is from the East End, born and bred there and comes from a long line of West Ham fans, I chose Chelsea, at the time they had not even won their first FA cup, I knew little about them but once I had decided to follow them that was it.
When I started school kids were choosing teams based on who won the cup or league that year, some changing a number of times before settling on a club, not me, I chose mine and stuck with them ever since.
Chelsea have a crowd record bigger than most and that was achieved long before any success. You may like to think that way but it simply isn't true. Success is just one of many reasons people chose a team.
posted on 25/4/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 25/4/14
"comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 25 minutes ago
But unless one picks a club purely on romance (e.g. local club, father supports them, etc), a business owner is likely to make his choice based on their probable success, so it will more likely be with a club already with a good following.
-------------------------------------------------------
Rubbish, my Dad is from the East End, born and bred there and comes from a long line of West Ham fans, I chose Chelsea, at the time they had not even won their first FA cup, I knew little about them but once I had decided to follow them that was it.
When I started school kids were choosing teams based on who won the cup or league that year, some changing a number of times before settling on a club, not me, I chose mine and stuck with them ever since.
Chelsea have a crowd record bigger than most and that was achieved long before any success. You may like to think that way but it simply isn't true. Success is just one of many reasons people chose a team."
I applaud your choice, but did you invest billions into your choice, hoping for a decent return on your money?
Page 3 of 4