Are Billionaires ruining our beautiful game?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JP Woody
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 63
  • Views Views 5K
well for example chelsea were a team who were securing uefa cup some seasons others not, and then taken over and suddenly a top side.... chelsea fans will say oh you can have the money but have to buy the right players, but tbh you wouldnt have bought hardly any of those players if the russian didnt come along
 
Well, that's "bullshit"
How sinisterprice said, before Abramovic, there was just Arsenal, Liverpool and Man Utd who was the best teams from the country.
Teams like Everton/Aston Villa/Leeds/Tottenham/Newcastle failed just because some of the talented players are snapped up by the mega money from the billionaires.
If there wasn't Abramovic, Chelsea never dreamt to get in the final of CL (probably).
If there wasn't Arabs, Man City never sign Tevez, Barry or Santa Cruz.

Now I hate Man City, Real and Chelsea for their "billionaires"
 
Frutty said:
Well, that's "bullshit"
How sinisterprice said, before Abramovic, there was just Arsenal, Liverpool and Man Utd who was the best teams from the country.
Teams like Everton/Aston Villa/Leeds/Tottenham/Newcastle failed just because some of the talented players are snapped up by the mega money from the billionaires.
If there wasn't Abramovic, Chelsea never dreamt to get in the final of CL (probably).
If there wasn't Arabs, Man City never sign Tevez, Barry or Santa Cruz.

Now I hate Man City, Real and Chelsea for their "billionaires"
Click to expand...

i agree man city n chelsea werent evn a big team now they are rich,

also it says in the supportss bit u will decided soon ur fav wtf!
 
One word: YES.
These people are making the gap between teams even bigger, making leagues less competitive, meaning there are only 3 or 4 teams challenging each season, which means no-one has much chance of winning anything, which means that the few people that can afford tickets are not going to pay to go and see there team be beaten by a bunch of foreigners paid over 150k a week to kick a football around.

They disgrace the most popular sport in the world, the sport that saw the WW2 soldiers drop weapons, and compete in the first England vs Germany match in no-mans land. The sport that 65% of the world plays and watches.

Lets be honest, if a billionare was the owner of your football club, you wouldn't complain, but when you are the supporter of a club that don't have a bottomless bank account, you realize what these people are doing to our game.

Look at Chelsea, UEFA Cup at best before the billions, now they just throw their millions at players, and they sign. These players only go because of the money, not because they support the club, or because of the club's prestige, and they are as much to blame as the billionares.

And the transfer fees are stupid. Kaka isn't worth half of the money Real paid for him, and neither is Ronaldo. Valencia slap a 40m price on Villa, and the clubs are still more than happy to part with every penny.
 
Last edited:
Frutty said:
Well, that's "bullshit"
How sinisterprice said, before Abramovic, there was just Arsenal, Liverpool and Man Utd who was the best teams from the country.
Teams like Everton/Aston Villa/Leeds/Tottenham/Newcastle failed just because some of the talented players are snapped up by the mega money from the billionaires.
If there wasn't Abramovic, Chelsea never dreamt to get in the final of CL (probably).
If there wasn't Arabs, Man City never sign Tevez, Barry or Santa Cruz.

Now I hate Man City, Real and Chelsea for their "billionaires"
Click to expand...

it's a bit early to start describing tevez as a city player isn't it unless i've missed some major news which is possiblle as i;ve been out the loop, footballl news wise.

i guess they have ruined football. it's pretty gay. before it was **** for small teams cus big clubs like pool, united and arsenal could out bid everyone but our money was built on success, fame and being massive clubs but now it's a lottery if you get a billionare like city and suddenly become a major force spending wise in world football.
 
Div_Muzza said:
Iknew you would say Rooney because he is the first one that comes to mind. Though he is part Irish I'll let you have that.
Click to expand...
what about theo walcott, jack wilshire and kieren gibbs of arsenal.
at least wenger doesnt ruin the game because all of these other teams come with offers we cant refuse like when we sold anelka, adebayor...
it always has to affect arsenal and before you know it we have a trophyless season and in an interview wenger said we are not a crazy club.
wenger said:
Arsenal boss Arsene Wenger admits he is concerned by calls from the fans to spend big in this summer's transfer window.
Gunners supporters have urged Wenger to bring in some big-name signings after ending another season without silverware.
Wenger is wary about splashing out too much money as he does not want to put the club's financial future at risk and he believes major additions are not necessary for his young squad
"We want to improve in quality. It is not necessarily a big number of players needed and overall I believe you don't win the title when you concede 40 goals," said Wenger.
"What the fans want concerns me. We both love the club and want the best possible team, but we live in a world not to be crazy.
"We have to pay our wages at the end of the month and we have to respect our business rules."

What the fans want concerns me. We both love the club and want the best possible team, but we live in a world not to be crazy.
 
I wouldn't blame billionaires for me not being able to afford a season ticket, I blame the debt clubs get themselves into.
 
Well if you want the same two clubs to win the league forever then fine. But if you actually want anyone to be able to challenge them they need to spend alot of money to bring in the top players. If you dont like the EPL fck off and watch the MLS.
 
I think it is. A season ticket or just a regular ticket has got to a point where noone can afford them. That is on the idea that your ticket hasn't been given away to a business who has never heard of football.
 
Dont blame the Sheiks, Blame the Glazers. Sheik made mediocre club into top half team while Roman made mid table club to title contenders whereas Glazers and Two dicks at liverpool made Two of the biggest clubs in England and World debt ridden.
 
People are saying the money is making a bigger gap between teams - for ages and ages, Man Utd and Arsenal won the title almost every year. Up until 03/04, the was only one instance in which a team other than those two won the league. Now, Chelsea (who, might I add, have spent very little in comparison to some teams in the last 3 years or so), have been added to the mix - if Man City can be added into the mix, and Spurs continue to improve, chances are within a few years we will have 5 teams competing for the title. If you want our league to be the best it possibly can be, you can't complain about money coming in to these clubs. You want the best players in the world to come to our league? Then don't complain about teams spending money on them. Players, whether foreign or British, are attracted to money, and if British teams have the money to buy these great talents, usually the only people left complaining are the ones who didn't get to buy the player.
 
correct me if i'm wrong but did Chelsea not quality for the Champions League just before Roman Abramhivic bought the club
 
yeah i thought and people that say Chelsea have no history are talkin out there **** they have always been a top English side
 
Positives

- More exciting
- Attracts better players
- Adds more competition
- Improves league
- More incentive to win; rewards, prizes e.g CL football.
- Increased rivalry between fans

Negatives

- Causes jealousy
- Increased ticket prices

In the short term, I think money is benefiting football, but after a while it will start to draw more and more negatives.
 
Hmm, too easy to blame the billionaires - although the super-rich owners have distorted the market further, the inflation had kicked in prior to them.

I can pin-point two causes - one is the change in how ticket revenues were allocated. It used to be split far more evenly between both teams (similar to how the FA Cup ticket revenues are still split). This acted as a way to even out the disparity between the clubs with huge stadiums and those with much smaller ones. Once that was changed to how clubs allocate now, it changed not only the financial aspect but also the atmosphere in the grounds. Far fewer tickets for away supporters takes away a lot of the tension within the ground.

The second change was the Premier League and the loss of several clubs who turned themselves into PLCs. Clubs in the Premier League saw themselves receiving ever greater amounts of money which meant they could compete with continental clubs financially for the first time ever. Add in the inflation caused by clubs issuing shares to raise even more finance.

The Premier League/Sky wanted to reinvent football. Look at how many records are now only measured for the Premier League, rather than since the birth of the professional game. Part of this rebirth was the 'gentrification' of the game and over-exposure to televised matches. Games switched to being played at all times - in fact any time other than the traditional 3pm Saturday kick-off.

Combination of all these factors has led to spiralling ticket prices, owners coming in to make a quick profit or needing some way to raise ever greater revenues to pay players signing on fees, wages (PL wages for players increase by 10% every single season on average - that's ludicrous), and pretty soon the 'average' fan is displaced in favour of the day-tripper. Not that this is considered a bad thing by most clubs. The day-tripper will spend more in the club shop than the hard-core, old school fan. (cf Glazer's business model at Manchester United).

The billionaire owners have just increased the rate of inflation, but the problem had begun even before them. In fact, they are only in England because of the conditions made possible by the Premier League/Sky.
 
i dont think so, i mean yes chelsea have had this money but we havent dominated since we have been bought have we. i dont know any team that would turn down a billionaire take over and i know you can make cases for man utd, liverpool, portsmouth etc but i belive the fa have part to blame in this aswell.
 
Late to the party but good billionaires who love the club and don't treat it as an "asset" are good for the game. Fact of the matter is without their cash injection new stadiums/transfers.improved ifrastructure etc don't get done. There's only X amount average joe will pay for tickets and merchandise. And if you think that's anywhere near to cover the costs of player wages, transfer fees, stadium maintenance, tax, public liability insurance etc etc then you're sadly mistaken.

Anfield holds 45000 approx * season sticket (approx 900) - $40million p/a approx probably enough to cover the squad wages but none of the other expenses or 1 big transfer fee.That's in a best case scenario. And Anfields a big stadium that's packed to capacity nearly every match. A stadium slightly larger than Anfield near where I live I know costs about $5million in maintenance p/a. God knows what teams like Fulham with their 25000 seat stadium are earning in matchday revenue and significantly reduced revenue from merchandise. I live as far away as you could imagine from Liverpool but know at least 3 people that have a Liverpool/Man U replica jersey - yet the same 3 don't even know Fulham is the premiership

Billionaires who see it as a money making entity is a differnt story. They're just bad news for everyone.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

FMBase

Beta

Resources

Back
Top