Are Billionaires ruining our beautiful game?

[Scott]

correct me if i'm wrong but did Chelsea not quality for the Champions League just before Roman Abramhivic bought the club

Yes, we did. Although everyone seems to forget that.

yeah i thought and people that say Chelsea have no history are talkin out there **** they have always been a top English side

they did by also by Many People involved in the club at the time. Ken Bates, Raneriri, Even some of the players knew. they where 48hours away from adminstration before Roman Bought they, so he did really make and Save Chelsea, It was also a one off them qualifying, bit like when Everton did it or spurs this season.


Anyway, i dont think Billoinairs have ruined our game. they improved it. more teams cant compete, more sponsorship money now aswell.

 

[Alex]

Billionaires haven't ruined our game. Stupid ******* yank ***** who have no idea have.

 

[Scott]

Billionaires haven't ruined our game. Stupid ******* yank ***** who have no idea have.

predictable as usual Mr Whithouse

 

[nilelg5]

The game has no passion due to the billionaires, but it does help in a way because there are beetter players

 

[Dunc]

The game has no passion due to the billionaires, but it does help in a way because there are beetter players

Surely the standard of player wouldn't change, how ever much money is around, just changes what club they are at.

 

[pimpdollar]

They aint ruining the game it could be alot worse .. because at the end of the day its the manager in control of who he wants to buy for example have a look at arsenal ..... a number of teams billow us have spent millions more than us we still got same fans and higher position than them also ... let them spend eventually the market will have to settle down although mancity are rich they cant continue spending over 100 mill every season eventually they will find their formation and teams will get bored of selling and it will stop Teams from dominating leagues likes spl celtic rangers yes they are not rich but the are substantially richer than the rest in the league ... it would be healthy competition

 

[MisterStubbs]

yes money has brought in the world class players, yes it is a joy to watch the likes of David Silva, Michael Essein, even Wayne Rooney (£28 Million) but where is the passion? players these days arent built the same as the Roy Keane's, Steven Gerrard, Jamie Carragher and Wayne Rooney. there is no pride in putting on the shirt anymore, players would rather get there pay slip at the end of the week rather than a good performance on the pitch.

 

[Nick.]

there should be a poll, but they definetly are, especially City, who are buying players for extreme values, whom they don't need

 

[gormo095]

look at spain not much rich clubs and they have runied it a bit its bad for engkand they cant produce any gud players unlike spain, brazil, Argentina.

---------- Post added at 01:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 PM ----------

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.

and another negative nations cant produce any gud players eg england mostly foreign managers

 

[pimpdollar]

yes money has brought in the world class players, yes it is a joy to watch the likes of David Silva, Michael Essein, even Wayne Rooney (£28 Million) but where is the passion? players these days arent built the same as the Roy Keane's, Steven Gerrard, Jamie Carragher and Wayne Rooney. there is no pride in putting on the shirt anymore, players would rather get there pay slip at the end of the week rather than a good performance on the pitch.

I hear that ... but people from outside the uk don't always see those players the way you see them ( they are not always as good as we think) english players like those are not as good as people make out thats the real problem with our game ( england ) overate players for example roy kean wasn't that good to people outside of england steven gerad ok yes spectacular player jamie caragher not many people know him out side england EVEN wayne rooney is ... a tad overrated and all this isnt good for the player just to make it not be biased ill include an arsenal player walcot he WAS a tad overrated aswell, now i would use rooney as an example but this is bigger than just him ill use england as my example ive only been alive 4 world cups 3 of them i have been able to actually know what was going on and each one England fans goo and overate there players and expect magic this is why they get disappointed THIS IS THE REAL PROBLEM WITH OUR GAME

 

[damola3]

no, no, no, this money is making the game better, more exciting best players in the world playing in england, skillful players and just brilliant to watch,

i would rather watch robinho, eto(maybe), ronaldo, torres, fabregas, drogba, then not, this i because of money

i understand what your saying and yes they are good players but just about all of them are motivated by money,fast cars,designer clothes,nightclubs etc(with the possible exception of torres) instead of passion and pride to be playing for some of the greatest football teams in the world.Every one who has registered on here and anyone who loves the game,would definetly swap places with these type of players and play for nothing.If you open the paper all you see is Cristiano Ronaldo partying in LA with Paris Hilton,Robinho having arguments with his manager,who is also his employer and the likes of drogba,ronaldo,robinho diving week in and week out and no-one is doing anything to stop it.Have you ever seen Steven Gerrard partying till early morning when he has training the next day.no.never.So how can you say you would rather watch the likes of ronaldo dive around for an hour and half than actually watch real footballers


fabregas dont play football for cash coz he went 2 arsenal not for the money but to break in the first team

 

[KA5A8IAN]

Probably a bit late with this, but the answer is, YES, yes they are.
Billionares have suffocated massive clubs like Rangers, Celtic, Steaua (sp), DInamo Kiev into little more than European lightweights. Also, a club like Man City, will be utterly raped up the *** when the owners leave because of an unsustainable wage bill. Football is no longer the working class game, it is now a game which is a billionares playground.

 

[damian fichardo]

People used to say before the billionairs, the millionairs were ruining the game. Ever since the game turned proffesional money has had a major influence on who would be succesful. What is more off putting in my mind is that we have clubs owned by people from countries with no culture of football, and the clubs they own are now "brands" or a vehicle to bring them more money.
What is the answer, maybe we could have "fans" that own a percentage of the club and sit on the board,
The PL is the most watched league in the world and we want the best players which cost money, so would we rather a) have less top players and our clubs not competing in europe b) have top players and see season tickets go through the roof c) get a sugar daddy.
I dont have a problem with a mega rich owner, the problem I have is when a owner doesnt use his own money to buy the club , but take out a loan and then saddle the club with the debt repayments. this is the major issue which FIFA, UEFA, FA, PL need to look into

 

[Snypar]

I think money makes things interesting, before only Man U and Arsenal won the EPL with Man U dominating it and then came Chelsea with there money and instead of it becoming a two horse race other teams were able to challange for the title. Now with Man City able to spend at will it makes things even more interesting. This does put teams such as Everton at a disadvantage but that's how things go, you can't please everyone. If they get billions then Blackpool have a disadvantage and so on. Can you imagine watching Man U winning the EPL year in year out with the odd Arsenal or Liverpool winning it? Would be just like the SPL.

 

[CJACKO11]

A team can't just have money to win trophies it takes alot more than that. Chelsea qualified for the Champions League the summer we got bought so we could say we might have been on the up already. We were also winning trophies on a regular basis and getting to Finals and beating the big sides on a regular basis (appart from Arsenal). And you can say Chelsea had no class players before they got bought but i beg to differ Zola, Vialli, Gullit, Mark Hughes, Gus Poyet, Marcel Desailly and much more. Lets not forget if money guarrentees success then City would surely have won something by now after what 3 years of spending large amounts.

 

[Mike.]

Probably a bit late with this, but the answer is, YES, yes they are.
Billionares have suffocated massive clubs like Rangers, Celtic, Steaua (sp), DInamo Kiev into little more than European lightweights. Also, a club like Man City, will be utterly raped up the *** when the owners leave because of an unsustainable wage bill. Football is no longer the working class game, it is now a game which is a billionares playground.

billionares didnt do that to them, uefa did when they restructured the european cups in favour of the big sides

 

[Zebedee]

Rough edit of a film which is due out next week. About Liverpool and what has happened there but some of the points are universal to all football clubs:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmGNPnpaHRc"]YouTube - potemking league p1.mov[/ame]

 

[IanC]

billionares didnt do that to them, uefa did when they restructured the european cups in favour of the big sides

Agreed. UEFA wanted a bigger slice of the prize themselves and restructuring the CL and Europa League made them the cash machine they wanted. Personally i liked the old format in Europe with the Cup Winners Cup. Straight knock out over two games. Money rules now though and the top clubs became more attractive to the billionairs pumping even more money in.

All seater stadia has also had an affect on the less working class people attending games with pricing going up every year for tickets.

 

[Sempra]

So true..

 

[Scott]

i understand what your saying and yes they are good players but just about all of them are motivated by money,fast cars,designer clothes,nightclubs etc(with the possible exception of torres) instead of passion and pride to be playing for some of the greatest football teams in the world.Every one who has registered on here and anyone who loves the game,would definetly swap places with these type of players and play for nothing.If you open the paper all you see is Cristiano Ronaldo partying in LA with Paris Hilton,Robinho having arguments with his manager,who is also his employer and the likes of drogba,ronaldo,robinho diving week in and week out and no-one is doing anything to stop it.Have you ever seen Steven Gerrard partying till early morning when he has training the next day.no.never.So how can you say you would rather watch the likes of ronaldo dive around for an hour and half than actually watch real footballers


fabregas dont play football for cash coz he went 2 arsenal not for the money but to break in the first team

Your Argument almost had me until you mentioned Gerrard. Didnt he go clubbing a few months back and hit some bloke?( I know it wasnt proved, but he was still in the club)

The way PLayers are off the pitch cant be changed, whether they bought for a lot or not. Ronaldo may party wth Paris( well played my son), Drogba may roll around, Rooney may be ******* hookers left, right and centre but they still produce on the pitch which is all that truly matters to the likes of me and you.

Fabregas is inspired by money just like the rest of us, do you think he would of stayed at arsenal if he was on 40k a week(plenty enough)? I didnt either.