Roman Abramovich: Angel or Demon?

http://youtu.be/GmCtci6cen8

I know the "debate" in the link above was transmitted 6 months ago, I've only just discovered it and felt compelled to share it with those of you whom haven't seen it.

Matthew Syed, cosmopolitan, liberal, individualistic and clever, mixes it with two other journalists - the gormless Tony Cascarino and the unbelievably vacuous Kirsty Gallacher, in a debate on whether Roman Abramovich has been good for the Premier League (on the 10th anniversary of his purchase of Chelsea FC).

Syed's brave and incisive condemnation of Abramovich is a joy to watch, and Gallacher's desperate attempt to say something informative ("That said, that said, Matthew - I just wanted to pick up - you've said what you've said about the situation, the political situation, where the money came from……He's put British football on the map") is plain embarrassing (for her, for football, and most of all, for Sky Sports; their "guest" exposes the inanity of Sky Sports journalism). Sky Sports, of course, has recreated football, post 1992, in its own image. Not for them the 'people's game'. No, the Premier League is about Liverpool, Chelsea and "City and United" (all other clubs have been renamed by them). There are "big clubs" like Chelsea, and "small clubs" like Nottingham Forest (was it so in, say, 1982?). When Brighton beat an under-strength Newcastle at home in the FACup it's an exciting shock and Newcastle are a crisis club, blah blah blah.

Anyway, to get back on track….it's scandalous how our apparently democratic nation has not exposed Abramovich to greater scrutiny. I don't care for Chelsea at all and never have, but I don't blame their fans for deifying their owner; it's the system and administrators and facilitators that have allowed the game to go the same way as, for example, the banks (i.e.. screw you over and leave you to pick up the pieces).

So do you think Abramovich has been good for English football? I don't, obviously. But I guess that I'm a dinosaur, because I hate the Champions League, dislike the Premier, and loathe the fact that Division Four is now called Division Two.

 

It's Roman Abramovic. We can speculate as to what he has done, knowing what we know about Putin, Russia, the devolution of the state, the mini-wars over land rights and the internal politics that would have been involved. Subsequently in doing so we can also speculate as to what might happen to any journalist willing to try and "expose" where/how he got his billions. Quid pro quo Roman's just the Chelsea bloke who "put British football on the map"....

Imagine, if you will, where Chelsea would be today if the term "fit and proper owner" was worth a goddam. File "fit & proper owner test" next to "FIFA FFP regulations". Fck the lot of 'em. I'm down to around 40 doses of 90 minute matches a season. I never, ever turn on a CL, EL, FA Cup, League Cup match unless the Toon are involved. And it doesn't shame me, though it does pain me, to say that at some point I won't even bother with that. The whole "what's the fcking point" is creeping up fast.

As for the OP, it only goes to show just how vapid Sky is. Because British football didn't win European cups in the 70's, 80's and 90's without him. Because Liverpool's dominant era couldn't happen without him. Because it's only important if you've got billions to spend on Torres - football has nothing to do with honesty, integrity and building it up - it's all about cash injections, sugar daddies and oligarchs.

In my humble opinion, the "masses" don't really like the top-heavy nature of the World's wealth. We, "the people", would rather not be exposed to how the other half live, we don't tend to cope with jealousy very well and almost the entire reason for crime is due to wanting/needing more money and not being able to get it, whilst those at the top have too much to even think about. The irony is completely lost on Sky, that football is becoming a rich persons play-thing, not so much a game as an exercise in corporate branding, PR, hospitality, to make rich people even richer. I may be wrong, but give it a generation or two and football will simply die.

 

I may be wrong, but give it a generation or two and football will simply die.

I suppose things just move on. Football as we knew it - community football clubs - has been dead for more than 20 years. You could say the same with pop music - MTV, at least, has largely forsaken musical innovation, joy, melody and artistry for hairstyles, strip-tease, brand advertising and dance routines. It's all
about the bottom line, honey.

 

May I ask which newspapers you read, LPP?

In a number of publications Abramovitch has been somewhat exposed, partlcularly the reporting of his case in the High Courts on the Strand. You have to consider that there are strong libel laws so one just can't publish anything in print without proof of any allegations one may have about a person. Those Law Court reports in the broadsheets were fascinatng reading.

Now, I am not sure where you question is lined up towards. Are you questioning the effect of the money or whether he should have been judged to be fit to run a club?

If the former then he's a symptom of the Sky disease and if the latter then as far as I am concerned he's far better than the owners of Blackburn, Dinas Caerdydd and our lot.

 

For Chelsea, Roman Abramovic has been our saviour. We were high in debt with Bates and looking to go on a downward slope with his gambling on high expenditure on peak players. Yes Abramovic is trigger happy but without him we would be unlikely to be one of the modern big clubs.

Depending on your view as to what constitutes good for english football, if boosting Englands european rankings with good finishes in the champions league is a measure and injecting vast capital in the game is a measure, then he has been brilliant.

Unfortunately, i am only old enough to know football in the sky premiership era so cannot comment on the old footballing times where there was crowd trouble and partisan crowds (that part does sound good) and cheap matches to go to. However, with the improved quality and superstars in the league i am enjoying. One thing we don't get much of nowadays are those x factor players who can take on a team like a maradona or a pele as players are now much more athletic and physical

 

In answer to your question, CDGH, I wasn't suggesting RA should have been judged unfit to run a club due to being short of knowledge of what that constitutes. I'm aware that some broadsheets and current affairs programmes have sought to expose his financial background, but have found it difficult largely due to litigation and the nebulous nature of Russian business and politics.

RA and Chelsea have had an enormous influence on the game in England, but it was Murdoch and Sky Sports who made the singular acquisition of certain football clubs inevitable. And what amuses me about this Sky Sports debate is that they invited a journalist with true credentials onto the show…and the result was as much an indictment of Sky Sports as of RA himself.

With regard to BobbyD - well, as a young Chelsea fan I understand your sentiments; clearly RA has been instrumental in Chelsea winning most if not all those recent trophies. But does wealth and success make Chelsea big? Maybe. What I do know, however, is that untold wealth equals success (at least superficially) - and that's as true for a football club as an ugly and charmless pensioner with a babe under his arm.

 

Big bad russian bear

 

Is the problem with the pensioner or with the babe? Consumers are the same - vacuous, selfish and simple. The rich will always seek to exploit this for their own benefit. Sky and Rupert are no different. That video shows how squirming the sky employees get when running perilously close to the truths edge.

 

Quite interesting that the whole panel is employed by Rupert.