Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Who do I cheer for?

Announcements Posted on
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zürich)
    Chelsea aren't a 'real' football club though, are they? A year out of the Champions League just means you guys stick an extra 40k onto wages to attract players.
    Yes that's how capitalism works. You signed Giroud from Montpellier. I assume he's on the same wages as before then? :rolleyes: As for real, this is coming from a fan of a franchise club? Really? I'd rather pay a bit more for established talent than penny pinch. Some of believe in fair prices for sourcers/developers. It allows teams to reinvest a respectable amount of money into their clubs whilst acknowledging the realism that they cannot hold onto their best players for too long. I'd rather do that than try and aggressively bargain at lower prices and use recent honours to mitigate against a fair price. You should look up Fairtrade. It's a similar scheme and possibly alien to your ideals.

    (Original post by Zürich)
    Arsenal will surprise a few people in the next few years. As the Emirates debt is paid down and we renew most of our sponsorship deals(many of the biggest are pre-Emirates and for ludicrously low amounts) we'll start seeing a return to a more 'normal' financial situation. The trophy drought has nothing to do with ambition and everything to do with short term sacrifice through building the Emirates. If we stayed at Highbury, we'd probably have 3/4 more trophies but the stadium is something that'll stand for decades.

    If you're happy watching Chelsea play 10-0-0(with a few Englishmen thrown in :rolleyes:) then good luck to you. It's just another reason why Chelsea represent everything that's wrong with football and Arsenal represent everything that's pure.
    Your chances of attracting players and sponsorship deals will take its toll if you don't win anything in the mean time. It was your club's decision to decide to sacrifice short term success for long term gain. If you raised enough money so you didn't need a loan and not require outside sourcing building up debt, you may not be in this situation. I am perfectly happy to see my team play functional football so long as it is within the Laws of the game. When we try and play attractive football we don't get the praise for it so why bother? You think fans of Juventus or AC Milan gave a **** in 2003? Are you going to sacrifice your FA Cup in 2005? Your titles under George Graham? It's quite possible that both Spurs and Newcastle can build upon recent improvements (despite Harry's sacking, he improved them by 7 points from the previous season I think). Utd and Citeh are dead certains for CL spots so no CL football is a good possibility for either Arsenal or Chelsea.

    (Original post by rockrunride)
    Thought you were a Chelsea fan? :awesome:
    I am. Just find it amusing that Chelsea gets singled out for glory hunters when Arsenal have them in abundance. I grew up in London and I could tell which parts of London have strong Arsenal support, such as the areas I mentioned earlier. Sure some are commuting but given the demographics of the boroughs and the huge numbers I've seen made me conclude there were plenty of "local" glory hunters who have a closer football team to where they live. I've said the same thing about Utd fans in London. They get the stick while Arsenal fans based in Croydon and Lewisham have their emotional attachment to Arsenal that starts and ends with their Sky box. Same with English based Barca fans who can't speak a word of Spanish or Catalonian. At least when I followed AC Milan I could actually speak Italian to a decent proficiency without making it obvious that I'm a tourist.

    (Original post by rockrunride)
    General comment to the rest of the thread: the thing about Chelsea is the vast majority of their matchgoing fans are perfectly respectable and largely from the pre-Abramovich days. Not glory hunters, really. The mutual rivalry felt between Spurs and Chelsea stems from a similarity in footballing standard over the last twenty years. In terms of glory hunters, I'd say since the Invincibles Arsenal have gained a lot more than Chelsea have winning the PL multiple times (and now the CL) through Abramovich and his many men. Should we improve as a club, I'd expect it to happen to us as well.

    I don't really agree with smearing a club as plastic just because they've had a rich fellow take over. I wouldn't want it to happen at Tottenham, but the fans remain the same, still go to games and remember the old days of "before they were good".
    I imagine some of the plastic jibe is in reference to the generic atmosphere, which I don't mind (the jibe). The funny thing is that no doubt a lot of fans of other clubs who say this rarely, if ever, set foot in their own teams' stadium, which is just hypocrisy. The ownership model may well conflict with people's views, which is fine, but it is merely an illustration that clubs seek outside sourcing to increase chances of success. Different clubs do it different ways - float on the stock exchange is one way, commercially pimp yourself to play money spinning friendlies is another etc. As I've said elsewhere, I find their endorsement of using a kit manufacturer that has used child labour, and probably still does, rather amusing that their fans get high and mighty of the ethics of finance. Not all of us approve of the slave trade these days either.

    Tbh Chelsea used outside sourcing with Bates buying the club for £1 and wiping out the debts. The only reason why we get singled out is because we've effectively denied other fans' chances of silverware. Nobody gives a **** about Dave Whelan doing the same thing for Wigan in the lower leagues.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    ...
    For some reason I appear to be signed out when viewing pages but at times I am signed in so I've no idea how to edit some posts so this is what would have been otherwise in the edit:

    You say you're not a fan of the takeover at Chelsea but you are partly owned by a British triple billionaire tax exile based in the Caribbean. The only reason why people don't bemoan of your ownership is because he's a scrooge. Roman and Chelsea put more money in the state coffers through taxation as a result of higher spending. So, surely you dislike Joe Lewis too?
    • 17 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    For some reason I appear to be signed out when viewing pages but at times I am signed in so I've no idea how to edit some posts so this is what would have been otherwise in the edit:

    You say you're not a fan of the takeover at Chelsea but you are partly owned by a British triple billionaire tax exile based in the Caribbean. The only reason why people don't bemoan of your ownership is because he's a scrooge. Roman and Chelsea put more money in the state coffers through taxation as a result of higher spending. So, surely you dislike Joe Lewis too?
    Well, yes, and you've hit the nail on the head. Being a tax exile pretty much requires that you stay out of the media's eye. I think it's pretty much right that he does so and keeps being a scrooge. I'd say his reduced funding of our activity legitimises somewhat his partial ownership; the link between him and the club becomes rather arbitrary. Like owning a property you can't be arsed to maintain.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    Well, yes, and you've hit the nail on the head. Being a tax exile pretty much requires that you stay out of the media's eye. I think it's pretty much right that he does so and keeps being a scrooge. I'd say his reduced funding of our activity legitimises somewhat his partial ownership; the link between him and the club becomes rather arbitrary. Like owning a property you can't be arsed to maintain.
    He shouldn't even be allowed to own a British company, like a football club, let alone retain his British passport. It's no different to the "non-doms" fiasco a while back. While he may not be spending much, I assume he wouldn't refuse a slice of profits his club makes. I believe this is considered as fraud by the American criminal law when Yanks try to be a tax exile.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: July 4, 2012
New on TSR

THE world university rankings 2014-2015 revealed

Will they affect your uni choices?

Article updates
Useful resources

Quick link:

Unanswered football threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.