The news coming out of Everton should leave all Chelsea fans concerned.

[Scott Harris]

We won every trophy available with a Russian billionaire's money including the Eufa super cup and the club World cup.

City won the league on the last day of the season, lost the FA Cup final and lost to Madrid in the CL knockout phase.

Do you think we didn't dominate the League like City  simply because we didn't have enough to spend ? 

Our spending could well have led to the dominance that you dislike.

No one liked our rise to glory on the back of Russian money,.I'm not bothered if City do it with Saudi money.

We won every trophy available, but we still didn't dominate. There were times when we were dropping down to the Europa League and not qualifying for Europe at all. We competed amongst the best, but we were never clear of every other club in Europe. City are almost there, and without restrictions, what's stopping them?

Our spending couldn't have led to dominance because there were limits to how much Abramovich could spend. City without restrictions have no limits. If a player flops, no big deal, they will go sign another £100m player, then replace that player with another £100m player if he flops. Nobody can compete with that other than Newcastle. Not even Abramovich could do that without restrictions.

 

[RMH]

How did Roman acquire his billions? Clue: he didn't start off by selling cans of petrol out of the boot of his car.

During the Yeltsin years. But you’re missing the point entirely, while City are being bankrolled by a state, we were never bankrolled by Russia, were we?

 

[Backbiter]

During the Yeltsin years. But you’re missing the point entirely, while City are being bankrolled by a state, we were never bankrolled by Russia, were we?

Absolutely not. I wasn't missing the point, I was just reminding people that the source of his wealth was a massive gift by the government in the form of state-owned assets. I'm not arguing that our previous ownership was the same as Man City's.

 

[Valerie]

Roman's money didn't just help us to compete.

It made us winners.  Serial winners.  And a force at home and abroad.. there was no restrictions on how much he could spend.

And everyone objected to it . clubs complained , fans said we " bought it all"

I really can't object to anyone attempting to spend  a wealthy owners money. We did it and it was  fantastic...

And when we didn't win, it was said " you can't buy success". Always cracked me up how the narrative got spun.

Off topic, sorry!

 

[RMH]

Absolutely not. I wasn't missing the point, I was just reminding people that the source of his wealth was a massive gift by the government in the form of state-owned assets. I'm not arguing that our previous ownership was the same as Man City's.

Yes, you’re missing the point. I was telling Rising Sun that comparing City’s owners to Roman had no logic. The ones are state owned and we were not, independently of how Roman got his riches. It’s similar to Boehly et al, I don’t think they’ve achieved their riches cleanly (no billionaire/millionaire does achieve to become one cleanly), but we’re not owned by the US state.

 

[Backbiter]

I wasn't missing the point - which I've just agreed with - I was just making a different point, which was that RA's wealth basically originated from a government handout. I was not trying to argue we were run by Putin.

 

[The Rising Sun]

We won every trophy available, but we still didn't dominate. There were times when we were dropping down to the Europa League and not qualifying for Europe at all. We competed amongst the best, but we were never clear of every other club in Europe. City are almost there, and without restrictions, what's stopping them?

Our spending couldn't have led to dominance because there were limits to how much Abramovich could spend. City without restrictions have no limits. If a player flops, no big deal, they will go sign another £100m player, then replace that player with another £100m player if he flops. Nobody can compete with that other than Newcastle. Not even Abramovich could do that without restrictions.

Hi Scott, Roman bought us in 2003.

There were no limits to what he could spend until 2011 when FFP came in.

But we hired and fired managers , all with different tactics and methods. City have had a fixed way of playing and the same manager for years.

Our lack of dominance certainly wasn't down to spending restrictions in the early years. Then FFP prevented anyone else doing what we did.

I'm more worried about the PL investigation into us leading to charges, because I've no doubt they will try to hammer us .

Anyway mate have a good weekend take care 

 

[The Rising Sun]

Yes, you’re missing the point. I was telling Rising Sun that comparing City’s owners to Roman had no logic. The ones are state owned and we were not, independently of how Roman got his riches. It’s similar to Boehly et al, I don’t think they’ve achieved their riches cleanly (no billionaire/millionaire does achieve to become one cleanly), but we’re not owned by the US state.

Hi. I always asked other fans  moaning about our owner " you would have welcomed him though" and of course they would have.

If the Saudi bought us, I would have welcomed that too..

I reckon we were sold to Americans to wind up the Russians!

 

[The Rising Sun]

 Apparently the UK government didn't want the PL to make any decision that might jeopardize the UK relationship with Saudi Arabia. Good relations are vital for us to keep selling arms to them.

The meetings between Government ministers and the PL are heavily redacted and don't reveal what really happened.

From "Democracy Today" website...

"the UK government involvement in the Saudi takeover of Newcastle revealed today – and despite Boris Johnson’s denials – Britain’s trade minister went out of his way to help the Saudis and the English Premier League navigate the difficult turf of how to conclude that a notorious dictatorship is a fit and proper owner of Newcastle United."

 

[The Rising Sun]

Your comparison would be correct had we won it with Putin’s government money and not that of a private billionaire. 

Actually about £13 billion of Roman's wealth came from the Russian Government ....in the form corrupt deals (Sibneft)(?) 

Maybe not Putin, but we certainly won everything with money via a Russian government leader none the less.

 

[Gol15]

Actually about £13 billion of Roman's wealth came from the Russian Government ....in the form corrupt deals (Sibneft)(?) 

Maybe not Putin, but we certainly won everything with money via a Russian government leader none the less.

Just cause Roman sold Sibneft to the Russian government it doesn't mean that the government itself financed the club, it was still Roman. There was a list of 8 Russian billionaires that own/owned a place in London, so at some point everyone thought that was acceptable but the point is, there is a clear difference from that and Mansour that is the vice president and etc, of the UAE.

So a noticable difference from e.g. Mansour that is the vice president of the UAE. 

 

[RMH]

Actually about £13 billion of Roman's wealth came from the Russian Government ....in the form corrupt deals (Sibneft)(?) 

Maybe not Putin, but we certainly won everything with money via a Russian government leader none the less.

You may want to keep arguing that way to excuse your support for a state ownership of a club but you and everyone here know that Abramovich is not comparable to City’s ownership. One was a private man using his money made from likely corrupt sources in a corrupt breaking up state 30 years ago and the others are the family governing a state putting their state’s money into City. It’s fundamentally different. It’s not the same Radcliffe investing in ManU than His Majesty’s government investing in ManU. Simple as. Now, you can keep arguing that they are the same but they are not and you know it.

 

[The Rising Sun]

You may want to keep arguing that way to excuse your support for a state ownership of a club but you and everyone here know that Abramovich is not comparable to City’s ownership. One was a private man using his money made from likely corrupt sources in a corrupt breaking up state 30 years ago and the others are the family governing a state putting their state’s money into City. It’s fundamentally different. It’s not the same Radcliffe investing in ManU than His Majesty’s government investing in ManU. Simple as. Now, you can keep arguing that they are the same but they are not and you know it.

They are not the same.

But one is not morally better than the other.

Suppose the sale of our club resulted in Saudi owners instead of American owners.

Do you think we would be having this discussion?

The PL will hammer us if they get the chance to charge us after their investigation into us is over, I'm probably biased against them

Thanks for your reply .

 

[The Rising Sun]

Just cause Roman sold Sibneft to the Russian government it doesn't mean that the government itself financed the club, it was still Roman. There was a list of 8 Russian billionaires that own/owned a place in London, so at some point everyone thought that was acceptable but the point is, there is a clear difference from that and Mansour that is the vice president and etc, of the UAE.

So a noticable difference from e.g. Mansour that is the vice president of the UAE.

Are we saying our ownership was more acceptable and honest than the Saudi ownership is ?

If Roman had sold our club to the Saudis instead of Clearlake would we be complaining about it ?

 

[Gol15]

Are we saying our ownership was more acceptable and honest than the Saudi ownership is ?

If Roman had sold our club to the Saudis instead of Clearlake would we be complaining about it ?

I believe it was. Though I wouldn't be complaining if the Saudis took over, either.

 

[abister1]

 Apparently the UK government didn't want the PL to make any decision that might jeopardize the UK relationship with Saudi Arabia. Good relations are vital for us to keep selling arms to them.

The meetings between Government ministers and the PL are heavily redacted and don't reveal what really happened.

From "Democracy Today" website...

"the UK government involvement in the Saudi takeover of Newcastle revealed today – and despite Boris Johnson’s denials – Britain’s trade minister went out of his way to help the Saudis and the English Premier League navigate the difficult turf of how to conclude that a notorious dictatorship is a fit and proper owner of Newcastle United."

What's new in Western "democracy". 

In other news, I walked out to the street and saw some cars. 

 

[The Rising Sun]

https://www.90min.com/premier-league-clubs-warned-chelsea-criticised-deals

Uh-oh 

 

[The Rising Sun]

From a newspaper article about clubs being forced to sell academy " pure profit," players to comply with PSR....

Samuel adds: “Maybe Richard Masters [the Premier League chief executive] should sue the people who write such lousily constructed rules, or just let people run their businesses as they would, quite legally, in any other industry. What we can all agree on, however, is that any system that encourages football clubs to jettison the players that are young, loyal and have the most joyous connection with fans is destructive and disastrous.”

 

[Simplymo]

https://www.90min.com/premier-league-clubs-warned-chelsea-criticised-deals

Uh-oh 

I think they'd lose the first time they try and enforcement anything.

They can't realistically argue what a player is worth to a club. They are stretching their muscles and making sure to go on record saying it. But i dont think they can or will act on it. I also doubt any club will take the piss, like omari guy from villa for 100mil for example. Lol

From a newspaper article about clubs being forced to sell academy " pure profit," players to comply with PSR....

Samuel adds: “Maybe Richard Masters [the Premier League chief executive] should sue the people who write such lousily constructed rules, or just let people run their businesses as they would, quite legally, in any other industry. What we can all agree on, however, is that any system that encourages football clubs to jettison the players that are young, loyal and have the most joyous connection with fans is destructive and disastrous.”

100% agree...sign me up for any petition!

Even though for years and years clubs have used their academy to make money. Maybe not good enough for the first team or whatever, It's a shame to HAVE to do it because of some idiot putting half arsed rules in place without thinking them through.

 

[Brigadeiro Mk II]

Funny.

City signs a player from basically themselves and its signing goes under "scrutiny". Chelsea then gets involved and a formal warning is sent to all clubs. f**k those officials and their bent arses.