Liverpool's going all American!

[Montreal Wanderer]

I'd agree with the bulk of that - whether Abramovich is good for Chelsea in the long-run is another thing. He could pull out at any time and leave them seriously in the shit - they will need to be financially stable before that can happen if they've any hope of remaining a force when he eventually cedes control. Glazer has changed remarkably little at Old Trafford and it's business as usual, which even if he decided to sell up, would mean remarkably little changing.

Well I have to admit I would love it if he did pull out and dump then in it . Having said that who knows that if Glazer pulled out of Man U with the debts they are lumbered with they wouldn't be in serious grief (please god let this happen ). Same applies to the new guys at Liverpool they seem genuine they seem to have the best interest of the club at heart but if they pull out in 5 years who the hell knows what sort of shape you guys would be in.

The difference is that Glazer bought his shares by mortgaging the club - Gillett/Hicks did not.

[Penny]

Well I have to admit I would love it if he did pull out and dump then in it . Having said that who knows that if Glazer pulled out of Man U with the debts they are lumbered with they wouldn't be in serious grief (please god let this happen ). Same applies to the new guys at Liverpool they seem genuine they seem to have the best interest of the club at heart but if they pull out in 5 years who the hell knows what sort of shape you guys would be in.

The difference is that Glazer bought his shares by mortgaging the club - Gillett/Hicks did not.[/quote]

True but without knowing the ins and outs of the deal that doesn't necessarily make Liverpool any safer than Man U. Who knows what return they expect on their money, what salaries they will be claiming, what their expectation of Liverpool as a business are ?

Sorry I can't really concentrate I am still fantasising about Man U going bankrupt

[Montreal Wanderer]

Well I have to admit I would love it if he did pull out and dump then in it . Having said that who knows that if Glazer pulled out of Man U with the debts they are lumbered with they wouldn't be in serious grief (please god let this happen ). Same applies to the new guys at Liverpool they seem genuine they seem to have the best interest of the club at heart but if they pull out in 5 years who the hell knows what sort of shape you guys would be in.

The difference is that Glazer bought his shares by mortgaging the club - Gillett/Hicks did not.

True but without knowing the ins and outs of the deal that doesn't necessarily make Liverpool any safer than Man U. Who knows what return they expect on their money, what salaries they will be claiming, what their expectation of Liverpool as a business are ?

Sorry I can't really concentrate I am still fantasising about Man U going bankrupt

The basis for my views on Gillett is that he currently owns my beloved Montreal Canadiens and has proven - to date - to be one of the good guys. I'm afraid Chelsea is likely to be in bigger trouble than ManU if the owners pull out.

[Penny]

The basis for my views on Gillett is that he currently owns my beloved Montreal Canadiens and has proven - to date - to be one of the good guys. I'm afraid Chelsea is likely to be in bigger trouble than ManU if the owners pull out.

Well even though you haven't figured out to use the quotes yet you are probably right on this one but you can never be sure until someone else comes in and the skeletons in the cupboards get rattled.

Heard an interview with one of them on Radio 5 last night (not sure which one it was as I switched on halfway thru) and to be fair they made all the right noises. Well apart from them saying they thought Rafa was a great man and would be listening to him at every opportunity

[Montreal Wanderer]

The basis for my views on Gillett is that he currently owns my beloved Montreal Canadiens and has proven - to date - to be one of the good guys. I'm afraid Chelsea is likely to be in bigger trouble than ManU if the owners pull out.

Well even though you haven't figured out to use the quotes yet you are probably right on this one but you can never be sure until someone else comes in and the skeletons in the cupboards get rattled.

Heard an interview with one of them on Radio 5 last night (not sure which one it was as I switched on halfway thru) and to be fair they made all the right noises. Well apart from them saying they thought Rafa was a great man and would be listening to him at every opportunity

Er... I think a fast check will show who originally messed up the quotes! I've been trying to straighten out my response from that error and more or less have people saying what they actually said. You had me saying what you said - truly frightening

[blurred]

A lot of the ego thing comes from the press how in reality does anyone know ? Agreed he has spent a lot of money but if he does make Chelsea the biggest club in the world (Europe ?) then presumably he would stand a decent chance of getting his money back if he sold it to Blurred Enterprises Inc ? Is it not also true that a lot of the reason Man U, Liverpool etc are ahead of Bolton is their ability to spend millions on players so would the accusation of them buying Champions League spots not be valid ? Man U are currently in debt up to the hilt yet spend £18 million or whatever it was on a player like Carrick ? My point is that the big 4 are the big 4 because they have more money to spend than the rest of the league (perhaps historically now with new owners at West Ham/ Villa/ Pompey) irrespective of where it comes from so it still doesn't sit right that one of the big 4 then turns round and complains about one of the others buying the title.

I don't take your point that Abramovich watches Chelsea for an ego boost how do you know he doesn't enjoy watching them ? I don't go watching Bolton for the ego boost of knowing I can afford a season ticket I do it cos I enjoy it. Not sure Glazer has the sort of money to throw at Old Trafford that Abramovich has to throw at Chelsea if he had who knows how we would operate.

Well there's no way that Blurred Enterprises Inc would buy Chelsea... we'd have nothing to do with them

Man United can afford to spend £18m on a player because they get 70,000 bums on seats every other week, and exploit all the commercial avenues to their maximum, not because they have a wealthy benefactor who throws his personal fortune into player purchases a la Abramovich, or latterly Jack Walker. Success begats success, and there's no reason why sides can't break into the big 4. One of the points I made at the end of last season when you missed out on Europe was that it was a shame because it would knock you back on your development towards consistent top 6 finishes - not that UEFA brings in a huge deal of cash (although the TV revenue and extra games certainly help), but that it also raises the profile of Bolton across Europe, meaning better players can sign and that you can afford that bit more on wages, fees, etc.

Part of the reason that the hegemony of the Big 4 hasn't really been broken is that sides are failing to consistently achieve underneath them in the league, and that when sides finally look like having good seasons they either blow it (Spurs) or if they do succeed in the league they go off their heads, think they're great, and get dumped out of Europe before even making the lucrative group stages (Everton). Had they got to the group stages the boost to their coffers for that one year would have helped build further domestic success, making them more likely to consistently qualify for Europe. And if Platini gets his way then it's going to be an even harder group to break into if we go down to 3 places for the Champions League each year.

Anyway, that's a bit of a tangent there... oops. I think my point is that Chelsea are a side 'buying' their success, whereas others get there through proper financial management, mostly, and sustained success.

[communistworkethic]

Well there's no way that Blurred Enterprises Inc would buy Chelsea... we'd have nothing to do with them

Man United can afford to spend £18m on a player because they get 70,000 bums on seats every other week, and exploit all the commercial avenues to their maximum, not because they have a wealthy benefactor who throws his personal fortune into player purchases a la Abramovich, or latterly Jack Walker. Success begats success, and there's no reason why sides can't break into the big 4. One of the points I made at the end of last season when you missed out on Europe was that it was a shame because it would knock you back on your development towards consistent top 6 finishes - not that UEFA brings in a huge deal of cash (although the TV revenue and extra games certainly help), but that it also raises the profile of Bolton across Europe, meaning better players can sign and that you can afford that bit more on wages, fees, etc.

firstly, I thought Jack Walker dies years ago? Or is he handing money over from the grave?

Second point, surely the rest of the highlighted bit is contradictory as a minimum. If 'success begats success' then the top 4 would surely always be the same, them being the most successful and therefore "begatting" more success? And if "success begats success" why aren't Liverpool the dominant force they once were, along with Notts Forest and Villa?


Your maxim only works so far, the equation is much more complicated than such throw way comment as "success begats success".

[blurred]

firstly, I thought Jack Walker dies years ago? Or is he handing money over from the grave?

My apologies, Abramovich and Walker should be swapped around in that sentence for it to make more sense! Perhaps Mark Hughes could do with a bit of that at the moment... Anyway, he was another example of someone who came in to bankroll a club to success without expecting a great deal of financial reward in return.

Second point, surely the rest of the highlighted bit is contradictory as a minimum. If 'success begats success' then the top 4 would surely always be the same, them being the most successful and therefore "begatting" more success? And if "success begats success" why aren't Liverpool the dominant force they once were, along with Notts Forest and Villa?

Your maxim only works so far, the equation is much more complicated than such throw way comment as "success begats success".

Rather than selecting 3 words out of the last couple of posts for the sake of being an argumentative, pedantic so-and-so, how about taking the points I've been making as a whole?

Do you disagree that were Bolton (or Spurs or Villa or whoever) to regularly reach UEFA Cup football year after year, and progress in it, that that would stand them in better stead to realistically challenge for a Champions League space? Not only would they have extra income, but more exposure making them a more enticing prospect for players and supporters alike, not to mention testing themselves against varied, and quite often better, opposition than the majority of the Premiership has to offer.

And 'the top 4 would surely always be the same'? No, I'm not so stunningly naive as to assert that the status quo would always be the same (surprised you didn't bring someone like Preston into the argument, because they were good once ), because there are any number of outside factors that can affect how a side performs in any season, but by the same token how many times in the last 10/15 years has the title not been won by one of the big 4? Or the FA Cup? Every couple of seasons there's a club to break the big 3/4 domination in the league (going back to when Chelsea had no money). Leeds managed it for a season, Newcastle for a season, Everton for a season, but none of them capitalised on this (although in Leeds' case this was more to do with off-the-field matters than through any fault of the players/managers).

[communistworkethic]

Don't use lazy language then, make your point properly rather than attempting it with stupid quasi-biblical bastardisations of inexact phrases.

As I pointed out, success alone guarantees nothing, not even increased income. It is one factor amongst many, as you being a Liverpool fan should know and accept by now. You're relative dominance in the 70s & 80s has delivered you how many league titles in the 90s and 00s?

Poor managers and poor signings anything to do with it? The progression of other teams?

UEFA actually did very little for the team or the Club, yes it raised profile, but did it allow us to sign anyone particularly? Financial security from the league position allowed us to invest a bit but nothing like the money spent by Pompey or WetSpam.

Competing will always be a struggle for a club like Bolton, due to the catchment area if nothing else. We will not see regular crowds of 50,000 (which is what the Big 4 could eaily get) in my life time I'd wager, no matter how well we do.

[Montreal Wanderer]

There was some news out of the NHL Commissioner's office the other day. Gary Bettman said he had been approached by Liverpool FC during their due dilligence on Gillett. Specifically they were asking about the question of foreign ownership of a storied team with a rich traditional history. Bettman acknowledged that this had been a great local worry in Montreal, but that Gillett embraced and enhanced the traditions and was a model owner. I'd have to agree.

[Loyal White]

there's no reason why sides can't break into the big 4

Typical bullsh*t from a fan of a club in the big four. You guys have more money, can offer bigger wages and can guarantee an extra £20m+ a season from the Champions League, ontop of the overly inflated figure that you bring in from the Premiership.

Chelsea waste £30m on Shevchenko, it doesn't matter, they can go out and spend another £30m on Eto'o or whoever else they buy.

Liverpool waste £20m on Kuyt, Pennant, Bellamy whoever else, doesn't matter, next season they go and spend £20m on Villa or some other Spanish import.

Bolton waste £8m on Anelka - we go bust. For an example see Leeds.

Other clubs can't compete, it is just not possible. Even if by some miracle we manage to make the CL, we don't have a squad big enough to play in it, so that therefore affects our league form and we don't finish in the CL the next season so it results in a pointless exercise.

The only way to get some competition in this league is to introduce a wage cap, maximum squad size and transfer budget for each club every season. Then you'd see who the good managers are.

Oh and if you wanna moan about how you couldn't compete in Europe like that then fine. F**k off and go and start a European Superleague, because I couldn't give a sh*t anymore.

G18 or whatever they're called can f**k off too.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

[Montreal Wanderer]

Hmmm. Perhaps it was an error to bump this thread.

[americantrotter]

I liked Loyal White's post.